Aerial view of 2625 Jackson Ave.

The site is located at 2625 Jackson, on the southeast corner of Jackson and I-94, and just north of the Westgate Shopping Center. The plan calls for demolishing the existing one-story service station and auto repair shop and constructing a single building with a 1,820-square-foot drive-thru restaurant and 3,220-square-foot retail center. The gas pump islands and canopy will be removed. The total project would cost an estimated $400,000. [.pdf of staff memo]

The restaurant’s single lane drive-thru would primarily be accessed from a proposed curbcut on Jackson Ave., with an exit through the Westgate Shopping Center Jackson Ave. entrance. An existing curbcut off Jackson to the east would be closed. The new curbcut has been approved by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, and would prevent left turns onto Jackson. The drive-thru lane provides stacking for up to four vehicles and would be screened to the north by the proposed building.

In a separate vote at their June 17 meeting, planning commissioners had granted a special exception use for this project, which did not require additional city council approval. This was the first drive-thru proposal that has come through the city’s approval process since the city council approved changes to the Chapter 55 zoning ordinance that regulates drive-thrus. That approval came at the council’s June 2, 2014 meeting.

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

From left: Michael Brinkman, Alonzo Young and Dan Reim, a priest who’ll serve as head of household for the Jesuits at 1919 Wayne. Brinkman and Young supported the Jesuits’ petition, and congratulated Reim after the planning commission’s vote on June 17. (Photos by the writer.)

The meeting included a public hearing that lasted about an hour, with the majority of the 23 speakers supporting the request. More than 100 people attended the meeting, many of them wearing stickers that stated “I Proudly Support The Jesuits.” The Jesuits who would be living in the house are affiliated with the St. Mary Student Parish.

Approval requires six votes, but on June 3 the request had garnered support from only five of the seven commissioners who were present. Voting against it on June 3 were Diane Giannola and Kirk Westphal. Two commissioners – Sabra Briere and Paras Parekh – had been absent. Later in that June 3 meeting, commissioners voted to reconsider the item, then postponed it until June 17, when more commissioners would be present.

Giannola again dissented on June 17 to the special exception use, but the remaining seven commissioners at the meeting – including Westphal – supported the request. Jeremy Peters was absent.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald attended the June 17 meeting and fielded questions from commissioners. The motion was amended slightly, with an intent to emphasize the long-term relationship of the Jesuits to each other.

The property is located in Ward 2. Both of the Ward 2 city councilmembers – Jane Lumm and Sally Petersen– attended the June 17 the planning commission meeting, but did not formally address the commission. The planning commission’s decision is final – as the request from the Jesuits does not need city council approval. Westphal – the planning commission’s chair – is running for city council in the Ward 2 Democratic primary. Westphal and Nancy Kaplan are vying to fill the open seat that’s being left by Sally Petersen’s mayoral candidacy. Councilmember Sabra Briere, who serves on the planning commission, is also running for mayor.

After the vote, members of the audience erupted in applause. One woman approached Ben Hawley, pastor and director of campus ministry for St. Mary Student Parish, saying: “Welcome to the neighborhood!”

Commissioners also acted on another item they’d postponed from June 3: A proposal by the Ann Arbor housing commission to expand low-income housing on North Maple Road. The commission recommended rezoning a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). They also recommended approval of a site plan and development agreement for the project – part of a major renovation effort by the Ann Arbor housing commission. The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive.

The project calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. The units range in size from one bedroom to five bedrooms. Five people spoke during a public hearing on the item, including Gwenyth Hayes, the resident representative on the Ann Arbor housing commission. “A lot of times in Ann Arbor we talk about diversity. It’s important that we also include not just cultural diversity, but also socio-economic diversity,” Hayes said. That’s why the city needs more affordable housing, she added.

Another residential housing proposal – a $10 million, 78-unit apartments complex called State Street Village, across from the University of Michigan athletic campus – received criticism from some commissioners, but ultimately was recommended for approval. Commissioners spent about 30 minutes asking question and pressing the developer, McKinley Inc., to go beyond what the city code requires in terms of design, pedestrian amenities, a reduction of impervious surfaces, and stormwater management. “We’re putting our aspirations on you,” Bonnie Bona told them. The vote, which came near midnight, was unanimous – with only six of nine commissioners present.

Also recommended for approval was a proposal for a new drive-thru restaurant on Jackson Avenue near the I-94 interchange, next to Westgate Shopping Center. The plan calls for demolishing the existing one-story service station and auto repair shop and constructing a single building with a drive-thru restaurant and adjacent retail store.

Jesuit Request for 1919 Wayne

The Ann Arbor Jesuit Community, formally known as the USA Midwest Province of the Society of Jesus, had requested a special exception use to allow a “functional family” to live in a house zoned R1C (single-family dwelling). Without the special exception use, only up to four unrelated people could live there. The request was first considered at the planning commission’s June 3, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of 1919 Wayne St.

The code that allows this special exception use was adopted by Ann Arbor in 1991. Although the city’s ordinance has allowed for a “functional family” designation for more than two decades, this is the first time any group has requested it. The members are affiliated with the St. Mary Student Parish.

Approval requires six votes, but on June 3 the request had garnered support from only five of the seven commissioners who were present. Voting against it were Diane Giannola and Kirk Westphal. Two commissioners – Sabra Briere and Paras Parekh – had been absent. An attempt earlier in that meeting to postpone the vote had failed, with a majority of commissioners wanting to take action that night, apparently assuming it would pass. Later in that June 3 meeting, after the item had been rejected then reconsidered, the commission took another vote to postpone. That vote was 6-1, over dissent from Giannola.

Ben Hawley, pastor and director of campus ministry for the St. Mary Student Parish.

The planning commission has discretion to grant a special exception use, which does not require additional city council approval.

City planner Alexis DiLeo gave the staff report on June 17, reiterating many of the points made in the original report, when the staff had recommended approval of this request. [.pdf of updated staff report]

The code that allows this special exception use was adopted in 1991. Before that time, most communities didn’t provide for an alternative family living arrangement in their zoning codes. In 1984, the Michigan Supreme Court determined that some provision for a living arrangement other than a traditional biological family was needed. That ruling came in the case of Delta Charter Township v. Dinolfo.

Ann Arbor adopted language that is similar to ordinances in many communities in Michigan. A group must meet all requirements in the zoning ordinance as well as in the special exception use conditions in order to be considered a “functional family.”

A “functional family,” for purposes of the city’s zoning code, is defined as follows: “a group of people plus their offspring, having a relationship which is functionally equivalent to a family. The relationship must be of a permanent and distinct character with a demonstrable and recognizable bond characteristic of a cohesive unit.” The staff reports states that a functional family is not a social society, club, fraternity or sorority, association, lodge, organization, group of students or other unrelated persons living together temporarily.

Stickers were passed out at the June 17 planning commission meeting by supporters of the Jesuits.

The permit must apply only to the functional family “type” that obtains the permit – in this case, the Ann Arbor Jesuit Community. It is limited to the number of people specified in the permit, and there must be a contact person identified as head of household. This special exception use would be limited to up to six people, with Rev. Dan Reim acting as head of household.

Although the city’s ordinance has allowed for a “functional family” designation since 1991, this is the first time any group has requested it. The residents would be members of the religious order at St. Mary’s Student Parish, or pursuing degrees at the University of Michigan or other local institutions.

The group’s application describes how the Jesuits live as a “functional family.” The statement reads, in part:

As a functional family, we refer to one another, when speaking of each other collectively, as “brothers.” Our unity is based upon our religious commitment to live together as a religious family. As brothers related to one another by our common vows and commitment to service in the Church, we are, like a family, one another’s primary support system.

…

The basis of our living as a household is not temporary or dependent on the University school year or any such seasonal arrangement or pattern, as a fraternity or sorority would typically be. Jesuits living in structured households under a superior has been an integral part of the religious order for centuries, and the Jesuits who will live at 1919 Wayne will be participating in that centuries old tradition.

In addition to meeting the “functional family” requirement, this special exception use must meet with certain standards, including compatibility with the zoning district and adjacent districts. The use must also not generate an intensity that would be hazardous or inconvenient to the neighborhood, or conflict with normal traffic.

Wayne Street is located on the city’s near east side, between Washtenaw Avenue and Vinewood Boulevard, in Ward 2.

No exterior changes are planned to the structure of the house, which has about 4,000 square feet with seven bedrooms and two bathrooms. The Jesuits indicated that they’d like to reconfigure the interior to use one of the bedrooms as a guest room and to add two bathrooms.

Alexis DiLeo of the city planning staff.

The special exception use would be contingent on providing off-street parking spaces for each vehicle used by the residents. There are two spaces in the garage and two tandem parking spaces in the driveway. They also have received permission to park two vehicles at the lot for the First Church of Christ, Scientist, which is adjacent to the site.

DiLeo pointed out that enforcement of SEU conditions is complaint-driven – the city relies on its citizens to notify staff if there is a violation of any ordinance, she noted.

All SEUs must be activated within after ??three years of approval. So for this SEU, the Jesuits must move into 1919 Wayne by June 17, 2017. There are several things that would cause a SEU to lapse or be revoked, including violations of the conditions or vacating the property for 24 months.

In other types of special exception uses – like a child care center or fraternity – the original entity could move out, but a similar entity would retain the SEU, because it “runs with the land.” For a functional family, however, the SEU is not transferable to a different group, DiLeo explained.

In response to requests from commissioners on June 3, the planning staff had subsequently surveyed some communities in Michigan and out of state. The staff in other cities could not recall if their functional family provisions had ever been used or had said it was used very rarely, DiLeo said.

DiLeo concluded by saying that the staff recommendations from June 3 remain unchanged, and they continued to recommend approval of the request.

Jesuit Request for 1919 Wayne: Public Hearing

At the public hearing on June 3, 21 people had spoken, the majority were opposed to the request, including representatives from the Oxbridge Neighborhood Association and the North Burns Park Association. Concerns included the possibility of lower property values, the chance of opening the door to student housing or cults, instability of the household because members aren’t related, and “gender housing discrimination.”

Some people on June 3 directed criticism against the power, privilege and abuse of the Catholic church. Other praised the Jesuits, saying their concerns were strictly related to the zoning code, which they didn’t feel permitted this type of living arrangement in the R1C district. They suggested that the Jesuits could live in other districts – like R4C – that would allow for up to six unrelated people to live together without getting a special exception use.

Dan Reim would be head of household for the Jesuits at 1919 Wayne St.

On June 17, another public hearing on this item drew considerably more supporters of the request.

The commission had also received 81 emails/letters in the two intervening weeks, the vast majority of them in support of granting the special exception use. Those communications are attached to the commission’s online agenda.

Planning chair Kirk Westphal began the public hearing on June 17 with some reminders, noting that commissioners “are all mortals up here, and at a certain time, people lose their ability to sit in a meeting.” He asked speakers to queue up, talk into the microphone, and address the commission – not others in the audience. He noted that commissioners would be looking at the city code requirements, consistency with the city master plan, and impact on the neighborhood.

Because it was a new public hearing – not a continuation – speakers who weighed in on June 3 could speak again. But Westphal encouraged them to let new speakers go first. He described the strategy of having others in the audience stand up if they supported the speaker’s opinion, and stressed that although speakers had 3 minutes each, they didn’t need to use the entire time – a comment that drew laughs from the crowd.

The public hearing on June 17 drew 23 speakers, including many who supported the request. Here are some highlights.

Dan Reim is the priest who would serve as head of household for the Jesuits at 1919 Wayne. He thanked commissioners for reconsidering the request, and in general for their service to the city. He responded to three arguments that had been made against the request. First, the definition of “permanent” for a functional family applies to the relationship between the people – not to living at that location, he said. The vows that the Jesuits take, and the common training and path they pursue, makes their relationship to each other permanent and distinct, he noted. They share a common lifestyle and mission – service of faith, and the promotion of justice. Because of this shared vocation, their relationship to each other existed before they lived together, and will continue long after. They are also each other’s patient advocates.

Regarding concerns about transiency, Reim said the Jesuits have made a commitment to the ministry at St. Mary Student Parish in Ann Arbor. In the face of declining numbers of priests, the growth of the ministry here has been determined to be worth sending even more priests, he said. For the sake of stability, it would be counterproductive to interchange priests. So he and the other priests here “are likely to be around for quite some time.” The house on Wayne Street is perfect because it has enough bedrooms to accommodate up to six priests, and a living space that fits their religious lifestyle, which he said is similar to a family.

If the special exception use isn’t granted, either their ministry will be substantially burdened by limiting the number of priests who can live there, or their vowed life together will be burdened by living in separate houses, Reim said. The city’s R4C districts aren’t likely to have houses with both seven bedrooms and a communal living arrangement suitable for them. He hoped that if they’re allowed to live at 1919 Wayne, their living as good, respectful neighbors will serve to heal any divisions that have resulted from this request. “We can be trusted at our word that we will abide by the conditions determined by the planning commissioners, including that regarding parking,” he concluded.

Jonathan Levine supported the Jesuits’ request: “All individuals deserve to be treated on the basis of their own actions, and not subject to guilt by association. The fact that this even needs to be said in Ann Arbor of 2014 is profoundly disturbing.”

Jonathan Levine supported the request. There are good arguments to oppose it, he said, but he wanted to address three “exceptionally bad ones.” First is the claim that because only men would be able to live there, the special exception would constitute Ann Arbor’s endorsement of gender discrimination. Regulatory permission amounts to determination that the use is allowed by the city’s zoning code, he noted – not an endorsement of ideologies or religious practices. In fact, the city has no problem with single-gender housing – in dorms, sororities or fraternities. A Craigslist ad looking for three female roommates “would not raise an eyebrow and certainly no legal problems,” Levine said.

More disturbing is the claim that failures of the Catholic church to root out pedophilia are somehow relevant to this zoning decision, he said. The implication is that because the petitioners are Jesuit priests, they are under an automatic cloud of suspicion for being pedophiles. “I am embarrassed even to have to say these words,” Levine said. “All individuals deserve to be treated on the basis of their own actions, and not subject to guilt by association. The fact that this even needs to be said in Ann Arbor of 2014 is profoundly disturbing.”

Finally, Levine addressed a claim put forward by the attorney for the Oxbridge Neighborhood Association [Scott Munzel] – that the Jesuits’ vow to accept whatever mission the Pope requires precludes them from being a functional family, since family members’ primary commitment is to each other. “With all due respect to the planning commission, the last thing I want my municipal government doing is interpreting the meaning of religious tenets, as if what you believe is somehow relevant to your fitness to reside in a particular zone,” Levine said.

