The Ann Arbor Chronicle » downtown zoning

Downtown Zoning Changes Postponed

Chronicle Staff — Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:26:50 +0000

Final approval to changes in two parts of the Ann Arbor city zoning code affecting the parcel at 425 S. Main, on the southeast corner of Main and William streets, has been postponed by the Ann Arbor city council. The council will take up the zoning question again at its second meeting in September – on Sept. 15.

Aerial view of 425 S. Main – outlined in green – between William and Packard. An alley separates the site from a residential neighborhood along South Fourth Avenue.

Postponement by the council came after about a half hour of deliberations that included back-and-forth between councilmembers and the owners of the parcel.

Initial approval by the council had come at its June 16, 2014 meeting.

The council’s initial approval came only after two votes on each of the parts of the zoning, as councilmembers had first decided to refer the height limit issue back to the planning commission, but ultimately decided to amend the height limit to 60 feet. A summary of the deliberations is provided in The Chronicle’s live updates from the June 16 meeting.

By way of background, currently a two-story 63,150-square-foot office building – where DTE offices are located – stands on the southern part of that site, with a surface parking lot on the north portion. [.pdf of staff memo on 425 S. Main rezoning]

Considered separately by the council on July 21 were two separate votes that would have: (1) changed zoning of the parcel from D1 (downtown core base district) to D2 (downtown interface base district); and (2) changed the character overlay district, of which the parcel is a part, to specify the height limit at 60 feet, not the 100 feet that the planning commission had recommended. [.pdf of staff memo on overlay district]

Upper-story setbacks, specified in the character district overlay along with the height limits, had been specified based on the 100-foot limit.

The planning commission recommended both the zoning changes at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The planning commission’s vote on the basic zoning change was unanimous – 9-0. But the vote on the 100-foot height limit was only 6-3, with dissent coming from Sabra Briere, Ken Clein and Jeremy Peters. Briere also serves on city council, representing Ward 1. Both recommendations had been brought forward by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC). Members are Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

The planning commission’s recommendations came in response to a city council directive given at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, which had been based on previous work the planning commission had done. The commission had studied and developed a broader set of eight recommendations for zoning changes in specific parts of the downtown. The overall intent was in large part to buffer near-downtown residential neighborhoods. The commission had unanimously approved those original recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting.

The zoning change affecting 425 S. Main, which the council delayed at its July 21 meeting, is just the first of what are expected to be several other changes recommended by the planning commission.

The current D1 zoning for 425 S. Main allows for a maximum height of 180 feet. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, set no limits on height. At this time, no new development has been proposed for the 425 S. Main site.

For more details on the July 21 council discussion, see The Chronicle’s live updates from that meeting.

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

Downtown Zoning Changes Get Initial OK

Chronicle Staff — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 06:17:11 +0000

At its June 16, 2014 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council gave initial approval to changes in two parts of the zoning code affecting the parcel at 425 S. Main, on the southeast corner of Main and William streets. Initial approval was given to rezoning from D1 to D2, with an amended height limit – of 60 feet. The original height limit in the ordinance considered by the council was 100 feet.

Because these are changes to the zoning code, which is expressed in city ordinances, the council’s action needs a second and final vote at a future meeting, in order to be enacted.

Aerial view of 425 S. Main – outlined in green – between William and Packard. An alley separates the site from a residential neighborhood along South Fourth Avenue.

Considered separately by the council were votes that would: (1) change the zoning of the parcel from D1 (downtown core base district) to D2 (downtown interface base district); and (2) change the character overlay district, of which the parcel is a part, to increase the D2 height limit from 60 feet to 100 feet.

It’s the second of those changes that the council amended – so that the D2 height for this parcel would be the same 60-foot limit as other D2 areas in the downtown. The proposed changes to the character overlay district also include upper story setbacks from any residential property. [.pdf of staff memo on overlay district] Those upper story setbacks will likely need some further revision – by the time a second and final vote is taken – in order to be consistent with the 60=foot limit.

The planning commission recommended both the changes at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The planning commission’s vote on the basic zoning change was unanimous – 9-0. But the vote on the 100-foot height limit was only 6-3, with dissent coming from Sabra Briere, Ken Clein and Jeremy Peters. Briere also serves on city council, representing Ward 1. Both recommendations had been brought forward by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC). Members are Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

The items on the council’s June 16, 2014 agenda were just the first of what are expected to be several other changes recommended by the planning commission. That set of initial recommendations from the planning commission to the city council – which the council then accepted and for which the council asked the planning commission to draft ordinance language – included a proposal to rezone 425 S. Main to D2. However, those original recommendations had also called for a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street character overlay district – lower than the 100 feet put forward at the commission’s May 6 meeting.

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

June 16, 2014: Council Live Updates

Dave Askins — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:10:55 +0000

Editor’s note: This “Live Updates” coverage of the Ann Arbor city council’s June 16, 2014 meeting includes all the material from an earlier preview article published last week. The intent is to facilitate easier navigation from the live updates section to background material already in this file. Outcomes of council votes are also available in the Civic News Ticker.

The city council’s last meeting of the 2014 fiscal year, on June 16, 2014, features an agenda packed with items related to the city’s physical infrastructure like bridges (including art), the sanitary sewer system and the stormwater system, as well as several resolutions related to construction of new sidewalks.

The sign on the door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber includes Braille.

Related to new sidewalk construction is a resolution that would authorize a $75,000 contract with the Greenway Collaborative, to support the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force established by the city council in late 2013. Part of the task force’s responsibility is to create a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling sidewalk gaps in the city.

The $75,000 cost for the pedestrian safety task force consultant is the same amount the council will be asked to allocate to support the work of Ann Arbor SPARK, a local economic development agency. The contract with SPARK is renewed annually, as is another contract on the June 16 agenda – for lobbying services from Governmental Consultant Services Inc. The GCSI contract is for $48,000.

Also on the council’s June 16 agenda are three items with a connection to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. One is the approval of an end-of-year budget adjustment that was already approved at the DDA board’s June 4, 2014 meeting. Another is approval of a $37,500 expenditure from the city’s affordable housing trust fund to help pay for an affordable housing needs assessment. At its June 4 meeting, the DDA board authorized a $37,500 grant for the same study.

In the final item with a DDA connection, the council will be asked to authorize $69,555 for the conversion of 223 mercury-vapor cobrahead streetlights to LED technology. This project would convert streetlights that are all outside the DDA district. The project is on the city council’s agenda because the DDA board recently declined to fund a similar LED conversion project – for streetlights inside the DDA tax capture district.

Several other June 16 agenda items relate to the downtown area, even if they don’t have an explicit DDA connection. Two of them involve changes to downtown zoning ordinances that have been recommended by the planning commission. The zoning question to be given initial consideration by the council is whether to downzone the southeast corner of William and Main streets from D1 to D2, but with a 100-foot height limit.

Other downtown items on the council’s June 16 agenda include site plan approvals for First Martin’s hotel project at Ashley and Huron, and the Bank of Ann Arbor expansion at Fifth Avenue and Washington Street.

A resolution to improve Liberty Plaza, a downtown park at the southwest corner of Division and Liberty streets, also appears on the agenda – sponsored by mayor John Hieftje and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Added as sponsors since its initial appearance on the agenda are Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

The council will be asked to approve four items related to supportive services for the criminal justice system: (1) a $76,242 contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services for mental health treatment services for the 15th District Court’s sobriety and mental health courts; (2) a $44,200 contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to provide drug abuse screening and monitoring services for the mental health court; (3) a $108,174 contract with Dawn Farm for drug abuse counseling and rehabilitative services; and (4) a $40,000 contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court-appointed counsel to indigent defendants.

Recycling is the final topic with multiple items on the June 16 agenda. The council will be asked to approve funds for a $95,694 contract with Recycle Ann Arbor to create a multi-family recycling incentive pilot program. The council will also be asked to approve $39,480 to reimburse the city’s operator of its materials recovery facility for repair of a conveyor that feeds the baler. And finally, the council will be asked to approve $35,000 for Recycle Ann Arbor to provide solid waste services associated with student move-out activity.

The June 16 council meeting will also feature the annual historic district commission awards and the introduction of one of the Ann Arbor police department’s K-9 units, who won highest honors at a recent national certification trials event. 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 Monday 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.

Physical Infrastructure

The council’s June 16 agenda is heavy with items related to the city’s physical infrastructure.

Physical Infrastructure: Fuller Road Bridges

The council will be asked to approve a $187,184 contract with Northwest Consultants Inc. for the Fuller Road, Maiden Lane, and East Medical Center Drive bridges rehabilitation project. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the project includes “re-painting of each bridge, repairing corroded structural steel, bridge abutment and pier (substructure) repairs, expansion joint removal and replacement, bridge deck patching, placing an overlay on the existing bridge decks, bridge railing repairs, guard rail upgrades, brush trimming and removal around the perimeter of the bridge structures, and other related work.”

Money for the design work is available in the approved FY 2014 public services area street millage capital budget. The state of Michigan’s local bridge program pays for 95% of eligible construction expenses up to $790,000. The project will also receive $1,373,440 in federal surface transportation funding, administered through the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. The federal program pays for 81.85% of eligible construction expenses. But neither the state nor the federal sources will pay for the design work that the council’s action will fund.

Physical Infrastructure: Stadium Bridges Art

This amendment to the contract on the June 16 council agenda adds art fabrication and installation services to the existing agreement, bringing the total compensation to $353,552 for all services. This was one of the projects for which the city council left funding in place, when it voted on March 3, 2014 to transfer most of the unspent money from the now defunct Percent for Art funding program back to the funds from which the money was originally drawn.

By way of additional background, in early August of 2013, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for this public art project. She was picked by a selection panel from four finalists who had submitted proposals for the project, which has a $400,000 total budget. [.pdf of Widgery's original proposal] The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked that she revise her proposal before it was presented to the Ann Arbor public art commission and then later to the city council for approval.

Members of the panel were Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. [.pdf of panel feedback] The public art commission recommended the project’s approval at its April 23, 2014 meeting.

An image by artist Catherine Widgery for artwork on the East Stadium bridge. This night view shows how the structures would be lit from below, illuminating the images of trees that are etched into louvered glass panels.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along the north side of East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

A detail of the louvers designed by Catherine Widgery. The etched glass panels will be attached to a metal frame.

Physical Infrastructure: Sewer Lining

The council will be asked to approve the award of a $1,566,121 construction contract with Lanzo Lining Services for the 2014 sewer lining project. According to the staff memo accompanying this item, the project includes the lining of about 18,028 lineal feet of sanitary sewer and 2,942 lineal feet of storm sewer at 16 locations throughout the city. The memo describes sewer lining as a “trenchless technology which enables the pipe to be repaired without disturbing the surface above.”

Physical Infrastructure: Manholes

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to award a $47,193 contract to Fonson Inc. for the Eighth Street sanitary sewer manhole replacement project. The manholes in question are described in the staff memo accompanying the project as “101 years old, composed of brick and … disintegrating.”

The deterioration of the manholes is attributed to corrosion from sewer gases, vibration from traffic, decades of freeze/thaw cycles and variations in hydrostatic soil pressures. The deteriorated condition includes spalling, weakened mortar, missing bricks and excessive groundwater infiltration, according to the memo.

Physical Infrastructure: Water Main

The council will be asked to award a $1,324,357 construction contract to Douglas N. Higgins Inc. for the Arbor Oaks Phase II water main replacement project. This project will replace the older water mains in the Bryant neighborhood. The water mains in the neighborhood are described in a staff memo as experiencing frequent breaks and in generally poor condition.

The project will install 1,100 feet of 12-inch water main and 2,360 feet of 8-inch water main along Santa Rosa Drive, Jay Lee Court, Lucerne Court, Burlingame Court, Blain Court, Hardyke Court, and Bryant Elementary School property. Included in the project is the resurfacing of the street, replacement of some curb and gutter, and reconstruction of some storm sewer structures.

Physical Infrastructure: Fire Station Restrooms

The council will be asked to approve a $149,500 contract with Emergency Restoration Company for the renovation of restrooms and locker rooms in Fire Stations #3 and #4. The staff memo accompanying the item indicates that the project will renovate the existing restroom facilities to create two unisex restrooms and showers at each station. Facilities and ventilation in the locker room and restroom areas will be improved.

Fire Station #3 is located on the city’s west side, on Jackson Road. Fire Station #4 is located on the city’s southeast side, on Huron Parkway. [Google Map of all five fire station locations]

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater

The council will be asked to authorize transfer up to $157,264 in funds from the park maintenance and capital improvements millage fund to the stormwater fund – to authorize state revolving fund (SRF) debt payment and loan forgiveness for the stormwater and rain garden components of the skatepark project, located at Veterans Memorial Park.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, a state revolving fund loan is being used to fund the rain garden installation at the skatepark and to reimburse the city’s stormwater fund. Additional stormwater components were approved by the state for 50% loan forgiveness. The transfer of funds that the council is being asked to approve is necessary for the total debt payment of $118,632.00 plus 2% interest over 20 years. The skatepark is scheduled to have a grand opening on June 21 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Physical Infrastructure: Wastewater Study

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $62,800 contract with Black & Veatch Ltd. for a water & wastewater system capital cost recovery study. Background to this contract is June 3, 2013 city council action to change the calculation of the water and sanitary improvement charges for properties connecting to city water mains or sanitary sewers – but only for a two-year period, from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2015.

The effect of the council’s action was to reduce the connection charges considerably. It was understood at the time that the two-year period would allow for the hiring of a consultant to review the city’s fees and charges for connections to the water and sanitary sewer systems and make recommendations for revision. That’s why the Black & Veatch item appears on the council’s June 16 agenda. The principles at stake are described in the staff memo accompanying the item as follows:

When making future changes to improvement charges and connection fees, it is important that various competing elements are satisfied. The fees must be easy to explain and easy to understand to be accepted by the users. The fees must recover costs equitably. The fees must not result in either an undue burden on existing rate payers of the systems or an undue burden on new customers connecting to the systems. The fees must be easily understood and neither over recover costs nor under recover costs. Any under-recovery of costs would place undue and inequitable financial burdens on current rate payers. To meet these goals and gain the experiences of other utilities, it is desirable to contract with a consulting firm that has nationwide experience in this area.

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater Services

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve the amendment of a purchase order for stormwater services with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. The request of the council is to increase the amount of the existing contract with the water resources commissioner by $30,000. The existing contract was approved for FY 2011 for $69,215 with a 3% annual increase, which would have put the amount for FY 2014 and FY 2015 at $75,633 and $77,902, respectively. The council is being asked to approve funding at $105,633 and $107,902, for FY 2014 and FY 2015, respectively.

Informational Infrastructure: HR and Payroll Software

The council will be asked to approve a $570,900 contract with NuView Inc. to replace the city’s human resource and payroll system. The staff memo accompanying the item explains why the existing software, acquired in 2007, is being replaced:

In 2007, the City installed a Human Resource and Payroll system called Ultipro, by Ultimate Software. The Ultipro system included modules for Recruiting, Benefits Administration, Human Resource Administration and Payroll. The City has experienced a variety of issues related to the underlying database architecture utilized by Ultimate Software. In addition, due to changes such as new legislative requirements, the increase in recruiting volume and the increase in manual data entry involved in benefits administration, the City has found the Ultipro system unable to meet its Human Resource needs.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians

The council’s agenda features several items related to special-assessed sidewalk construction projects, as well as funding for a pedestrian safety and access task force. Four different special-assessed sidewalk construction projects are on the agenda – two public hearings to be held at the June 16 meeting (for Scio Church and Barton Drive) and two resolutions to set public hearings for future meetings (for Pontiac Trail and Stone School Road).

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk

Two resolutions appear on the agenda in connection with construction of a new sidewalk on Pontiac Trail – one to direct the assessor to prepare an assessment roll, and another to set a public hearing on the special assessment for July 21. The assessable cost is $72,218. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, sidewalk construction would be done as part of the reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning just north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14.

The project will also be adding on-street bike lanes and constructing a new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail to fill in existing sidewalk gaps and to provide pedestrian access to Olson Park and Dhu Varren Road. That’s a part of the city’s Complete Streets program. In addition to the sidewalk, approximately 1,960 feet of curb and gutter is being added north of Skydale along Pontiac Trail to protect existing wetland areas. [.pdf of Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment area]

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Stone School Sidewalk

The council has previously directed the preparation of a special assessment roll for a new sidewalk along the west side of Stone School Road. This work will be done in conjunction with the Stone School Road reconstruction project from I-94 to Ellsworth Road. The total sidewalk project cost is roughly $128,500, of which about $55,000 will be special assessed. So the requested action of the council on June 16 will be to set a public hearing on the special assessment for July 7.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Barton Drive Sidewalk – Public Hearing

The sidewalk on Barton Drive would extend eastward from Bandemer Park at Longshore Drive. The cost of the Barton Drive sidewalk has been calculated to be $80,606. Of that, about $36,000 will be paid from federal surface transportation funds. Of the remaining $44,606, the city’s general fund would pay $42,626, leaving just $1,980 to be paid through the special assessment. The city council had voted at its May 19, 2014 meeting to set the assessment roll and to schedule the public hearing for June 16.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Scio Church Sidewalk – Public Hearing

Another public hearing based on previous council action at its May 19 meeting will be held at the June 16 meeting – on the special assessment to fund construction of a sidewalk on Scio Church Road. For the Scio Church sidewalk project, the total cost is expected to be $365,100. Of that, about $164,000 will be paid from a federal surface transportation grant. The remaining $201,100 will be paid out of the city’s general fund and by the special assessment of just $1,626.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Larchmont Traffic Calming

The council will be asked to approve a traffic calming project on Larchmont Drive at a cost of ~~$55,000~~ $8,800.

Larchmont traffic calming proposal: Three speed humps.

The action includes an appropriation for five other traffic calming projects, totaling $55,000.

The approval of this project comes in the context of the council’s budget deliberations last month, when an amendment was offered but rejected by the council that would have cut the FY 2015 budget allocation for art administration from $80,000 to $40,000 and put the $40,000 is savings toward traffic calming projects. The amendment got support only from Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Traffic calming projects must undergo a neighborhood engagement process in which at least 60% of households support the designed project. In the case of the Larchmont project, 13 out of 15 households supported the project.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pedestrian Task Force Consultant

The council will be asked to approve a $75,000 contract with The Greenway Collaborative Inc. to support the work of the pedestrian safety and access task force as a facilitator. The task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson.

The group has begun to meet and has elected Feldt to chair the task force. The resolution on the council’s June 16 meeting agenda comes after the council voted down a resolution at on April 7, 2014 that included a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations for the facilitation work. Project Innovations had been identified by staff as a contractor uniquely qualified to do the facilitation work. Project Innovations was familiar to city staff as the facilitator for a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study the city is currently conducting.

But subsequently the city issued an RFP (requests for proposals) for the facilitation work. [.pdf of RFP No. 893] Task force members participated in the selection process from among three respondents to the RFP. Besides Project Innovations and the Greenway Collaborative, ENP & Associates responded to the RFP. ENP is the consultant the city used for the recent review of downtown zoning.

Business Services

On the council’s agenda are two contracts that are approved annually – one for business development services and one for lobbying services.

Business Services: Ann Arbor SPARK

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $75,000 contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for economic development services. This is an annual contract. At its May 19, 2014 meeting, the council spent roughly five hours of deliberations on amendments to the FY 2015 budget, and just under 30% of that time was spent on two amendments involving SPARK – neither of which were approved by the council.

Ann Arbor city council budget deliberations FY 2015: 4 hours 45 minutes by amendment topic.

SPARK is also the entity with which the local development finance authority (LDFA) contracts for business accelerator services. One of the proposed amendments to the FY 2015 budget would have decreased the amount of funding to SPARK from the LDFA, resulting in an increase to the amount the LDFA would have reserved for future infrastructure projects. The second budget amendment debated on May 19 would have eliminated the $75,000 in the FY 2015 budget for the contract the council will be asked to approve as part of its June 16 agenda.

Ann Arbor SPARK also receives money from other governmental units in Washtenaw County. In 2013, the $75,000 paid by the city of Ann Arbor to SPARK accounted for more than half of the $132,888 total contributed by all governmental units besides Washtenaw County. The county levies a tax under Act 88, and out of that levy, last year the county contributed $200,000, according to the information provided to the city by SPARK. [.pdf of 2013 "return on investment" from Ann Arbor SPARK] [.pdf of 2013 Ann Arbor SPARK projects]

Business Services: GCSI Lobbying

GCSI is also supposed to monitor issues currently pending before the legislature and advocate for the city’s specific interests. GCSI has done this kind of work for the city of Arbor since 2001. GCSI also provides lobbying services for Washtenaw County, as well as other local municipalities. The city’s main liaison with GSCI is Kirk Profit, an Ann Arbor resident and former Michigan state legislator.

Downtown

The council will be handling several items on its June 16 agenda that relate to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority specifically, or the downtown area generally.

Downtown: DDA Budget Amendment

The council will be asked to approve a routine fiscal-year-end budget adjustment for the Ann Arbor DDA. The DDA board approved the adjustment at its June 4, 2014 meeting. The main part of the adjustment is a $1.6 million payment made for the First & Washington parking garage, which is part of the City Apartments project. The amount was budgeted by the DDA for last year, but not paid until this year.

The rest of the adjustment is attributable to expenditures out of the DDA’s housing fund – $500,000 of it to support Ann Arbor Housing Commission projects. The remaining $37,500 went to support a countywide housing needs assessment – an amount that was approved by the board at the same June 4 meeting in a separate vote. The DDA will end the fiscal year with $6,167,757 in fund balance. The breakdown of that total is: TIF ($619,571); Housing ($160,154); Parking ($2,161,676) and Parking Maintenance ($3,226,356).

Downtown: Affordable Housing Needs Assessment

The council will be asked to authorize $37,500 from the affordable housing trust fund to support the Washtenaw County housing needs assessment. The Ann Arbor DDA had approved the same amount at its meeting on June 4, 2014. Money from the city and DDA is being considered as “up to” amounts. Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of economic and community development (OCED), told the DDA board at its June 4 meeting that $75,000 from a HUD Sustainable Communities grant would be the first money spent toward the assessment.

The firm selected by the OCED to do the needs assessment is czb LLC out of Virginia. [.pdf of RFP for the needs assessment] The current needs assessment will update a report done in 2007. According to a memo from OCED staff to the DDA, the final report will “provide a clear, easy to understand assessment of the local housing market, identify current and future housing needs, and provide specific and implementable policy recommendations to advance affordable housing.

The goal for this update is to include an analysis that links transportation cost and accessibility, as well as other environmental and quality of life issues to the location of affordable housing.” The RFP for the needs study describes the timeline for the work as including a draft for review due at the end of October 2014, with a final presentation due in mid-December.

(Not) Downtown: Streetlight LED Conversion

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a purchase agreement with DTE to convert 223 mercury-vapor cobrahead streetlights to LED technology. The up-front cost of the conversion will be $69,555 – but that amount will be reduced to $55,060 after rebates. The annual electric bill from DTE for the 223 streetlights is currently $45,128. After conversion, the projected annual cost will be $30,910. The savings would result in about a 3.1-year payback period on the net cost of $55,060.

None of the streetlights to be converted are in the DDA district. Streetlights in the DDA district were part of a similar proposal considered by the DDA board at its May 7, 2014 meeting, but postponed by the board at that meeting until June 4. By the time of the June 4 meeting, however, a decision had already been made that the DDA would not be funding an LED conversion this year. [DTE's program has an annual cycle, but is not necessarily offered every year.] If the DDA board had approved funding for converting lights in the DDA district, it would have affected 212 non-LED streetlights.

Streetlight locations are mapped in the joint Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS system. Data available by clicking on icons includes ownership as well as the lighting technology used. This one is a high pressure sodium light operating at 400 watts.