He was particularly surprised by the tone-deafness evidenced by raising the specter of loyalty to the Pope in the course of a political debate. He asked opponents of this request to consider what the zoning determination should be if the applicants were Unitarians, or Buddhists, or Presbyterians. “If the answer is no change, then these claims are an irrelevant smokescreen,” he said. If the answer is that people would feel differently if petitioners were of a different religion, “then you’re suggesting that the city of Ann Arbor engage in religious discrimination. Either way, these arguments deserve to be rejected in the strongest of terms,” Levine said.

The city needs to declare that there’s not just one American dream that can be pursued in this town, he said, even in its R1 zone. The special exception use is the appropriate vehicle to do this, he concluded. Levine received a round of applause from the crowd.

Also supporting the Jesuits was Liz Kamali. She said she’s a member of the Oxbridge Neighborhood Association. The ONA still hasn’t communicated with its full membership about its position against the Jesuits’ request and hiring an attorney, she said. The attorney fees are estimated at $3,450. That’s the equivalent of the $20 annual dues for more than 170 families. To show that the ONA and the attorney it hired, Scott Munzel, weren’t accurately representing the views of the neighborhood, she said she represented 33 ONA members and other residents who support granting the Jesuits’ petition. She asked them to stand – and more than two dozen people in the crowd stood up and applauded. Kamali said they would be happy to welcome the Jesuits to the Oxbridge neighborhood.

Sonia Urbaniak, one of the current owners of 1919 Wayne.

Sonia Urbaniak said she was an ONA member and one of the owners of 1919 Wayne St. She’d been excited that the Jesuits were following the law in making this request, and that they had talked to neighbors to try to address concerns. But she became very upset when she watched the video of the June 3 meeting. When she took her U.S. citizenship test, she was asked: “What is the rule of law?” The answer is that nobody is above the law. “I’m speaking to remind you that this is not about setting precedent or anything like that. This is about applying the code that is already there.”

If opponents’ concerns were reasonable, wouldn’t they have been made in the open? If the issue was communication, wouldn’t it have been reasonable to invite her and her husband – lifelong ONA members – to the meeting about the possible sale, instead of removing them from the email list? she asked. Why hasn’t the ONA president attempted to get feedback from members since the June 3 planning commission meeting?

There might be reasons why some people don’t want the Jesuits to live there, Urbaniak said. She was sure there are similar sentiments about all different groups, both in America and worldwide. She’s from Germany, so it’s harder to think about this issue in that context. “Please, let the laws decide – and not prejudice. Because if prejudice and not laws becomes our advisor, then we’ve lost a lot of the advancements of the last century,” she said.

JoAnn Barrett is a realtor representing the owners of 1919 Wayne. She noted that her children grew up in the Oxbridge neighborhood, and she loved the “historic, intellectual and international tapestry of it.” It’s a quiet, safe place where children walk to school and neighbors know one other. They have a neighborhood July 4th parade and picnic every year.

Places of worship are a very vital thread in the neighborhood’s fabric, she said. Art, architecture, books and music have their roots in centuries of sponsorship by clergies. Churches and temples help celebrate life transitions – birth, adulthood, marriage, death. No matter what you believe or don’t believe, Barrett said, “there is not one of us who will not be touched by the kindness and charity of ministers, priests and rabbis.” They provide meals, clothing, transportation and kind words to the hungry, homeless, the poor and sick. “What better way to enrich a neighborhood than to invite into it the very people who go out into the community to help the weakest and the neediest among us?”

JoAnn Barrett, the realtor who represents the current owners of 1919 Wayne.

This special exception is a gift to the neighborhood, Barrett said. It’s not a change in zoning, and it doesn’t stay with the home if the Jesuits leave. Their presence and the additional two bathrooms they want to add will only improve home values, she said. Evidence of that is seen at their well-kept home on Ferdon, or in talking to their current neighbors. They are more permanent than most homeowners, having lived on Ferdon for 10 years – five years longer than the average Ann Arbor homeowner. They drive safely, they don’t play loud music or have a mean dog, she said. “They have no intentions of painting the house purple.”

When Ann Arbor is even considering being less inclusive than the state of Michigan, she concluded, “there is something very, very wrong.” She urged commissioners to follow the law and the recommendations of the city attorney’s office.

Susan Black said she lives within 300 feet of 1919 Wayne, and has lived there 27 years. Letting the Jesuits live there is the right thing to do. Because of actions by ONA, she said she’s resigned as a board member – even though she’d forgotten she had been on the board until she was notified about the vote to spend $3,500 for an attorney. Regarding parking, Black said are nine parking spaces between the front of her house and the nearby park that no one uses. Regarding property values, she reported that she used Zillow to calculate how much the Jesuits’ home on Ferdon has increased in value over the past six years – it’s worth $160,000 more. “So there goes the property value argument,” she said.

Michael O’Donnell introduced himself as a Ward 2 resident and cardiologist – for several years, he was medical director of the interventional cardiology program at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital. “A lot of who I am and what I became are a direct result of my Jesuit education,” he said. O’Donnell knows the Jesuits who are asking for a special exception use and could vouch for them unequivocally. If the request isn’t granted, he said, it will adversely affect St. Mary Student Parish. The priests are an asset to that parish, the surrounding parishes, and the community as a whole, he said. He asked other members of the parish or any others who supported the request to stand up – dozens of people did.

Andrea Van Houweling and Eppie Potts spoke against granting the special exception use for the Jesuits at 1919 Wayne.

Eppie Potts spoke to oppose the request. She was very disappointed that at the commission’s last discussion on June 3, they didn’t spend much time applying the city code to this case. They shouldn’t rely on the staff report, because it was “full of errors,” she said. It had included or omitted some words that changed the meaning of the city’s ordinance, she said. Potts read from a section from the code that states a functional family does not include any society or association. She defined those words, and concluded that the Jesuits fit that definition. Their loyalty is to the Jesuit community, she noted, and they could be reassigned at any time. “This is not a relationship of a permanent character.” Approving this request would be a violation of city code, she concluded.

Local architect Theresa Angelini, a member of St. Mary Student Parish, told commissioners she’s very familiar with the zoning code. It was intended to protect that area from sororities, fraternities and student housing. The Jesuits would be a good fit, she said. “I’m just embarrassed that Ann Arbor is a bit closed-minded in terms of the allowance of this,” Angelini said. She also noted that very few houses in Ann Arbor have seven bedrooms.

Paul Morel, co-president of the Oxbridge Neighborhood Association, said ONA held a meeting on May 13 to discuss the functional family request. They sent out 205 emails – of those, 111 were opened, he said, and 33 people attended the meeting. It was the largest attendance in years, he noted. Two things were on the agenda: the functional family petition, and deer in the neighborhood.

At that meeting, there was unanimous consensus to prepare a paper outlining the issues with the request. Subsequently, a couple of people – possibly more – changed their mind and decided to support the Jesuits request, he noted. Morel said ONA’s position represents a significant number of residents, but not all. There’s nearly universal agreement that the issue isn’t about whether the Jesuits would be good neighbors, Morel said. Most people believe they are good and honest, with an excellent reputation as neighbors on Ferdon. The issue is whether the use of a functional family in this case is appropriate, he said. ONA’s concern is that approval would set a precedent for future petitions.

Paul Morel, co-president of the Oxbridge Neighborhood Association.

Morel stressed that the Jesuits don’t qualify as a functional family, repeating some of the same arguments that previous speakers had made. Even if they qualified as a functional family, their request would still fail to meet the city’s standards for a special exception use, he said – because it’s not consistent with the city’s master plan. This is a single-family residential neighborhood, he said, that doesn’t contain group homes, cooperatives, or student housing with more than four occupants.

Gwen Nystuen also opposed the request, and said she’s spent a lot of time thinking about this issue. She noted that the Jesuits’ application includes a list of other places throughout the country where groups who are affiliated because of their religion are allowed to live together. She’s become convinced that the planning commission should consider this special exception use for a church use in the R1C district, rather than as a functional family. This would solve many of the concerns that people have raised, she said. The request is really for a parsonage, Nystuen said – it will be owned by a church and occupied by clergy.

Lisa Jevens told commissioners that when she walked into city hall that night, four different people asked if she supported the Jesuits and wanted to wear a sticker. “My answer to that is I do support the Jesuits, but I do not support them trying to bend our zoning laws so that they can buy this home,” she said. She’s concerned that the commission is getting distracted by “a big PR campaign,” rather than focusing on the laws and zoning. It’s dangerous and biased to decide zoning issues based on the merits of a particular organization or individuals, she said. There are other zoning districts in Ann Arbor where six unrelated people can live without a special exception use – or there are special exceptions for church uses, she noted. Every decision does set a precedent, she added, and this would encourage other groups to find ways around the laws as well.

Andrea Van Houweling said she’d welcome the Jesuits living next door to her, if they weren’t seeking permission as a functional family. She thought the city was opening a can of worms to many other requests. She supports granting them a special exception use as a church use, because she thinks they are a parish house or a parsonage. With that, they’d be welcome almost anywhere in town, she said.

Karen Snyder attended the meeting to provide interpretive services for the hearing impaired. She was hired by the city at the request of a citizen.

Michael Clark lives in a property adjacent to 1919 Wayne. This debate has made it clear that the wording of the ordinance is unclear, he said. Clark said the planning commission should have asked the zoning board of appeals for clarification. Approving this request would set a precedent of any group that says they function as a family, he said. If this request is approved, he plans to appeal to the zoning board of appeals.

The attorney for the Jesuits, Cevin Taylor, read a section of the zoning ordinance that relates to residential occupancy. The Jesuits are simply asking that the city let them accommodate their centuries-old living arrangement, he said. They’ve demonstrated clearly that they meet the definition of functional family, he said. All they’re asking is to be treated like any functional family, and not to be held to a higher standard compared to other families. It’s actually against the law to do that, Taylor said.

Taylor cited the Michigan Supreme Court ruling in Delta Charter Township v. Dinolfo, as well as the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Taylor also objected to the argument that because the Jesuits have a commitment to their order, that it precludes them from having a commitment to each other. In his family, Taylor said, members have a commitment to their church as well as to each other – it’s not an either/or choice. He asked that commissioners approve the petition.

Susan Friedlander introduced herself as an attorney representing the Clark family. She said the city’s ordinance doesn’t define the terms “society” or “organization.” So courts typically go to the dictionary. She read a definition of society, and said she was concerned about equal protection under the law. The question is how the city applies its ordinances evenly to everyone. But the ordinance isn’t clear, Friedlander said. If the Students for a Democratic Society came in and wanted to live in that neighborhood, would they be allowed? Another concern is how the ordinance should be interpreted regarding permanence.

Michael Brinkman began by quipping: “Good evening, you mere mortals!” – a reference to planning commission’ chair Kirk Westphal’s earlier comments. Brinkman said commissioners don’t have to be gods to understand the sentiment of the vast majority of supporters for the Jesuits. Regarding concerns over semantics of the word “society,” he said “the letter of the law kills. The spirit gives life.”

Several other residents also voiced support of the Jesuits’ request, including Vivian Johnson, Sherry Moravy, Laura Paterson, Peggy Lynch, Masoud Kamali and Aaron Blizzard.

Jesuit Request for 1919 Wayne: Commission Discussion

The discussion among commissioners lasted over 90 minutes, followed by a vote. This report summarizes and organizes the deliberations thematically.

Jesuit Request for 1919 Wayne: Commission Discussion – Friendly Amendments

Addressing the assertion during public commentary that the language in the motion did not match the language in the code, Ken Clein suggested amending the motion to reflect the language of the city code, by adding two words: “…relationship is of a permanent and distinct character…” The amendment was accepted as friendly.

Sabra Briere proposed a similar friendly amendment to this part of the motion:

The Ann Arbor Jesuit Community is not a social society, club, fraternity, sorority, association, lodge, organization or group of students or other individuals in a temporary housekeeping unit in which the common living arrangement or basis for the establishment of the housekeeping unit is temporary.

She suggested deleting “social” and “in a temporary housekeeping unit,” noting that those phrases aren’t part of the city’s ordinance. City planner Alexis DiLeo replied that the motion reflects the staff’s findings, and that the commission is free to amend it.

Briere said that one of the concerns she’s heard is that the staff is rewriting the ordinance for this request. She thought that impression comes from the fact that the language in the motion closely echoes the ordinance, but doesn’t use the exact same language. In the future, she hoped that when the motion mimics the ordinance so closely, it uses the same language.

Briere’s suggestion wasn’t acted on at this point. Later in the meeting she again proposed deleting the word “social,” which was then accepted as a friendly amendment.

Jesuit Request for 1919 Wayne: Commission Discussion – Role of the ZBA

Responding to a query from Bonnie Bona, Alexis DiLeo explained that the city’s zoning board of appeals is a quasi-judicial body that has two primary roles. One is to grant variances to the city’s zoning. They are also charged with interpreting the city’s zoning ordinance.

The ZBA is not an “approving” body, DiLeo said – that is, they don’t approve site plans or other zoning proposals.

The powers of the ZBA are laid out in the city code – Chapter 55, Section IX.

5:98. Powers.

The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have all powers granted by state law to such boards, including the following specific powers:

(1) Administrative review: To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is error in any order, requirement, permit, decision, or refusal made by the Building Official or any other administrative official in enforcing any provision of this chapter. Appeals shall be filed within 60 days of the date of the decision in question.

(2) Variances: To authorize variances pursuant to section 5:99.

(3) The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the power to approve the substitution of 1 nonconforming use for another, as provided in section 5:86.

(4) The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the power to approve the continuation or replacement of a nonconforming structure as provided in section 5:87.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson clarified that the ZBA has the authority to hear appeals – for example, if the staff turns down a permit. But Bona pointed out that the ZBA is not the interpreting body for the planning commission. The ZBA isn’t an advisory board, she added.

Jesuit Request for 1919 Wayne: Commission Discussion – Ordinance Revisions

During the public hearing, the issue of revising the ordinance related to functional families was raised. Bonnie Bona asked staff to explain how ordinances are revised, and when those revisions are appropriate.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

Alexis DiLeo explained that the process at this point would involve tabling or denying the petition in order for an ordinance change to occur. In Ann Arbor, anyone can file a petition for a text amendment to a city ordinance. For example, at the commission’s June 3, 2014 meeting, they approved an ordinance amendment that was brought forward by owners of property on Research Park Drive.

If the ordinance change is approved – first by the planning commission, then by the city council – then the petition that was tabled could be brought back for consideration. If the petition was denied, the petitioner could reapply under the revised ordinance. In the case of the Jesuits’ request, DiLeo wasn’t sure they’d want to wait that long.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson elaborated, saying that an ordinance revision could also be initiated by city council or the planning commission.