The project the DDA declined to fund this year would have included converting 100 watt MV (mercury vapor), 175 watt MV and 100 watt HPS (high pressure sodium) lights to 65 watt LED (light emitting diode). Further, 400 watt MV and 250 watt HPS lights would have been converted to 135 watt LED. Finally, 1000 watt MV and 400 watt HPS lights would have been converted to 280 watt LED. Currently, the city pays DTE $72,585 a year for the energy used by the 212 downtown streetlights. After conversion, the annual cost for the 212 lights would be expected to drop to $51,895, for an annual savings of $20,690.

In deliberations at the DDA board’s May 7 meeting, DDA board member Roger Hewitt opposed the grant, because the savings that would be realized accrues to the city of Ann Arbor, which pays the energy bills for the lights. Hewitt noted that the relationship between the city and the DDA includes a number of fund transfers to the city. Even though the amount is not huge, Hewitt said, the expenditure of several small amounts could eventually impair the DDA’s ability to pay for major infrastructure improvements.

Other board members joined Hewitt in their concerns, questioning what projects might be sacrificed if the DDA paid for the LED conversion. Concern was also expressed over the possibility that the result of a streetscape framework planning effort could result in a decision to replace all cobrahead lights in the downtown area with pedestrian-scale lampposts. And that would mean that the new LED fixtures would be used for only a short while.

Downtown: Zoning, Character District

The council will be asked to give initial approval to changes in two parts of the zoning code affecting the parcel at 425 S. Main, on the southeast corner of Main and William streets. Because these would be changes to the zoning code, which is expressed in city ordinances, any council action that might be taken would need a second and final vote at a future meeting, in order to be enacted.

Aerial view of 425 S. Main – outlined in green – between William and Packard. An alley separates the site from a residential neighborhood along South Fourth Avenue.

Currently, a two-story 63,150-square-foot office building – where DTE offices are located – stands on the southern part of that site, with a surface parking lot on the north portion. [.pdf of staff memo on 425 S. Main rezoning]

To be considered separately by the city council are votes that would: (1) change the zoning of the parcel from D1 (downtown core base district) to D2 (downtown interface base district); and (2) change the character overlay district, of which the parcel is a part, to increase the D2 height limit from 60 feet to 100 feet. Assuming the zoning change is made for the parcel at 425 S. Main, it would be the only D2 parcel in the character district. The changes to the character overlay district also include upper story setbacks from any residential property. [.pdf of staff memo on overlay district]

The items on the council’s June 16, 2014 agenda are just the first of what are expected to be several other changes recommended by the planning commission. That set of initial recommendations from the planning commission to the city council – which the council then accepted and for which the council asked the planning commission to draft ordinance language – included a proposal to rezone 425 S. Main to D2. However, those original recommendations had also called for a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street character overlay district – lower than the 100 feet put forward at the commission’s May 6 meeting.

The site’s current zoning allows for a maximum height of 180 feet. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, set no limits on height. At this time, no new development has been proposed for this site.

Downtown: Hotel Site Plan

The city council will be asked to approve the site plan for First Martin’s proposed extended-stay hotel at 116-120 West Huron Street. The planning commission gave a recommendation of approval at its May 20, 2014 meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Downtown: Bank of Ann Arbor Site Plan

The city council will be asked to approve the site plan for an addition to the Bank of Ann Arbor headquarters at 125 South Fifth Avenue. The planning commission recommended approval of the project at its May 20, 2014 meeting.

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

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

According to the staff memo, the design “seeks to transform the current style from contemporary to traditional by replacing the yellow brick façade with brown and red-colored bricks and limestone-colored stone accents and trim and creating a brick and glass tower at the street corner to create a prominent entry.”

The original two-story building was constructed in 1965, which included the drive-thru window. An addition was completed in 1999. The project was evaluated by the city’s design review board on Jan. 14. The board suggested making the entry structure taller and more closely aligning the bank’s design features with those of the adjacent Ameritech building to the east.

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density in the downtown area. D1 zoning requires a special exception use for drive-thrus, which the planning commission considered on May 20 in a separate vote. Because the project is going through a site plan approval process, the requirement for a special exception use was triggered. Special exception uses do not require additional city council approval.

The bank has an existing drive-thru teller window on its north side. No changes are planned to that configuration, however. In giving the staff report to the planning commission, city planner Alexis DiLeo said if the drive-thru were used more frequently, staff might suggest additional design features, like a more clearly marked crossing or differentiated surface materials. But because there are only 20-25 transactions per day at the drive-thru, and given the “successful history” of the existing drive-thru, staff was comfortable with it remaining as is, DiLeo said.

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

Downtown: Liberty Plaza

Mayor John Hieftje and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), joined by Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), are sponsoring a resolution that would direct the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…”

Funding for the collaborative work in the amount of $23,577 would come from the parks and recreation budget. In addition to a concept for a “re-imagined Liberty Plaza,” the effort is supposed to result in options for funding construction, to be provided by city staff. A report is to be provided to the park advisory commission by December 2014 and to the city council a month later in January 2015.

This resolution comes in the context of a push by some Ann Arbor residents to establish public park space on top of the underground Library Lane parking garage, which is southwest of Liberty Plaza separated from that park by a surface parking lot owned by First Martin Corp. Related to that, the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting – as part of reconsidering a vote it had taken at its previous meeting on March 17 – to designate a 12,000-square-foot portion of the Library Lane surface to be reserved as an urban park.

The result of the reconsidered resolution on April 7 undid the council’s earlier decision to establish a square foot range for the urban plaza – from 6,500-12,000 square feet. That April 7 council decision was made on a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Taylor, Hieftje, Teall and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Courts Human Services

On the council’s June 16 agenda are several items related to the criminal justice system, specifically for some of the specialty courts operated by the 15th District Court. As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve an amendment to a $76,242 contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services – for mental health treatment services to people who are participating in the sobriety court and the mental health court.

Also on the consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $44,200 amendment to a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to provide drug abuse screening and monitoring services for the mental health court. The council will be asked to approve a $108,174 amendment to a contract with the nonprofit Dawn Farm for drug abuse counseling and rehabilitative services.

And finally, the consent agenda includes a resolution for a $40,000 amendment to a contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court-appointed counsel to indigent defendants.

Recycling

The council’s June 16 agenda includes three items related to recycling.

Recycling: RAA Multifamily Pilot

The council will be asked to approve a two-year $95,694 contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for a recycling incentive program for multi-family residential units. This item is based on the city’s solid waste plan, which the city council adopted at its Oct. 7, 2013 meeting.

The plan includes evaluating methods to increase recycling participation through pilot programs. Among those methods is the introduction of a recycling incentive program for multi‐family housing units. According to the staff memo accompanying this item, a manual sort of waste conducted in the fall of 2012 found that only 12% of the trash that single-family residents threw away was recyclable, compared to 26% of the trash that multi-family residents threw away. The completion of the pilot program is expected in December 2016. According to the memo, Recycle Ann Arbor’s proposal includes:

Gather information on best multi-family recycling practices in North America.
Survey and/or interview key multi-family constituencies in Ann Arbor to better understand the challenges and opportunities for recycling in this sector. Based on feedback received, develop 3 to 5 methodologies for further testing and analysis.
Identify pilot parameters and measurement protocols.
Identify pilot communities to involve in the pilot programs (ultimately targeting approximately 1,000 units) and ramp up pilot start-up.
Implement pilot programs.
Analyze results of pilot programs.
Provide detailed recommendations to the City on best practices and report results to participating multi-family communities.

Methodologies that will be tested as part of the pilot will include the following:

Recycling rewards program: Evaluate if a recycling rewards program would be effective in improving recycling participation rates in multi-family locations
Indoor collection bins: Most multi-family locations share outdoor recycling bins. Determine if the provision of indoor recycling bins would help increase recycling rates.
Multi-family recycling leader program: Determine if the use of recycling leaders at individual locations would help increase recycling rates.
300-gallon recycling cart: Determine if the use of 300-gallon carts instead of the standard 96-gallon cart would help increase recycling.

Recycling: Baler Infeed Conveyor Repair

The council will be asked to approve a $39,480 reimbursement to Resource Recovery Systems – the city’s contracted operator of its materials recovery facility (MRF) – for repair of the baler infeed conveyor belt. According to a staff memo accompanying the item, the belt was last replaced in 2007, and has worn out. Such conveyors are described in the memo as lasting five to seven years.

Recycling: RAA Student Move-out Services

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $35,000 annual contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for services associated with the move-out of University of Michigan students.

According to the staff memo on the item, RAA’s proposal includes a staffed drop-off location at the corner of Tappan and Oakland streets during student fall and spring move-out periods. The site is also used to collect reusable items (through organizations such as the Salvation Army, Kiwanis, or the Reuse Center), bulky metal items, and recyclable materials.

4:10 p.m. Staff responses to councilmember questions about agenda items. [.pdf of staff responses to June 16, 2014 agenda questions]

6:14 p.m. Paul Fulton of the city’s IT department is setting up the laptop with the Historic District Commission awards presentation. Thomas Partridge has already arrived.

6:48 p.m. Eppie Potts, who’s receiving the Preservationist of the Year Award tonight from the Historic District Commission, has arrived. She quips: “Usually I’m here to yell at them!”

7:08 p.m. The only councilmember not yet arrived is Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). Mayor John Hieftje is here, but he seems to have stepped away for a bit. We’re basically ready to go.

7:09 p.m. Warpehoski is now here.

7:10 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. And we’re off.

7:10 p.m. Approval of agenda. All are present and correct.

7:11 p.m. Approval of agenda. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wants to note that there will be a resolution added on the settlement on the Goldstone case. City attorney Stephen Postema says it can go at the end.

7:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the agenda.

7:13 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. Steve Powers is thanking Chief John Seto for the Ann Arbor police department and Ann Arbor fire department event on Saturday, recognizing public safety officers for their bravery and service. He thanked Seto for the open house, where equipment was demonstrated. He’s announcing the grand opening of the skatepark on June 21. He’s thanking residents for their patience as the city rolls out its street reconstruction projects for the season.

7:14 p.m. INT-1 Introduction of Ann Arbor Police K-9 Murray and Officer Pat Maguire. Murray, the dog, is named after Vada Murray, an Ann Arbor Police Department officer who passed away a few years ago. His wife and children are in attendance.

7:15 p.m. Chief Seto is introducing Officer Maguire and K-9 Murray. The pair earned distinction in a recent trials competition.

7:16 p.m. INT-2 Presentation of Historic District Commission annual awards. This is the 30th annual presentation of the awards.

7:18 p.m. Tom Stullberg, chair of the HDC, is giving the presentation.

7:18 p.m. Rehabilitation Awards are presented in recognition of substantial work that returned a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration, facilitating contemporary needs but respecting the features of the property that are significant to its historic and architectural values.

7:18 p.m. University of Michigan For East Quad. Details: Built in 1940; $116 million renovation; replaced slate roof, restored leaded glass, replaced window glazing, restored exterior walls; repaired wood paneling and fireplaces in main floor lounges.

7:19 p.m. University of Michigan for Munger Residences, formerly called the Lawyers Club. Details: Built between 1923 and 1933; $39 million renovation; upgraded infrastructure, replaced slate roof (reusing many original pieces), repaired exterior masonry; added two elevators without compromising historical integrity.

7:19 p.m. Jim Kosteva, UM director of community relations, is on hand to accept the awards on behalf of UM.

7:20 p.m. Preservation Awards are presented in recognition of superior maintenance of a significant property to preserve its essential historical, cultural or architectural value for a period of 10 years or more.

7:20 p.m. Susan and Martin Hurwitz for 1520 Cambridge 1520 Cambridge. Details: Built in 1913 for Max and Clemence Winkler; Colonial Revival; round topped windows, classical surround of pilasters and broken pediment, prominent modillions; owned and maintained by Susan and Martin Hurwitz since 1991.

7:20 p.m. Kappa Alpha Theta (Eta Chapter): 1414 Washtenaw. Details: Built in 1867 for Dr. Silas Pratt; Colonial Revival; remodeled by Louis H. Boynton when purchased by Kappa Alpha Theta in 1916; one of the first Greek letter organizations to locate on Washtenaw; received State of Michigan Historic Designation in 1983.

7:21 p.m. First Presbyterian Church for 1432 Washtenaw. Details: Built in 1938; Gothic Revival in the English Country style; renovations in 1956 and 1998; Lancet windows with stained glass, buttresses, steep slate roof; stand of mature trees leading to main entry are remnants of the “picnic grove” that surrounded home at the previously occupying site.

7:21 p.m. Ann Arbor City Club for 1830 Washtenaw. Details: Built in 1888 by Evart Scott as farmhouse; remodeled into Colonial Revival home by Louis H. Boynton when purchased in 1917 for Dr. R. Bishop Canfield; purchased by Ann Arbor Women’s City Club in 1951 and remodeled into clubhouse; 1962 addition designed by Ralph Hammett.

7:22 p.m. Ken Wisniski and Linda Dintenfass for 13 Regent Drive. Details: Designed by local architect David Osler in 1964 for William and Margaret Mundus; Mid-Century Modern; five levels, mostly hidden from public view; renovation by Stan Monroe in 2012 to change third level into master bedroom and rebuild five decks; owned and maintained by Ken Wisniski and Linda Dintenfass since 1999.

7:23 p.m. Howard Shapiro for 7 Regent Drive. Details: Designed by Alden Dow in 1964 for Joe Morris; three levels, views the Arb; flat roof with flared edges on the west, resembles three boxes with a hidden entry; influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright (Dow studied at Taliesin in the 1920s); owned and maintained by Dr. Howard Shapiro since 2002.

7:23 p.m. Margaret Bignall and Paul Hossler for 1448 Broadway. Details: Built in 1852 by John Lennon; Greek Revival; typical early 19th century settler house; 950 square feet, 1½ story, side gable; small, historic barn behind house; owned and maintained by Margaret Bignall and Paul Hossler since 1980.

7:24 p.m. Carol and Robert Mull for 1111 Fair Oaks. Details: Designed in 1916 by Fiske Kimball for James N. and Clara Petrie; inspired by Monticello and the White House; irregular floor plan: round rooms in center and rectangular rooms on sides; Ives Woods/Burns Park neighborhood; owned and maintained by Carol and Robert Mull since 1979.

7:25 p.m. Stone School Cooperative Nursery for 2811 Stone School. Details: Built in 1911 as a rural schoolhouse; incorporated materials from 1853 schoolhouse previously on site; original foundation stone and school bell and belfry; purchased and restored in 1995 by the Stone School Cooperative; listed on National Register of Historic Places in 1995.

7:25 p.m. John Hollowell for 844 W. Huron. Details: Built in 1872 by William H. Mallory; Gothic Revival; two porches, two bay windows, eared trim with elaborate scroll details; 1890s Victorian lamp posts from Belle Isle; Old West Side; owned and maintained by John Hollowell since 1970s.

7:26 p.m. Steve Sivak for 1158 Pomona. Details: Built in 1955 for Joseph and Emma Albano; Mid-Century Modern; long, low lines, prominent carport, exposed rafters, vertical cedar siding, flat roofs; large expanses of window glass on the sides, blank façade offering privacy from the street; owned and maintained by Steve Sivak since 1995.

7:27 p.m. Akhavan Rayhaneh for 2022 Delafield. Details: Built in 1958 by James P. Wong for Richard Hadden; “Bonnet house”; Mid-Century Modern; steeply pitched gable in front, floor to ceiling windows form part of façade, overhang has exposed rafters; owned and maintained by Akhavan Rayhaneh since 1989.

7:27 p.m. Special Merit Awards are presented in recognition of exceptional people, projects, landscapes or other unique preservation projects.

7:28 p.m. Susan Wineberg and Patrick McCauley: Authors of “Historic Ann Arbor: An Architectural Guide”; describes over 350 Ann Arbor buildings; includes 40 University of Michigan buildings; four years researching, documenting, photographing, and writing; valuable resource to anyone interested in architecture or history of Ann Arbor.

7:28 p.m. Preservationist of the Year is presented to an individual who has provided the city of Ann Arbor with exemplary services in the pursuit of historic preservation, incentives, and/or education.

7:28 p.m. Ethel K. Potts is the 2014 Preservationist of the Year. Details: attended the University of Michigan; served on city’s zoning board of appeals and the planning commission; advocate for historic preservation; mentor to future preservationists; “This city means a lot to me, its buildings and history must be maintained for generations to come.”

7:30 p.m. Potts is getting an enthusiastic ovation from the audience and councilmembers.

7:30 p.m. Recess. We’re in a short recess so that the awardees can exit.

7:37 p.m. We’re back.

7:37 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.]

Two people are signed up to talk about the $75,000 contract with The Greenway Collaborative to support the work of the pedestrian safety and access task force, both of them members of the task force: Vivienne Armentrout and Linda Diane Feldt. Three people are signed up to talk about the $75,000 contract with Ann Arbor SPARK: Kai Petainen, Jeff Hayner and Dave DeVarti. Hayner’s second topic is the East Stadium bridges art installation. Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about improved affordable housing and economic development.

7:40 p.m. Vivienne Armentrout is a member of the pedestrian safety and access task force. She’s asking the council to approve the contract with The Greenway Collaborative. It’s already in the FY 2014 budget, so it’s “not new money,” she says. She says the task force is “itching” to take on its task. The task force needs the council’s support now, to continue its work – the task force has met three times so far. Armentrout is reviewing the responsibility the council gave the task force. She’s describing how some members of the task force participated in the selection of the facilitator, from the three who responded to the city’s RFP. [.pdf of Armentrout's remarks]

7:41 p.m. Kai Petainen is reading the following statement aloud: [Petainen public comment] [Ann Arbor SPARK 2013 annual report] and [21st Century Jobs Trust Fund 2013 Annual Report]

7:46 p.m. Linda Diane Feldt is a member of the pedestrian safety and access task force – and she was elected chair of the group. She’s thanking the council for appointing her to the task force. She’s asking for the council’s support – in the form of approving the $75,000 contract with The Greenway Collaborative. She’d participated in the selection process of the consultant, she says. The process that will unfold will involve thousands of volunteer hours, she notes. The value of the work will far exceed the value of the contract, she says. The task force has already dived into its work. She’s noting that The Greenway Collaborative is a local firm with excellent qualifications.

7:49 p.m. Jeff Hayner says that the spirit of economic development is alive and well. There are many partners in this effort, including the UM Tech Transfer Office. He’s criticizing Ann Arbor SPARK for high salaries, but says they’re not using income for terrorist activities. He says that SPARK has misrepresented its results. He suggests revising the resolution to reduce the $75,000 to just 10% of that figure.

7:51 p.m. David DeVarti is a former city councilmember and former member of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board. He’s speaking against the funding for SPARK, asking the council to deny it or table it. He allows that as a DDA member he had voted for money for SPARK. He’d been disappointed by what SPARK had produced, but he’d gone along to get along with mayor John Hieftje and with Bob Guenzel. He points out that $75,000 could go a long way for a human services agency. He asks that the council hold Ann Arbor SPARK to the same kind of standards as it does the human services agencies it has contracts with. That would create a real sense for the council for what SPARK is failing to provide in terms of documentation.

7:54 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a resident of Ward 5 as well as recent candidate for various public offices. He calls for improved funding for affordable housing and economic development. He wants the council to take direct responsibility for funding the elimination of homelessness and measurably increasing the amount of funding available for affordable housing.

7:59 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first of two 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.

7:59 p.m. Sally Petersen says that the LDFA board will be discussing an independent audit of the SmartZone at its meeting tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. She also notes that the LDFA board has heard the council’s interest in seeing investments in infrastructure.

7:59 p.m. Kunselman is talking about the activity of the nuisance committee, of which he’s the only member. He’s also explaining his research on the DDA terms. Attached to the agenda are old DDA records Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) retrieved from the University of Michigan Bentley Library. [link]

8:03 p.m. Kunselman is now talking about the issue of TIF refunds that were made by the DDA in the early 1980s. He’s now talking about the DDA’s development plan and the requirements for that plan in the statute. He’s calling for the council to work with the DDA to work on a new development plan. He’s pointing out that the city administrator is the city’s representative on the DDA board. He said he’s told city administrator Steve Powers that he expects the DDA will be following the law.

8:04 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) is alerting people to the removal of some stop signs on Nixon Road near Green and Dhu Varren. This is a temporary measure related to nearby construction. She asks people to be careful. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is now talking about the same stop sign removal issue. There will be additional police enforcement, she says.

8:05 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) announces that the Michigan Theater has agreed to purchase the State Theater.

8:07 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) is announcing that the environmental commission had three vacancies. There were 10 applicants. He says that tonight Allison Skinner, Benjamin Muth and Mark Clevey are being presented as candidates to serve on the city’s environmental commission. The vote on their appointments will be at the council’s July 7, 2014 meeting.

8:08 p.m. MC-1 Confirmation of June 2, 2014 nominations. Nominated at the council’s June 2, 2014 meeting for reappointment to the city planning commission were Wendy Woods and Eleanore Adenekan. Nominated at that meeting for reappointment to the commission on disability issues were Linda Evans and Larry Keeler. Those confirmations are being voted on tonight.

8:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm the appointments.

8:08 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. Audrey Wojtkowiak is being nominated to the board of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission to fill the vacancy left by Christopher Geer. The vote on her confirmation will come at the council’s next meeting.

8:10 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje is reviewing the awards to firefighters and police officers that were made last Saturday.

8:12 p.m. Hieftje is reviewing the last winter and the work that human service agencies did. He’s worried about the capacity for that work if the winter is as back next year.

8:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm the appointments.

8:10 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje is reviewing the awards to firefighters and police officers that were made last Saturday.

8:12 p.m. Hieftje is reviewing the last winter and the work that human service agencies did. He’s worried about the capacity for that work if the winter is as bad next year.

8:14 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. On tonight’s agenda are five hearings:

PH-1 Anderson-Pebbles annexation. This is a standard annexation into the city from Scio Township. The zoning for the 0.22 acre parcel at 375 Glenwood Street will be handled after the annexation is complete.
PH-2 Bank of Ann Arbor addition. This is the site plan for the addition on the building at Fifth Avenue and Washington streets. [For additional background, see Downtown: Bank of Ann Arbor Site Plan above.]
PH-3 116-120 West Huron site plan. This is the site plan for First Martin’s hotel project. [For additional background, see Downtown: Hotel Site Plan above.]
PH-4 Scio Church sidewalk assessment. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Scio Church Sidewalk – Public Hearing above.]
PH-5 Barton Drive sidewalk assessment. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Barton Drive Sidewalk – Public Hearing above.]

8:15 p.m. PH-1 Anderson-Pebbles annexation. Thomas Partridge says that the property should be required to have access to public transportation.

8:16 p.m. That’s it for this public hearing.

8:19 p.m. PH-2 Bank of Ann Arbor addition. Ray Detter is expressing support for this project. It takes a building that has been criticized as being “suburban” and making it an asset, instead of building something that is 180 feet tall, even though the site’s zoning would allow for that.

8:20 p.m. Thomas Patridge is advocating for a requirement that access for public transportation be provided at the site. The bank should be a good corporate citizen and give priority to considerations like that.

8:21 p.m. Edward Vielmetti is pointing out that the current site has Juneberry trees that are just now becoming ripe, and they are delicious. He hopes that the site after renovation will also have good landscaping.

8:22 p.m. PH-3 116-120 West Huron site plan. Ray Detter is expressing support for the project. He notes that a part of the project will preserve the facade of the bus depot.

8:22 p.m. PH-4 Scio Church sidewalk assessment. No one speaks during this public hearing.

8:26 p.m. PH-5 Barton Drive sidewalk assessment. Jeff Hayner says this is his neighborhood. He thanks everyone in the room and in the neighborhood who came together to get this done. It’s been at least 12 years in the works, he says. He encourages the pedestrian task force to take a look at the area. He’s questioning the cost for the project, however. It would have a long-term positive impact, he said. No offense to the public art commission, he says, but the council will be voting on $350,000 for decorative elements on the East Stadium bridges, when the approach to the bridge is in terrible shape.