Bona asked another question: Once a proposal is already in front of the commission, can the rules under which it’s evaluated change? Yes, Rampson replied. However, going through an ordinance change takes a minimum of three months, and probably more like six months. If someone has brought forward a petition in good faith to apply under the current code, Rampson said, the commission typically hears that petition under the existing code – and then follows up later with an ordinance revision, if they believe that’s necessary.

Jesuit Request for 1919 Wayne: Commission Discussion – Precedent

Bonnie Bona asked staff to address concerns that were raised about setting a precedent. Alexis DiLeo replied that this particular special exception use sets a very high bar for the next request. She outlined specific characteristics of the Jesuits as a functional family, including lifetime vows, the power to make medical decisions for each other, and the pooling of resources.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson added that every case is unique. DiLeo clarified that other groups would need to be equally as specific in making their case.

Bona noted that people on both sides of this request have asked for examples in other communities. But she said she didn’t recall the planning commission ever using a previous special exception use in order to evaluate a current request.

Jesuit Request for 1919 Wayne: Commission Discussion – Parsonage?

Referencing a suggestion made during the public hearing, Wendy Woods asked whether anyone had considered making the special exception use as a church use rather than as a functional family. Alexis DiLeo said the original request from the Jesuits was for a functional family, and planning staff did not suggest the alternative of a church use. She noted that the city code doesn’t specifically mention parsonages, and churches are regulated as places of assembly. The Jesuits aren’t planning to use the house as a place of religious assembly, she added.

Planning commissioner Ken Clein.

Woods said her thought was that as a church, the property might become tax-exempt.

Jesuit Request for 1919 Wayne: Commission Discussion – Other Zoning Districts

Kirk Westphal brought up another issue raised during the public hearing: Why couldn’t the Jesuits live in another zoning district that would allow six unrelated people to live there without a special exception use? He asked whether that was part of the commission’s purview.

Alexis DiLeo replied that the staff reviewed the application based on what was requested – a special exception use for 1919 Wayne.

Jesuit Request for 1919 Wayne: Commission Discussion – Enforcement, Student Housing

Westphal also asked about enforcement. DiLeo replied that any member of the Ann Arbor Jesuit community would meet the definition of this particular functional family. If non-Jesuits live at 1919 Wayne, that would not be in compliance with the special exception use. Enforcement is typically complaint-driven, and the city’s response usually starts with a phone call or letter, she said. Beyond that, the staff proceeds with action on a case-by-case basis.

Westphal asked what would happen if it becomes a house where only students live. If the students are Jesuits and meeting all of the other conditions of the SEU, DiLeo said, they wouldn’t be violating its terms.

Westphal then asked whether the city ever restricts use based on whether residents are students. No, DiLeo said.

Jesuit Request for 1919 Wayne: Commission Discussion – Functional Family

Bona asked Dan Reim, the priest who will serve as head of household, to describe what it means to be a Jesuit. “Could I become a Jesuit?” she quipped.

Reim described the Jesuits as a religious order within the Catholic church. The most common type of priests are diocesan priests, who are typically involved in a parish church and live in a rectory. There are also religious orders – like the Franciscan, the Benedictines, the Augustinians, and the Jesuits. All of those orders were created because of a particular need or inspiration or individual, he said. Diocesan priests take vows of chastity and obedience to the bishop. Religious orders take those vows too, Reim explained, but in addition take vows of poverty and hold their material goods in common.

Planning commission chair Kirk Westphal talks to Bonnie Bona before the start of the June 17 meeting.

Reim noted that priesthood is reserved “currently” to males – a comment that drew laughter from the crowd. He said he’d be happy to share his personal views on that issue sometime.

Bona also asked about the vows that Jesuits take, compared to the relationship among the Jesuits themselves as a functional family. Reim replied that the Jesuits’ allegiance is both to their religious order and to each other. His vow of obedience means he doesn’t determine where he lives or works – that’s determined by his religious superior, who doesn’t currently live in Ann Arbor. But the Jesuit Constitutions also define their allegiances to one another within the Jesuit community, although they don’t take vows to each other.

Bona noted that at the June 3, 2014 meeting, Reim had spoken about other aspects of the Jesuits’ commitment to each other, such as their approach to conflict resolution. Reim said the Jesuits are committed in their mission together – it’s not just an individual choice.

Westphal asked Reim to confirm that the Jesuits’ vows preclude them from establishing a biological family in the traditional sense. Reim confirmed that there would be no families, women or children living at the house.

Bona indicated that she’d like to amend the SEU to include language about the Jesuits’ commitment to each other. DiLeo said planning staff did attempt to address that relationship in the SEU motion: “They will assume roles such as head of the household, pool financial resources, assign responsibilities such as cleaning, shopping and yard work, and have adopted other features of a cohesive family unit such as caring for sick members and making medical decisions for each other, as necessary.”

Jesuit Request for 1919 Wayne: Commission Discussion – Legal Issues

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald attended the meeting and was asked several questions by commissioners. Sabra Briere began by asking about the issue of permanence. Specifically, she referred to this section of Chapter 55 in the city code [emphasis added]:

5:7. Residential occupancy.

…

(4) In this section, functional family means a group of people plus their offspring, having a relationship which is functionally equivalent to a family. The relationship must be of a permanent and distinct character with a demonstrable and recognizable bond characteristic of a cohesive unit. Functional family does not include any society, club, fraternity, sorority, association, lodge, organization or group of students or other individuals where the common living arrangement or basis for the establishment of the housekeeping unit is temporary.

She asked McDonald whether the following rephrasing of the ordinance would provide the same criteria: “A functional family does not include any group of individuals where the common living arrangement or basis for the establishment of the housekeeping unit is temporary.” She said some people were attempting to define the word “society” or “association,” and she was attempting to clarify the intent of the ordinance.

From left: Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald talks with planning commission chair Kirk Westphal.

McDonald replied by saying that you can’t read just selective parts of the ordinance. The list of exceptions to a functional family starts with “society, club, fraternity…” but can’t be read without including the end of that sentence: “…or group of students or other individuals where the common living arrangement or basis for the establishment of the housekeeping unit is temporary.”

It’s the planning commission’s job to determine whether the Jesuits’ petition meets the definition, he said. McDonald noted that the city attorney’s office did some of the background work for this issue. Other communities in Michigan include this same general language in their ordinances. Just asking the question of whether or not a group is a society or association isn’t enough, he said – you have to read the entire context of the ordinance.

Regarding students, McDonald noted that it would be possible for both he and his wife to be taking classes, as well as their children. So they could theoretically be characterized as students – even though they are also a family.

Briere then said she interpreted the phrase “relationship must be of a permanent and distinct character” as a reference to the permanence of the relationship, not of the housing unit. McDonald thought that was a reasonable interpretation. He also noted that the special exception use in this case would apply to the type of functional family, which he said suggests that the relationship among individuals would be permanent. A traditional family that might move into a house has a relationship that’s permanent, but that doesn’t mean the same people stay at that location forever, he said. The same would be true for a functional family.

Briere asked McDonald to review the meaning of the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. McDonald explained that the act applies to municipal and government land use, and to people who are institutionalized – such as people who are incarcerated. The relevant part for the Jesuits’ petition relates to land use. He read this section of the act:

No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution—

(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

RLUIPA applies when there’s an individualized assessment of a proposed land use, McDonald said – meaning that the city would be making a specialized decision on the facts of the matter regarding whether the land use can be approved. McDonald said some people would argue that an SEU is an individualized assessment. He said he wasn’t going to give his opinion or advice about whether the city’s action in granting this SEU would be in violation of RLUIPA.

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

Briere then asked McDonald to explain why the Michigan Supreme Court ruling in Delta Charter Township v. Dinolfo applies to the Jesuits’ petition.

McDonald said the city of Ann Arbor has a thick file of material from that period in the 1980s and early 1990s, when the functional family designation was added to the zoning ordinance. It was adopted in 1991. The Dinolfo decision meant that the city could make a determination about the number of people who could occupy a house, and that certain zoning areas could be protected – like single-family residential districts. But the case called into question whether a city could use only a biological family definition, he said. The court found that cities were making too narrow of a definition of “family” – so they needed to have an alternative.

McDonald noted that in some cities, the ordinance language includes “religious order” as a type of functional family.

Wendy Woods asked if McDonald knew whether the city had previously granted a functional family designation for a special exception use. McDonald said he believed this is the first petition of this type in Ann Arbor. What’s more, when the staff contacted other communities in Michigan, they couldn’t find any city that had any significant history regarding the functional family designation.

McDonald also responded to some comments he’d heard during the public hearing. He stressed that the city attorney’s office had come to no conclusion about the Jesuits’ petition – they weren’t making a recommendation, as some speakers had stated.

Westphal asked if the motion being considered by the planning commission would become part of the SEU for 1919 Wayne. McDonald clarified that the motion, with the staff findings included, constitutes approval of the SEU on behalf of the planning commission. “This motion incorporates what that special exception is,” McDonald said. There might be a follow-up letter from staff, he added, “but this is it.”

Responding to an additional query from Westphal, McDonald stated that each request for a special exception use is different, and approval depends on a specific set of facts and circumstances. Regarding the issue of precedent, McDonald said he’d heard some concern about factual precedent – that this would open the door for all kinds of other uses. He noted that every petition is scrutinized – as evidenced by the deliberations at this meeting – by staff and planning commission, to make sure it meets the requirements of the city’s code.

Jesuit Request for 1919 Wayne: Commission Discussion – Parking

Bonnie Bona confirmed with Alexis DiLeo that the neighborhood has a residential parking program.

Planning commissioner Eleanore Adenekan.

DiLeo explained that residents can purchase parking permit stickers. Unless you have a permit, parking on the streets is limited to two hours. There’s a limited number of permits that each household can purchase. With the sticker, you can park an unlimited amount of hours.

Bona said there might be an issue with the city giving away too many permits per household, but she noted that it’s a different issue than the request from the Jesuits.

Eleanore Adenekan asked about parking for guests who visit the house. How long might guests stay? she asked. Dan Reim, who’ll serve as head of household for the Jesuits, said he tries to follow the “rule of fish” – three days, and they begin to stink. There are no plans to have long-term guests, he said.

Adenekan confirmed that guests would be parking on the street. Reim said that if there’s a problem, they’d deal with it. “I don’t want parking to be the reason why we’re not able to have this house,” he said.

Wendy Woods asked if the Jesuits would be able to get residential parking permits. DiLeo replied that households in that neighborhood could have a total of five residential permits. That option would be available to any household in the Oxbridge neighborhood, including the Jesuits.

Jesuit Request for 1919 Wayne: Commission Discussion – General Deliberations

Kirk Westphal cautioned against rewording the motion in a way that would make it more confusing – and therefore more likely that certain conditions might be violated.

After additional discussion that included a variety of hypotheticals, Wendy Woods said it seemed like the commission was going in circles. She didn’t think they needed to get caught up in laying out details of allegiances between individuals or the broader church community. Woods was also concerned about additional wordsmithing of the motion, saying she didn’t think it needed more information. “I really am concerned that we’re really starting to get down into the weeds.” She said she hadn’t changed her mind since June 3, and still supported it.

Ken Clein agreed with Woods. He thought the commission needed to be careful about holding the Jesuits, as a functional family, to a higher standard than other families. “That starts to sound like discrimination,” he said. Clein wasn’t concerned about setting precedent, noting that each case is different. And in the past 23 years, there haven’t been a large number of these requests anywhere in Michigan. He didn’t see it as being detrimental to the neighborhood.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

Eleanore Adenekan also agreed with Clein and Woods. She thanked the public for their letters and emails, and for attending the meeting. All commissioners have put a lot of time into this issue, and some commissioners – including her – had changed their schedules so that they could attend this meeting, she said. Adenekan cited several issues that had been raised, and expressed concern about holding the Jesuits to a higher standard than other households. She supported their petition. She believes Ann Arbor is a community based on inclusion and acceptance, and that the Jesuits and others in this neighborhood can live together peacefully.

Diane Giannola said the issue isn’t about religion at all. It’s not about whether the Jesuits can buy a house, or whether four Jesuits can live in a house – because that’s allowed by code. The issue is whether this petitioner qualifies as a functional family, she said. Her problem is that an entire religious order is being characterized as the functional family. If six individual Jesuits came forward with this request, then she’d support it as a functional family. But an entire religious order, where people move in and out based on what they’re told to do, isn’t a functional family. “It goes against the entire spirit and purpose of why the functional family was developed,” Giannola said.

Historically, the designation came about because stepfamilies, gay parents with children, halfway houses and other groups weren’t allowed in single-family residential areas, Giannola continued. The court had ruled that religion can be used as a bond for a family. Although that’s the case with the Jesuits’ request, she added, an entire religious order is being called the functional family – not just the six individuals. It’s too broad, and “makes it a boarding house for the church.”

Bonnie Bona disagreed, saying it wasn’t the entire religious order but rather the Ann Arbor Jesuit community. She then proposed an amendment to two sentences in the motion, with the intent of clarifying the relationship among the Jesuits at 1919 Wayne [added words in italics, deleted works in strike-thru]:

They have taken lifelong religious vows to the Jesuit order and intend to reside at this address indefinitely. They will assume The commitment of the Ann Arbor Jesuit community to each other assumes roles such as head of the household, pool financial resources, assign responsibilities such as cleaning, shopping and yard work, and have adopted other features of a cohesive family unit such as caring for sick members and making medical decisions for each other, as necessary.

Outcome on Bona’s amendment: It passed unanimously.

Briere asked to delete “social” from the following sentence in the motion: “The Ann Arbor Jesuit Community is not a social society, club, fraternity, sorority, association, lodge, organization or group of students or other individuals in a temporary housekeeping unit in which the common living arrangement or basis for the establishment of the housekeeping unit is temporary.” She thought it might cause confusion.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners vote on the Jesuits’ request.

It was accepted as a friendly amendment by Clein, who had originally moved this item, and by Adenekan, who had seconded it.

Giannola argued that the word “social” is needed in the phrase “social society,” because “society” is in the petitioners’ name: The Society of Jesus. However, no further action was taken to re-insert the word.

Briere said she respected the concerns that people had voiced – not just from the neighborhood, but from the broader community – about whether the planning commission would approve more functional family designations in the name of increasing density. “I do not find that to be the case,” she said, though she understood the concern.

Westphal said he had been hesitant on June 3 because he’d wanted time to address community concerns – that’s why he had previously favored postponement. He thought staff had been very thorough in making sure the motion reflected the city code’s definition of functional family. The SEU also has to comply with all the city’s special exception use standards, he noted. He was very comfortable with granting the SEU to this applicant, because it met the functional family definition and the SEU standards. He didn’t feel the commission would be setting a precedent.

At this point, Adenekan clarified the amendments that had been approved, saying: “So much talking has been done – I’m getting somewhat confused.”

The final amended SEU motion states:

1. The group of people proposed to reside at 1919 Wayne meet the definition of a functional family, specifically:

a. The members of the Ann Arbor Jesuit Community who propose to reside at 1919 Wayne Street have a relationship that is functionally equivalent to a family in that their relationship is of a permanent and distinct character with a demonstrable and recognizable bond characteristic of a cohesive unit. They have taken lifelong religious vows to the Jesuit order and intend to reside at this address indefinitely. The commitment of the Ann Arbor Jesuit community to each other assumes roles such as head of the household, pool financial resources, assign responsibilities such as cleaning, shopping and yard work, and have adopted other features of a cohesive family unit such as caring for sick members and making medical decisions for each other, as necessary.

b. The Ann Arbor Jesuit Community is not a society, club, fraternity, sorority, association, lodge, organization or group of students or other individuals in a temporary housekeeping unit in which the common living arrangement or basis for the establishment of the housekeeping unit is temporary.

2. A functional family with an approved special exception use is considered a single family residential use, and thus is consistent with the objectives of the City Master Plan, and with the existing and planned character of the neighborhood. The household size is within the normal size range of households found in this zoning district, and will not have a detrimental effect on neighboring property or the natural environment.

3. No changes are proposed for the current site, which conforms to the R1C zoning district. Adequate off-street parking for the household will be provided, and the use of the site will not be hazardous or inconvenient to the neighborhood.

4. The approval will apply only to a functional family made up of no more than 6 individuals of the Ann Arbor Jesuit Community.

5. The Ann Arbor Jesuit Community has identified a contact person who will act as head of household in relating to the city.

Outcome: On a 7-1 vote, commissioners approved the special exception use, as amended, for 1919 Wayne St. Diane Giannola dissented. It does not require additional city council action.

The crowd attending the meeting applauded. One woman approached Ben Hawley, pastor and director of campus ministry for St. Mary Student Parish, saying: “Welcome to the neighborhood!”

North Maple Low-Income Housing

After being postponed at the Ann Arbor planning commission’s June 3, 2014 meeting, a proposal by the Ann Arbor housing commission to expand low-income housing on North Maple Road was back on the June 17 agenda.

Aerial view of North Maple Estates site, outlined in green.

Planning commissioners were asked to recommend rezoning a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). They were also asked to recommend a site plan and development agreement for the project – part of a major renovation effort by the Ann Arbor housing commission. The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive. [.pdf of staff report]

The plan calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. The units range in size from one bedroom to five bedrooms.

The project would include a playground, community building and 73 parking spaces. According to a staff memo, the buildings would be located along a T-shaped driveway that connects to North Maple Road and Dexter Avenue. The drive extends northward toward Vine Court but does not connect with that street. There would be a new connection to Dexter Avenue through the remaining, undeveloped length of Seybold Drive.

The project also requires the city to vacate a portion of the right-of-way for Seybold Drive. The surrounding land is owned by the housing commission, so if the right-of-way vacation is approved, the land would become part of the housing commission property. In a separate item, the planning commission was also asked to recommend approving that request.

On June 3, several nearby residents had raised concerns about the project, including issues with security, impact on adjacent property, and traffic exiting onto Dexter Avenue. In addition, the planning staff had recommended postponement so that the housing commission staff could address some outstanding issues with the project. On June 17, the planning staff recommended approval and noted that housing commission staff and the project’s team had talked with residents after the June 3 meeting to address concerns. Five people spoke during the June 17 public hearing, either asking questions or expressing support.

Planning staff noted three issues that need to be resolved before the project gets approval from city council:

The parcel containing two duplex buildings also owned by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission in the northeast corner of the site must be combined with the subject site, forming a single parcel as a requirement for issuance of any permits.

The legal description and comparison chart data must be confirmed to include the duplex parcel.

The northern-most parking stall, nearest the connection to Vine Court, must be relocated outside of the minimum front setback area.

According to the staff memo, after June 3 the city’s traffic engineer reviewed the proposed new connection from Seybold Drive onto Dexter Avenue, and concluded that sight distances from all approaches are acceptable. He suggested that the pavement markings on Dexter should be refreshed.

The reconstruction of North Maple Estates is part of an ongoing effort by the housing commission to upgrade the city’s housing stock for low-income residents. At the planning commission’s May 6, 2014 meeting, AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall had made a presentation about the initiative, which includes seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

North Maple Low-Income Housing: Public Hearing

Five people spoke during the public hearing for this project.

Susan Push, a resident who lives near the proposed North Maple Estates.

Susan Push told commissioners that she lives on Allison Drive, west of the North Maple complex. Her house is closest to the current basketball court, which is highly used. She didn’t see a new court in the proposed plans, and wanted to say it’s a valuable asset to people who live at North Maple Estates.

Another Allison Drive resident, Joyce Garrett, said it looked like Seybold Drive would be going through Scio Township property, and she wondered if the township would be vacating that section.

John Mouat, the project’s architect, talked about concerns that had previously been raised by nearby residents – density and setbacks on the property’s west side. The site is 4.2 acres. If zoned R4B, then theoretically there could be up to 72 units on the property, he noted. This project proposes 42 units. “So I think we’re trying to find a nice balance point between what’s there now, and at the same time accomplishing getting more units on the site.” Regarding setbacks, Mouat said the existing buildings on the site have setbacks of between 14-22 feet from the property line. In the proposed plans, the building setbacks would vary from 37-57 feet.

Mouat also responded to Push’s comments about the basketball court. He said the site has a significant grade change, so it’s difficult to find an area with a large, flat surface for the court.

Gwenyth Hayes, the resident representative on the Ann Arbor housing commission.

Gwenyth Hayes introduced herself as a recent graduate of the University of Michigan School of Social Work and the resident representative on the Ann Arbor housing commission board. At the June 3 meeting, the main voices that were missing from the discussion were the voices of public housing residents, she said. They’re the ones who’ll be living there, and this renovation is very important so that they’ll have a quality place to live. She has visited public housing in other cities, and knows that Ann Arbor’s public housing is among the best, and the city should keep it that way.

Regarding comments on June 3 that there should be a fence around the complex, Hayes thought that was painting public housing residents with a broad brush. If it weren’t for public housing, she wouldn’t have been able to make it from a homeless teen to a woman with a master’s degree. That transformation was possible because of safe, affordable housing, she said. “A lot of times in Ann Arbor we talk about diversity. It’s important that we also include not just cultural diversity, but also socio-economic diversity,” Hayes said. That’s why the city needs more affordable housing, she added, and the added units on this site are definitely needed.

For people who are concerned about crime, Hayes said that as a resident of public housing, she knows that all residents aren’t criminals. “We don’t like crime either, and we’re more likely to be the victims of the crime than the people in the surrounding neighborhoods.” Public housing residents are just as much a part of the fabric of the neighborhood as anyone else, Hayes concluded, and she wanted to make sure their voices are heard.

After praising Hayes’ commentary, Caleb Poirier told commissioners that he’s a member of the nonprofit MISSION and an organizer with the larger homeless community. He was impressed by the scrutiny given to the Jesuits’ request for a special exception use – it shows that commissioners think about things exceedingly carefully, which he thought was a good trait. He supported Hayes’ comments, saying that people in Ann Arbor need a home – including people who can’t afford one, and people who don’t have one at all. He’s excited that more housing is being created, after about a decade when no affordable housing was built.

John Mouat, architect for the North Maple Estates project.

For people who live near low-income housing, Poirier said they are often scared of people they haven’t met yet, and that’s understandable. That fear usually goes away when you start meeting people and their kids, and discover their personalities. “I encourage those who are scared to take that step,” Poirier concluded.

Jennifer Hall, executive director of the Ann Arbor housing commission, said they’re trying to be a good neighbor to surrounding residents. One way to do that is to maintain the AAHC properties. She mentioned the reduced funding from HUD, and said this new approach is an opportunity to improve the housing as well as the neighborhoods. “The last thing we want to be is the worst house on the block,” Hall said.

Regarding the basketball court, Hall said they’ve talked about it. Right now, it’s located on the highest part of the site, which is the best place to put housing because of water issues. But the lower parts of the site are hilly, so there’s not a good spot for it. They’ve talked about this issue with Peace Neighborhood Center, which provides much of the summer programming for kids at North Maple Estates. That community center is a couple of blocks away. Sometimes the basketball courts at AAHC sites are used by non-residents, and littler kids get pushed away from playing, she said. AAHC decided that having more housing on the site was more critical than a basketball court, but they do provide other recreational opportunities, Hall said.

North Maple Low-Income Housing: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona asked about the intersection of Seybold and Dexter, and the traffic engineer’s comments about refreshing the street markings. What’s the plan for doing that? City planner Alexis DiLeo indicated that the city – not the housing commission – has responsibility to do that.

Jennifer Hall, executive director of the Ann Arbor housing commission.

Bona then noted that she’s struggling with the increased density that would be allowed under the new zoning. She knows there are more units, but wondered how many more bedrooms there will be. Jennifer Hall replied that there are currently 10 five-bedroom units and 10 four-bedroom units at that location. One of the five-bedroom units has been converted into a community center. The new site would have a greater diversity of unit sizes, in addition to keeping the same number of four- and five-bedroom units. The number of bedrooms will increase from 90 bedrooms to 138 bedrooms.

Regarding density, Bona said she wasn’t concerned about this proposal, but about potential future uses on that site. After the city rezones this property, the potential for the city to sell this site and build it to the maximum allowable density concerns her. Hall replied that HUD has a permanent restriction that the property must be used for affordable housing. Without HUD’s approval, “the city has zero authority to sell it,” she said. It’s as permanent as the federal government is, she said.

John Mouat added that given the site’s strange shape, topography and needs for stormwater management, it would be quite challenging to build the maximum allowable number of units. Bona noted that it would just entail adding additional floors to the buildings. She said she’s very supportive of adding new units throughout the AAHC, but just had concerns about this site.

Paras Parekh asked about the temporary displacement of current residents, and whether they’ll be given priority for the new units. Hall said AAHC can’t make people homeless – so alternative housing will be found for current residents. Residents will be offered Section 8 vouchers, which can be used to subsidize private sector housing costs. If someone can’t find a place or doesn’t want to use a voucher, there are other AAHC units that they can be moved into, she said. Current residents will get first choice in moving back into the new development, if they want. AAHC is required to cover all moving expenses, application fees and other costs so that residents aren’t burdened when they move.

Regarding a timeline, Hall said AAHC will be applying for financing (low-income housing tax credits) in October of 2014, and should find out by January 2015 whether they’ve been awarded the financing. If that happens, “the other pieces will fall into place,” she said, and construction will begin later that year.

Planning commissioner Paras Parekh.

Kirk Westphal asked where the nearest park is located. Veterans Memorial Park is about a block away, Hall said. She noted that Peace Neighborhood Center brings a bus to the site and takes kids to all kinds of after-school recreational activities.

Responding to a query from Westphal, Hall described the bike parking that will be on site. In talking with planning staff about installing Grade A bike parking (an enclosed, lockable shed), Halls said no one would use it. Residents don’t have high-end bikes, so the enclosures “would likely be used for something else,” she said. Hall added that she’s highly skeptical that residents will even use the bike hoops that are proposed.

Diane Giannola asked about the issue raised during the public hearing: Was the property being vacated for Seybold Drive a part of Scio Township? DiLeo replied that some of the nearby parcels are in Scio Township, but the pieces to be vacated are not, and don’t abut those township parcels. The housing commission owns both sides of the right-of-way that will be vacated, and AAHC will own the property after it’s vacated.

Westphal asked about the fencing on the west side of the site. Hall said the fences aren’t owned by AAHC – they were put up by owners of the adjacent residential properties. Because of the site’s grading and upkeep, it’s not feasible to install a fence on AAHC property, she said. They’ll be putting in a lot of trees and other landscaping along that property line, she said, and regulations state that a fence can’t touch any part of a tree.

She’d like to put in rose bushes or raspberries along that edge, because pricker bushes are an effective way to prevent people from cutting through property. For all their properties, they like to have as much barrier as possible – to prevent people who aren’t AAHC residents from coming in – without having it feel like a prison, she said.

Eleanore Adenekan asked about electrical outages in the neighborhood that are mentioned in the staff report. DiLeo reported that she lives in that neighborhood, and the area does seem to experience more power outages than other parts of the city. She thought it was because they have above-ground power lines and a lot of trees. She didn’t think it had anything to do with the AAHC site in particular.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of rezoning, site plan, development agreement, and street vacation for the North Maple project. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

State Street Village

A proposed 78-unit apartment project on South State Street was on the June 17 agenda.

Aerial view of State Street Village site.

Commissioners were asked to approve a site plan, development agreement and rezoning for the State Street Village, a $10 million project put forward by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. at 2221-2223 S. State St. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027 square foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State.

The front part of the site is currently a surface parking lot, and is zoned O (office). The rear parcel – 4.5 acres – is vacant, and zoned M1 (limited industrial). Commissioners were asked to recommend rezoning that parcel to O (office). Residential developments are permitted in office-zoned areas. [.pdf of staff report]

The development will include 114 parking spaces in the rear of the site and 13 spaces for the front. Another 22 spaces in the surface parking lot will be shared by the existing office building just south of the site.

In addition, 44 covered bicycle spaces and 8 enclosed bicycle spaces will be provided near the entrances of the apartment buildings and 2 hoops will be placed near the entrance of the rental office building.

Instead of making a $48,360 requested donation to the city for parks, McKinley has proposed two 8×10-foot grilling patios with picnic tables and grills.

According to the staff memo, the footing drains of 18 homes, or flow equivalent to 71.91 gallons per minute, will need to be disconnected from the city’s sanitary sewer system to mitigate flow from this proposed development.

City planner Alexis DiLeo said the staff inquired about whether this proposal could include affordable housing, and the developer is assessing the financial feasibility of that. Staff was recommending approval of the rezoning and site plan.

Only one person spoke during the public hearing: Eric Toumey, representing McKinley Inc. He said was there to answer any questions.

State Street Village: Commission Discussion

Paras Parekh confirmed with Eric Toumey that the primary use for the site would be residential. Parekh wondered if there would be a more appropriate zoning than O (office).

Eric Toumey, a representative for McKinley Inc.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson replied that office zoning provides the most flexible zoning district for mixed-use development. If it were zoned for residential, it would prevent any future office or other types of uses. So the master plan recommends office zoning, she said. It’s an area where the city hoped to encourage mixed use and residential development, where in the past it has been primarily industrial.