8:26 p.m. Council minutes. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

8:26 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 DTE LED Conversions ($69,555/$55,060 after rebates). [For additional background, see (Not) Downtown: Streetlight LED Conversion above.]
CA-2 Approve contract with Black & Veatch Ltd. ($62,800).
CA-3 Approve purchase of hydrofluorosilicic acid for water treatment from PVS Nolwood Chemicals (estimated $34,000/yr).
CA-4 Amend service purchase order for stormwater services with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner (increase of $30,000 for FY 2014 & FY 2015).
CA-5 Approve contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for solid waste student move-out services ($35,000/yr). [For additional background, see Recycling: RAA Student Move-out Services above.]
CA-6 Award contract for 8th Street sanitary sewer manhole replacement to Fonson Inc. ($47,193). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Manholes above.]
CA-7 Approve a contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for economic development services ($75,000). [For additional background, see Business Services: Ann Arbor SPARK above.]
CA-8 Approve amendment to contract with the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office to provide drug abuse screening and monitoring services for mental health court ($44,200).
CA-9 Approve amendment to contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services for mental health treatment services to sobriety court and mental health court participants ($76,242).
CA-10 Approve amendment to contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court appointed counsel to indigent defendants ($40,000).
CA-11 Street closings for the Firecracker 5K (Friday, July 4, 2014).
CA-12 Street closings for Sonic Lunch (Thursday, July 10, 2014 and Thursday, July 31, 2014).
CA-13 Street closing for the 2014 Washtenaw Indie Awards, Saturday (June 28, 2014).
CA-14 Approve contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc. for Lobbying Services ($48,000). [For additional background, see Business Services: GCSI Lobbying above.]
CA-15 Approve May 22, 2014 recommendations of the Board of Insurance Administration ($66,142).

8:27 p.m. Outcome: The council approved the consent agenda except for items CA-1, CA-7 and CA-10.

8:30 p.m. CA-1 Approve DTE LED conversions ($69,555/$55,060 after rebates). Kunselman says he’s happy this is coming along. He has a question about why the DDA is not funding the project for conversion of lights inside the DDA district. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy says that the general fund pays for streetlights.

Nate Geisler, the city’s energy programs analyst, is explaining that the DDA is undertaking a streetscape framework planning effort and that gave rise to hesitancy by DDA board members to pay for converting those lights at this time.

8:32 p.m. Kunselman questions whether the DDA will be able to implement its streetscape framework plan without council approval, because they are city streets. Kunselman points out that there are cobrahead lights that are out on Division Street. “Point taken,” Hupy says.

8:34 p.m. Hieftje says that DTE owns the lights, but the city pays the electric bill. The DDA had historically paid for conversion of the LED lights. Briere recalls taking a series of tours with downtown merchants to look at the lights and how the lights work. She asks if Hupy can provide information by the next council meeting about which lights in the downtown have been decommissioned and not removed, or are otherwise not working.

8:35 p.m. Lumm is talking about doing LED conversion when a repair is needed.

8:36 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve CA-1 on the consent agenda.

8:37 p.m. CA-7 Approve a contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for economic development services ($75,000). Kailasapathy notes that she’d requested some information about SPARK when the council had debated the FY 2015 budget. She has concerns about the job creation numbers. She’s not talking about LDFA money, just the $75,000 from the general fund. She’s now reviewing the contributions of other municipalities, compared to the $75,000 that the city of Ann Arbor contributes.

8:39 p.m. Relative contributions that she’s discussing are here: [link]

8:42 p.m. Kailasapathy is reviewing the tax rebate given to Mahendra. She says she will not support the SPARK contract.

8:44 p.m. Petersen says that the concerns about the presentation of metrics are valid, but these are the metrics that were chosen. SPARK doesn’t tell companies where to locate, she says. She compares SPARK to the Welcome Wagon. Large floor-plate office space doesn’t exist in Ann Arbor, she says, but it does in Pittsfield Township. SPARK is agnostic about there companies locate, and she allows that Pittsfield is getting a better deal than Ann Arbor. SPARK isn’t taking sole credit for job creation, she says. She’ll support this, because SPARK is the only economic development agency we have.

8:45 p.m. Eaton moves to table, and points out that such motions don’t allow debate.

8:47 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 6-5 to table this resolution. Voting to table were Kunselman, Kailsapathy, Eaton, Anglin, Briere, and Lumm.

8:48 p.m. CA-10 Approve amendment to contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court appointed counsel to indigent defendants ($40,000). Taylor, an attorney with Hooper Hathaway, provides legal services to this firm and asks the council to vote to allow him not to participate in the vote. They take that vote. He takes a seat in the audience.

8:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve CA-10 on the consent agenda.

8:48 p.m. C-1 425 S. Main Street rezoning of 1.1 Acres from D1 (Downtown Core Base District) to D2 (Downtown Interface Base District). The council is being asked to give initial approval to changes in two parts of the zoning code affecting the parcel at 425 S. Main, on the southeast corner of Main and William streets. Because these would be changes to the zoning code, which is expressed in city ordinances, any council action that might be taken would need a second and final vote at a future meeting, in order to be enacted. First up is the zoning. The next item will involve the character district overlay. [For additional background, see Downtown: Zoning, Character District above.]

8:49 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1), the council’s representative to the planning commission, is reviewing the resolution. She encourages her colleagues to move it forward to a second reading.

8:51 p.m. Anglin is raising the question of heights in D2 – and ventures that D2 zoning is supposed to be 60 feet. Planning manager Wendy Rampson is now at the podium. She’s explaining the notion of “base zoning” – that’s D1 or D2 – and the character overlay districts. The height restrictions are not part of the base zoning, but rather the character overlay districts.

8:54 p.m. Kunselman elicits the fact that the Ashley Mews development, across the street, is a planned unit development (PUD) and is 110 feet tall.

8:55 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is glad to see this come forward, but he’ll have some questions about the character district resolution. He notes that the focus had been on the Huron Street corridor, but he’d asked that this parcel be included in the review of the downtown zoning. He says that D2 is the appropriate zoning, and he’s grateful that the parcel was included in the scope of the review as he’d requested.

8:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the rezoning of 425 S. Main from D1 to D2.

8:56 p.m. Recess. We’re in recess.

9:05 p.m. We’re back.

9:05 p.m. C-2 Main Street Downtown character overlay zoning districts building massing standards. This is the second of two downtown zoning items. The focus of the deliberations will likely be the 100-foot height limit the planning commission has recommended for the D-2 zoned area of the Main Street character area. All other D-2 areas of the downtown have a 60-foot height limit. [For additional background, see Downtown: Zoning, Character District above.]

9:07 p.m. Briere is reviewing the planning commission discussion on this item. She says the commission had heard from many members of the community on this issue. The commission had split on this 6-3. [Briere voted as one of the three dissenters.] She’s explaining the rationale for those in the majority – that it would be suitable to terrace a 100-foot building away from the neighborhood.

9:09 p.m. But Briere points out that the city council’s resolution stated D2 at 60 feet. The basic premise of the majority was that even in winter there would be available sunlight, but Briere didn’t think that was the main issue.

9:10 p.m. Lumm complains that there’s no minutes available from the planning commission’s deliberations on the 6-3 vote. [Deliberations are reported in detail in The Chronicle's report of the planning commission's May 6, 2014 meeting.] Lumm asks planning manager Wendy Rampson to explain why the planning commission changed the height from 60 feet to 100 feet.

9:13 p.m. Rampson is reviewing basis of the planning commission’s decision. The commission felt that a 100-foot height would provide some flexibility so that someone would not try to build out the site to 60 feet everywhere on the parcel as one massive building. Rampson says the minutes will be ready by the council’s next meeting, noting that the commission’s meeting was very long.

9:17 p.m. Anglin says this is a unique site. His fear is that the council will be asked to approve the change on a second reading at its next meeting. Now is the chance for the council to set the zoning correctly. He doesn’t want to start the ball rolling toward a second reading on a time schedule. He doesn’t want to approve this tonight.

9:18 p.m. Kunselman asks Rampson what the zoning was before the A2D2 process. It was C2-A or C2-AR, she thinks. There were no height limits. Kunselman notes that this would be the only D2 with a height limit of 100 feet. Why not just leave it D1 and reduce the allowable height from 180 feet to 100 feet?

9:21 p.m. Rampson tells Kunselman that the point of A2D2 was to provide certainty for a property owner about what could be built. He ventures that that never works, and that’s why he’d voted against the A2D2 zoning. He agrees with Anglin that he wouldn’t support moving it forward tonight. Warpehoski says he’s also concerned, but says that moving it to second reading would allow the setting of a public hearing, which would provide a chance for people to weigh in.

9:23 p.m. Petersen asks Anglin if he’s making a motion to postpone. Anglin is reiterating his point that it’s important to set the zoning the way the council wants. Briere says she’s reviewed The Chronicle’s report of the planning commission meeting. Those who spoke at the public hearing were not the adjacent neighbors, she says. She really wants to return it to the planning commission. She moves to refer it to the planning commission for reconsideration.

9:25 p.m. Hieftje says this would accomplish Anglin’s objective. Kunselman says he’ll support this. Lumm says she’ll support Briere’s motion. Lumm was surprised to see the recommendation from the planning commission, as it was different from the council’s direction.

9:26 p.m. Taylor says that moving something from first to second reading is a well-established way to solicit additional input, and he’d oppose the motion to refer it back to the planning commission as an unnecessary step.

9:28 p.m. Briere says Taylor is right about the procedure being well-established, but she appeals to an argument that Leigh Greden had made when he was on the council: He knew that he’d be voting against it at second reading, so it was a waste of time to vote to move it to second reading. Petersen is saying she supports referring it back to planning commission.

9:30 p.m. Hieftje asks Briere if there were people on the planning commission who were on the fence: Would she expect a different outcome from the planning commission? Briere says she thinks there were some people on the fence. She stresses that zoning is the council’s purview. She says there’s no harm and no foul in saying to the commission: This is not quite what we want.

9:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to refer back to the planning commission the the Main Street character district overlay for D2, after amending the height limit recommended by the planning commission – from 100 feet to 60 feet.

9:32 p.m. City attorney Stephen Postema whispers something in Hieftje’s ear. Hieftje points out that the zoning change to which the council had given initial approval is impacted by the council’s decision to refer the character district question back to the planning commission.

9:35 p.m. The council reconsiders item C-1.

9:35 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to table C-1.

9:38 p.m. The council is now reconsidering item C-2. Warpehoski is arguing for moving it along, based on the fact that the parcel is currently zoned D1 where a structure that’s 180 feet tall can be built. Taking a step toward rezoning it to D2 is a step forward. Kunselman suggests replacing the references to 100 feet to 60 feet.

9:39 p.m. Kunselman says if the public wants a height limit greater than 60 feet, the council will hear that.

9:40 p.m. Briere says that this seems simple, but there’s all kinds of other language in the character district that refers to stepped back construction. She says this is about by-right development, so it’s important that the council get it right.

9:43 p.m. Eaton is suggesting that the First Street character overlay language be swapped in. Rampson points out that the First Street character was designed for the industrial buildings abutting the Allen Creek corridor.

9:44 p.m. Warpehoski asks if council and planning commission need to be in concurrence on this. No, Rampson says. That’s just for the master plan.

9:45 p.m. Kunselman asks if the council approves the change to 60 feet, would the planning staff can clean up the other language before the second reading?

9:48 p.m. Based on Rampson’s response, Kunselman thinks the planning staff can deal with the other language, and describes not voting on a final change until October or November. Anglin is complaining about Stalinist architecture and how developers threaten to build those kinds of buildings.

9:50 p.m. Outcome: Kunselman’s amendment is approved over dissent from Taylor.

9:51 p.m. Outcome: The council has given initial approval to C-2 as amended.

9:51 p.m. C-1 The council now takes up C-1 off the table.

9:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to C-1.

9:52 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

9:58 p.m. We’re back.

9:58 p.m. DC-1 Improve Liberty Plaza. This resolution would direct the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…” Funding for the collaborative work in the amount of $23,577 would come from the parks and recreation budget. [For additional background, see Downtown: Liberty Plaza above.]

9:59 p.m. Taylor is explaining the background to the resolution. He says there’s been a good deal of discussion about people’s aspirations for downtown parks not at Liberty Plaza. But Liberty Plaza is already there, even though it does not meet our “collective aspirations,” he says. Ann Arbor needs a downtown park that is vibrant and has green space.

10:02 p.m. Petersen says she’d originally had a concern that the resolution didn’t incorporate Library Lane. She feels strongly that the entire block should be considered as a whole. Petersen moves to refer the issue to the park advisory commission. Hieftje suggests to Petersen that the council can talk about it a bit. He says that he sees this resolution as a reaction to work that PAC has already done in making recommendations on downtown parks.

10:06 p.m. Kunselman questions the funding allocation. He says that the city has just one park planner – Amy Kuras. So he was not sure he wanted to place that responsibility on her. He wondered why direction had to be given to staff and PAC, saying that PAC doesn’t need direction to act in this manner. He suggests that the University of Michigan landscape architecture students could be a partner on the design. He notes that Mike Martin is attending the meeting, but wouldn’t call him to the podium. [Martin is attending because of a resolution related to a hotel project by First Martin Corp., which comes later on the agenda.]

Kunselman has heard rumors that First Martin is planning to demolish the Michigan Square building (west of Liberty Plaza) in the next year, and he wants to know if that’s true before redesigning the park.

10:08 p.m. Kunselman said that the problem of people hanging out at Liberty Plaza wouldn’t be solved through redesign. But the UM had solved its problem with people hanging out at State and North University by doing the only thing that works – removing the seating. He says that it’s important to have downtown beat cops. He says he’ll support Petersen’s motion to refer it back to PAC.

10:10 p.m. Hieftje asks Powers to comment. Powers says the amount was the amount included in the “parks fairness” budget resolution. He doesn’t know if it’s enough money. Sumedh Bahl, community services area administrator, comes to the podium.

10:13 p.m. Briere is reflecting on her perceptions of Liberty Plaza. She was happy to see it on the agenda, and had added her name as a sponsor. She didn’t know if this was enough money. She supports it but doesn’t object to referring it to PAC.

10:15 p.m. Kunselman asks if this means that Liberty Plaza would jump ahead of developing a master plan for the Allen Creek Greenway. Hieftje says that if Kunselman can be a bit patient, there will be a master plan proposed soon.

10:18 p.m. Hieftje says that an Allen Creek Greenway master plan might be prepared before the end of the budget year. Kunselman asks if there’d been any council direction to start any of the activity that Hieftje has described. Yes, Hieftje says, there was a resolution involving 415 W. Washington. Kunselman reiterates the fact that staff has not been directed specifically to develop a greenway master plan. He’s reiterating the lack of resources for park planning. There are 157 parks in the city and he wonders why Liberty Plaza has become the most important one. Kunselman will support the referral to PAC.

10:21 p.m. Lumm says she’s going to propose some amendments to this resolution. She’s adding language about an “integrated plan for the Library Block.” She’s ticking through a number of amendments to various resolved clauses.

10:21 p.m. Taylor says that Lumm’s amendments are not “friendly,” so the council will need to vote on the amendments.

10:23 p.m. Hieftje says he’s been told by experts that without the newsstand downstairs and the restaurant adjacent to it, Liberty Plaza can’t succeed because it doesn’t have “eyes on the park.”

10:26 p.m. Hieftje is contrasting Liberty Plaza with Sculpture Plaza, at Fourth and Catherine. He says Liberty Plaza needs to be redesigned. He doesn’t mind postponing this, but wanted the council to talk about this tonight. He describes the resolution as providing seed money. Liberty Plaza has been “festering” there for quite some time. Petersen says there’s a shining light in Liberty Plaza, which is the sensory garden, and she hopes that if Liberty Plaza is redesigned, an alternate place can be found.

10:28 p.m. Teall says that Library Lane and Liberty Plaza are not connected. It’s asking too much of the resolution to expect it to connect the whole block.

10:29 p.m. Teall says that many people have responded to the Library Green Conservancy by saying that we should focus on improving Liberty Plaza, but no one has done that. This resolution would do that.

10:30 p.m. Warpehoski is sizing up how he sees the issue.

10:30 p.m. Lumm has now sent her amendments around via email.

10:35 p.m. Petersen reiterates the desirability of connecting Liberty Plaza and Library Lane, even if they are not currently connected. Taylor allows that integrated planning on a large scale does on occasion make sense. But he feels that a park that is already here and that has design challenges can be addressed. “These parks will not be connected,” he says, because there is private land between them.

10:36 p.m. Eaton is arguing for considering Liberty Plaza and the Library Lane lot at the same time, as they have many common traits.

10:37 p.m. Eaton will support Lumm’s amendments as well as Petersen’s motion to refer it to PAC.

10:39 p.m. Powers clarifies that the money in the resolution is in the FY 2015 budget. Anglin feels that it’s a budget amendment and might need 8 votes. Powers explains that it’s not a budget amendment, because the money is already there, so it doesn’t need 8 votes.

10:39 p.m. Briere says she’ll support the amendments.

10:41 p.m. Kunselman ventures that there’s an easement that connects the Liberty Plaza and Library Lane, and a gate that First Martin uses to periodically block off access so that there’s no opportunity for adverse possession.

10:42 p.m. Kunselman wonders if First Martin is interested in working with the city. Putting up a retaining wall, blocking the stair and back filling the area is essentially the basic option, Kunselman.

10:43 p.m. Hieftje says that there’s no easement, as Kunselman had contended. Mike Martin, from the audience, tells Hieftje that he’s right.

10:44 p.m. Hieftje says that if this resolution is attached to the Library Lane project, it will take years to accomplish anything, he cautions.

10:48 p.m. Here are Lumm’s amendments: [.pdf of Lumm's amendments]

10:49 p.m. Warpehoski is citing parliamentary procedure: a motion to refer takes precedence over a motion to amend. So he’s moving to refer the unamended resolution to PAC.

10:51 p.m. Lumm doesn’t want to refer the resolution without her amendments.

10:54 p.m. Kunselman asks Taylor why this was not brought up to PAC before bringing it to council. Taylor says it’s not necessary, as it’s the council’s prerogative to set policy. If passed as drafted, it would have established Liberty Plaza as a priority of the council. Hieftje notes that the referral is now the question before the council.

10:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to refer to PAC the unamended resolution allocating funds to move forward a process for the redesign of Liberty Plaza.

10:56 p.m. Closed Session. A vote to go into closed session fails. So the council votes instead to suspend the rule on a unanimous vote required for going into closed session after 11 p.m.

10:56 p.m. They’re still in open session.

10:56 p.m. DC-2 Approve 2014 Ann Arbor Jaycees Carnival. The event will take place at Pioneer High School June 25 to June 29, 2014.

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Jaycees Carnival.

10:57 p.m. DC-3 Kids Day This resolution was added to the agenda just today, so it’s not a part of the consent agenda with other street closing resolutions. This would close State Street between William and Washington for Kids Day on Saturday, June 28, 2014 from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m.

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the street closing for Kids Day.

10:57 p.m. DB-1 Approve the Anderson-Pebbles annexation 0.22 Acre, 375 Glenwood Street. This is a standard annexation, from Scio Township.

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Anderson-Pebbles annexation.

10:57 p.m. DB-2 Approve Bank of Ann Arbor headquarters addition. The council is being asked to approve the site plan for an addition to the Bank of Ann Arbor headquarters at 125 South Fifth Avenue. The site plan involves reorienting the main entrance – moving it from the center of its South Fifth Avenue side to the southeast corner of South Fifth and East Washington. Existing doors will be replaced with windows. A 9,179-square-foot third-floor addition would be constructed over the rear of the building’s east side. [For additional background, see Downtown: Bank of Ann Arbor Site Plan above.]

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the site plan for the Bank of Ann Arbor addition.

10:57 p.m. DB-3 Approve 116-120 West Huron Street Site Plan and Development Agreement (First Martin hotel). The council is being asked to approve the site plan for First Martin’s proposed extended-stay hotel at 116-120 West Huron Street. The proposal calls for a six-floor, 88,570-square-foot building with a ground-floor restaurant or retail space and an extended-stay hotel on the upper five levels. The hotel will be operated by Marriott. [For additional background, see Downtown: Hotel Site Plan above.]

10:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the First Martin hotel project.

10:57 p.m. DB-4 Approve Amendment to contract with Widgery Studio, LLC to fabricate and install public art at the Stadium Boulevard Bridges ($353,552). The council is being asked to approve a contract with Widgery Studio LLC to fabricate and install public art at the East Stadium Boulevard bridges. The city had already contracted with Widgery on May 20, 2014 for $8,248 to finalize the structural design of the artwork with an engineer. This amendment to the contract on tonight’s council agenda adds art fabrication and installation services to the existing agreement, bringing the total compensation to $353,552 for all services. [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Art above.]

10:59 p.m. Lumm is reviewing the discussions the council has had in the past on the public art program and the return of much of the money to the funds of origin. She remains unconvinced that this is the optimal investment the city could make with the money. She’s thanking members of the art commission for their effort. “It is a nice project,” she says.

11:00 p.m. Teall is inviting John Kotarski and Bob Miller to the podium to give a presentation on the bridges art. They are vice chair and chair, respectively, of the Ann Arbor public art commission.

11:08 p.m. Lumm is asking about the approach to the bridge to the west. Bob Miller notes that the art is located at Rose White Park. At that location looking west, he doesn’t think it’s going to conflict. Kunselman is asking about the durability of the glass panels. Is it replaceable? Yes, explains Miller, they can be replaced one louver at a time.

11:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the funding for fabrication and installation of public art at East Stadium Boulevard bridges.

11:11 p.m. DB-5 Approve $37,500 for affordable housing needs assessment. Kailasapathy expresses concern that the trust fund should be used for capital construction. It’s a small amount, but the small amounts can chip away at the balance, she says. Briere reads aloud the policy, which allows money in the affordable housing trust fund to be used for analysis, which this is.

11:14 p.m. Lumm says she’ll support this. She allows that perhaps the policy on allocation could use some updating.

11:16 p.m. Mary Jo Callan, director of the office of community & economic development, has been asked to the podium to explain how the assessment will start. The policy on allocation of funds does need to be updated, Callan says. The housing & human services advisory board (HHSAB) is interested in working on that with the city, she says.

11:20 p.m. Kunselman asks CFO Tom Crawford to the podium. Kunselman ventures that there is no affordable housing trust fund, but rather just an account where the city keeps track. Crawford explains that for the city’s audit, the fund is folded into the general fund. It’s noted as a restricted line item. Kunselman is proposing to change the allocation from the affordable housing trust fund to the general fund. This is just a study, he says, and he doesn’t think the city should be using the affordable housing fund for that.

11:22 p.m. Lumm prefers to use the affordable housing fund. Hieftje agrees with Lumm. The needs assessment will guide the construction of affordable housing, he says.

11:24 p.m. Briere says that the existing policy does not specify only capital investment, so she wants to pay for it out of the affordable housing fund.

11:25 p.m. Outcome: Kunselman’s amendment fails, with support only from Kunsleman, Eaton, Warpehoski, Angin, and Kailasapathy.

11:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the $37,500 from the affordable housing trust fund to pay for the housing needs assessment.

11:26 p.m. DS-1 Approve a Contract with NuView, Inc. to replace the city’s human resource and payroll system ($570,900). The staff memo accompanying the item explains why the existing software, acquired in 2007, is being replaced:

In 2007, the City installed a Human Resource and Payroll system called Ultipro, by Ultimate Software. The Ultipro system included modules for Recruiting, Benefits Administration, Human Resource Administration and Payroll. The City has experienced a variety of issues related to the underlying database architecture utilized by Ultimate Software. In addition, due to changes such as new legislative requirements, the increase in recruiting volume and the increase in manual data entry involved in benefits administration, the City has found the Ultipro system unable to meet its Human Resource needs.