Rampson further elaborated that the office designation allows for the greatest flexibility for residential development, because it’s based on floor area rather than dwelling units per acre. It allows for a variety of different housing types.

Bonnie Bona noted that the State Street corridor plan was geared toward making the corridor more vital, more friendly for pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. Right now, it’s an auto-dominated corridor that struggles with traffic back-ups, she said. She said McKinley’s plan looks fairly conventional, with a big parking lot and a few bike hoops. She asked Toumey to describe aspects of the plan that make it consistent with the desire to make that corridor “more progressive and not just an auto-loaded corridor.”

Toumey replied that the traffic study they’d done indicated that the development would have minimal impact in terms of traffic on State Street. In addition, there will be 44 bike parking spaces. They’re also looking at the possibility of indoor bike parking, and Toumey noted that there’s a bus stop nearby on South State.

Bona observed that the stop for the southbound bus is on the opposite side of the street. She wondered where pedestrians would cross. City planner Alexis DiLeo replied that the nearest signal for crossing is south of the site, at Oakbrook Drive. Bona said this apartment project might help push the city and the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority to make sure there’s adequate ways to cross. “What we don’t want is tenants darting across the street in the middle of busy traffic,” she said.

Regarding the housing costs, Bona wondered if the apartments were intended to be subsidized low-income units or market rate. The design makes the apartments look low-income, she said, because there are no balconies and the buildings are “fairly bland.” If they’re intended to be market rate, a lot more amenities could be added, she said.

Architect David Esau of Cornerstone Design.

Toumey replied that the apartments aren’t low-income, but the cost will depend on the type of financing they secure – low-income housing tax credits, or conventional financing. If they decide to offer affordable housing, it would be directed toward people with 60% of Ann Arbor’s area median income (AMI). For a dual-income household, 60% AMI is still fairly high, he said – about $80,000. People in that range might work at the nearby 777 Building, or Briarwood Mall, or nearby hotels, or the UM athletic department. The development will target mid-income individuals, he said.

Bona asked if they thought about enhancing the buildings. The windows seemed minimal, she said. Toumey said the first-floor windows needed to be slide windows for purposes of ADA requirements, and for design consistency they decided to use that type throughout the building. Regarding exterior materials and amenities, Toumey said he’s visited two competing properties within this submarket, and he thought this McKinley development would be superior to those.

Bona said the buildings have no residential scale or character. “They could be office buildings, except office buildings would probably have more windows,” she noted. There’s an opportunity to do something new and aggressive on South State, to get some residential units in that area. “I don’t want to blow that opportunity on something that’s mediocre at best,” Bona said. If they’re trying to keep the budget down in order to offer low-income housing, she could understand that. But even for people who earn 60% AMI, she thought they could afford “more than what this is looking like.”

Toumey said 60% AMI is about $80,000 for Washtenaw County, so it’s relatively high. He noted that from State Street, the only thing visible will be the rooftops of the buildings at the back of the site, because the grade is so steep. More superior materials will be used on the leasing office, which is visible from South State, so that it will be more attractive, he said. Bona replied that she’s not thinking of it from the perspective of someone driving by, but rather from the perspective of someone living there. State Street has great potential, she added, “and I’d just like to set the bar higher.” However, there’s nothing in the zoning that prevents this project as proposed, she added.

Diane Giannola pointed out that there’s very limited bus service on State Street – there are no weekend or late-night buses that service the corridor. Toumey said they’d consider trying to get better bus transportation there. Giannola encouraged Toumey to ask the AAATA about it.

Parekh asked if they’d considered putting in any office units. Toumey said McKinley owns an office building adjacent to this site. The State Street corridor plan calls for some integrated types of land uses, Toumey said. But it’s not suitable to have commercial space on the ground floor, he added, because “there isn’t the walkability factor on State Street.” They needed to have a leasing office there, Toumey said, noting that it might be considered commercial space.

Planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Responding to a query from Wendy Woods, Toumey said their intent is not to market the apartments to university students. McKinley has high requirements on the lease applications, he added, and if a student meets that standard and potentially has a co-signer, they wouldn’t be opposed to it. But “from the long-term interior maintenance perspective,” he said, “we’d prefer to have families.” He said lease requirements include criminal background checks and restrictions on the type of dog that is allowed, among other things.

Woods thought that many UM students could meet those standards. She said she works with students, so she gets defensive on their behalf.

Woods also shared Bona’s concerns about the design of the buildings. “I just think your architects could be more artistic than that.”

Sabra Briere brought up the parking lot, saying that it’s a lot of impervious surface. Toumey replied that there are three bioswales on the site, in addition to the detention pond, to handle stormwater. Briere said she was confident that they met the requirements, but wished they could come up with a way to reduce the hard surface. She asked if they’d considered putting parking underneath the buildings. The McKinley representatives indicated that it would be costly to do that. The project’s architect, David Esau, explained that it would require an additional floor of structure to support the buildings above the parking. In addition, the building code limits this type of construction to four stories, so they’d lose a floor of apartments.

Briere thought it was a shame, but said she wasn’t blaming the developer. She knew they were meeting code – she just wished the city had a better way of dealing with these things. Esau said the site would be making a significant improvement compared to the existing stormwater management in the area.

Bona noted that the city code only requires 86 parking spaces for a development this size, yet the complex will have 127 spaces. In the past, the commission has considered having a maximum number of allowable spaces, she said, “because we’re headed in the wrong direction here.” To have cars sitting in a parking space 98% of the time “doesn’t make sense for society – period,” she said. The transit on State Street will only get better, especially because of the UM athletic campus. But as long as developers provide parking spaces, cars will be parked in them, she said.

The city needs to be stressing walking, bicycling and mass transit, Bona said, and every single individual doesn’t need their own car. McKinley should be providing 86 spaces – and 10 of those should be Zipcars, Bona said. State Street won’t become a new, vital corridor “if everyone’s driving in and out of that driveway in a car.”

“We’re putting our aspirations on you,” Bona said.

Kirk Westphal agreed, noting that the proposed development doesn’t reach the maximum allowable density for this parcel. But it meets code and overall is a step in the right direction toward meeting the city’s objectives for State Street, he said.

Outcome: With six of the nine commissioners present, the rezoning, site plan and development agreement were approved. Absent were Ken Clein and Eleanore Adenekan, who had left earlier in the meeting, and Jeremy Peters. The project will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Jackson Avenue Drive-Thru

A proposal for a new drive-thru restaurant on Jackson Avenue – near the I-94 interchange – was the last item on the June 17 agenda, and was handled by commissioners near midnight.

Aerial view of 2625 Jackson Ave.

The commission was asked to recommend approval of a site plan for 2625 Jackson, on the southeast corner of Jackson and I-94, and just north of the Westgate Shopping Center. The plan calls for demolishing the existing one-story service station and auto repair shop and constructing a single building with a 1,820-square-foot drive-thru restaurant and 3,220-square-foot retail center. The gas pump islands and canopy will be removed. The total project would cost an estimated $400,000. [.pdf of staff memo]

The restaurant’s single lane drive-thru would primarily be accessed from a proposed curbcut on Jackson Ave., with an exit through the Westgate Shopping Center Jackson Ave. entrance. An existing curbcut off Jackson to the east would be closed. The new curbcut has been approved by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, and would prevent left turns onto Jackson. The drive-thru lane provides stacking for up to four vehicles and would be screened to the north by the proposed building.

In a separate resolution, commissioners were asked to grant a special exception use for this project, which does not require additional city council approval. This is the first drive-thru proposal that’s come through the city’s approval process since the city council approved changes to the Chapter 55 zoning ordinance that regulates drive-thrus. That approval came at the council’s June 2, 2014 meeting.

The site is zoned C3 (fringe commercial district), which previously allowed drive-thrus without getting special permission from the planning commission. Now, such projects must meet the revised zoning standards and a special exception use is required. The new standards require that the drive-thru is not located between a public right-of-way and the main building, and that traffic circulation to enter and exit the facility does not interfere with general circulation on the site or with pedestrian circulation on and off the site.

No one spoke during the public hearing on this item.

Jackson Avenue Drive-Thru: Commission Discussion

Paras Parekh asked about the traffic study, noting that it’s busy in that area. City planner Alexis DiLeo said that staff agreed with the conclusions of the traffic report, which stated that customers would primarily be people who are already driving by the site. The drive-thru isn’t expected to bring new traffic that would cause greater back-ups. And because there would be a connection from the site into the Westgate Shopping Center, circulation is actually expected to improve, she said.

Jim Chaconas represented the owners of Westgate Shopping Center.

Responding to another query from Parekh, Jim Chaconas – representing Westgate Shopping Center – told commissioners that the drive-thru would likely be either a coffee shop or fast-food restaurant. They’re also talking to AT&T about a possible retail store.

Bonnie Bona said it looks like the service entrance for deliveries would be facing the Westgate entrance drive. Chaconas explained that deliveries would likely be made through Westgate Shopping Center – they don’t want delivery trucks going through the site’s driveway. The two tenants will be side-by-side on the site, he said, with both entrances facing the I-94 exit ramp.

The back of the building will face the Westgate driveway, but Chaconas said it would be “pretty” so that it doesn’t look like a back door.

Regarding the special exception use, Kirk Westphal asked staff if the orientation of this building enhances the pedestrian experience along Jackson. Alexis DiLeo said the building would be close to an existing sidewalk on Jackson, and the project would build a connecting sidewalk from there into the Westgate Shopping Center. The project appears to be convenient for both vehicles and pedestrians, she said.

Outcome: Both votes were unanimous for approval, coming shortly after midnight with six of the nine commissioners present. Special exception use approval requires six votes. Eleanore Adenekan and Ken Clein had left earlier in the meeting, and Jeremy Peters was absent.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners. No one spoke during the two opportunities for general public commentary. Here are other highlights from June 17.

Communications & Commentary: City Council Update

Sabra Briere, the city council’s representative on the planning commission, gave an update on planning-related action taken at the council’s June 16, 2014 meeting. She noted that the council had taken an initial vote to rezone 425 S. Main – a parcel between William and Packard – from D1 to D2. It will require a final vote at a later meeting. In a related vote, the council gave initial approval to a change in the Main Street character overlay district, where 425 S. Main is located. One major amendment was made on the floor, she noted. The planning commission’s had recommended a 100-foot height limit for D2 parcels in the Main Street character overlay district, but council amended it to 60 feet.

City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

The city staff has been asked to work on revising this change to the character overlay district to reflect the lower building height. Briere said her understanding is that the council doesn’t intend to take up these items for a final vote until the beginning of September.

Saying she’d watched the council meeting, Diane Giannola said that clearly most of the councilmembers didn’t have an understanding of floor-area ratio (FAR) in relation to building mass. It would be nice, she added, if someone could explain to them exactly what the planning commission had intended with its recommendations, including the 100-foot height limit. “I think they overlooked a very good compromise,” she said.

Briere replied that it’s her intent to bring Legos to the next council meeting. When others at the meeting laughed, Briere noted that although some people might find it humorous, she has found that Legos are an excellent teaching tool.

Giannola pointed out that the council had amended the resolution before councilmembers even considered the 100-foot height limit. So when it comes before council again, the resolution will include the amended height limit of 60 feet – and the public won’t know that the planning commission had recommended an alternative approach, Giannola said.

Briere replied: “That’s what an amendment does.” She added that one councilmember has requested a 3-D rendering of all the options, which staff will provide.

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

Absent: Jeremy Peters.

Next meeting: Tuesday, July 1, 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.

Aerial view of 2625 Jackson Ave.

The commission recommended approval of a site plan for 2625 Jackson, on the southeast corner of Jackson and I-94, and just north of the Westgate Shopping Center. The plan calls for demolishing the existing one-story service station and auto repair shop and constructing a single building with a 1,820-square-foot drive-thru restaurant and 3,220-square-foot retail center. The gas pump islands and canopy will be removed. The total project would cost an estimated $400,000. [.pdf of staff memo]

The restaurant’s single lane drive-thru would primarily be accessed from a proposed curbcut on Jackson Ave., with an exit through the Westgate Shopping Center Jackson Ave. entrance. An existing curbcut off Jackson to the east would be closed. The new curbcut has been approved by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, and would prevent left turns onto Jackson. The drive-thru lane provides stacking for up to four vehicles and would be screened to the north by the proposed building.

The site plan will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

In a separate vote, commissioners granted a special exception use for this project, which does not require additional city council approval. This is the first drive-thru proposal that’s come through the city’s approval process since the city council approved changes to the Chapter 55 zoning ordinance that regulates drive-thrus. That approval came at the council’s June 2, 2014 meeting.

The site is zoned C3 (fringe commercial district), which previously allowed drive-thrus without getting special permission from the planning commission. Now, such projects must meet the revised zoning standards and a special exception use is required. The new standards require that the drive-thru is not located between a public right-of-way and the main building, and that traffic circulation to enter and exit the facility does not interfere with general circulation on the site or with pedestrian circulation on and off the site.

Jim Chaconas, representing Westgate Shopping Center, told commissioners that the drive-thru would likely be either a coffee shop or fast-food restaurant.

The votes were unanimous, coming shortly after midnight with six of the nine commissioners present. Special exception use approval require six votes.

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

The revisions define a drive-thru in this way: “Any building or structure, or portion thereof, that is constructed or operated for the purpose of providing goods or services to customers who remain in their vehicle during the course of the transaction.” The revisions also clarify that a drive-thru is an accessory use, not the principle use of the building. A project in which a drive-thru would be the principle use would not be allowed. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance.

In addition, the changes require drive-thrus to obtain special exception use permits, which would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Drive-thrus would not be allowed in the C1, D1, D2, and other commercial districts.

Before the amendments drive-thrus were allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use, and allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

When considering whether to grant a special exception use – which does not require additional city council approval – the planning commission considers these issues:

1. Is the location, size and character of the proposed use compatible with the principal uses of the district and adjacent districts? Is it consistent with the Master Plan? Is it consistent with the surrounding area? Will it have any detrimental effects to the use or value of surrounding area, or the natural environment?

2. Is the location, size, character, layout, access and traffic generated by the use hazardous or inconvenient or conflicting with the normal traffic of the neighborhood? Is off-street parking safe for pedestrians? Do the necessary vehicular turning movements block normal traffic flow? Are any additional public services or facilities needed by the use, and will they be detrimental to the community?

3. Is the maximum density and minimum required open space at least equal to the standards normally required by the Zoning Ordinance for the district?

The planning commission recommended the changes at its April 1, 2014 meeting.

The amendments were first reviewed by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee in 2007, but didn’t move forward to the full commission for consideration. The ORC most recently reviewed these changes in March of 2014. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed amendments]

Details on the council’s deliberations are provided in The Chronicle’s live updates filed during the meeting.