11:26 p.m. Lumm has asked a staff member from HR to explain this in detail.

11:27 p.m. The topic is recruitment of veterans. The goal is to make the “onboarding” of candidates paperless.

11:28 p.m. Not all the data will be migrated to the new system. The systems will run parallel for a month or more as a safety check.

11:29 p.m. Kailasapathy is pleased to see the five-year cumulative savings that was provided by the staff analysis.

11:30 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with NuView for the human resources and payroll system.

11:30 p.m. DS-2 Transfer funds to authorize State Revolving Fund (SRF) debt payment and loan forgiveness for stormwater and rain garden components of the skatepark project (Not To Exceed $157,264). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater above.]

11:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the the transfer of funds in connection with the skatepark rain garden.

11:31 p.m. DS-3 Approve contract with Dawn Farm for drug abuse counseling and rehabilitative services ($108,174). [For additional background, see Courts Human Services above.]

11:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Dawn Farm.

11:31 p.m. DS-4 Set assessment roll for Pontiac Trail Sidewalk ($72,218) [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk above.]

11:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set the assessment roll for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk.

11:31 p.m. DS-5 Set public hearing for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment project. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk above.]

11:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set the public hearing on the Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment project – for July 21.

11:32 p.m. DS-6 Set public Hearing for the Stone School Road sidewalk project. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Stone School Sidewalk above.]

11:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set the public hearing on the Stone School Road sidewalk special assessment project – for July 7.

11:32 p.m. DS-8 Approve a contract with Emergency Restoration Company for the renovation of restrooms and locker Rooms in Fire Stations #3 and #4 ($149,500). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Fire Station Restrooms above.]

11:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with ERC for fire station restroom renovation.

11:33 p.m. DS-9 Approve award of a construction contract to Lanzo Lining Services Inc. Michigan for the 2014 sewer lining project ($1,566,121). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Sewer Lining above.]

11:34 p.m. Lumm is asking what all is included. The answer from staff is that there could be additional locations where work could be done.

11:34 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Lanzo Lining Services.

11:34 p.m. DS-10 Award a construction contract with Douglas N. Higgins Inc. for the Arbor Oaks water main replacement project ($1,324,357). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Water Main above.]

11:34 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to award the construction contract with Douglas N. Higgins Inc.

11:34 p.m. DS-11 Approve installation of traffic calming devices on Larchmont Drive ($55,000). The project would install three speedhumps. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Larchmont Traffic Calming above.]

11:35 p.m. Lumm says that the neighborhood is so excited – as the application went in five years ago. She’s thanking staff who worked on this.

11:38 p.m. Eaton notes that $60,000 had been budgeted for the whole year. Is this $55,000 taking up most of the whole year’s budget? Nick Hutchinson is explaining that the $55,000 that’s being brought forward is from FY 2014. The actual cost of this particular project is just $8,800, Hutchinson explains.

11:38 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the installation of traffic calming devices on Larchmont.

11:39 p.m. DS-12 Approve a contrast with Northwest Consultants Inc. for the Fuller Road, Maiden Lane, E. Medical Center Drive bridges rehabilitation project ($187,184) According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the project includes “re-painting of each bridge, repairing corroded structural steel, bridge abutment and pier (substructure) repairs, expansion joint removal and replacement, bridge deck patching, placing an overlay on the existing bridge decks, bridge railing repairs, guard rail upgrades, brush trimming and removal around the perimeter of the bridge structures, and other related work.” [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Fuller Road Bridges above.]

11:41 p.m. Briere wants to know if the amenities that would complete the Border-to-Border Trail are included in this work. Hupy explains that this resolution is for maintenance of existing bridge structures. Kunselman says it’s his understanding that there’s a lot of “human activity” near the location. He wants to know if assistance will be provided to those people who are living in tents. Hupy says there will be plenty of notice given before construction starts.

11:41 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Northwest Consultants Inc. for the bridges rehabilitation project.

11:42 p.m. DS-13 Approve a contract with The Greenway Collaborative Inc. to support the pedestrian safety and access task force ($75,000). This is a contract that had originally been recommended by staff to be awarded to a different vendor, but without issuing an RFP. After issuing an RFP, The Greenway collaborative was selected. The task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson. [For additional background, see Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pedestrian Task Force Consultant above.]

11:42 p.m. Lumm thanks Powers and staff for listening to the concerns of council on this project.

11:43 p.m. Lumm is concerned that this effort could be expanded in its scope and could require additional funding.

11:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with The Greenway Collaborative Inc. to support the pedestrian safety task force.

11:43 p.m. DS-14 Approve contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for multi-family recycling incentive pilot program ($95,694). This resolution is based on recommendations in the city’s solid waste plan. [For additional background, see Recycling: RAA Multifamily Pilot above.]

11:46 p.m. Kunselman asks RAA staff to come to the podium. Kunselman says that he’s heard it might be the last opportunity he has to ask Tom McMurtrie a question. “As a city employee,” that’s correct, McMurtrie says. Kunselman gets clarification that it’s city employees who do trash collection. He asks what kind of outcomes could be expected.

11:48 p.m. The RAA staff member says the point of the study is to understand the nuances of recycling in multi-family units: transience, language barriers, a willingness to go down from the third floor to put recyclables in container. They want to figure out what makes multi-family units tick. It’s a nut that no one nationally has cracked, he says.

11:50 p.m. Lumm is talking about Palo Alto and Seattle as benchmarks. She asks how much improvement McMurtrie thinks is possible. Based on the percentage of recyclables in the waste stream, McMurtrie thinks there’s potential for improvement.

11:53 p.m. Lumm asks why the work needs to be contracted out. Hupy indicates to Lumm that in him and McMurtrie she’s looking at the staff. Taylor says he thinks this is great – as it’s an area where improvement is needed. Hieftje ventures there’s a “gold mine” out there as far as how much additional material can be recycled in multi-familiy housing units.

11:53 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for a multi-family recycling incentives pilot program.

11:53 p.m. DS-15 Reimburse Resource Recovery Systems for repair of baler infeed conveyor at the Material Recovery Facility ($39,480). RSS operates the city’s material recovery facility under a contract. The typical pattern is for RSS to handle the replacement of equipment with reimbursement from the city. [For additional background, see Recycling: Baler Infeed Conveyor Repair above.]

11:55 p.m. Teall invites McMurtrie to the podium to congratulate him on his retirement. Solid waste has changed so much in the time that Teall has been on the council. McMurtrie notes that it’s been almost 24 years and he finds it rewarding to do work that touches on every single resident.

11:56 p.m. Hupy says that there’s a new staff member who’ll be taking over for McMurtrie. McMurtrie’s retirement party will be held on July 1 from 3-5 p.m.

11:56 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the reimbursement to RSS for repair of the MRF baler infeed conveyor.

11:56 p.m. DS-16 Amend Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority budget for fiscal year 2014. This is a routine type of adjustment, which has been approved by the DDA board. [For additional background, see Downtown: DDA Budget Amendment above.]

11:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the amendment of the DDA budget.

11:59 p.m. DS-17 Goldstone vs. Warner settlement.

11:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve a $35,000 settlement.

12:01 a.m. Briere to planning commission. As a result of the background work by the city attorney’s office on terms of appointments to boards and commissions, it was determined that Briere needed to be reappointed in order to continue to serve beyond the end of June.

12:02 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve Briere’s appointment to the planning commission until Nov. 17, 2014.

12:02 a.m. Communications from council. Briere has now invited Ann Arbor SPARK CEO Paul Krutko to the podium because he had not had an opportunity to answer questions on the SPARK funding item, which was tabled earlier in the meeting. Krutko says that SPARK is a complicated organization. Krutko says that two reports that had been questioned by a member of the public were about two different activities – work for the state compared to work for Ann Arbor. There’s a variety of reports that SPARK has to provide. He’s sorry that it’s confusing, he says.

12:07 a.m. Krutko is now responding to more questions from Briere.

12:15 a.m. Lumm is telling Krutko that she shares the concerns about SPARK’s reporting. She doesn’t have a problem with the $75,000. She’s saying that more councilmembers wanted to table instead of postpone. She’s reviewing the importance of being good stewards of public funds. Now there’s back and forth between Lumm and Krutko. Lumm says that once a reconciliation of the numbers is achieved, then everyone will be comfortable.

12:16 a.m. Kunselman is now talking about the complexity of economic development. Kunselman asks if layoffs are computed as a part of the jobs numbers.

12:18 a.m. Krutko says there are 22 SPARK staff members. Responding to the lower unemployment figures in this area, Kunselman quips: Thank god for you!

12:21 a.m. Taylor expresses his concern about the tabling and calls it a “self-inflicted wound.” Ann Arbor had a reputation previously for being against growth, he says. That had changed. But now this was a step backward, Taylor says. He indicates that the council had not made a responsible, professional and temperate decision.

12:23 a.m. Warpehoski expresses his dismay that the council had tabled the SPARK resolution (without debate). Kunselman is now taking a turn, defending the tabling action as opposed to postponing.

12:24 a.m. Kailasapathy says she looks at it as a question of how much Ann Arbor taxpayers give – through Act 88 money, which is levied countywide.

12:25 a.m. Kailasapathy says that the council has not said that it won’t pay the $75,000. It’s a matter of getting the information and getting the numbers reconciled, she says.

12:27 a.m. Petersen regrets she used the term, “Welcome Wagon” to describe SPARK’s work – because SPARK is more complex than that. She says that when councilmembers had questions in advance of the FY 2015 debate, they’d had some additional questions and they were given answers within a week.

12:28 a.m. Petersen says that some of the questions have been asked only very recently and many of the questions about SPARK have been answered.

12:31 a.m. Lumm says she would have preferred to postpone instead of tabling, but she knew it would be taken up back up off the table. Briere says she plans to bring this back on July 1 [but the council's next meeting is not until July 7].

12:33 a.m. Teall says she is angry not just that the SPARK resolution was tabled but that there was a rush to table. She reiterates that she’s angry about the fact that the council has departed from the style of interaction that they’d agreed to at their planning retreat.

12:34 a.m. Hieftje is ticking through standard talking points in support of SPARK and economic development.

12:34 a.m. Hieftje says that the tabling was “over the top.”

12:35 a.m. Clerk’s Report. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the clerk’s report.

12:35 a.m. Public Comment. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:37 a.m. Kai Petainen says that the difference in the jobs numbers reported by Ann Arbor SPARK and the state stems from how the numbers are reported. He’s reading aloud a note about intent to hire as being recorded as a success, but in the other report there are actual jobs reported.

12:39 a.m. Edward Vielmetti is now addressing the council. He said he thought they tabled something earlier in the meeting, but had they then discussed it at length later. They can discuss whatever they like, but he calls it “not a stunning display of council effectiveness.”

12:40 a.m. Closed Session. The council has voted to go into closed session to discuss pending litigation.

1:05 a.m. We’re back.

1:05 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.

June 16, 2014: City Council Meeting Preview

Dave Askins — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:45:45 +0000

The city council’s last meeting of the 2014 fiscal year on June 16, 2014 features an agenda packed with items related to the city’s physical infrastructure like bridges (including art), the sanitary sewer system and the stormwater system, as well as several resolutions related to construction of new sidewalks.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the June 16, 2014 meeting agenda.

Related to new sidewalk construction is a resolution that would authorize a $75,000 contract with the Greenway Collaborative, to support the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force established by the city council in late 2013. Creating a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling sidewalk gaps in the city is part of task force’s responsibility.

In the final item with a DDA connection, the council will be asked to authorize $69,555 for the conversion of 223 mercury vapor cobrahead streetlights to LED technology. This project would convert streetlights that are all outside the DDA district. The project is on the city council’s agenda because the DDA board recently declined to fund a similar LED conversion project – for streetlights inside the DDA tax capture district.

Several other June 16 agenda items related to the downtown area, even if they don’t have an explicit DDA connection. Two of them involve changes to downtown zoning ordinances that have been recommended by the planning commission. The zoning question to be given initial consideration by the council is whether to downzone the southeast corner of William and Main streets from D1 to D2, but with a 100-foot height limit.

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 Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

Physical Infrastructure

The council’s June 16 agenda is heavy with items related to the city’s physical infrastructure.

Physical Infrastructure: Fuller Road Bridges

Money for the design work is available in the approved FY 2014 public services area street millage capital budget.

The state of Michigan’s local bridge program pays for 95% of eligible construction expenses up to $790,000. The project will also receive $1,373,440 in federal surface transportation funding, administered through the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. The federal program pays for 81.85% of eligible construction expenses. But neither the state nor the federal sources will pay for the design work that the council’s action will fund.

Physical Infrastructure: Stadium Bridges Art

The council will be asked to approve a contract with Widgery Studio LLC to fabricate and install public art at the East Stadium Boulevard bridges. The city had already contracted with Widgery on May 20, 2014 for $8,248 to finalize the structural design of the artwork with an engineer. This amendment to the contract on the June 16 council agenda adds art fabrication and installation services to the existing agreement, bringing the total compensation to $353,552 for all services.

This was one of the projects for which the city council left funding in place, when it voted on March 3, 2014 to transfer most of the unspent money from the now defunct Percent for Art funding program back to the funds from which the money was originally drawn.

The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked that she revise her proposal before it was presented to the Ann Arbor public art commission and then later to the city council for approval. Members of the panel were Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. [.pdf of panel feedback]

The public art commission recommended the project’s approval at its April 23, 2014 meeting.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along the north side of East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

A detail of the louvers designed by Catherine Widgery. The etched glass panels will be attached to a metal frame.

Physical Infrastructure: Sewer Lining

The council will be asked to approve the award of a $1,566,121 construction contract with Lanzo Lining Services for the 2014 sewer lining project.

According to the staff memo accompanying this item, the project includes the lining of about 18,028 lineal feet of sanitary sewer and 2,942 lineal feet of storm sewer at 16 locations throughout the city. The memo describes sewer lining as a “trenchless technology which enables the pipe to be repaired without disturbing the surface above.”

Physical Infrastructure: Manholes

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to award a $47,193 contract to Fonson Inc. for the Eighth Street sanitary sewer manhole replacement project.

The manholes in question are described in the staff memo accompanying the project as “101 years old, composed of brick and … disintegrating.” The deterioration of the manholes is attributed to corrosion from sewer gases, vibration from traffic, decades of freeze/thaw cycles and variations in hydrostatic soil pressures. The deteriorated condition includes spalling, weakened mortar, missing bricks and excessive groundwater infiltration, according to the memo.

Physical Infrastructure: Water Main

The council will be asked to award a $1,324,357 construction contract to Douglas N. Higgins Inc. for the Arbor Oaks Phase II water main replacement project.

This project will replace the older water mains in the Bryant neighborhood. The water mains in the neighborhood are described in a staff memo as experiencing frequent breaks and in generally poor condition. The project will install 1,100 feet of 12-inch water main and 2,360 feet of 8-inch water main along Santa Rosa Drive, Jay Lee Court, Lucerne Court, Burlingame Court, Blain Court, Hardyke Court, and Bryant Elementary School property. Included in the project is the resurfacing of the street, replacement of some curb and gutter, and reconstruction of some storm sewer structures.

Physical Infrastructure: Fire Station Restrooms

Fire Station #3 is located on the city’s west side, on Jackson Road. Fire Station #4 is located on the city’s southeast side, on Huron Parkway. [Google Map of all five fire station locations]

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater

The skatepark is scheduled to have a grand opening on June 21 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Physical Infrastructure: Wastewater Study

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $62,800 contract with Black & Veatch Ltd. for a water & wastewater system capital cost recovery study.

Background to this contract is June 3, 2013 city council action to change the calculation of the water and sanitary improvement charges for properties connecting to city water mains or sanitary sewers – but only for a two-year period, from July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2015. The effect of the council’s action was to reduce the connection charges considerably. It was understood at the time that the two-year period would allow for the hiring of a consultant to review the city’s fees and charges for connections to the water and sanitary sewer systems and make recommendations for revision. That’s why the Black & Veatch item appears on the council’s June 16 agenda.

The principles at stake are described in the staff memo accompanying the item as follows:

When making future changes to improvement charges and connection fees, it is important that various competing elements are satisfied. The fees must be easy to explain and easy to understand to be accepted by the users. The fees must recover costs equitably. The fees must not result in either an undue burden on existing rate payers of the systems or an undue burden on new customers connecting to the systems. The fees must be easily understood and neither over recover costs nor under recover costs. Any under-recovery of costs would place undue and inequitable financial burdens on current rate payers. To meet these goals and gain the experiences of other utilities, it is desirable to contract with a consulting firm that has nationwide experience in this area.

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater Services

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve the amendment of a purchase order for stormwater services with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner.

The request of the council is to increase the amount of the existing contract with the water resources commissioner by $30,000. The existing contract was approved for FY 2011 for $69,215 with a 3% annual increase, which would have put the amount for FY 2014 and FY 2015 at $75,633 and $77,902, respectively. The council is being asked to approve funding at $105,633 and $107,902, for FY 2014 and FY 2015, respectively.

Informational Infrastructure: HR and Payroll Software

In 2007, the City installed a Human Resource and Payroll system called Ultipro, by Ultimate Software. The Ultipro system included modules for Recruiting, Benefits Administration, Human Resource Administration and Payroll. The City has experienced a variety of issues related to the underlying database architecture utilized by Ultimate Software. In addition, due to changes such as new legislative requirements, the increase in recruiting volume and the increase in manual data entry involved in benefits administration, the City has found the Ultipro system unable to meet its Human Resource needs.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, sidewalk construction would be done as part of the reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning just north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14. The project will also be adding on-street bike lanes and constructing a new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail to fill in existing sidewalk gaps and to provide pedestrian access to Olson Park and Dhu Varren Road. That’s a part of the city’s Complete Streets program.

In addition to the sidewalk, approximately 1,960 feet of curb and gutter is being added north of Skydale along Pontiac Trail to protect existing wetland areas. [.pdf of Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment area]

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Stone School Sidewalk

So the requested action of the council on June 16 will be to set a public hearing on the special assessment for July 7.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Barton Drive Sidewalk – Public Hearing

The city council had voted at its May 19, 2014 meeting to set the assessment roll and to schedule the public hearing for June 16.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Scio Church Sidewalk – Public Hearing

Another public hearing based on previous council action at its May 19 meeting will be held at the June 16 meeting – on the special assessment to fund construction of a sidewalk on Scio Church Road.

For the Scio Church sidewalk project, the total cost is expected to be $365,100. Of that, about $164,000 will be paid from a federal surface transportation grant. The remaining $201,100 will be paid out of the city’s general fund and by the special assessment of just $1,626.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Larchmont Traffic Calming

The council will be asked to approve a traffic calming project on Larchmont Drive at a cost of ~~$55,000~~ $8,800.

Larchmont traffic calming proposal: Three speed humps.

The action includes an appropriation for five other traffic calming projects, totaling $55,000.

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pedestrian Task Force Consultant

The council will be asked to approve a $75,000 contract with The Greenway Collaborative Inc. to support the work of the pedestrian safety and access task force as a facilitator.

The task force was established through a council resolution passed on Nov. 18, 2013. Confirmed as members of the task force on Jan. 21, 2014 were: Vivienne Armentrout, Neal Elyakin, Linda Diane Feldt, Jim Rees, Anthony Pinnell, Sarah Pressprich Gryniewicz, Kenneth Clark, Scott Campbell, and Owen Jansson. The group has begun to meet and has elected Feldt to chair the task force.

The resolution on the council’s June 16 meeting agenda comes after the council voted down a resolution at on April 7, 2014 that included a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations for the facilitation work. Project Innovations had been identified by staff as a contractor uniquely qualified to do the facilitation work. Project Innovations was familiar to city staff as the facilitator for a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study the city is currently conducting. But subsequently the city issued an RFP (requests for proposals) for the facilitation work. [.pdf of RFP No. 893]

Task force members participated in the selection process from among three respondents to the RFP. Besides Project Innovations and the Greenway Collaborative, ENP & Associates responded to the RFP. ENP is the consultant the city used for the recent review of downtown zoning.

Business Services

On the council’s agenda are two contracts that are approved annually – one for business development services and one for lobbying services.

Business Services: Ann Arbor SPARK

Ann Arbor city council budget deliberations FY 2015: 4 Hrs 45 Min by amendment topic.

SPARK is also the entity with which the local development finance authority (LDFA) contracts for business accelerator services.

One of the proposed amendments to the FY 2015 budget would have decreased the amount of funding to SPARK from the LDFA, resulting in an increase to the amount the LDFA would have reserved for future infrastructure projects. The second budget amendment debated on May 19 would have eliminated the $75,000 in the FY 2015 budget for the contract the council will be asked to approve as part of its June 16 agenda.

Business Services: GCSI Lobbying

As a part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $48,000 contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc. for lobbying services. According to the memo accompanying the item, GCSI has contributed to Ann Arbor’s efforts to increase state funding for fire protection, land-use planning, and parks and recreation projects. GCSI is also supposed to monitor issues currently pending before the legislature and advocate for the city’s specific interests. GCSI has done this kind of work for the city of Arbor since 2001.

GCSI also provides lobbying services for Washtenaw County, as well as other local municipalities. The city’s main liaison with GSCI is Kirk Profit, an Ann Arbor resident and former Michigan state legislator.

Downtown

The council will be handling several items on its June 16 agenda that relate to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority specifically, or the downtown area generally.

Downtown: DDA Budget Amendment

The council will be asked to approve a routine fiscal-year-end budget adjustment for the Ann Arbor DDA. The DDA board approved the adjustment at its June 4, 2014 meeting.

The main part of the adjustment is a $1.6 million payment made for the First & Washington parking garage, which is part of the City Apartments project. The amount was budgeted by the DDA for last year, but not paid until this year.

The DDA will end the fiscal year with $6,167,757 in fund balance. The breakdown of that total is: TIF ($619,571); Housing ($160,154); Parking ($2,161,676) and Parking Maintenance ($3,226,356).

Downtown: Affordable Housing Needs Assessment

Money from the city and DDA is being considered as “up to” amounts. Mary Jo Callan, director of the county’s office of economic and community development (OCED), told the DDA board at its June 4 meeting that $75,000 from a HUD Sustainable Communities grant would be the first money spent toward the assessment.

The RFP for the needs study describes the timeline for the work as including a draft for review due at the end of October 2014, with a final presentation due in mid-December.

(Not) Downtown: Streetlight LED Conversion

The annual electric bill from DTE for the 223 streetlights is currently $45,128. After conversion, the projected annual cost will be $30,910. The savings would result in about a 3.1-year payback period on the net cost of $55,060.

None of the streetlights to be converted are in the DDA district.

Streetlights in the DDA district were part of a similar proposal considered by the DDA board at its May 7, 2014 meeting, but postponed by the board at that meeting until June 4. By the time of the June 4 meeting, however, a decision had already been made that the DDA would not be funding an LED conversion this year. [DTE's program has an annual cycle, but is not necessarily offered every year.] If the DDA board had approved funding for converting lights in the DDA district, it would have affected 212 non-LED streetlights.

Currently, the city pays DTE $72,585 a year for the energy used by the 212 downtown streetlights. After conversion, the annual cost for the 212 lights would be expected to drop to $51,895, for an annual savings of $20,690.

Downtown: Zoning, Character District

Aerial view of 425 S. Main – outlined in green – between William and Packard. An alley separates the site from a residential neighborhood along South Fourth Avenue.

Both recommendations had been brought forward by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC). Members are Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

Those initial Dec. 3, 2013 recommendations from the planning commission had come in response to a previous direction from the city council, given at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. The council’s action in early 2013 came in response to the controversial 413 E. Huron development. The items on the council’s June 16, 2014 agenda are just the first of what are expected to be several other changes recommended by the planning commission.