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

The council’s first meeting after adopting the budget for fiscal year 2015 – which was approved on May 19, 2014 – features a housekeeping adjustment for the current year’s budget, so that expenditures don’t exceed allocations.

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

But the June 2 meeting agenda is dominated by items related to the physical attributes and layout of the city. Several items deal with city-owned physical assets, while several more involve land use and planning.

Possibly one of the more controversial agenda items related to physical infrastructure – and future development in the city – is a contract extension with CDM Smith Inc. for work related to the city’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program. While the city council suspended the program in certain areas of the city in 2012, it continued in other areas, backed by the city’s ordinance under which the city can require residents to disconnect their footing drains from the sanitary sewer system.

Also not suspended was the city’s developer offset mitigation program, which requires developers to offset the increased flow from new construction into the sanitary sewer system. The vote on the CDM Smith Inc. contract extension was postponed from the council’s May 5 meeting. The dollar amount of the contract extension has been substantially reduced in the meantime – from about $750,000 to $143,000.

Part of the backdrop of the CDM Smith contract extension is a lawsuit that’s been filed against the city, challenging the legal foundation of the footing drain disconnect ordinance. The city sought to remove the case from state court to the federal system, but at a hearing on the matter this week, a federal judge indicated he’d be remanding the case back to the Washtenaw County 22nd circuit court.

City assets on the June 2 agenda include trees – as the council will be asked to approve the city’s urban and community forest management plan. The council will also consider a resolution on the city’s possibly most recognizable asset – the city hall building. The resolution would remove a $4 million renovation of city hall (a “reskinning”) from the city’s capital improvements plan for 2017 and 2018. This resolution was postponed from the council’s May 19 meeting.

Another city-owned asset on the agenda is the Library Lane underground parking garage. The council has already directed the city administrator to engage a real estate broker to test the market for the development rights for the surface of the garage. The resolution on the June 2 agenda, which was postponed at the council’s April 7 meeting, would set a policy to deposit 50% of the net proceeds from the sale of the development rights into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

Land use and planning items on the June 2 agenda include a roughly $300,000 contract for study of the State Street transportation corridor. Related to transportation infrastructure, the council will also be asked to approve resolutions that move along the process of special assessing property owners on Stone School Road for the cost of installing a sidewalk on the west side of the road in connection with a road reconstruction project.

Also related to land use, three Ann Arbor housing commission properties will be given initial consideration for rezoning. A site plan and associated rezoning for the Delta Gamma house will be given final consideration. Also up for final consideration is a revision to the ordinance regulating drive-thrus. Councilmembers will also consider the site plan for a new Ruth’s Chris restaurant to be located downtown on South Fourth Avenue.

A rate increase for Ann Arbor water, sewer and stormwater rates is on the June 2 agenda for final approval.

Two items connected to parks and recreation appear on the agenda. One is approval of the receipt of funding for a program that helps Bridge cardholders purchase local produce at the farmers market. The second item is approval of a five-year agreement with the Community Action Network to continue operating the city’s Northside and Bryant community centers.

The council will also be considering a resolution in support of the local development finance authority’s application to the Michigan Economic Development Corp. for a possible 15-year extension of the arrangement under which the LDFA captures taxes. The captured taxes are used to fund a business accelerator that’s operated by Ann Arbor SPARK through a contract with the LDFA. Without an extension, the LDFA would end in 2018.

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. at city hall, 301 E. Huron.

Amend Current Year’s Budget

On June 2 the council will consider a resolution amending the current fiscal year’s budget (FY 2014) to ensure that expenditures do not exceed appropriated amounts. The budget amendment will ensure compliance with Public Act 621 of 1978.

The total requested general fund budget amendment is $60,000. For all other funds, the amendment to be considered by the council on June 2 totals $310,000.

The non-general fund amount will cover right-of-way maintenance and purchase of materials that were necessary to deal with the severe winter weather. The general fund amount was the city’s cost for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s special election held on May 6. That amount will eventually be reimbursed by Washtenaw County – which in turn will receive reimbursement from the AAATA to cover the roughly $100,000 cost of the election.

FDD Program Contract Extension

A contract extension with CDM Smith Inc. for continued work as part of Ann Arbor’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program appears on the June 2 agenda. It had been postponed at the council’s May 5, 2014 meeting.

In the interim, the dollar amount of the contract extension has been reduced from $748,106 to $143,440. That reflects a reduction in the scope of the work. The original May 5 resolution called for the following activities to be funded: citizen support ($36,928); FDD citizens advisory committee meetings ($24,180); information management for sump pump monitors ($93,707); developer offset mitigation (DOM) program support; ($95,213); and multi-family FDD implementation ($498,005).

No longer a part of the scope of work in the revised June 2 resolution are the FDD citizens advisory committee meetings, information management, or the multi-family FDD implementation. The revised memo describes how the funding would only provide a bridge until recommendations from a study group have been received, which will determine the future of the FDD program:

This amendment would provide the services needed to bridge the gap until the SSWWE [Sanitary Sewer Wet Weather Evaluation] Project recommendations have been made. Presently, the anticipated timeline for completion of the SSWWE Project is in the autumn of 2014. That does not allow sufficient time to issue a new RFP, collect and review proposals, award a contract, and bring a new consultant up to speed to manage the remaining FDD and DOM work outlined above. Existing City staff does not currently have the available resources or expertise to perform the inspections required for the DOM program.

By way of additional background, in 2012 the city’s program to disconnect footing drains from the sanitary sewer system was suspended by the council in some areas of the city. Specifically, it was suspended in the Glen Leven and Morehead (Lansdowne neighborhood) areas. The program was allowed to continue in other geographic areas and as part of the city’s developer offset mitigation (DOM) program. The DOM requires owners of new developments to complete a certain number of FDDs to offset the additional flow in the sanitary system caused by new construction.

The CDM contract drew scrutiny at the May 5 meeting because the city is currently undertaking a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation (SSWWE) study. It’s supposed to yield a recommendation about whether to continue with the FDD program, and if so, in what form. In addition, the city’s ordinance – which requires property owners to undertake FDDs – was challenged in a lawsuit filed earlier this year. That case is pending as the city first removed the case from state to federal court. But the result of a May 28 hearing before a federal judge will be to return the case to the Washtenaw County 22nd circuit court.

The previous three iterations of the CDM contract totaled  about $3.6 million. The money for these contracts is drawn from the city’s sewer fund.

The proposed contract extension drew criticism during public commentary on May 5 from Frank Burdick, a Ward 4 resident who urged the council to reject it. Council deliberations on this item were included as part of The Chronicle’s live updates from the May 5 meeting.

Since the FDD program’s start in 2001, about 1,834 footing drains have been disconnected through the city program and 848 footing drains have been disconnected through the developer offset mitigation program.

Animation of contrast between the pre-FDD configuration and the post-FDD configuration. (Original illustration from screenshots of YouTube video by Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, modified by The Chronicle.)

Urban Forest

The city’s first comprehensive plan for managing Ann Arbor’s urban forest will be considered at the council’s June 2 meeting. The Ann Arbor park advisory commission recommended adoption of the plan at its meeting on April 15, 2014. [.pdf of Urban & Community Forest Management Plan]

An urban forest is defined as all the trees, shrubs and woody vegetation growing along city streets, in public parks and on institutional and private property. In Ann Arbor, about 25% is on public property, with 75% on private property. Based on a U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service i-Tree Eco Analysis done in 2012, Ann Arbor’s urban forest has an estimated 1.45 million trees. It creates a 33% tree canopy – the layer of leaves, branches and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above.

The city manages 43,240 street trees and about 6,900 park trees in mowed areas. A tree inventory conducted in 2009 didn’t include natural areas, she noted, so there are thousands of trees that aren’t counted. The urban forest includes over 200 species, representing 82 genera.

Map of selected tree variety by The Chronicle from city of Ann Arbor 2009 survey. Image links to dynamic map hosted on geocommons.com

PAC had been briefed on the 135-page Urban & Community Forest Management Plan at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting by Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest & natural resources planning coordinator. The management plan includes 17 recommendations, listed in priority based on community feedback for implementation. Each of the 17 recommendations includes action tasks and implementation ideas, case studies, and resources that are needed, including funding. The recommendations are:

1. Implement proactive tree maintenance program.
2. Strengthen tree planting and young tree maintenance programs.
3. Monitor threats to the urban and community forest.
4. Increase landmark/special tree protections.
5. Secure adequate city‐funding for urban forestry core services.
6. Develop street tree master plans.
7. Pursue grant and philanthropic funding opportunities.
8. Strengthen forestry related ordinances.
9. Update tree inventory and canopy analysis.
10. Develop urban forest best management practices.
11. Increase urban forestry volunteerism.
12. Strengthen relationships with outside entities who impact trees.
13. Implement community outreach program.
14. Obtain the best use of wood from removed trees.
15. Create city staff working groups to coordinate projects that impact trees.
16. Engage the city’s Environmental Commission in urban and community forestry issues.
17. Review the urban forest management plan periodically and update as needed.

The city council has adopted a budget for FY 2015, which starts July 1, 2014 that includes a one-time expenditure of $1 million to address the backlog in maintenance of trees in the public right of way.

Included in the focus of the effort to remove the backlog are trees classified as Priority 1 removals (red dots), Priority 2 removals (yellow dots), Priority 3 removals (blue dots) for large trees and Priority 1 prunings (green dots). [Map by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.]:

City Hall Reskinning

At its June 2 meeting, the council will consider a proposal to recommend to the planning commission that the capital improvements plan (CIP) for FY 2017 and FY 2018 be revised to remove the $4.4 million that is included for a city hall reskinning project. The planning commission is the body that approves the CIP. But the council has budgetary discretion to fund projects in the CIP or not – so the resolution in some sense calls on the planning commission to take an action it does not have the authority to execute. This was a point made during deliberations at the council’s May 19, 2014 meeting when the item was postponed.

According to a staff memo written in response to a councilmember question, reskinning of the Larcom City Hall building would mean replacing the existing exterior walls and windows of the building. The result would be new squared-off exterior, eliminating the inverted pyramid design. The new exterior would hang vertically from the sixth floor.

The focus of the project is on improving energy efficiency. The memo describes existing windows as mostly single-pane glass on aluminum frames, which offer little insulation value. The project would also result in an incremental gain in square footage – because the lower floors would have the same footprint as the sixth floor, which is currently the largest floor of the building. The materials used for the exterior would “blend better” with the recently constructed Justice Center, which adjoins city hall.

Library Lot Sale Proceeds

On June 2 the city council will consider a resolution setting a policy for distribution of the proceeds from the sale of development rights on the Library Lot. The proposed policy would set aside 50% of the net proceeds to the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

The council has already directed the city administrator to hire a real estate broker to explore selling the rights to develop the site – above the Library Lane underground parking structure, which was completed in 2012.

The item was postponed at the council’s April 7, 2014 meeting. The vote was 6-5 to postpone, with dissent from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), and mayor John Hieftje.

State Street Transportation Corridor Study

The June 2 agenda includes a resolution for a $299,911 contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff Michigan Inc. to conduct a study of the South State Street transportation corridor. The 1.3 mile long area of the study extends from the intersection of Ellsworth Road and South State Street north to the intersection of Oakbrook Drive and South State Street. The money to pay for the study will be drawn in equal parts from the current fiscal year and next year’s general capital fund budget. The study will take a year, starting in June 2014.

The goal of the study is focused on transportation needs in the corridor and to provide base conceptual engineering plans for the redesign of the corridor – possibly including a boulevard “Complete Street” design. The redesign would be intended to “address all modes of travel; enhance vehicle flow; improve safety; create an aesthetically pleasing entrance to the City; and, utilize sustainable concepts such as low impact design (‘LID’), and low energy use lighting.”

The study of the area as a transportation corridor comes not long after a recently completed South State Street corridor plan, adopted by the city council into the city’s master plan at its July 15, 2014 meeting. That corridor plan established planning objectives for the land use along the corridor.

Besides Parsons Brinckerhoff, the other bidder for the work was DLZ.

Stone School Road Sidewalk Special Assessment

As part of a road reconstruction project for Stone School Road, the city is planning to install a sidewalk on the west side of the road. To fund the sidewalk construction, part of the cost will come from a special assessment of property owners. The extent of the project on Stone School Road runs from I-94 to Ellsworth Road. Construction is planned for the project during the 2014 and 2015 construction seasons.

The project is being funded in part through a federal surface transportation grant, which can pay about 80% of construction costs, but not engineering, testing or inspection costs. The total project cost is roughly $128,500, of which about $55,000 will be special assessed.

The council will be asked to approve a resolution directing the city assessor to set the roll of properties to be assessed.

Rezoning: Housing Commission Properties

At its June 2 meeting, the city council will consider giving initial approval to the rezoning of three Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. The planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The current PL (public land) zoning for some of the properties is a vestige of the AAHC properties’ status as city-owned land. The city council approved the transfer of deeds to the AAHC at its June 2, 2013 meeting. The three sites to be considered on June 2 are part of the housing commission’s major initiative to upgrade the city’s public housing units by seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

Rezoning is recommended for the following public housing sites, two of which are currently zoned as public land:

• Baker Commons: Rezone 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: Rezone public land to R4A (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. It’s in Ward 2.
• Maple Meadows: Currently zoned R1C (single-family dwelling district), the recommendation is to rezone it as 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.

At the planning commission’s May 6 meeting, AAHC director Jennifer Hall explained that PL 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. She 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.

For these three sites, planning commissioners also voted 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.”

Delta Gamma Site Plan, Rezoning

The city council will be asked on June 2 to give final approval of a rezoning request for 515 Oxford, to convert a house for use as an annex to the Delta Gamma sorority. The main sorority house is located nearby at 626 Oxford. The council gave initial approval to the rezoning at its May 5, 2014 meeting. Also on the June 2 agenda is consideration of the site plan approval for the same project. The site plan was recommended for approval by planning commissioners on April 15, 2014.

Aerial view showing the location of 515 Oxford, south of Geddes and at the eastern end of South University.

The rezoning request, recommended by the planning commission on Jan. 23, 2014, is to rezone the parcel from R4A (multi-family dwelling) to R2B (two-family dwelling and student housing). Most of the surrounding parcels are zoned R2B, although the site immediately to the north is also zoned R4A. Also nearby is public land (PL) where the University of Michigan’s Oxford Houses complex is located.

The two-story house at 515 Oxford includes two one-story wings. It is currently a rental property with three units – a studio apartment, one-bedroom apartment, and four-bedroom apartment – and a maximum occupancy of 8 people. One of the units is in a former garage.

The proposal for a renovation would accommodate a maximum of 20 residents, including a required resident manager.

The building is notable because it was originally designed in 1940 by architect George Brigham, who used it as his home and architectural studio. He designed over 40 houses in Ann Arbor, including many in Arbor Hills and Barton Hills between 1936 and 1958.

Drive-Thru Ordinance: Final Approval

On the city council’s June 2 agenda is final approval of amendments to Ann Arbor’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus. Initial approval came at the council’s May 5 meeting. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code.

The proposed revisions define a drive-thru in this way: “Any building or structure, or portion thereof, that is constructed or operated for the purpose of providing goods or services to customers who remain in their vehicle during the course of the transaction.” The revisions also clarify that a drive-thru is an accessory use, not the principle use of the building. A project in which a drive-thru would be the principle use would not be allowed. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance.

In addition, the changes would require drive-thrus to obtain special exception use permits, which would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Drive-thrus would not be allowed in the C1, D1, D2, and other commercial districts.

Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

When considering whether to grant a special exception use – which does not require additional city council approval – the planning commission considers these issues:

1. Is the location, size and character of the proposed use compatible with the principal uses of the district and adjacent districts? Is it consistent with the Master Plan? Is it consistent with the surrounding area? Will it have any detrimental effects to the use or value of surrounding area, or the natural environment?

2. Is the location, size, character, layout, access and traffic generated by the use hazardous or inconvenient or conflicting with the normal traffic of the neighborhood? Is off-street parking safe for pedestrians? Do the necessary vehicular turning movements block normal traffic flow? Are any additional public services or facilities needed by the use, and will they be detrimental to the community?

3. Is the maximum density and minimum required open space at least equal to the standards normally required by the Zoning Ordinance for the district?

The planning commission recommended the changes at its April 1, 2014 meeting.

The proposed amendments were first reviewed by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee in 2007, but never moved forward to the full commission for consideration. The ORC most recently reviewed these changes in March of 2014. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed amendments]

Ruth’s Chris Site Plan

The site plan for a new Ruth’s Chris Steak House on Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor is on the June 2 agenda for consideration. The planning commission recommended approval at its April 1, 2014 meeting.

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

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

Part of the planning commission’s discussion focused on whether there might be outdoor dining in front of the restaurant. The project’s architect indicated that at this point, outdoor seating wouldn’t be appropriate, in part because of bus traffic. The building is located near the Blake Transit Center, a hub for public transportation. The architect also indicated that the restaurant will be using valet parking, with valets positioned in front of the building.

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

Utility Rates

The council will consider giving final approval to higher utility rates – for water, sewer and stormwater. Initial approval came at the council’s May 19 meeting.

Water rates will increase across all tiers of consumption. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is will increase from $1.35 to $1.40. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.85 to $2.96 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.88 to $5.08. A unit is 100 cubic feet, which is 748 gallons.

Sewer rates will increase from $3.65 to $3.85 per unit. And stormwater fees would increase for all tiers of impervious service. For the middle tier – for more than 2,187 square feet but less than or equal to 4,175 square feet – on a quarterly basis, the increase would be from $24.85 to $26.32.

According to the staff memo accompanying this agenda item, the recommended rate changes in water, sewer, and stormwater would increase revenues to the water, sewer, and stormwater funds by $765,119, $1,171,931 and $410,235 respectively. The reason given for the rate increases is to cover maintenance and debt payments, and to maintain funding for capital improvement requirements. The city calculates the impact to be an additional $6.25 per quarter or $24.98 per year for an average consumer, which is a net increase of 4.2%.

Water consumption for a typical single family is assumed at 19 units per quarter.

History of city of Ann Arbor water rates. The city converted to a tiered system 10 years ago in 2004, based on usage. The 2015 amount is proposed.

Grant to Farmers Market for Food Stamp Recipients

At its June 2 meeting, the city council will consider approval of an agreement with the Fair Food Network to continue administering the Double Up Food Bucks program at the Ann Arbor farmer’s market. Approval would entail acceptance of $32,000 in funding.

The Double Up name stems from the fact that it provides a match of up to $20/person/day for people using SNAP (Bridge cards/EBT/food stamps) to purchase Michigan-grown produce at farmers markets in Michigan.

The city of Ann Arbor has received Double Up Food Bucks grant funding since 2010.

Partnership with Community Action Network

A proposal for a five-year partnership with the nonprofit Community Action Network is on the June 2 agenda. The partnership was recommended for approval by the Ann Arbor park advisory commission at its May 20, 2014 meeting.

The agreement would be for CAN to continue operating the city’s Bryant and Northside community centers, which the nonprofit has been managing since 2008. The proposed amount is not to exceed $130,000 annually – an increase of $25,000 from the current agreement. The higher amount is included in the FY 2015 general fund budget for parks and recreation that the city council approved on May 19. According to a staff memo, the higher amount will address increases in fixed costs and “assist in retaining quality staff that is at the core of the services that CAN provides.” [.pdf of staff memo]

The staff memo also noted that a request for proposals (RFP) was not issued for this work, because CAN has been the sole respondent to the previous two RFPs and the city is satisfied with its work.

During the May 20 PAC meeting, CAN received praise for their work from several commissioners and Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager. CAN executive director Joan Doughty and deputy director Derrick Miller were on hand to answer questions. Part of the discussion focused on CAN’s exemption from the city’s living wage requirement, which the city council granted in 2012 for a three-year period through Nov. 8, 2015. Doughty noted that the exemption was sought in part because CAN was paying a living wage to part-time employees who were high school or university students, which limited the nonprofit from paying higher wages to full-time workers. She also pointed out that the city parks and recreation unit isn’t required to pay the living wage to its seasonal workers.

LDFA Extension

On the council’s June 2 agenda is an item that would express city council support of the local development finance authority’s application to the Michigan Economic Development Corp. to extend the life of the tax capture arrangement for up to 15 years. Without an extension, the LDFA would end in 2018.

Ann Arbor’s local development finance authority is funded through a tax increment finance (TIF) district, as a “certified technology park” described under Act 281 of 1986. The Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC) solicited proposals for that designation back in 2000. The Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti “technology park” is one of 11 across the state of Michigan, which are branded by the MEDC as “SmartZones.”

The geography of the LDFA’s TIF district – in which taxes are captured from another taxing jurisdiction – is the union of the TIF districts for the Ann Arbor and the Ypsilanti downtown development authorities (DDAs). It’s worth noting that the Ypsilanti portion of the LDFA’s TIF district does not generate any actual tax capture.

The LDFA captures Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) operating millage, but those captured taxes don’t diminish the school’s budget. That’s because in Michigan, local schools levy a millage, but the proceeds are not used directly by local districts. Rather, proceeds are first forwarded to the state of Michigan’s School Aid Fund, for redistribution among school districts statewide. That redistribution is based on a per-pupil formula as determined on a specified “count day.” And the state reimburses the School Aid Fund for the taxes captured by SmartZones throughout the state.

In FY 2013, the total amount captured by the LDFA was $1,546,577, and the current fiscal year forecast is for $2,017,835. About the same amount is forecast for FY 2015.

The extension of the LDFA is made possible by Public Act 290 of 2012, which amended the Local Development Financing Act to allow a SmartZone to capture school taxes for an additional five years or an additional 15 years. The staff memo accompanying the resolution describes the five-year extension as possible “upon approval of the MEDC President and the State Treasurer, if the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti SmartZone LDFA agrees to additional reporting requirements and the LDFA requests, and the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti approve, the amendment of the LDFA tax increment financing (TIF) plan to include regional collaboration.”

A 15-year extension is possible, according to the memo, “if, in addition to the above requirements, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, as the municipalities that created the SmartZone, enter into an agreement with another LDFA [a "Satellite SmartZone"] that did not contain a certified technology park to designate a distinct geographic area, as allowed under Section 12b of the Act…”

The council’s resolution states that if the MEDC approves the extension, the city of Ann Arbor will work with the LDFA and the city of Ypsilanti to identify another LDFA – called the “Satellite SmartZone LDFA.” The arrangement will allow the Satellite SmartZone LDFA to capture local taxes in its own distinct geographic area for the maximum 15 years allowed by statute.

Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) – who sponsored the resolution on the agenda and serves as the council appointee to the LDFA board– wrote that possibilities for an LDFA satellite for Ann Arbor’s SmartZone include Adrian (Adrian College) or Brighton and Livingston County (with Cleary University).

4:07 p.m. The public speaking line-up for reserved speaking slots is now available on the agenda. Four people are signed up to talk about the policy for distributing proceeds from the sale of the development rights to the Library Lane site: Amanda Carlisle, Jean Carlberg, Jim Mogensen, and Seth Best.

Two people are signed up to talk about the routine adjustment to the city’s budget for the current fiscal year: Thomas Partridge and Jeff Hayner. Two people are signed up to talk about the resolution supporting the LDFA application for a 15-year extension: David Jsa and Gregg Hammerman.

Signed up to talk about the footing drain disconnection contract with CDM Smith is Frank Burdick. And Henry Herskovitz is signed up to talk about Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. Signed up as an alternate speaker on the topic of engine powered heating is Kermit Schlansker.

5:08 p.m. Staff responses to councilmember questions about agenda items are now available: [.pdf of staff responses]

6:33 p.m. Council chambers are set up with the dividers already moved back to create more room and about 40 additional folding chairs are set up. The item involving the policy on the proceeds from the sale of development rights for the Library Lane lot is expected to draw a large number of people. About a dozen people have already arrived.

6:42 p.m. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) is the first councilmember to arrive. Two dozen people now in the audience in support of affordable housing. They include former councilmember and planning commissioner Jean Carlberg, who has signed up to speak during public commentary. Round yellow sticker read “Homes for the Homeless Now!”

6:49 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has arrived. She’s talking to people in the audience, which now numbers about 40 people.

6:53 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) has arrived. She’s chatting with Paul Fulton of the city’s IT services staff.

6:54 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje has arrived. He’s chatting with Jack Eaton. City attorney Stephen Postema is here.

6:54 p.m. Jim Mogensen has arrived. He’s signed up to speak tonight on affordable housing.

6:54 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m.

7:01 p.m. Remaining councilmembers are starting to filter in. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is here. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) have also arrived.

7:02 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers is here, along with the city clerk, Jackie Beaudry.

7:06 p.m. Not yet here are Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

7:06 p.m. Ann Arbor SPARK CEO Paul Krutko has arrived. He’s talking to John Hieftje.

7:09 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. We’re off.

7:10 p.m. Roll call of the council. Taylor, Anglin and Margie Teall (Ward 4) are absent.

7:10 p.m. Hieftje reports that Teall and Taylor will likely be along later. Anglin, however, is sick.

7:12 p.m. Approval of the agenda Eaton moves the closed session to just before DS-1 – that’s the footing drain disconnection contract with CDM Smith.

7:12 p.m. The council has approved the evening’s agenda.

7:12 p.m. Communications from the city administrator.

7:13 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers is ticking through some upcoming events, including his favorite – Red Fish, Blue Fish, which teaches kids how to fish. It’s on June 8 from 9:30 to 11 a.m. at the Gallup Park livery.

7:13 p.m. Hieftje says Petersen represented the city well in the half-marathon of the Dexter-Ann Arbor Run that was held on Sunday, June 1. [She ran a sub-2-hour race.]

7:13 p.m. Proclamation honoring the University of Michigan International Center as volunteer of the month. The proclamation honors students, scholars and families affiliated with the center who have volunteered their service in city parks.

7:16 p.m. Public commentary. 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.]

Four people are signed up to talk about the policy for distribution of proceeds from the sale of the development rights to the Library Lane lot: Amanda Carlisle, Jean Carlberg, Jim Mogensen, and Seth Best.

Two people are signed up to talk about the routine adjustment to the city’s budget for the current fiscal year: Thomas Partridge and Jeff Hayner. Two people are signed up to talk about the resolution supporting the LDFA application for a 15-year extension: David Jsa and Gregg Hammerman.

Signed up to talk about the footing drain disconnection contract with CDM Smith is Frank Burdick. And Henry Herskovitz is signed up to talk about Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. Signed up as an alternate speaker on the topic of engine powered heating is Kermit Schlansker.

7:19 p.m. Amanda Carlisle is executive director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. That’s a coalition of more than 30 organizations working to end homelessness, she says. She invites people to stand if they’re here to support affordable housing. [Just about everyone in the center section and the additional chairs set up is standing is support.]

Carlisle says she visited people living under bridges last week, not a mile away from where she’s standing – and they need housing, she says. We can’t rely on state and federal funding, she says, so we need to find local solutions. She’s calling for support of DC-1, a resolution that would allocate 50% of the proceeds from the sale of development rights for the Library Lane lot to the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

7:22 p.m. David Jsa is a web developer and chief technology officer at Seelio. About 2.5 years ago, that company was invited into SPARK’s incubator – a company of four people. They were barely going to make it, he said. But they’ve now grown to a company of 15 employees. So they’ve moved into a larger office space. They’re indebted to the LDFA SmartZone and SPARK for helping the business grow. He says they expect to add around another 20 people. They love Ann Arbor and love to tell stories about how great a place Ann Arbor is to start up a company. He refers to people to the services his company received from the LDFA. He supports the extension of the term for the LDFA SmartZone.

7:25 p.m. Jean Carlberg is a former city councilmember and former city planning commissioner. She says she’s been working on affordable housing and housing for the homeless for 30 years. It’s not often you get a chance to put a “pile of money” to put into the affordable housing trust fund, she says. Affordable housing is at best a break-even proposition, she says. There are over 4,000 who need assistance in one year, she says. Councilmembers have all said they think that affordable housing is critical to the community, she notes. Carlberg urges the council to take the step of putting the proceeds from the Library Lane development rights into the affordable housing trust fund. She calls it a rare opportunity. Their actions should match their values and the values of the community, she says.

7:28 p.m. Jim Mogensen is speaking on the Library Lane resolution. He’s speaking for Religious Action for Affordable Housing. Back in the 1990s, one of the subgroups was looking for additional funds. That’s why RAAH was set up, he explains. They’ve raised about a half-million dollars, he says. Mogensen notes that it sounds like a lot of money, but it’s not. They compete with Habitat for Humanity and other organizations, so it’s difficult to raise money, he says. It’s important to have a trust fund available when projects happen, he says. For every complex problem there’s a simple solution – and it’s wrong, he quips. Putting all the affordable housing in Ypsilanti is one such “simple” solution, he says.