That set of initial recommendations from the planning commission to the city council – which the council then accepted and for which the council asked the planning commission to draft ordinance language – included a proposal to rezone 425 S. Main to D2. However, those original recommendations had also called for a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street character overlay district – lower than the 100 feet put forward at the commission’s May 6 meeting. The site’s current zoning allows for a maximum height of 180 feet. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, set no limits on height.

At this time, no new development has been proposed for this site.

Downtown: Hotel Site Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Construction is estimated to cost $13 million.

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

Downtown: Bank of Ann Arbor Site Plan

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

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

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

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

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

Downtown: Liberty Plaza

Mayor John Hieftje and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) are sponsoring a resolution that would direct the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…”

Courts Human Services

On the council’s June 16 agenda are several items related to the criminal justice system, specifically for some of the specialty courts operated by the 15th District Court.

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve an amendment to a $76,242 contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services – for mental health treatment services to people who are participating in the sobriety court and the mental health court. Also on the consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $44,200 amendment to a contract with the Washtenaw County sheriff’s office to provide drug abuse screening and monitoring services for the mental health court.

The council will be asked to approve a $108,174 amendment to a contract with the nonprofit Dawn Farm for drug abuse counseling and rehabilitative services. And finally, the consent agenda includes a resolution for a $40,000 amendment to a contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court-appointed counsel to indigent defendants.

Recycling

The council’s June 16 agenda includes three items related to recycling.

Recycling: RAA Multifamily Pilot

The council will be asked to approve a two-year $95,694 contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for a recycling incentive program for multi-family residential units.

This item is based on the city’s solid waste plan, which the city council adopted at its Oct. 7, 2013 meeting. The plan includes evaluating methods to increase recycling participation through pilot programs. Among those methods is the introduction of a recycling incentive program for multi‐family housing units.

According to the staff memo accompanying this item, a manual sort of waste conducted in the fall of 2012 found that only 12% of the trash that single-family residents threw away was recyclable, compared to 26% of the trash that multi-family residents threw away.

The completion of the pilot program is expected in December 2016.

According to the memo, Recycle Ann Arbor’s proposal includes:

Gather information on best multi-family recycling practices in North America.
Survey and/or interview key multi-family constituencies in Ann Arbor to better understand the challenges and opportunities for recycling in this sector. Based on feedback received, develop 3 to 5 methodologies for further testing and analysis.
Identify pilot parameters and measurement protocols.
Identify pilot communities to involve in the pilot programs (ultimately targeting approximately 1,000 units) and ramp up pilot start-up.
Implement pilot programs.
Analyze results of pilot programs.
Provide detailed recommendations to the City on best practices and report results to participating multi-family communities.

Methodologies that will be tested as part of the pilot will include the following:

Recycling rewards program: Evaluate if a recycling rewards program would be effective in improving recycling participation rates in multi-family locations
Indoor collection bins: Most multi-family locations share outdoor recycling bins. Determine if the provision of indoor recycling bins would help increase recycling rates.
Multi-family recycling leader program: Determine if the use of recycling leaders at individual locations would help increase recycling rates.
300-gallon recycling cart: Determine if the use of 300-gallon carts instead of the standard 96-gallon cart would help increase recycling.

Recycling: Baler Infeed Conveyor Repair

According to a staff memo accompanying the item, the belt was last replaced in 2007, and has worn out. Such conveyors are described in the memo as lasting five to seven years.

Recycling: RAA Student Move-out Services

As part of its consent agenda, the council will be asked to approve a $35,000 annual contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for services associated with the move-out of University of Michigan students.

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!

Downtown Zoning Revisions Move Forward

Mary Morgan — Wed, 14 May 2014 17:25:15 +0000

Ann Arbor planning commission meeting (May 6, 2014): A four-hour meeting was dominated by two topics: revisions to downtown zoning, and the rezoning of land used for public housing.

From left: Ray Detter, Hugh Sonk and Christine Crockett. At the planning commission’s May 6 meeting, they all spoke against a 100-foot height limit for the 425 S. Main site. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend rezoning a large parcel at the southeast corner of Main and William – another step in a review of downtown zoning that began last year under direction from the city council. The recommendation is to rezone the site at 425 S. Main from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface), a lower-density zoning. Currently, a two-story 63,150-square-foot office building – where DTE offices are located – stands on the southern part of that site, with a surface parking lot on the north portion.

In a separate action, commissioners were split on adding new requirements to the Main Street character district, where 425 S. Main is located – but that recommendation was approved. The commission voted 6-3 to recommend changes that include setting a maximum height of 100 feet for properties in that district that are zoned D2, and requiring upper story stepbacks from any residential property lines. That maximum is 40 feet taller than the 60-foot height limit specified for D2 zoning elsewhere in the downtown. Dissenting were Sabra Briere, Ken Clein and Jeremy Peters. Briere serves as the city council’s representative to the planning commission.

During deliberations on May 6, Briere pointed out that the 60-foot maximum height had been cited specifically in the city council directive, and she opposed raising that height limit. The 425 S. Main property would be the only D2 site in the Main Street character district, if the city council approves the rezoning recommendation. Because the requirements would apply to just one site, it seemed like spot zoning to Briere.

Neighbors and others had previously raised concerns that D1 zoning – which allows the highest level of density downtown – would result in a negative impact to that part of town, and had supported downzoning to D2. Several neighborhood advocates attended the May 6 meeting and again supported D2 rezoning, but strongly opposed the 100-foot maximum height.

Andy Klein, one of the property owners of 425 S. Main, also attended the meeting, saying that the site would be unbuildable with D2 zoning and a 60-foot height limit, and that the property’s value would be destroyed. He supported the 100-foot maximum.

Members of the commission’s ordinance revisions committee – which brought forward the proposal – defended it, saying that the combination of D2 zoning with a taller height would allow for more flexible design and less massive structures.

At this time, no new development has been proposed for this site. The recommendations approved on May 6 will be forwarded to the city council for consideration. In the coming months, the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee will tackle other aspects of the council’s downtown zoning directive.

The other major item on the May 6 agenda related to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, as part of its major initiative to upgrade the city’s public housing units by seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits. Planning commissioners recommended rezoning for three AAHC properties: (1) Baker Commons, at the southeast corner of Main and Packard, from public land to D2 (downtown interface); (2) Green/Baxter Court Apartments, at the northwest corner of Green and Baxter roads, from public land to R4A (multi-family dwelling district); and (3) Maple Meadows at 800-890 S. Maple, from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district).

AAHC director Jennifer Hall explained that PL (public land) zoning doesn’t allow housing to be built on it. As AAHC seeks private funding to rehab its properties, it needs to ensure if a building burns down, for example, it could be rebuilt. In general that’s why the rezoning is being requested. It’s also being requested to align the zoning with the current uses of the property. Hall stressed that the highest priority properties to be rezoned are Baker Commons, Green/Baxter and Maple Meadows, because investors have already been found to renovate those sites.

Two other properties were also on the agenda for rezoning: Mallett’s Creek Court, at 2670-2680 S. Main; and 805-807 W. Washington, on the southwest corner of Washington and Mulholland. About a dozen neighbors of Mallett’s Creek Court spoke about concerns that the vacant part of the parcel, adjacent to Cranbrook Park, would be sold or developed. Hall assured them that there’s no intent to sell, and in fact federal regulations that govern pubic housing prevent such a sale. She said AAHC hadn’t been aware that the vacant land, which includes a wooded area, was part of the parcel until they started the rezoning process. There are no plans to develop that side of the parcel.

Neighbors of the West Washington property are concerned about the amount of impervious surface on that site, and chronic flooding problems in that area.

Action on West Washington and Mallett’s Creek Court properties was postponed by the commission. AAHC and city staff will continue to evaluate these two properties, which will likely return to the planning commission for consideration at a later date.

In other action, planning commissioners recommended the annexation of an 0.22-acre lot at 375 Glenwood Street – currently in Scio Township – and to zone the site as R1C (single-family dwelling district), which matches the zoning of surrounding sites. It’s located on the west side of Glenwood, south of Dexter Road.

And commissioners held a public hearing on a master plan update, as part of an annual review process. Only one person – Changming Fan – spoke during the hearing, asking the commission to include his company’s technology in the master plan.

The master plan resolution that commissioners will vote on at their next meeting, on May 20, will highlight work that the commission intends to undertake in the coming year that’s related to master planning efforts. That work includes the Washtenaw Avenue and North Main corridor plans; helping the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority develop a streetscape framework; and helping implement the city’s sustainability action plan.

Downtown Zoning

Two items on the May 6 agenda related to an ongoing process of making revisions to the city’s downtown zoning. Planning commissioners were asked to consider rezoning a large parcel at the southeast corner of Main and William – at 425 S. Main – from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface), a lower-density zoning. Currently, a two-story 63,150-square-foot office building – where DTE offices are located – stands on the southern part of that site, with a surface parking lot on the north portion. [.pdf of staff memo on 425 S. Main rezoning]

Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff, who’s been working on downtown zoning revisions.

In a separate item, commissioners weighed new requirements to the Main Street character overlay district, where 425 S. Main is located. The changes include setting a maximum height of 100 feet for properties in that district that are zoned D2, and requiring upper story setbacks from any residential property. [.pdf of staff memo on overlay district]

These recommendations had been brought forward by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC). Members are Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

In response to a council directive, the planning commission had studied and developed a broader set of eight recommendations for zoning changes in specific parts of the downtown. The overall intent was in large part to buffer near-downtown residential neighborhoods. The commission had unanimously approved those original recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting.

That set of recommendations included a proposal to rezone 425 S. Main to D2. However, those original recommendations had also called for a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street character overlay district – lower than the 100 feet put forward on May 6. The site’s current zoning allows for a maximum height of 180 feet. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, set no limits on height.

The city council voted to accept the planning commission’s recommendations on Jan. 21, 2014 – and directed the planning commission to begin implementing changes by proposing specific rezoning or ordinance revisions.

At this time, no new development has been proposed for this site.

Alexis DiLeo, a city planner who’s been working with the ORC on this effort, presented the staff report on May 6. She said the ORC met four times and approached this task “holistically,” and considered many alternatives – including the option of keeping the zoning as D1 and possibly rezoning other properties too. In the end, the recommendation is to rezone 425 S. Main to D2.

DiLeo noted that the city’s downtown plan recommends D1 zoning for that site, although the plan also has goals that address the livability of residential neighborhoods adjacent to downtown, and that encourage sensitivity to that development context.

The historic downtown area is located to the north and west of the 425 S. Main site, but to the east, separated by an alley, is a residential neighborhood zoned R4C. To the south is land that’s currently zoned public land – the site of the Baker Commons public housing complex, at the southeast corner of Packard and Main. But DiLeo noted that the planning commission had earlier that night recommended to change the Baker Commons zoning to D2. [That discussion is reported below.]

Sketch by city planner Alexis DiLeo showing proposed stepbacks for D2-zoned properties in the Main Street character district.

Separately, the ORC was recommending text amendments to the zoning ordinance – Chapter 55 of the city code – for D2 parcels in the Main Street character overlay district. The changes would result in a reduction of the allowable floor-area for this parcel from 400% (or up to 700% with premiums) to 200% (or up to 400% 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%.]

If the site is rezoned, it would be the first D2 lot in the Main Street overlay district. The amendment would set a maximum height of 100 feet, and minimum side and rear setbacks.

DiLeo reported that the ORC evaluated several approaches to limiting the visual and shading impact on the residential district east of the 425 S. Main site. She noted that planning staff suggested an approach based on research regarding setbacks in the city code for Toronto, Canada. That city – which she pointed out is within one degree of Ann Arbor’s latitude – has a 45-degree stepback requirement. The requirement results in an angle that allows sunlight to reach the sidewalk during the seasons and times of day when people are most likely to be out walking, she said.

The stepbacks would apply to any D2 site that’s within 25 feet of residentially zoned property, and would be applied to any floors above the fourth floor of a building – which would be considered a “tower,” for purposes of the zoning code. Above the fourth floor, each additional floor would need to be set back from the edge of the floor below, based on a distance equal to the floor’s height. These upper floors could be designed like a stairstep, or could have a uniform setback – that is, with all floors above the fourth floor having the exact same setback from the edge of the fourth floor.

The ORC also recommended a 100-foot height limit. DiLeo noted that directly across Main Street to the west is the Ashley Mews building, which is about 110 feet tall. To the north, the properties are zoned D1, with a maximum height of 180 feet. The residential district to the east has a maximum height of 30 feet. The ORC’s recommendation of a 100-foot limit at 425 S. Main is roughly in the middle of the 180-foot limit to the north and the 30-foot residential limit to the east, DiLeo said.

For additional background on this downtown zoning review, 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: Public Hearing – D2 Rezoning

Seven people spoke during the public hearing on the proposed D2 rezoning.

Eppie Potts told commissioners that rezoning the 425 S. Main site to D2 was in keeping with public input and the committee work that had been done for months leading up to the original set of recommendations. So she supported that.

Aerial view of 425 S. Main – outlined in green – between William and Packard. An alley separates the site from a residential neighborhood along South Fourth Avenue.

Ray Detter said he was speaking on behalf of the downtown area citizens advisory council. In the past few weeks, he’s gotten calls from people concerned about the rezoning of Baker Commons. He had assured them that the Baker Commons site would be rezoned D2. But now, he’s learning that it would be coupled with a character area that would allow a 100 feet height, rather than 60 feet. [Baker Commons is actually located in a different character district.]

Detter said the citizens advisory council supports D2 as an interface, and their understanding is that the city council wants the height limit to be 60 feet. He suggested that a developer could use the planned project zoning to get additional height, rather than have a 100-foot limit – that’s the approach being taken at 618 S. Main. “We don’t really know where that 100 feet came from – it was not a part of the recommendation to city council,” Detter said, adding that “D2 to us means 60 feet.” He contended that’s what the consultants advised, too.

Detter also objected that ORC meetings were not well-publicized, so people like him didn’t know about the meetings and weren’t able to provide input.

Christine Crockett reminded commissioners that the reason these downtown zoning revisions were undertaken was, at least in part, because of the community’s alarm about very tall “behemoth” buildings going up next to residential neighborhoods. She took issue with the staff report mentioning the Ashley Mews building. She pointed out that it’s not adjacent to a residential district. She said she tried to go to all the ORC meetings “but they are a deep, dark secret.” She’d gone to two of the meetings, but thought the tenor was that the planning commission would adopt what the council had directed them to do – zoning the buffer areas to D2. Crockett also contended that the public and the consultants, ENP & Associates, had recommended D2 at 60 feet.

[By way of background, ENP did not recommend rezoning 425 S. Main to D2. From the report: "...our recommendation is to keep the D1 zoning on the site but with modifications to the maximum height and the addition of diagonal requirements." The maximum height recommendation was 150 feet. .pdf of ENP & Associates report]

Saying that he supported rezoning the site to D2, Steve Kaplan expressed concerns about the overlay district. Having an overlay district that allows for a 100-foot building height fails to achieve the desired effect of protecting the smaller houses to the east, he said. Kaplan noted that he previously owned the parcels that were assembled to build Ashley Mews. That lot is more than triple the size of the 425 S. Main site, he said. The Ashley Mews development took care to ensure that the highest part of the structure was as far away from the Old West Side residential neighborhood as possible, he said. The west side of Ashley Mews, which has only four floors, should be used for comparison – not the Main Street side, which is significantly taller.

From left: Andy Klein, representing the owners of 425 S. Main, and architect Scott Bonney.

Scott Bonney introduced himself as an architect with Neumann/Smith Architects, who’ve been hired by one of the owners of 425 S. Main, Andy Klein, to review the proposed zoning revisions. He said his firm has designed Zaragon West, Zaragon Place, the YMCA and several other projects in Ann Arbor. He noted that the original A2D2 zoning process had designated density along Main Street, and the site was zoned D1 with a 180-foot height limit and up to 900% FAR with affordable housing premiums. The recommendation from ENP & Associates also was for D1, Bonney pointed out, with a height limit reduced to 150 feet, with a 50-foot diagonal requirement that would effectively reduce the size of a tower.

He thought the ORC’s recommendation might be appropriate – for D2 zoning with a 100-foot height. He noted that the D2 zoning calls for 80% maximum lot coverage, compared to 100% allowed for D1. That’s a “huge difference,” he said. D2 also requires 10% of the lot as open space. These things will protect the residential neighborhood and reduce the volume of the building, he said.

The city’s intent – reflected by allowing the Ashley Mews project – is to enhance the walkability and vitality of Main Street by continuing density south of William, Bonney said. Right across the street to the north of 425 S. Main is a vacant city-owned parking lot zoned D1, he noted, which could have a building that’s 180 feet tall. Bonney thought the ORC’s recommendation was appropriate, and provided transitional zoning while protecting the residential neighborhood.

Hugh Sonk said he wanted to address the issue of “messing with the size limitations” in D1 and D2. In the past, any changes have resulted in lowering the height, not increasing it, he said. The community has bought into the idea of D2 having a 60-foot height limit, he added. If it’s higher than that, it’s a disservice to the community. What if someone comes and wants to build a 250-foot building on a D1-zoned site? A 100-foot height in D2 throws out all the previous work that was done on these zoning revisions, he said. Regarding Ashley Mews, Sonk said the average height on that site is probably closer to 50 feet, if you look at the townhouses and the taller Main Street building.

One of the owners of 425 S. Main, Andy Klein, called it an interesting process in which “everybody and anybody seems to understand the best way to redevelop your site.” The property was developed about 30 years ago during a recession by his family and others, at substantial financial risk, he said. This parcel has been singled out because other sites that are being developed have received a negative reaction from the community, Klein said.

The 425 S. Main site is unique, Klein noted. ENP & Associates had recommended keeping it D1 because it’s part of a gateway to downtown – a special, transitional site. That’s why applying D2 with a 60-foot limitation doesn’t work, he said. But 100 feet does work, he added, and is consistent with the area. It also protects the residential neighborhood by stepping back the higher floors. Even at the 100-foot height, the D2 zoning reduces the buildable square feet by almost 60%, and significantly reduces the development of the parcel, compared to D1 zoning. “It’s not great. I don’t particularly like it,” he said. “But I can live with it and I can still in the future do something unique and valuable for the city.”

If the height limit is set at 60 feet, “I’m going to end up with a non-buildable parcel that pretty much the value’s been destroyed,” Klein concluded.

Downtown Zoning: Commission Discussion – D2 Rezoning

Jeremy Peters asked what would happen if the D2 rezoning were approved, but not the changes to the Main Street character district. Bonnie Bona, a member of the ORC, replied that there would be no height limit in that case – because the character overlay district is what sets the height maximum.

Diane Giannola.

Responding to comments at the public hearing, Bona noted that the ENP & Associates report had recommended D1 zoning for this parcel, not D2, and had recommended reducing the height limit from 180 feet to 150 feet when within 20 feet of a residentially zoned area. It was the planning commission and city council that had later recommended D2 zoning and a 60-foot height at 425 S. Main, she said.

Bona clarified with Alexis DiLeo that the site’s previous zoning was C2A, which had no height limit at 660% floor-area ratio (FAR). It’s now D1, with a by-right FAR of 400% and up to 900% FAR with premiums. The height, as specified in the overlay character district, is limited to 180 feet.

Diane Giannola asked a procedural question – because she wanted to discuss the resolution for the character overlay along with the D2 zoning, or address the overlay resolution first. “Some of our decisions might be based on how the discussion goes for both of those,” she said.

Ken Clein thought the issue of D2 was simply whether the site was a downtown interface – between the downtown core and residential neighborhoods. If it is, then it should be zoned D2, he said. It’s the character overlay district that determines factors like height, setbacks and massing, he said. Clein added that he’d be happy to discuss the two issues in any order, but to him, the D2 zoning was straightforward.

Giannola said discussing D2 separately and first makes it difficult for commissioners who are on the fence about D2, because the character overlay district is a compromise. For her, D2 zoning with a 60-foot height limit would be giving people what they don’t want – a big, massive building, lot-line-to-lot-line that would be 60 feet tall. The compromise of 100 feet is more what people want, she said. It wouldn’t be possible to build a 100-foot-tall building lot-line-to-lot-line, because FAR and setbacks would keep it in check, she said. So for her, the two items are linked and she wouldn’t support D2 unless she knew what would be in the character overlay district.

From left: Commissioners Bonnie Bona and Eleanore Adenekan.

Bona said one of the hardest parts of the city zoning code is the concept of floor-area ratio. The public commentary keeps focusing on height, but the most important issue for this site is the question of FAR. Should it be 200% FAR by right, with 400% for premiums? Or 400% by right, with a maximum of 700% for premiums? “The buildings that have caused the angst in town are at that maximum floor area,” Bona said.

Bona thought it was a question of floor area. She said it’s clear to her that in the master plan, any place that’s adjacent to a residential neighborhood should be an interface zone – that is, D2. She said she’d fight for that.

Peters moved to postpone the item about D2 zoning until after the commission considered the resolution regarding the Main Street character district.

Clein pointed out that most people during the public hearing had supported D2, including the property owner. It seemed like it would be counterproductive not to zone it D2, he said.

Outcome: The move to postpone the D2 zoning item until later in the meeting passed on a 7-2 vote, over dissent from Bona and Clein. That meant the planning commission considered the Main Street character district before acting on the zoning.

Downtown Zoning: Public Hearing – Main Street Character District

The commission then held a public hearing about revisions to the Main Street character district. Seven people spoke, including six people who’d spoken during the previous public hearing on D2 zoning. They re-emphasized themes from their previous comments.

Ray Detter said this whole process is trying to fix mistakes of the A2D2 zoning. The D1 zoning of 425 S. Main had been a mistake, he said. The concern is that if the city starts messing with the concept of D2, making it something other than 60 feet for a height limit, where does it stop? Detter said planned projects are a good approach, rather than character overlay districts – the 618 S. Main project is a good example.

Ray Detter spoke on behalf of the downtown area citizens advisory council.

Eppie Potts thought the proposed overlay district is undercutting the work that was done in developing the proposed zoning revisions. “This is a proposal to change what D2 means,” she said. “A hundred foot height is not D2.” She didn’t think D2 should vary based on its location within the city. Potts called it an “unprecedented playing games with zoning.”

Steve Kaplan said he wasn’t sure what the character overlay concept means. If the idea is to preserve the vibrant restaurant and retail character of Main Street, he noted that most of the buildings are three or four floors. There are only a couple of exceptions to that, he said. Six stories – which would be possible with a 60-foot height limit – is a lot of density, he said, and would more than triple what’s currently on the site.

Hugh Sonk expressed concern that by having a 100-foot height limit, it would mess with buildable FAR on the site. He hoped commissioners could address that, to mitigate the fear that some people might have. He thought the community expected that D2 would have a 60-foot height limit.

In talking about zoning, Christine Crockett said it’s not just about a vibrant Main Street. It’s also about having a vibrant place to live. Zoning needs to work synergistically, she said, so that Ann Arbor doesn’t just have “a nice touristy atmosphere where we get the North Woodward crowd on the weekend, and the rest of the time it’s dead.” It’s about having people live and work and find their entertainment downtown. The downtown area citizens advisory council, on which she serves, recently talked about how the change to downtown – lots of restaurants, rather than a variety of other stores that used to be downtown – is posing all sorts of problems, including contributing to global warming. Everyone talks about density, like it’s “some great nirvana of urban planning paradise,” she said. Vibrancy is about the whole picture, and residential neighborhoods shouldn’t be compromised.

Scott Bonney, the architect working with the owner of 425 S. Main, said that many cities have a more stepped approach, with a gradual increase in height as you move farther away from the core urban area. In Ann Arbor, the overlay districts attempt to fine-tune that, he said. So there’s a level of granularity that exists in the overlay districts. He noted that he hasn’t been hired to design anything yet. But if he were asked to design a building there, he’d probably place emphasis on the north side of the site, with low density on the south. “It wants to be part of downtown, if it’s a tall thing,” he said. “It wants to be low if it’s to the south side.” He suggested that the stepbacks might be oriented north to south. Also, the requirement of 80% maximum lot coverage and 10% minimum open space for D2 will do a great deal to make a building with much less impact, compared to D1 zoning.

Pat Martz told commissioners she lived on South Ashley, and can see Baker Commons from her window. Looking up to Main Street, the buildings loom, she said. Even if floors are stepped back from the street, they’ll still loom over the neighborhood to the west. The Old West Side residential neighborhood is lower than Main Street. People tend to avoid walking south on Main, she said – when you reach William, you turn east or west, because the buildings are already too tall and it’s not friendly. There are no eyes on the street, and the buildings are too close to the sidewalk, she said. Character overlays will result in “planning chaos,” she said. And D2 already offers plenty of density, Martz said. “I would say to go to moderation.”

Downtown Zoning: Commission Discussion – Main Street Character District

Before turning to the specific discussion on the character district, Kirk Westphal asked staff to respond to allegations made about the ORC meetings, to review how the meetings are publicized. Planning manager Wendy Rampson replied that the meetings are posted on the city’s planning and development website, and sent to the clerk’s office for noticing. Announcements of committee meetings are not emailed out through the city’s email alert system, she said, nor are they posted on Legistar. The meetings are open to the public, although there are typically less than a quorum of commissioners present. Westphal noted that the media [The Ann Arbor Chronicle] have attended some of the committee meetings.

Kirk Westphal.

Westphal said the commissioners depend on public input, so if there are specific parts of the process that are failing, then those should be brought to the attention of the staff and commission.

Westphal also said there’d been insinuations about negotiations or behind-the-scenes dealings, “and I find those objectionable.” If there are specific instances or concerns, those should be brought to the attention of staff or the appropriate city councilmembers, he said.

Bonnie Bona addressed what she called the continuing confusion of floor-area ratio (FAR) versus height. The floor-area ratio of D2 is consistent throughout downtown. D2 has a 200% maximum FAR, 400% with premiums – that’s true for any property zoned D2. The different character areas modify how the building can be shaped, she explained. You can’t add more square footage based on the character overlay, but you can shape it differently.

The process of reviewing downtown zoning – including input from the public and the ENP & Associates report – considered stepbacks from residential neighborhoods, Bona said, with the focus primarily on East Huron. Other ideas included the use of diagonals, which would result in towers that are tall and thin, rather than buildings that are shorter and squat. But diagonals directly conflict with height limits, Bona noted.

The proposed change to the Main Street character district for D2 properties calls for a maximum base building height of four stories, with stepbacked floors allowed above that. For D2 sites in other character districts, a 60-foot building height is allowed, she noted – so a building could have a 60-foot wall without stepbacks. The Main Street character district wouldn’t allow a building to go straight up that high from the property line, she said.

It would be simple to just set a 60-foot height limit, Bona continued, but the planning commission and city council have wanted to explore the use of diagonals and stepbacks, Bona said. “So this was an opportunity to do that, to provide that nuance.” Zoning to a 60-foot height on the 425 S. Main site would probably mean a developer would use a planned project approach, similar to the 618 S. Main building, she said. [A planned project is one that seeks variations in height and setbacks.] The ORC really struggled with this issue, she added.

Sabra Briere.

Sabra Briere wondered why the ORC didn’t recommend D1, with a character district that sets the building height at 100 feet. That would be in keeping with other character districts in D1, and with the ENP & Associates report. In the past, the city has modified D1 to have shorter heights, but have never modified D2 to have taller heights, she said. “This is a jarring note,” Briere added, especially because the resolution from council that directed this work specified D2 at 60 feet.

Briere was also concerned that having only one parcel zoned D2 in the Main Street character district seems like spot zoning. Why didn’t the ORC recommend that it be part of the First Street character district, where other D2 parcels are located?

In addition, Briere wanted to know how the ordinance language would describe the 45-degree stepbacks. She’d originally thought it was intended to be east-to-west, but the architect, Scott Bonney, had indicated using the stepbacks north-to-south. If the ordinance doesn’t specify the orientation, she wasn’t sure what it would accomplish.

Responding to Briere, Westphal said the ORC didn’t include in its scope a redefinition of the character district boundaries – that’s why the 425 S. Main site remains in the Main Street character district. Setting the boundaries of the character districts had been done as part of A2D2, he noted, and people spent a couple of years looking at it.

Bona said the ORC looked at adjacent properties that might be appropriate for rezoning to D2, but “we couldn’t justify that.” She didn’t consider it spot zoning, since there were D2 properties adjacent to it. The overlay districts “are more of a nuance,” Bona added.

Regarding stepbacks, Bona said the only reason for them would be for the side that’s adjacent to residential property. For 425 S. Main, there would be no stepback requirements for the north, west or south sides. The concept of having a tower on the north side and stepbacks on the east would only work with a 100-foot height, she said – unless a developer wanted to go through a planned project, which allows for variations in height and setbacks. Bona pointed out that if the city wanted to force a developer to build a tower on the north side with stepbacks on the east side, they’d have to write that specifically into the character district requirements.

Westphal added that there’s nothing prohibiting a building from stepping back on the other sides. It’s simply required only on the east side.

Wendy Woods.

Diane Giannola, another ORC member, pointed out that a 100-foot building on a site zoned D1 would not be the same as a 100-foot building on a D2 lot. The shape and size – based on FAR – would be different. So if the 425 S. Main zoning is left as D1 yet the height is lowered to 100 feet, that could result in a bigger building than a 100-foot height with D2 zoning, she noted.

Wendy Woods, describing herself as another member of the “infamous ORC committee,” said it’s difficult to distill hours of discussion that took place during committee meetings. She apologized for those who couldn’t find the meeting times, and said the committee would try to make those meetings more visible in the future.

Responding to Briere, Woods said the reason the ORC was recommending D2 is because the site is an interface area, very near a residential neighborhood, and they were trying to be sensitive to that. She didn’t think it’s spot zoning. Although character district requirements haven’t received much attention, Woods said, they’ve been in place since A2D2 was approved in 2009. By modifying the Main Street character district, “we’re just using one of the many tools as a planning commission to really try to be sensitive to what we’re hearing,” Woods said.

Woods also stressed the need to be sensitive to the property owner of the site that’s being rezoned. “God bless him – because if people were talking about something I owned and acted as if I don’t have much of a say in it, I know I’d be sitting on my hands or zipping my lip trying to not react.”

Everyone who lives in Ann Arbor wants it to be a place where their children and grandchildren will want to live, Woods said, and no one has a corner on that attitude. As a volunteer group, the planning commission is doing the best it can, she added. They hope to get it right, Woods said, but when they don’t, “that’s why we send it on to city council – so they can then make changes. So the buck stops there.”

Paras Parekh.

Paras Parekh asked the ORC members to explain the advantages of their proposal, compared to the city council’s directive – based on previous planning commission recommendations – to pursue D2 zoning with a 60-foot height limit for this site.

Giannola replied that the main advantage is that D2 with a 100-foot height limit would result in a better-shaped building. If the height is limited to 60 feet, she said, the odds are that you’ll get a 60-foot high, blocky building.

Westphal said that the city council hasn’t encouraged planned projects, which allow for variation in height and setback. Rather, there’s a desire for a more predictable process, he added, and to encode in zoning what they’d like to see built.

Briere said that Westphal’s recollection is accurate for the time when there was still the opportunity to do a planned unit development (PUD) or planned project. The council at that time, including mayor John Hieftje, preferred PUDs over planned projects because PUDs offered more flexibility, she said.

But when A2D2 zoning changes were implemented, many councilmembers at the time felt that the creation of D1 and D2 zoning eliminated the need to have PUDs downtown, “because the zoning now allows the very types of things we were encouraging planned unit developments to produce,” she said. In that context, planned projects returned to the forefront in a positive way, she added, to allow developers to have design flexibility within D1 or D2 zoning.

Bona said she thought the city council resolution that directed the planning commission’s work had mentioned the idea of revisiting diagonals, and looking at steps to reduce shading to adjacent residential properties. That was part of the discussion at the ORC meetings, she said. The ORC felt it would be important to look at those issues downtown-wide, not on a parcel-by-parcel basis. That was especially true for diagonals, she said, because it directly conflicts with height limits. But the ORC felt that stepbacks could be tried at that location because of the narrow nature of the 425 S. Main site, she said. A building that’s 60 feet tall next to a residential neighborhood is still pretty tall, she said. So this was an opportunity to try something in one location without being disruptive.

As a designer, Bona said, she thinks a stepback is a better solution than a planned project. But you can’t really do a stepback with a 60-foot height limit. “We have to give them some flexibility to move that square footage somewhere,” Bona said.

Sabra Briere.

Briere indicated that she didn’t find any reference to diagonals in the council resolution. She said she couldn’t get past this specific statement in the council resolution: “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.” [.pdf of full resolution, as approved by city council on Jan. 21, 2014]

“That’s the resolution,” Briere said, adding that she couldn’t “get past the fact that we don’t have that result in front of us today.”

A maximum height of 100 feet for D2 exceeds everyone’s understanding of what D2 zoning is, Briere said. So the proposed changes to the Main Street character district are inconsistent with anything else that’s been done before, she added. “It’s not predictable, it’s not consistent, it’s not reliable – it’s just not all those things we’ve said zoning needs to be.”

The community has chosen to have height limits, Briere said.

Giannola asked about the East Huron character district, which has a different height limit for D1 than for D1 sites in other character districts. How is that different than what’s being proposed for the Main Street character district? she asked.

Briere said that when D1 height limits have varied, it has varied to a lower height limit. “And here we are varying D2 up,” she said, so the difference between D1 and D2 “becomes really mushy.” She acknowledged that there was a difference in FAR, but she described that as “inside baseball.”

Giannola pointed out that zoning isn’t just about height. “I know people think that, but we don’t think that,” she said.

Briere replied that perhaps if she knew the ORC’s broader vision, it might be clear. But she was just seeing a single proposal, and “varying upward by right makes me very uncomfortable.” She would be more comfortable with D2 at 60 feet, then allowing for a planned project if a developer wanted greater height.

Eleanore Adenekan asked Briere whether she wanted to make an amendment, so that the commission could vote it up or down. “This is getting to be rather much,” Adenekan said. [It was approaching 11 p.m.] No, Briere said. She’d be more inclined to just vote no on the proposed resolution.

Bona pointed out that the council resolution had indeed mentioned diagonals and stepbacks, though not directly tied to the 425 S. Main parcel. From the resolution: “Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District to 120 feet, include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north.”

Bona said the north side of East Huron is a far more sensitive area to massing and height, compared to 425 S. Main – because residential properties are north of D1 sites on East Huron, and sun comes from the south. If council would accept this for the northern side of Huron, it should only be easier to accept it for 425 S. Main, Bona said.

Ken Clein.

Westphal said there’s been dissatisfaction with the bulkiness of buildings in D1, and there’s been talk about possibly making those buildings narrower and raising the height in D1 as a way of decreasing the shading on neighbors. So this hasn’t been the only time they’ve talked about potentially revising height upward, he said.

If the planning commission believes that height limits are the problem, Briere replied, “then I would rather see all of this come back at once with that addressed, rather than doing this piecemeal.” If the planning commission is going to have a coherent discussion about height limits, it would be best to address it at one time, she said. If the intent of the current proposal is to encourage less blocky buildings, “that is a point of discussion – but not a discussion I want to have multiple times.”

Parekh asked members of the ORC whether the proposal for 425 S. Main would also be appropriate for Kerrytown or First Street character districts. He said he was trying to build a case for consistency. Westphal replied that the planning commission was directed by the city council to look at specific sites, coming on the heels of a comprehensive A2D2 rezoning just a few years ago. The planning commission could look at all character districts, Westphal said, but that wasn’t the directive from council.

Giannola pointed out that 425 S. Main was a very large lot, and one that’s fairly unique in the downtown area.

Clein agreed that it’s a unique parcel, which he said might account for why it’s so difficult to deal with. He felt that the ORC was proposing a unique solution. The challenge from a zoning perspective is that it’s not consistent with any of the surrounding Main Street properties, so it creates a situation that seems like a precedent, he said. Someone else could also argue that other properties are unique, he noted, so “it’s a slippery slope.”

Clein said there’s also concern about the zoning on the east side of Main Street, north of William – but the council hasn’t directed the planning commission to look at that, he noted. Architecturally, he didn’t think 100 feet was a terrible thing. With the D2 zoning and proposed stepbacks, it would be very difficult for anyone to build something over four stories – beyond that, it would get very expensive, he said.

In December, when the planning commission made its recommendations to the council, they’d agreed that the site should be D2 at 60 feet, Clein noted. They had not discussed the possibility of it going higher, so he was hesitant to approve a 100-foot height at this point.

Westphal wrapped up the discussion by saying that this proposal allows for flexibility while removing a significant amount of floor-area ratio that’s been assumed for this property for decades. He was pretty happy with the outcome. Everyone had anticipated that the A2D2 process would need some tweaks, he said, but not a complete overhaul. “I think it’s better than what it is now,” he said. “And sometimes better is better.”

Outcome: On a 6-3 vote, the commission recommended approval of the proposed changes to the Main Street character district, with a 100-foot height limit for D2 properties. Dissenting were Sabra Briere, Ken Clein and Jeremy Peters.

Downtown Zoning: Commission Discussion – D2 Rezoning

Commissioners then returned to the item regarding D2 rezoning for 425 S. Main, which they had voted to postpone earlier in the meeting. There was no additional discussion.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to recommend rezoning 425 S. Main to D2. Both recommendations will be forwarded to council.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties

Five properties that provide public housing were on the agenda to be considered for rezoning. The sites are part of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s major initiative to upgrade the city’s public housing units by seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

All but one of the sites are currently zoned as public land, and are owned by the city of Ann Arbor. The agenda listed these five original rezoning requests:

Baker Commons: Requested rezoning from public land to D2 (downtown interface). The 0.94-acre lot is located at 106 Packard Street, at the intersection with South Main, in Ward 5. It includes a 64-unit apartment building.
Green/Baxter Court Apartments: Requested rezoning from public land to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The 2-acre site is located at 1701-1747 Green Road and contains 23 apartments in four buildings and a community center. This site was damaged by fire in January 2014, so part of it will be rebuilt. It’s in Ward 2.
Maple Meadows: Requested rezoning from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site is 3.4 acres at 800-890 South Maple Road and contains 29 apartments in five buildings and a community center. It’s located in Ward 5.
Mallett’s Creek Court: Requested rezoning of the east portion of this 2.3-acre parcel at 2670-2680 S. Main from public land to R2A (two-family dwelling district). There are three duplexes on the east side, which is in Ward 4. The west part of the site, which is vacant and in a floodway, would remain public land. The city is currently looking into the possibility of splitting the parcel and making the west section a part of Cranbrook Park.
805-807 W. Washington: Requested rezoning from public land to R2A (two-family dwelling district). It’s a 0.18 acre-parcel in Ward 5 that contains one duplex, with a garage that’s used for AAHC facilities storage.

Commissioners were also asked to waive the area plan requirements for the AAHC rezoning petitions, because no new construction is proposed and surveys of the improvements have been provided.

For additional background on the AAHC process of renovating its properties, see Chronicle coverage: “Public Housing Conversion Takes Next Step.”

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Staff Report

The commission was briefed by Jennifer Hall, executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. She began by noting that Ronald Woods, AAHC’s board chair, was also attending the meeting. [Woods is married to planning commissioner Wendy Woods, though this was not mentioned during the meeting.]

Jennifer Hall, executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

Hall provided background on this project. She noted that the housing commission is the largest provider of affordable housing in Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County, with 355 units of public housing within the city at 18 different locations. AAHC also has over 1,500 units of vouchers for low-income housing throughout the county.

Hall said that when she came to the housing commission about two years ago, one of the first things she did was examine the finances and take a tour of the AAHC properties. “As part of that process, I was a little bit disturbed by the condition of some of our units,” she said. Hall realized that there wasn’t enough money in AAHC’s budget to fix up the units, because the vast majority of funding comes from the U.S Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

There have been no new public housing units built in the U.S. since 1986, when there was a major change in HUD’s approach to public housing. The change involved more use of vouchers, as well as a focus on more privately funded affordable housing, she said. Now, the biggest form of funding is from low-income housing tax credits – an IRS program.

Public housing tenants pay 30% of their income toward rent, Hall said, but the cost of managing each unit far exceeds that amount. It costs about $600 per month to maintain a one-bedroom apartment and about $1,200 for a five-bedroom unit. HUD provides funding for capital improvements, like roof repair, but it doesn’t provide sufficient funding to cover ongoing maintenance. HUD itself recognizes that it lacks sufficient funding for public housing, Hall said.

The AAHC did a capital needs assessment, and found that they needed about $40,000 per unit of investment over 15 years. Right now, the AAHC gets about $475,000 annually from HUD for capital improvements. Just to replace an elevator at Miller Manor will cost $600,000, Hall noted.

About six months after she became executive director, HUD launched a new program called the rental assistance demonstration (RAD) project. The program allows residents in selected housing units to receive rental assistance through long-term Section 8 subsidy vouchers that are tied to the buildings, rather than held by individuals. The RAD program also enables entities like the AAHC to partner with private-sector developers on housing projects – something the AAHC couldn’t previously do. The Ann Arbor city council gave necessary approvals in connection with the RAD program at its June 3, 2013 meeting.

Ronald Woods, president of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s board. He’s married to planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Hall explained that project-based vouchers, like the those in the RAD program, differ from typical Section 8 vouchers. Traditionally, when someone is awarded a voucher, they can then find a private landlord who’ll accept the voucher. You pay 30% of your income in rent, and the voucher covers the balance – as long as your rent falls within a cap set by HUD. In contrast, project-based vouchers are awarded to AAHC and are attached to specific public housing units. So no matter who lives in that unit, that same subsidy is available from HUD. After someone lives there for a year, they can get a “portable” voucher and move out of the public housing unit.

This RAD conversion is only possible by getting investors from the private sector to fix up the properties, Hall noted. And it’s not possible to get that kind of investment unless the properties are appropriately zoned, she said.

The AAHC is a separate legal entity from the city of Ann Arbor, Hall said. But Hall and her staff are city employees, and there’s a city ordinance that requires the city to buy any property on the housing commission’s behalf. The city could transfer ownership to AAHC at any time, she noted.

HUD has provided all the funding to acquire, maintain or build new units. It gets very confusing, she said, but HUD considers the properties that the city owns on AAHC’s behalf to be HUD properties. So HUD determines what happens with these properties. The city wouldn’t be able to turn any of the public housing units into market rate apartments, for example.

AAHC was selected to be part of the RAD program, Hall said, which has allowed the housing commission to seek funding for the properties included in this first cycle. They’ve secured about $25 million so far for the first set of properties that will be part of the RAD conversion: Baker Commons, Green/Baxter Court, and Maple Meadows. Most of that is private financing, she said.

The properties need to be rezoned so that if they were to burn down or were otherwise damaged, AAHC could rebuild them based on the zoning. The properties are primarily zoned public land, and are among the AAHC’s larger properties – because that’s what investors are interested in.

Hall noted that she’d received a lot of communications from neighbors of the West Washington property in particular. She said she was willing to remove it from rezoning consideration at this time, because it wasn’t one of the critical properties to rezone in the near future.

The West Washington site will either be rehabbed or sold, she said, adding that there’s a 99% chance that AAHC will keep the property. It was one of the first properties that AAHC acquired, and was designed as a duplex with a maintenance garage for AAHC beneath it. Now, the maintenance facility is located elsewhere, so the West Washington garage is used for storage.

The design of the building isn’t an efficient use of the site, she said, so she’d like to keep the option open of selling it. However, Hall added, if there’s any way to make public housing work on that site, that’s her goal. “But I do not have investors right now for that property.”

AAHC also is exploring the possibility of replacing the current asphalt at the back of the site with a pervious surface.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Public Hearing – West Washington

Van Harrison spoke on behalf the Pumping Station Condo Association, a four-unit development on Mulholland that’s located south of the West Washington public housing property. He was pleased that the information they’d sent to AAHC had been understood. The association members supported postponement of the rezoning proposal.

After a recent storm, there was standing water at the Pumping Station Condos on Mulholland, across the street from the West Washington public housing property.

Their concern is “creeping incrementalism,” Harrison said. Several decisions have been made over the years, with each one seeming to make sense in its narrow scope but not coordinated with long-term planning, he noted.

The public housing property had originally been city property that was part of the water pumping station. When it became a public housing site, the area at the back of the lot – next to the garage – was gravel, Harrison said. But at some point, it was paved. Now, most of the property is impervious surface, so stormwater flows directly south onto the condo development. The concern is that the property will be sold without addressing these stormwater issues.

The condo association has appreciated AAHC and tried to accommodate it, but Harrison said they would pursue “legal remedies” to ensure that the stormwater management is taken care of and that their property is protected.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Public Hearing – Mallett’s Creek Court

Eleven people spoke about concerns related to the Mallett’s Creek Court rezoning. Margaret Penirian, who lives in that neighborhood, brought a petition with 60 signatures opposing the rezoning. She said she felt better now that she’d heard about plans for the property. If the vacant part of the parcel were rezoned, it would split “the woodsy part” of Cranbrook Park in half, she said. She didn’t think it could be developed, because the area is in a floodway and is often muddy and “puddley.”

Margaret Penirian.

Penirian urged commissioners to visit the park, especially the wooded park, with a steep ravine, a rushing creek, wildflowers, and mushrooms. It’s “so deep and quiet, you could be in a forest anywhere,” she said. She supported rezoning the part of the land where public housing is already located, and splitting off the other section to remain as parkland.

Bill Sharp said he lives on Kingsbrook, on a lot that backs up to the wooded part of the public housing property. He was happy to hear that the recommendation would be to only rezone the part of the property where housing is already located. He noted that Mallett’s Creek is one of the main places where water drains when it storms. The water rises almost to the edge of the floodplain. He encouraged commissioners to keep the woodsy part of the property as public land. It would be appropriate to rezone the part where the houses are, he said.

Another Kingsbrook resident, Mark Meyerhoff, said his property backs up to the east side of the parcel in question. They bought it as a place to retire because of the view overlooking an open space, with their deck facing an open field – between the public housing and the woods. If AAHC sells the property, there’s no guarantee that his view wouldn’t be blocked by additional buildings, he said.

Marsha Meyerhoff also spoke, saying that everyone who attended the meeting from the Mallett’s Creek Court neighborhood is most concerned about preserving the trees and wildlife. Is there the possibility of a developer buying the vacant property and going through the park? “I don’t know if this is paving the way for that, but that’s pretty much our concern,” she said.

Kim Schreiner, who lives on Colin Circle, said not many people in Oakbrook Villas or the surrounding neighborhood had any idea that this was happening. Ann Arbor needs trees, and needs the oxygenation from the trees, she said, because there’s a lot of building that’s happening. She said she’s a certified registered nurse who works at the University of Michigan, and development is a huge concern. Her children love to play in the park. The reason she’s still living in Ann Arbor is because of the park. “Please don’t let people buy up all the land and destroy it,” she said. “Ann Arbor needs to stay green.”

Michelle Braun lives on Galen Circle, which also backs up to the park area. She supported what her neighbors had said, noting that most people moved there because of the park and green space. “We don’t need more building in that area. It’s a great little pocket of town that has this great forest area that not a lot of people have.” She’d hate to see it developed with housing.

Nela Humm, another Colin Circle resident, said she had no idea this was happening until she ran into one of her neighbors. She asked that the city do a better job of informing residents, beyond the 500-foot radius of the project. She would be directly affected, but she hadn’t received a mailing about it. The neighborhood could be affected in many ways, including house values, “riff raff,” and other impacts, she said.

Aerial view showing location of Mallett’s Creek Court at 2670-2680 S. Main, next to Cranbrook Park.

Ron Gardner lives on Kingsbrook property that backs up to the three existing public housing structures. He encouraged the city to split the property and maintain the part that’s vacant. He hoped the existing footprint of the public housing would be preserved and not expanded.

Jeff Dvorak told commissioners that splitting the property was a good compromise. He urged them to keep it as tight as possible, to minimize future development.

Eppie Potts noted that the neighbors have been using the vacant part of the parcel as a park, and she wondered if anyone at the city was working to get that site included in the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan. That would really protect it, she said, and it needs some official protection.

Cindy Heusel, another Oakbrook Villas resident, asked that the city “not mess around with that park at all.” She noted that it’s used by elderly people, who enjoy taking walks through it.

Jeff Gearhart introduced himself as a resident of Pine Valley Boulevard. [He's also married to AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall.] He supported the overall rezoning package. It’s important to address the neighbors’ concerns, he said, but he wanted to emphasize that “the people who live in public housing are part of our community, too.” This overall project is about improving their lives, and addressing a long-term set of defrayed issues that will “raise all boats.”

Changming Fan spoke about his company, TiniLite. Midway through his comments, planning commission chair Kirk Westphal noted that this public hearing was specifically for the rezoning resolution. Fan asked if he could talk about the master plan or transportation. Westphal noted that there would be another opportunity for public commentary at the end of the meeting.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Commission Discussion – Baker Commons

Wendy Woods moved to discuss these five properties separately. Her motion for separate consideration passed unanimously. Discussion began with Baker Commons, a rezoning request from public land to D2 (downtown interface).

Bonnie Bona.

Sabra Briere noted that the surrounding parcels around Baker Commons are also zoned D2. An item later on the commission’s agenda talks about “playing with D2 definition,” she said. [She was referring to proposed downtown zoning revisions, reported previously in this article.] Briere said some people who are avidly watching the downtown zoning revisions wonder what the D2 designation means for AAHC’s plans.

AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall replied that the AAHC needs for the zoning to be such that if a building burned down, it could be rebuilt. Beyond that, she didn’t have a preference about what that zoning should be. But public land doesn’t currently allow housing to be built on it.

Hall again noted that the three critical properties to be rezoned are Baker Commons, Green/Baxter and Maple Meadows. Those properties have investors and a deal that she hoped would close in the next couple of months.

Bonnie Bona asked planning manager Wendy Rampson to explain what character district applies to the Baker Commons site. Rampson clarified that it’s located in the First Street character district. Its boundaries roughly follow the railroad tracks and Allen Creek. It’s a different character district than the one that was being proposed as part of the downtown zoning revisions.

Bona noted that the First Street character district has a height limit of 60 feet, but Baker Commons is taller than 60 feet. She pointed out that based on allowable floor-area ratios for D2 in that character district, it would allow for a building double or triple the size of Baker Commons to be built there, even with the height limit. That’s true, Rampson said, but any new project would have to go through the city’s site plan review and approval process.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend rezoning the Baker Commons site to D2 and waive the area plan requirements for the AAHC rezoning petition. The recommendations will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Commission Discussion – Green/Baxter

Commissioners next considered the rezoning request for 1701-1747 Green Road, from public land to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The 2-acre site – on the northwest corner of Green and Baxter roads – contains 23 apartments in four buildings and a community center.

Aerial view of Green/Baxter Court, at the northwest corner of Green and Baxter roads.

Bonnie Bona wondered why R4B was being proposed. All of the adjacent zoning is different, she noted. Bona also pointed out that a greater amount of density would be allowed if the site were to be redeveloped in the future.

Residential property on the opposite side of Green Road is zoned R4A. Bona wondered what the difference is between R4B and R4A. Wendy Rampson replied, saying R4B allows for slightly higher density. Rampson indicated that R4A would also work on that site.

Bona said she’d be more comfortable rezoning it R4A, because it more closely aligns with surrounding zoning. Otherwise, it would be the only site zoned R4B in that neighborhood.

Rampson said that as long as AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall was agreeable with the change, the planning staff would have no problem changing it.

Bona formally proposed amending the rezoning to R4A.

Outcome on amendment: It was unanimously approved.

There was no further discussion.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend rezoning 1701-1747 Green Road to R4A and waive the area plan requirements for the AAHC rezoning petition. The recommendations will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Commission Discussion – Maple Meadows

Maple Meadows – at 800-890 South Maple Road, south of Liberty – is currently zoned R1C (single-family dwelling district). The recommendation is to rezone it as R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site contains 29 apartments in five buildings and a community center.

Wendy Woods wondered how the site got so “out of whack,” with so many multi-family units built on property that’s zoned for single-family homes. Wendy Rampson replied, saying that historically, the public housing was built where there was available land. Because it was bought by the city and funded through HUD, the development had been exempt from city zoning. The land was likely zoned in the 1960s as R1C, Rampson explained, and the public housing was built later – in the late ’60s or early ’70s.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend rezoning 800-890 South Maple as R4B and to waive the area plan requirements for the AAHC rezoning petition. The recommendations will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Commission Discussion – Mallett’s Creek Court

Jeremy Peters asked whether there are any plans to sell the property – that concern had been raised during the public hearing. AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall apologized to the neighbors, saying she had no idea that there had been concerns – she hadn’t received any emails or other communications about it until the public hearing.

Jeremy Peters wore an “I Voted” sticker during the May 6 meeting, which began an hour before the polls closed at 8 p.m. The only item on the ballot was a transit tax proposal, which voters overwhelmingly supported.

The West Washington site is the only one of these five sites that HUD has approved for sale. For the other properties, including Mallett’s Creek Court, HUD will require that AAHC sign a 20-year commitment for public housing. AAHC will be required to sign subsequent 20-year contracts in perpetuity – as long as HUD exists – to keep the sites as affordable housing.

Hall added that AAHC staff had no idea that the Mallett’s Creek Court parcel stretched into the park, until they started looking at the possibility of rezoning. That portion of the site has never been maintained or used by AAHC, she said. The city has maintained that portion as if it were part of the city’s park system, “and we just assumed it was part of the city’s park system,” she said. They had no intent to ever build on the parcel.

Hall reported that she’s already talked to the parks staff about splitting off that portion of the site, and the city attorney’s office is helping with that. AAHC doesn’t want the housing portion of the parcel to be in the floodway.

If it’s necessary to postpone this rezoning so that details can be worked out, Hall said that was fine with her.

Wendy Rampson reported that HUD might have some issues with splitting the parcel, so more work needs to be done to explore that option. She suggested postponing action indefinitely on this site, as well as the West Washington site.

Ken Clein wanted to emphasize that AAHC doesn’t have any intention of selling the property, and that even if they wanted to sell it, there would be restrictions placed on a sale by HUD.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone this item to a future meeting.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Commission Discussion – West Washington

The proposal called for rezoning 805-807 W. Washington – at the southwest corner of Washington and Mulholland – from public land to R2A (two-family dwelling district). It contains one duplex, with a garage that’s used for AAHC facilities storage.

Bonnie Bona clarified with Wendy Rampson that based on the lot size and rezoning, only a single unit could be built there in the future.

Wendy Woods wanted to get some information about issues that were raised during the public hearing. She asked what happens in that area when there’s a major rainfall.

Rampson replied that this area is a very stressed section of the Allen Creek system – as the creek runs through an underground drain in that area. The pavement on the public housing site contributes to the problem, but it’s a much broader issue, she said. It’s a drainage problem that the city often deals with.

Woods said she didn’t know what it costs to return pavement to gravel, but she wondered whether AAHC has considered any ways of mitigating the runoff problem from that site. Jennifer Hall replied that the AAHC facilities manager estimates it would cost about $5,000. There are other problems with the property, she noted – for example, the roof needs to be replaced or it won’t last through next winter. They’re planning to put on a metal roof, which is a more permanent roof, she said. AAHC is also exploring whether it can break up the pavement. “I fully intend to deal with that this summer,” Hall said.

Bona thought there might be an opportunity to get grant funding for a rain garden or other way of dealing with the drainage issue.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone this item to a future meeting.

Glenwood Annexation

Planning commissioners were asked to recommend the annexation of an 0.22-acre lot at 375 Glenwood Street – currently in Scio Township – and to zone the site as R1C (single-family dwelling district), which matches the zoning of surrounding sites.

375 Glenwood is outlined in black with hashmarks.

The parcel is on the west side of Glenwood, south of Dexter Road. The owners, Kelly Anderson and Victoria Pebbles, also own the adjacent lot. They want to build a single-family home on the 375 Glenwood site, which is currently vacant. The annexation would allow the site to connect with city water and utility services.

According to a staff memo, the 2014 water improvement charges are $5,345.10 and the 2014 sanitary improvement charges are $8,667.10.

The construction would require installing a public sidewalk.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

Glenwood Annexation: Commission Discussion

Wendy Woods asked about language in the staff memo:

There are city utilities available to service this parcel, including a 6” water main and a 12” sanitary sewer. Storm sewer is not available. Connection to the sanitary sewer may require detailed design by an engineer. No representation is made as to ability to connect.

Woods wondered about the statement “No representation is made as to the ability to connect.” She didn’t think she’d seen that kind of statement before.

Katy Ryan, an intern with the planning unit who gave the staff report, noted that Glenwood is an unpaved road. Planning manager Wendy Rampson elaborated. Because the road is gravel, the drainage is provided via ditches in that neighborhood, rather than connections to the city’s storm sewer system. Sewer and water systems are available, but the elevation of the pipes in that area might make it difficult to connect. The “no representation” statement is just the staff’s way of saying that they haven’t reviewed it, and that it’s up to the property owner to address, she said.

Woods asked about potential flooding. Rampson replied that there’s a long history to that area, where property has been annexed from Scio Township. In the past, residents have explored whether to pave the roads. Some of the lower-lying properties have experienced drainage issues, she noted. But every time the issue of paving emerges, the cost has been prohibitive to residents, she said.

Bonnie Bona followed up, noting the city’s interest in rain gardens and infiltration approaches to handling stormwater. She wondered if that “more progressive approach” had been looked at in this neighborhood. Rampson didn’t think it had been studied there, saying it had been about 10 years since the issue had been brought up. She wasn’t sure the soils are amenable to infiltration, but said it’s something that can be explored in the future.

Sabra Briere asked if there are other sidewalks in the neighborhood. Ryan indicated that this would be the first sidewalk. Briere noted that it’s a situation where the sidewalk is considered an improvement, even though it doesn’t connect to anything. Ryan replied: “We’re currently looking into that right now.”

Outcome: Planning commissioners unanimously recommended annexation and zoning. The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Master Plan Review

The planning commission’s bylaws call for an annual review of the city’s master plan, including a public hearing.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

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

Collectively, the documents are intended to describe a vision for the city’s future and guide decisions about land use, transportation, infrastructure, environment, housing, and public facilities.

The annual review is a time for commissioners, staff or the public to suggest changes or topics that should be studied for possible inclusion in the master plan.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that within the past fiscal year, commissioners adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an element of the land use plan, and also adopted the non-motorized plan update. Now, commissioners seem to be interested in looking at the North Main corridor, Rampson said, so that’s something to consider working on this coming year. Other possibilities include a corridor plan for Washtenaw Avenue, and working with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority on a streetscape framework plan.

A resolution on the May 6 agenda laid out these topics, among others. From the resolved clauses:

Resolved, The City Planning Commission will continue the process of developing a corridor plan for Washtenaw Avenue and begin the process of developing a corridor plan for North Main Street to address land use, transportation and economic development in these areas;

Resolved, The City Planning Commission will assist the Downtown Development Authority in creating a Streetscape Framework Plan;

Resolved, The City Planning Commission will assist in the implementation of the Sustainability Action Plan, in coordination with the Energy Commission, the Environmental Commission, Park Advisory Commission, Housing Commission and Housing and Human Services Board;

A separate resolution listed 16 documents that are used as resources to support the master plan.

Rampson recommended postponing these resolutions until May 20, to give commissioners time to incorporate additional input. [.pdf of staff memo and resolutions]

Master Plan Review: Public Hearing

Last year, the master plan hearing drew six speakers on a range of topics, including development in Lowertown, a park in downtown Ann Arbor, and a push for adequate sidewalks, cleared of vegetation, so that kids can walk to school safely.

This year, only one person spoke the May 7 public hearing – Changming Fan of TiniLite World. He noted that the company was registered in 1996 in Ann Arbor and has never moved away. He said he lost his house because of the economic downturn. He wanted to use his technology to help people, especially the poor. But small businesses and innovators are ignored, he said. He urged commissioners to include this technology in the city’s master plan.

Master Plan Review: Commission Discussion

Discussion was brief. Regarding the resource documents, Bonnie Bona wanted to replace the North Main Street/Huron River Corridor Summary Land Use Policy of 1988 with the new North Main/Huron River task force report that was completed in 2013.

Bona also wondered whether the city’s climate action plan should be included as a resource document.

Rampson said she’d incorporate those changes into the resolutions that would be considered on May 20.

Outcome: Planning commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on the item until the May 20 meeting.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners, as well as two opportunities for public commentary. Here are some highlights from May 6.

Communications & Commentary: City Council Update

Sabra Briere, who serves as the city council’s representative on the planning commission, reported that the only council action on May 5 that directly affected the planning commission was the reappointment of Kirk Westphal to the environmental commission, as the planning commission’s representative to that group. She noted that the council will be voting on the fiscal 2015 budget at its May 19 meeting, and she encouraged everyone to review it and let her know what they thought.

Briere did not mention that his reappointment came on a 7-4 vote after 20 minutes of debate. Dissenting were Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). The controversy on the appointment stemmed from a decision by mayor John Hieftje last year not to nominate Jeff Hayner to the public art commission – because Hayner was running for Ward 1 city council against Sabra Briere. Those who dissented on Westphal’s appointment argued in part that the same principle should be applied to Westphal, a Democrat who is running for the Ward 2 city council seat this year.

Communications & Commentary: DDA Streetscape Framework

Ken Clein, who represents the planning commission on the partnerships committee of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, reported that the DDA held its first advisory committee meeting for the streetscape framework project on May 1, which included a walking tour. He’s representing the planning commission as part of that effort. [The DDA board authorized a $200,000 contract for development of a streetscape framework plan at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting.] Clein said it was exciting to walk around town and see things in a new light.

Communications & Commentary: Written Communications

Bonnie Bona addressed a written communication that had been received from Rod Sorge, president of the Earhart Village Homes Association. [.pdf of Sorge's email] His email referred to an Ann Arbor Chronicle report about comments made by planning commissioners at a March 4, 2014 meeting. From Sorge’s email:

In [Mary Morgan's] article about the commission’s consideration of a proposal from Concordia University,” Concordia Takes Step in Campus Upgrade” in the Ann Arbor Chronicle, March 8, 2014, she reports some comments she attributes to commission members. Among these comments about the Concordia University’s expansion plans and the neighborhood she reported that a commissioner [Clein] wondered whether the city should talk to the university about rezoning the entire site, rather than having to grant a special exception use for each project. Her article continued quoting a commissioner [Bona] as stating, “There’s not a lot of development in that area.”

Some confusion arose from the vagueness of the phrase “a commissioner” in Sorge’s email.

Bona noted that she was the commissioner who had been quoted as saying “There’s not a lot of development in that area.” She said that the only thing stated in the minutes is that the city is interested in the university’s overall master plan, and that it’s important to incorporate the neighborhood into that conversation. She wanted to clarify that rezoning was never mentioned. She said she was bringing it up because there hadn’t been a lot of public input at the March 4 meeting, and her desire was “to have [Concordia] have a more comprehensive plan that we could look at, instead of just a knee-jerk reaction every time they wanted to do something.”

She wanted to assure Sorge that the city had no intention of rezoning the Concordia property.

By way of background, it’s true that Bona did not mention rezoning during her comments at the March 4 meeting. However, Sorge’s email is likely referring to a comment by commissioner Ken Clein, who did bring up the rezoning issue, which was reported in The Chronicle:

Ken Clein wondered whether the city should talk to the university about rezoning the site, rather than having to grant a special exception use for each project. City planner Jeff Kahan replied that this is how the city handles private colleges. Such uses are allowed by special exception in office districts and single-family residential districts. Kahan said the city staff believes the existing zoning is reasonable, and it’s reasonable to require that the university request a special exception use for each project.

The March 4, 2014 meeting minutes – which the planning commission approved on May 6 – also reflect that exchange about rezoning. From the minutes:

Clein asked staff if the City would rather have the University rezone their site for future development rather than have them return before the Commission requesting Special Exception Use.

Kahan explained that the City handles all private colleges in this manner, through Special Exception Uses, when they are located in single-family and office zoning districts. He stated that staff believes the parcel is zoned appropriately for this type of use and is reasonable, given the size of their site.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, a resident of Green Brier Boulevard spoke to commissioners, noting that he lived across the street from the public housing complex on Green Road. He’d called the city because his apartment was at 80 degrees, and someone from the city told him it would be inspected in June, he said.

Changming Fan, who has frequently addressed the planning commission and other public bodies over the past few months, spoke about his company, TiniLite World Inc. He said he appreciated the democratic system. Ann Arbor is the first city that used LED lighting. He said he’d like to contribute his firm’s technology, called TiniLite. It’s a lighting display using LED lights, cell phones, and wireless Internet. He hoped it could be used to interconnect people socially, spiritually and emotionally to help Ann Arbor. He thought that the technology should be included in the city’s master plan.

Fan also spoke during public commentary at the end of the meeting, stressing the same themes.

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

Next meeting: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 at 7 p.m. in council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Next Step Taken in Downtown Zoning Change

Chronicle Staff — Wed, 07 May 2014 04:35:53 +0000

Ann Arbor planning commissioners have voted to recommend rezoning a large parcel at the southeast corner of Main and William – another step in a review of downtown zoning that began last year. That vote, taken at the commission’s May 6, 2014 meeting, was unanimous.

The recommendation is to rezone the site at 425 S. Main from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface), a lower-density zoning. Currently, a two-story 63,150-square-foot office building – where DTE offices are located – stands on the southern part of that site, with a surface parking lot on the north portion. [.pdf of staff memo on 425 S. Main rezoning]

In a separate action, after considerable discussion during the four-hour meeting, commissioners were unable to reach consensus on adding new requirements to the Main Street Character Overlay District, where 425 S. Main is located. The commission voted 6-3 to recommend changes that include setting a maximum height of 100 feet for properties in that district that are zoned D2, and requiring upper story setbacks from any residential property lines. Dissenting were Sabra Briere, Ken Clein and Jeremy Peters. [.pdf of staff memo on overlay district]

These recommendations had been brought forward by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee. Members are Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

In response to a council directive, the planning commission had studied and developed a broader set of recommendations for zoning changes in specific parts of the downtown. The overall intent was in large part to buffer near-downtown residential neighborhoods. The commission had unanimously approved those original recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting.

That set of recommendations included a proposal to rezone 425 S. Main to D2. However, those original recommendations had called for a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District – lower than the 100 feet put forward on May 6. The site’s current D1 zoning allows for a maximum height of 180 feet. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, set no limits on height.

During deliberations on May 6, Briere pointed out that the 60-foot maximum height had been cited specifically in the council directive, and she opposed raising the height. The 425 S. Main property would be the only D2 site in the Main Street Character District, if the city council approves the rezoning recommendation. Because the requirements would apply to just one site, it seemed like spot zoning to her.

Members of the ORC defended the proposal, saying that the combination of D2 zoning with a taller height would allow for more flexible design and less massive structures.

At this time, no new development has been proposed for this site.

The recommendations approved on May 6 will be forwarded to the city council for consideration. In the coming months, the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee will tackle other aspects of the council’s Jan. 21 directive.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St., where the planning commission held its May 6 meeting. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Council Moves on Downtown Zoning Revisions

Chronicle Staff — Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:22:58 +0000

Recommendations from the city planning commission – to start a formal legislative process to make revisions to zoning regulations in downtown Ann Arbor – have now been accepted by the Ann Arbor city council. And the city council has in turn now directed the planning commission to craft the corresponding zoning ordinance language to reflect the recommendations. The council made some amendments to the recommendations before turning the work back over to the planning commission. [Jan. 21, 2014 zoning resolution, as amended]

Action directing the planning commission to start crafting ordinance language came at the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting. The session included a public hearing, with a dozen people speaking generally in support of the proposed revisions. Many speakers urged the council to make additional revisions – for example, looking at the South University area, Thayer Street, and additional sections of East Huron. Several people also supported additional recommendations that were made by the Near Downtown Neighborhood Group. [.pdf of Near-Downtown Neighborhood Group letter]

The issue of design guidelines and the design review board was also raised during the public hearing. Some people argued that the design review process should have more “teeth.” But 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. She advocated for revising the design guidelines and updating the process for the design review.

David Blanchard, chair of the city’s housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB), also spoke at the hearing. He wanted to keep the idea of affordable housing alive, and supported a diversity of housing choices for different income levels. He urged the planning commission to work with HHSAB to make affordable housing a reality in Ann Arbor.

The amendments made during the meeting were in large part additions to the original resolution, and addressed concerns raised during the public hearing. In addition to the original resolution’s directions, amendments were made to direct the planning commission to (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) 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.

A date certain was also added by which the planning commission is to report to the council on all its work on this issue. That date is Oct. 20, 2014, which is the council’s second meeting that month.

The one part of the original resolution that was separated out from the direction to the planning commission to begin implementation was this: “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.” That point was left in the resolution, but language was added to recognize the objections to it that were heard from the city’s design review board during the public hearing. The revised text stated: “Council requests that the planning commission review and consider methods to achieve compliance with core design guidelines in a manner that achieves design review board support, …”

After the planning commission completes the next phase of their work – to develop the ordinance language – the city council will need to give final approval of the changes. Both of the next steps – by the planning commission and the city council – will include public hearings.

In general, the recommendations forwarded by the planning commission to the council for consideration on Jan. 21 aimed to create more of a buffer between downtown development and adjacent or nearby residential neighborhoods. The planning commission had voted on the recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting

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 were: (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 – a recommendation that was somewhat softened through an amendment by the council at its Jan. 21 meeting; (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.

By way of additional 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.”

Details of the council’s deliberations on Jan. 21 are reported in The Chronicle’s live updates from the meeting.

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

624 Church St. Gets City Council OK

Chronicle Staff — Wed, 22 Jan 2014 06:17:23 +0000

A 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms – to be built at 624 Church St. in downtown Ann Arbor – has received approval from the Ann Arbor city council. 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 project will 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 council’s action approving the new version of the project came at its meeting on Jan. 21, 2014, after about 90 minutes of deliberations, primarily about the parking permits that the project has been granted.

The original plan for the development 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 that gave the developer 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. This was the point of controversy during the council’s lengthy deliberations on Jan. 21, which still resulted in unanimous approval of the project. [Details of those deliberations are reported in The Chronicle's live updates from the meeting.]

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.

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

Planning Commission Reviews 2014 Priorities

Mary Morgan — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 21:28:02 +0000

Ann Arbor planning commission working session (Jan. 7, 2014): At a thinly attended working session – the first of the year – planning commissioners reviewed the status of their 2013-2014 work plan, and discussed priorities for the next six months of the fiscal year.

City planning manager Wendy Rampson and Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission, at a Jan. 7, 2014 working session in the basement of city hall. (Photos by the writer.)

Planning manager Wendy Rampson gave the mid-year update, reporting on items that were moving ahead, delayed or stalled. Some projects – like the downtown zoning review – had taken more time than anticipated, she reported. That meant some other projects didn’t get as much attention. [.pdf of work plan status report]

Two projects on the work plan have been completed: (1) an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, and (2) the second-year update to the capital improvements plan (CIP). Other work – like the years-long effort to reorganize the city’s zoning ordinances, known as ZORO, continues to languish. That project is being overseen by the city attorney’s office, with support from planning staff.

Based on feedback from the four commissioners at the working session, as well as input from other commissioners via email, some items on the work plan will be tweaked.

City staff have drafted an action plan to implement goals of the city’s sustainability framework, which was approved last year. Planning commissioners are interested in moving that forward.

Commissioners also expressed interested in forming a new committee to explore the impact of pending changes to mandated floodplain insurance, with a cross-section of representatives from planning, the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner’s office, the city’s historic district commission and local creekshed groups.

In addition, Rampson was asked to explore the possibility of forming a joint planning commission with representatives from the four jurisdictions along the Washtenaw Avenue corridor – the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township and Pittsfield Township. A right-of-way report for that corridor will be completed soon, which will be reviewed by the commission.

Commissioners also directed Rampson to develop a list of pros and cons for eliminating drive-thrus as a by-right option in certain zoning districts, and instead requiring developers to seek a special exception from the planning commission in order to build one. Some commissioners think that drive-thrus – especially for fast food restaurants – make an area less pedestrian-friendly. Also of concern are the emissions generated from idling vehicles.

More immediately, the commission’s ordinance revisions committee will be reviewing recommendations from an advisory committee on R4C/R2A residential zoning. There will also likely be work on ordinance revisions for downtown zoning, depending on what direction is given by the city council. A set of recommendations already approved by planning commissioners is on the council’s Jan. 21 agenda.

Work Plan Overview

Each year, the planning commission sets a work plan, prioritizing initiatives and long-term projects that they’ll work on with staff during the city’s fiscal year, which runs from July 1 through June 30. For fiscal 2013-2014, commissioners developed a work plan in June of 2013, which was formally approved at their June 18, 2013 meeting.

At the commission’s Jan. 7, 2014 working session, Kirk Westphal, who chairs the group, reported that the commission’s executive committee had met to review the work plan and get an update on the status of various projects that the planning staff is undertaking. The intent was to review these projects at the working session and see if any priorities have shifted. The city is about halfway through its fiscal year.

The work plan has two main sections: (1) items related to master planning, and (2) items related to ordinance revisions or implementation. [.pdf of work plan status report]

Several items in the work plan haven’t moved forward as quickly as expected, according to city planning manager Wendy Rampson. The review of downtown zoning had been “all consuming” during the first six months of the fiscal year, she noted, and the ongoing R4C/R2A zoning review had also taken up considerable time. Neither of those efforts have produced anything tangible yet, she added, “but all of the discussion that’s gone on in the community has resulted in some consensus-building in that area.”

Rampson told commissioners that she was looking for direction about where the planning staff should put its energy in the next six months. The commission will also hold a retreat in the spring to look at priorities for next year.

The work plan also will be reviewed at an upcoming meeting of the full planning commission. Only four commissioners attended the Jan. 7 working session.

Master Planning

Under the category of master planning, the planning commission’s work plan has two main projects: (1) developing an action plan for the city’s existing sustainability framework; and (2) corridor projects on Washtenaw Avenue and North Main Street.

Master Planning: Sustainability Framework Action Plan

The planning commission and city council had approved a sustainability framework last year, adding it as an element of city’s master plan. The framework has 16 overarching sustainability goals, which are organized into four categories: resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. City staff have drafted an action plan to implement the goals of that framework. [.pdf of draft action plan]

Planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the staff made some good progress on drafting the action plan over the summer, but now “it’s basically stopped.” The two staff members who had taken the lead on it – Jamie Kidwell and Jill Thacher – got pulled into other projects, she said.

The draft action plan hasn’t yet been circulated to the three groups that were involved in developing the sustainability framework: The planning, energy and environmental commissions. If there’s interest in prioritizing this project, getting feedback from these commissions would be the next step, Rampson said.

The intent of the action plan is to take each goal of the sustainability framework and pick one to three items that could be implemented throughout the organization.

For example, under the category of integrated land use, one of the goals from the framework is: “Encourage dense land use and development patterns which draw people downtown and foster an active street life, contribute to its function as an urban residential neighborhood and support a sustainable transportation system.” Two action items have been drafted to help achieve that goal:

Develop a reuse strategy for end of life, vacant city-owned properties in and near downtown.

Implement the recommendations of the Connecting William Street effort, once adopted.

By way of background on Connecting William Street, at its March 5, 2013 meeting, the planning commission voted to add the Connecting William Street report as a resource document. However, the city council has not taken any action regarding that effort, which was undertaken by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority at the direction of the city council.

Action items for other land use goals include implementing recommendations of the South State Street corridor study and the North Main/Huron River corridor task force, continuing participation in Reimagine Washtenaw, and implementing appropriate city code revisions related to the R4C/R2A zoning review.

Kirk Westphal noted that the sustainability framework represents the highest priorities of several city commissions, and it made sense to him to finish the project by completing the action plan. “So even if we’re not always on the same page, at least we’re in the same pamphlet,” he joked.

In response to a query from Paras Parekh, Rampson said the action plan would be a working document. If approved, the staff would review progress on these items each year.

Rampson said it’s possible to link almost everything that the planning commission works on to the sustainability action plan. The Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO) project, for example, is linked to economic health and public engagement – the idea that there’s a clear understanding of the rules for development.

Jeremy Peters supported working on the action plan, saying it’s a point of pride if someone can look at work on the sustainability goals and say, “This is why I want to live in Ann Arbor. This is why I want to start my business in Ann Arbor.”

Diane Giannola urged each of the commissions to focus on the action items that are most relevant to their work. She was worried that it would be difficult to reach consensus on all of the action items.

Rampson said she’d schedule a time for the planning commission to discuss how to move forward, possibly at a working session in February.

Master Planning: Washtenaw Avenue, North Main Corridors

Wendy Rampson noted that two projects related to central corridors – Washtenaw Avenue and North Main – are on track.

Planning commissioner Paras Parekh.

The North Main/Huron River corridor task force had completed its work in the summer of 2013. The question for commissioners is whether they want to do a full-blown corridor study for North Main, as they did for South State Street, Rampson said.

Paras Parekh noted that there had been a lot of ideas about North Main, calling it a “vital part of the city.” He thought the commission should make a decision about what to do with the task force report, one way or another. Diane Giannola observed that a full-blown corridor study, like the one that was done for South State Street, is intense and would require a lot of work. Rampson pointed out a similar study for North Main would likely be less intense, because the North Main/Huron River corridor task force has already done a lot of public engagement and research. “It gives us a bit of a jump start,” Rampson said.

Regarding the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, the planning commission was briefed about Reimagine Washtenaw at a working session in December of 2013. The commission will need to decide what it wants to do next, regarding recommendations for that project.

Rampson reported that a Washtenaw Avenue right-of-way study being conducted by Smith Group/JJR would be completed soon. She suggested that the planning commission could look at how the right-of-way recommendations would impact potential redevelopment along Washtenaw Avenue. That corridor passes through four jurisdictions: the city of Ann Arbor, Pittsfield Township, Ypsilanti Township, and the city of Ypsilanti. Rampson noted that the biggest challenge for Ann Arbor’s section is that it’s the widest part of the corridor. Any changes that would narrow the road would affect the service drives, which include parking areas.

Because the Reimagine Washtenaw recommendations will be coming soon, that’s probably the most timely project for implementation, Rampson said.

Parekh confirmed with Rampson that the changes would happen incrementally over the next few years, as properties get redeveloped. Owners would not be required to conform the existing buildings and setbacks to new zoning, for example. Although major changes would not happen immediately, Rampson noted that some property owners are interested in redevelopment. She cited the owners of the Victory Inn at 3750 Washtenaw Ave. near the US-23 interchange, saying they’ve come in to talk with planning staff about redeveloping that site.

It’s important that new requirements are in place so that when redevelopment does occur, it can conform to what the city and other jurisdictions would like to see along Washtenaw Avenue, Rampson said. Changes in transit will also impact some of the corridor improvements. “This is real planning – when you’re looking so far into the future,” she added. In addition to some of the “problem-solving” projects on the planning commission’s work plan, it’s good to have a longer-term project as well, Rampson told commissioners.

Kirk Westphal confirmed with Rampson that it would be possible to have a joint planning commission for the corridor, with representatives from each jurisdiction. He wondered if creating that would be the best first step. Rampson noted that state law governs the formal process of setting up a new joint planning commission. She pointed out that once it’s created, it has to be sustained – so the question is whether there’s enough energy among all the jurisdictions to do that. Responding to another question from Westphal, Rampson said a joint planning commission doesn’t preclude the formation of a corridor improvement authority (CIA).

Rampson reported that a joint technical committee – composed mostly of staff from the four jurisdictions, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, and the Michigan Dept. of Transportation – continues to meet monthly. Their work has been driven by the right-of-way study, so after that the committee “will have to figure out what our reason for being is,” she said.

Also, there’s some funding from the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development’s Sustainable Communities planning grant for public art in the Washtenaw Avenue corridor, Rampson said, and Deb Polich of the Arts Alliance is working on that. Polich is also participating in the joint technical committee.

The involvement of elected officials in this project has started to wane, Rampson reported. The staff has also tried to get merchant associations involved, she added, but it’s been difficult along the Washtenaw Avenue corridor. The core businesses for the Washtenaw Avenue Merchants Association are Hiller’s grocery, Paesano restaurant, and Wheels in Motion, Rampson said, but she wasn’t sure how active the group is.

Rampson said she’d follow up with Nathan Voght of the Washtenaw County office of community and economic development, who is providing staff support for Reimagine Washtenaw, to explore a possible joint planning commission.

Master Planning: Completed Projects

Rampson noted that two projects on the work plan in the master planning category have been completed: (1) an update to the city’s non-motorized transportation plan; and (2) the second-year update to the capital improvements plan (CIP).

The planning commission approved an update to the non-motorized transportation plan at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. The document includes sections on planning and policy, as well as recommendations for short-term and long-term projects, such as bike boulevards, crosswalks, sidewalks and larger efforts like the Allen Creek greenway and Border-to-Border Trail. The city council subsequently approved the update as well. Items in the city’s master plan must receive approval from both the planning commission and the council.

The council does not approve the CIP – as that’s the planning commission’s purview. But the city council has budgetary control over the plan. Commissioners approved the 2015-2020 CIP at their Dec. 3, 2013 meeting, and it was forwarded to the council as an information item.

The CIP is a supporting document for the city’s master plan, and the city council bases its capital budget on the CIP. 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] Most of this year’s 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.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations

Several items on the work plan relate to ordinance revisions, including reviews of downtown zoning and R4C/R2A residential zoning, the ongoing Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO) project, and possible ordinance changes related to floodplain issues.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Downtown Zoning

The recommendations regarding changes to downtown zoning were originally due to the city council by October 2013. The planning commission had finished that work and approved the set of recommendations on Dec. 3, 2013. Wendy Rampson reported that the recommendations will be on the city council’s Jan. 21 agenda. “So we’re making progress on that, but it’s slow,” she said.

Kirk Westphal noted that even if the council signs off on the recommendations, then the planning commission gets “restarted” as they work with staff to develop actual ordinance revisions that implement the recommendations.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: R4C/R2A

Amendments to the city’s R4C/R2A zoning were scheduled to be completed by March of 2014, but that project isn’t moving ahead as quickly as planned, Rampson reported. She noted that a final report will be submitted soon by an advisory committee, and at that point the planning commission will need to decide what to do next. [.pdf of final advisory committee report]

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

A review of these residential zoning ordinances has been in the works for several years. An advisory committee was originally established by the Ann Arbor city council in 2009. Its purpose was to give input as the planning commission developed recommendations for what some city staff have called a “broken” zoning district. The committee’s original recommendations were delivered to the commission in 2012, and planning commissioners adopted their own set of recommendations for the council in April of 2013.

Although there was considerable overlap, the planning commission’s recommendations diverged from the advisory committee in some significant ways. Some advisory committee members felt their work had been cut short and that the final report presented to the planning commission on behalf of the committee did not fully reflect the committee’s consensus. They also wanted to weigh in on some of the commission’s recommendations, including a proposed “group housing” overlay district.

So the city council reconstituted the advisory committee in the summer of 2013, with slightly different membership. The group met four times, then created a new report for the planning commission to consider.

Most recently, planning commissioners were briefed on the advisory committee’s report at a Dec. 10, 2013 working session. For background, see Chronicle coverage: “R4C/R2A Zoning Proposals Reviewed.”

On Jan. 7, Diane Giannola said that she and Bonnie Bona are interested in making some proposals related to the R4C zoning ordinance, like making it easier to convert garages into “carriage houses,” for example.

The next step will be for the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee to look at all of the recommendations for the R4C/R2A zoning, and decide how to move forward. It’s possible that a new set of recommendations would be brought forward to the full planning commission. Ultimately, the city council would need to give direction on how the planning commission should proceed in developing actual revisions to the zoning ordinances.

The advisory committee’s final report will be part of the planning commission’s Jan. 23 meeting agenda.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Citizen Participation Ordinance

An evaluation of the city’s citizen participation ordinance was due to be completed by October 2013, but hasn’t made much progress. Rampson said that Angeline Lawrence of the city’s planning staff has written a memo with suggestions about how to improve the city’s citizen participation. So Rampson would like to review that with the commission’s citizen outreach committee. Members of that committee are Sabra Briere, Diane Giannola, Paras Parekh and Jeremy Peters.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: ZORO

ZORO stands for Zoning Ordinance Reorganization. It’s a project that began in 2009. The goal is to do a comprehensive review of 11 chapters of the city code that are related to development, and to present the material in a more concise, user-friendly way, clarifying terminology, and eliminating inconsistencies and outdated material.

The chapters being reorganized by ZORO are:

Chapter 26: Solid Waste
Chapter 47: Streets and Curb Cuts
Chapter 55: Zoning
Chapter 56: Prohibited Land Uses
Chapter 57: Subdivision and Land Use Regulations, and the attached Land Development Regulations
Chapter 59: Off-Street Parking
Chapter 60: Wetlands Preservation
Chapter 61: Signs and Outdoor Advertising
Chapter 62: Landscaping and Screening
Chapter 63: Soil Erosion, Sedimentation Control and Storm Water Management
Chapter 104: Fences

Don Elliott of the consulting firm Clarion Associates was hired by the city to do the initial work, and presented a draft report about two years ago. Since then, it has been worked on by planning staff and the city attorney’s office, which is overseeing the project. Over the years, planning commissioners have expressed frustration that ZORO hasn’t been completed. At the commission’s April 23, 2013 retreat, for example, it was a topic of discussion.

On Jan. 7, Rampson reported that ZORO has made no progress in the last six months.

Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office, who’s point person for the project, was originally scheduled to give commissioners a ZORO update at a Jan. 14 working session. However, a special meeting of the planning commission was convened on that night instead, for the purpose of holding closed session with McDonald to discuss attorney-client privileged information. That is one of the exemptions allowed under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Floodplain Ordinance/Insurance

Rampson told commissioners that it looked like FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) was going to delay moving to mandating market rate flood insurance, “so that gives us a little breathing room.”

By way of background, at its March 5, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council gave final approval to an ordinance change that will adopt a new Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the city. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) makes flood insurance available for properties in participating communities – Ann Arbor is a participant. If a building has a federally-backed mortgage and it’s located within the “1% annual change floodplain” (previously called the “100-year floodplain) then flood insurance is required.

Ann Arbor’s previous FIRM dated from Jan. 2, 1992. In 2004, the FEMA began a map revision process for Washtenaw County. Various drains in the city were re-analyzed, using updated data, and on July 27, 2007, FEMA issued preliminary maps. After required public review, appeal and revisions, on Oct. 3, 2011, FEMA issued a letter with a final determination, indicating that the new maps would become effective on April 3, 2012. [.pdf of Oct. 3, 2011 letter] [.pdf of Dec. 20, 2011 reminder letter]

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters.

Compared to the previous 1992 maps, 321 parcels are no longer analyzed as lying within a floodplain. However, 116 parcels that were previously not analyzed as in a floodplain are now in a floodplain, according to the new maps. Building-wise, 452 structures are no longer analyzed as lying within a floodplain, while 88 buildings are now in a floodplain, according to the new maps. [See also Chronicle coverage: "Column: Digital Information Flood."]

Federal legislation passed in 2012 – the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act – will result in dramatic rate hikes for flood insurance, because federal subsidies will be eliminated. However, implementation of those increases has been delayed.

On Jan. 7, Rampson explained that the plan is to incorporate changes into the city’s flood and zoning ordinances that reflect the insurance risk factor. The primary changes will relate to the flood ordinance, which isn’t the planning commission’s purview. However, any zoning changes would come through the planning commission.

Historic structures have been exempt from regulations related to floodplains, Rampson said. But now, any structure in a floodplain must carry flood insurance, and the rates are expected to increase significantly. The deeper a property is into the floodplain, the higher the insurance rates would be. That might result in disinvestment within those areas, she said, or possibly owners would elevate buildings, which would change the character of a neighborhood. [If a structure is elevated above the flood depth, its insurance rates would be lower.] It’s primarily the impacts on historic districts that the city staff felt should be addressed by possible zoning ordinance changes.

Rampson suggested that the effort should be coordinated with the historic district commission. The question is whether the HDC would come up with a new set of standards for dealing with historic structures in a floodplain. The Secretary of the Interior’s standards don’t really address it, she said. Rampson noted that the HDC has been briefed on this issue by city planner Jill Thacher, “so they already understand that this will be a problem.”

Diane Giannola proposed putting together a committee to tackle this issue, and include former planning commissioner Evan Pratt, who is now Washtenaw County’s water resources commissioner. Other members could be pulled from the HDC, the planning commission, the zoning board of appeals, and local creekshed associations. Giannola noted that Pratt has extensive background on this issue.

Rampson asked about priorities. If planning commissioners want the staff to work on this project, what other project will be moved to a lower priority? Giannola recommended holding off on launching a North Main corridor study, and that the floodplain project should take priority over that.

Rampson reported that Jerry Hancock, the city’s stormwater & floodplain program coordinator, had briefed the city council on this issue last year. He had anticipated that the council would provide direction on what steps to take next, but that hasn’t happened yet. Giannola didn’t think that councilmembers understood the implications of the flood insurance rates on historic districts.

Rampson said she’d work on pulling a committee together to work on this issue. Giannola, Kirk Westphal, Jeremy Peters volunteered to serve.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Redevelopment Ready

The city council – at its Nov. 18, 2013 meeting – authorized the city to participate in the Michigan Economic Development Corp.’s Redevelopment Ready Communities Certification Program. The planning commission had been briefed on the program at a Sept. 10, 2013 working session.

The program was originally developed by the nonprofit Michigan Suburbs Alliance, and later acquired by the state through the MEDC. [Both organizations have local connections. The suburbs alliance is led by Conan Smith, an Ann Arbor resident who also is an elected official serving on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. MEDC's CEO is Michael Finney, former head of Ann Arbor SPARK.]

The program is viewed as a tool to help communities put in place elements that would allow redevelopment to happen. Those things include master plans that are clear about what community expectations are for new developments, and zoning that reflects those expectations in a very specific way. It means that when developers look at a specific property, they’ll be able to know exactly what they can do. The program includes a list of best practices focused on six categories: (1) community plans and public outreach; (2) zoning policy and regulations; (3) development review process; (4) education and training; (5) redevelopment ready sites; and (6) community prosperity (economic strategies, marketing and promotion). [.pdf of best practices document]

In March of 2013, the MEDC announced that 8 communities – including Ann Arbor – had been selected for the program’s first round to receive a formal Redevelopment Ready Communities evaluation. If the city completes this evaluation successfully, Rampson said, then it would be certified as a “Redevelopment Ready” community. The state has indicated that communities with this certification could receive priority points on grants from MEDC and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA).

On Jan. 7, Rampson reported that the city is moving forward more slowly than expected, and will probably get started on the certification process in March. That had originally been the timeframe for expected completion of the certification.

Ordinance Revisions & Implementations: Sign Ordinance

A project to revise the city’s sign ordinance is on the work plan for completion by June of 2014. Rampson reported that the staff is waiting for funding to pay for a consultant before that work can start.

Potential Future Projects

In addition to the projects already underway, Wendy Rampson provided an updated list of potential projects that planning commissioners have previously indicated an interest in pursuing:

Economic development initiatives
Student neighborhood property conditions/enforcement in R4C
Southeast area neighborhoods visioning
“Mixed use” overlay amendment
Neighborhood outreach/engagement
Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance amendments
“Age-Friendly” master plan and ordinance amendments
Non-motorized plan implementation/pedestrian safety & sidewalk initiatives (with systems planning unit)
Lowertown land use amendments
Ordinance amendment to make all drive-thrus special exception uses
High school student representation on the planning commission

Potential Future Projects: Drive-Thrus

Diane Giannola asked what the impetus was to look at eliminating the current by-right use of drive-thrus. It’s come up in discussions about corridor improvements, Rampson replied. One of the challenges in encouraging major corridors to be less auto-friendly is that the city keeps getting proposals for drive-thru restaurants, like Tim Hortons, she said. Currently, drive-thrus are allowed “by right” on any property that’s zoned C3 (fringe commercial). It’s particularly an issue along Washtenaw Avenue, where most of the property is zoned C3.

Planning commission chair Kirk Westphal.

Kirk Westphal noted that most restaurant proposals include drive-thrus. “It’s just a cash box in a busy corridor,” he said, “but it makes everything around it not walkable.” To him, it’s a broader question of looking at which parts of the city could evolve into a “walkable node.” If those areas are identified, then the city could ban drive-thrus there. In the meantime, changing the ordinance to require a special exception use for a drive-thru seemed like a good safeguard, he said, so that the planning commission could make a decision on a case-by-case basis.

In response to a query from Paras Parekh, Rampson explained the process for changing the ordinance. Language for an ordinance revision would be drafted by city staff and reviewed by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee. The planning commission would hold a public hearing on it, vote on a recommendation, then send that recommendation to city council. The council would need to approve any ordinance change.

Rampson noted that some cities have banned drive-thrus completely. With a special exception use, it would allow drive-thrus under certain conditions. Those conditions would need to be articulated.

In addition to restaurants, other businesses that use drive-thrus include banks and pharmacies, Rampson noted.

Based on the interest that commissioners were indicating, Rampson said the planning staff would add it to their work plan and draft some ordinance language for commissioners to review.

Diane Giannola and Jeremy Peters asked for an analysis for making this change. “You’ll have landowners and business owners and franchisees up in arms, so it would be good to see some pros and cons,” Peters said. Giannola cautioned that eliminating drive-thrus might result in the need for more parking.

Westphal responded, saying that it might result in fewer fast food restaurants coming to town. “I don’t know that McDonald’s would build a new restaurant if they couldn’t include a drive-thru,” he said. “So that’s one question: Do we have enough drive-thrus?”

Rampson added that from a sustainability perspective, vehicle emission from idling at drive-thrus is an issue. The air quality issue has caused some communities to ban drive-thrus.

Present: Diane Giannola, Paras Parekh, Jeremy Peters, Kirk Westphal. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan, Sabra Briere, Bonnie Bona, Ken Clein, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: Thursday, Jan. 23, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second floor city council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. The typical Tuesday meeting has been shifted to Thursday to accommodate scheduling changes related to the Jan. 20 Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

Recommendations Set for Downtown Zoning

Mary Morgan — Sat, 07 Dec 2013 16:37:46 +0000

Ann Arbor planning commission meeting (Dec. 3, 2013): Following months of public input and review by a consultant hired by the city, Ann Arbor planning commissioners finalized a set of recommendations to revise parts of the city’s downtown zoning. Those recommendations will now be forwarded to the city council, possibly at its Jan. 20 meeting.

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.

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]