7:31 p.m. Seth Best apologizes for his attire. At the house on Stone School Road, they’ve been doing some renovating work, and he didn’t have a chance to change. He’s speaking in support of the Library Lane lot resolution. For every 100 people who are searching for affordable housing in the U.S., there are 30 homes available, he says. Affordable housing takes time, he says. He suggests that some of the money should support a community center or a warming center: Where do people go tonight? he asks. It’s national LGBT month, he says – and if you send people down South, that could put people’s lives in danger.

7:34 p.m. Frank Burdick introduces himself as a Ward 4 resident. He’s encouraging the council to vote no on the contract extension for CDM Smith for footing drain disconnection work. He says the city council has for the last 13 years listened only to the city staff and the city attorney, but not their constituents. He tells the council they have “married” the consultant, CDM. He talks about unhappy and anxious citizens who have failing sump pumps and frozen, improperly installed pipes. The city’s developer offset mitigation (DOM) program should be 100% funded by developers, he says. He contends that the DOM program is in serious legal jeopardy. He suggests that developers should deposit money into an escrow account instead of continuing the DOM program. He challenges mayoral candidates to consider their vote on the resolution.

7:37 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a recent candidate for various public offices. He calls on the mayor and council to re-open the city budget to allow for more housing for affordable housing and community development for the most vulnerable residents of the city. Protections under existing city policies are not adequate, he says. He calls for a change in attitude to bring about rules changes so that the public could have greater lobbying access to city hall. He wants public participation periods during the meeting, not just at the start and at the end. He supports the resolution on the Library Land lot sale proceeds, but says that all of the money should go into the trust fund, not just 50%.

7:40 p.m. Gregg Hammerman is cofounder of Larky – a mobile, web-based service that helps people keep track of discounts and perks to which they’re entitled through professional associations, alumni associations, credit cards, health insurance, shopping clubs, community groups, museums and the like. He graduated from UM in 1994 and started his first company then, called Techstreet. At that time, Ann Arbor SPARK didn’t exist, he says. Still, they managed to persevere and Techstreet was finally purchased – and it now has $30 million in revenue and about 25 employees. Now there’s a real start-up culture here in Ann Arbor, which he attributes to LDFA and SPARK. His new company has eight employees, which had been achieved in a two-year cycle, instead of the nine years that his first company required.

7:43 p.m. Jeff Hayner is speaking against voting on the LDFA resolution tonight and encourages the council not to approve it until more information on the efficacy of SPARK’s programs is available. He’s arguing that the SmartZones statewide amount to a geographic transfer of wealth.

7:46 p.m. Henry Herskovitz begins by asking: What if you heard through the news media that fighter jets from South Korea were used to attack a U.S. ship? Our answer would be clear – that the U.S. would not tolerate an attack by an ally. South Korea has not done that, but that’s what happened in 1967 with the USS Liberty when Israel [mistakenly] attacked the ship. U.S. citizens should take it seriously when a foreign government can influence U.S. foreign policy, he says.

7:46 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) has now arrived.

7:46 p.m. Communications from the 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.

7:47 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) says that the topic of the work session on June 9 will be ethics and council rules.

7:49 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanks everyone who has come in to license their dogs. She was here on Friday afternoon and there was a long line at the clerk’s office. Everyone wants to do the right thing, she says.

7:52 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) thanks staff for the repaving of the St. Aubin service drive near Platt Road. He announces he’ll be bringing forth a resolution at a future meeting to tender an offer on 8 acres where the Burton Commons affordable project is proposed. [The idea would be to use open space millage money.] Here’s an animated .gif of the aerial photos of the property: Burton Commons land. He’s arguing for the purchase based on climate change and the adjacency of Sylvan Park to the north. The resolution would direct staff to make an offer to purchase at fair market value.

7:53 p.m. Eaton conveys Anglin’s regrets that he can’t attend.

7:53 p.m. Appointments: Confirmation. Tonight the council is voting on nominations to city boards and commissions made at the council’s May 19 meeting. Larry Eiler was nominated to the Economic Development Corporation, replacing Daniel Blakemore. Andy Baker-White and Amanda Carlisle were nominated to the housing and human services advisory board to fill vacancies.

7:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has unanimously approved all the appointments.

7:54 p.m. Appointments: Nominations. Being nominated tonight for reappointment to the city planning commission are Wendy Woods and Eleanore Adenekan. Being nominated for reappointment to the commission on disability issues are Linda Evans and Larry Keeler. Their appointments will be voted on at the council’s next meeting.

7:54 p.m. Hieftje asks Lumm how many openings still remain on HHSAB. Lumm thinks there are still three vacancies.

7:54 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. Five public hearings are scheduled tonight: PH-1 Ordinance to raise water, sewer, and stormwater rates; PH-2 Ordinance to amend drive-thru facilities and permitted uses; PH-3 Rezoning 515 Oxford (Delta Gamma); PH-4 Site plan for 515 Oxford (Delta Gamma); PH-5 Site plan for Ruth’s Chris.

7:55 p.m. PH-1 Ordinance to raise water, sewer, and stormwater rates.

7:56 p.m. Thomas Partridge asks that rates be revised so that the impact on the most vulnerable residents is ameliorated.

7:57 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) has now arrived.

8:01 p.m. Jeff Hayner says that water rates have gone up every year. He notices it as homeowner, he says. He cites some Sierra Club information that indicates that only three Michigan municipalities operate water services as a utility, including Detroit and Ann Arbor. He questions why the fourth heavy use tier has been dropped – and wonders if it resulted from an effort to accommodate the University of Michigan. He asks the council to please keep Ann Arbor affordable.

8:01 p.m. PH-2 Ordinance to amend drive-thru facilities and permitted uses. No one speaks on this hearing.

8:02 p.m. PH-3 Rezoning 515 Oxford (Delta Gamma).

8:04 p.m. Thomas Partridge says the property needs to be accessible to disabled students.

8:05 p.m. PH-4 Site plan for 515 Oxford (Delta Gamma).

8:05 p.m. No one speaks at this public hearing.

8:06 p.m. PH-5 Site plan for Ruth’s Chris. Steve Fry, who is representing Ruth’s Chris, tells the council that he’s here if there are questions.

8:07 p.m. Thomas Partridge calls on the council to require the restaurant to be truly accessible to those who are disabled and to seniors and those who need to use public transportation. He says there should be menu items that are affordable to those with lower incomes.

8:09 p.m. Approval of minutes. Outcome: The council has approved the minutes of the previous meeting.

8:09 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 …

8:09 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Kunselman pulls out CA-4. It’s a resolution authorizing $28,444 in sanitary sewer and water improvement charges for 3980 Platt Road.

8:09 p.m. Outcome: All items on the consent agenda except for CA-4 have now been approved.

8:10 p.m. CA-4 Authorize sanitary sewer and water improvement charges for 3980 Platt Road. ($28,444). Kunselman says the property has been under construction for some time. If this resolution is approved, he wonders if the builder will be pursuing this more diligently. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, says that he won’t comment on the builder’s intent, but this will remove one hurdle.

8:11 p.m. Outcome: All items on the consent agenda have now been approved.

8:11 p.m. B-1 Increase water, sewer, and stormwater rates. The council will consider giving final approval to higher utility rates – for water, sewer and stormwater. Initial approval came at the council’s May 19 meeting.

Water rates will increase across all tiers of consumption. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is will increase from $1.35 to $1.40. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.85 to $2.96 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.88 to $5.08. A unit is 100 cubic feet, which is 748 gallons. [For additional background, see Utility Rates above.]

8:13 p.m. Hieftje says he’s been following this for several years. And the city does a comparison with other communities. He calls the rate increases middle-of-the-pack and appropriate for a city with infrastructure the age of Ann Arbor’s. Hieftje is comparing the issue with roads – that to maintain the infrastructure, it requires money. He says the city’s departments are efficient with their use of money.

8:15 p.m. Kailasapathy asks about the four tiers of the previous approach: Why did the city move from a four-tier system to a three-tier system? Hupy says that those tiers are residential tiers. That was done in response to customers and councilmembers – and that fourth tier hit the large residential users. Powers adds that the commercial rates – including institutional uses – have a different rate structure.

8:16 p.m. Briere notes that years ago, the council used to receive the comparative analysis with other communities and asks that it be provided. Hupy will forward it to councilmembers.

8:17 p.m. Lumm reviews the elimination of the fourth pricing tier – and describes how it affected people who were watering their lawns. She describes the previous rates as involving “ungodly sums.” She notes that the rate increases will translate to $2.3 million in additional revenue. No one wants to increase prices, unless it’s absolutely necessary, and that standard is met, she says.

8:20 p.m. Kunselman asks if it will be possible to slow the rate of increase in future years. Hupy indicates he’s pessimistic that could happen for water rates, given that about half of the drinking water treatment plant might need to be replaced. Hupy expects at a minimum that water rate increases will be similar to what the city is doing for sewer rates.

8:20 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the increase in water, sewer and stormwater rates.

8:20 p.m. B-2 Ordinance to amend regulations regarding drive-thru facilities and permitted uses. On tonight’s agenda is final approval of amendments to Ann Arbor’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus. Initial approval came at the council’s May 5 meeting. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code. [For additional background, see Drive-Thru Ordinance: Final Approval above.]

8:23 p.m. Eaton asks planning manager Wendy Rampson how this change differs from the standard the city has in the code now. Rampson describes how the new standard makes it clear that all drive-thrus are subject to planning commission review for special exception use. And windows can’t face the right-of-way, she says. Eaton ventures that this means that planning commission and the council have discretion to grant the special exception use. Rampson notes that he’s correct, but adds that the planning commission has purview on the special exception use. Eaton asks what the standards are for exercise of that discretion. Rampson points to the relevant section of the code.

8:26 p.m. Eaton raises the specter of a long line of cars extending into a neighborhood. Could anything be done about that? Rampson says that the planning commission has discretion on a case-by-case basis – and the commission could deny the application. Eaton ventures that the denial would not be required. Eaton says it would be easy to write this kind of requirement into the code – to prevent that kind of impact on a neighborhood. He revises “easy” to “plausible.”

8:26 p.m. Warpehoski says he’s glad to see this going through. Changing from by-right to discretionary is a good step, he says.

8:28 p.m. Briere says that she can send councilmembers the section of the ordinance that deals with special exception uses. There’s always the risk of making one size fit all, she says. The language in the ordinance revision is flexible enough that each site can be considered on a case-by-case basis.

8:29 p.m. Eaton says he wants to send this back to the planning commission to write into the ordinance what will happen when a drive-thru window is adjacent to a residential neighborhood.

8:30 p.m. The motion in front of the council is to refer this back to the planning commission. Warpehoski says he doesn’t think this needs to be sent back to the planning commission in order for Eaton’s goal to be realized. He doesn’t want to hold up the effort now.

8:31 p.m. Hieftje says he’s siding with Warpehoski, and wants to see the council pass what is good, instead of holding it up until it is perfect.

8:33 p.m. Briere says if there are concerns about drive-thru windows operating near residential neighborhoods, they should be looked into, but says there are already a lot of protections in the code.

8:34 p.m. Outcome on Eaton’s motion to refer it back to the planning commission: It fails on a 3-7 vote with support only from Eaton, Lumm and Kailasapathy. Anglin is absent.

8:34 p.m. Taylor says he’d also like to see the additional criteria, but adds that the changes in front of the council tonight already move the ball in the right direction.

8:34 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the revised regulations on drive-thrus.

8:34 p.m. B-3 Rezone 515 Oxford (Delta Gamma). The city council is being asked tonight to give final approval of a rezoning request for 515 Oxford, to convert a house for use as an annex to the Delta Gamma sorority. The main sorority house is located nearby at 626 Oxford. The council gave initial approval to the rezoning at its May 5, 2014 meeting. Later on tonight’s agenda is consideration of the site plan approval for the same project. The site plan was recommended for approval by planning commissioners on April 15, 2014. [For additional background, see Delta Gamma Site Plan, Rezoning above.]

8:36 p.m. Briere says that for many people, this is a landmark building, designed by an architect for his home and studio.

8:36 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the rezoning required as part of the Delta Gamma project.

8:37 p.m. Recess. We’re in recess.

8:45 p.m. We’re back.

8:45 p.m. C-1 Rezone Green/Baxter (AAHC).  At tonight’s meeting, the council will consider giving initial approval to the rezoning of three Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. The planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The current PL (public land) zoning for some of the properties is a vestige of the AAHC properties’ status as city-owned land.

The three sites to be considered are part of the housing commission’s major initiative to upgrade the city’s public housing units by seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits. [For additional background, see Rezoning: Housing Commission Properties above.] First up is the AAHC property at Green/Baxter Court Apartments from PL (public land) to R4A (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. It’s in Ward 2.

8:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to give initial approval of the rezoning of the AAHC property at Green/Baxter.

8:46 p.m. C-2 Rezone Baker Commons (AAHC). This would rezone the property from PL (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.

8:48 p.m. Kunselman has a question. Rampson comes to the podium. He ventures that Baker Commons would exceed the 60-foot height limit in D2. Rampson says they don’t have an official height of the building, but agrees that it could be taller than 60 feet. She says that this would be a non-conforming structure. AAHC has been notified, and she says it’s not an issue as far as she understands. There’s not really a viable alternative zoning, she says. There was not a planning commission discussion of the possible non-conformance, Rampson tells Kunselman.

8:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the rezoning of the AAHC property at Baker Commons.

8:49 p.m. C-3 Rezone Maple Meadows (AAHC). This item would rezone the property 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.

8:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the rezoning of the AAHC property at Maple Meadows.

8:49 p.m. DC-1 Establish policy for distribution of proceeds from sale of Library Lane lot development rights. Tonight the city council will consider a resolution setting a policy for distribution of the proceeds from the sale of development rights on the Library Lane lot. The proposed policy would set aside 50% of the net proceeds to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. [For additional background, see Library Lot Sale Proceeds above.]

8:52 p.m. Hieftje says he wants to talk about some history. Several years ago, Michael Appel of Avalon Housing had come and talked with him about a pot of money that was available from the feds. [Appel was here earlier, but has departed.] That effort by Avalon had led to a partnership with the nonprofit Food Gatherers and the creation of Carrot Way on Dhu Varren Road.

But the funding landscape has changed a lot since then, Hieftje says. He doesn’t think anything can get done without a “pot of money” here locally. The community’s plans were set back during the Great Recession, he says. Now is an opportunity to create that pot of money, he says, but the exact way the money will be spent can be decided later.

8:55 p.m. As one example, Hieftje floats the idea of creating something like a Carrot Way – that could be located on Platt Road, where Washtenaw County’s former juvenile court facility was located. Hieftje says that the number of people in attendance reflects how well the proposal has been received. He ventures that the sale price might be around $8-10 million, which would mean the city’s general fund would receive several million dollars.

8:59 p.m. Kailasapathy says she’s heard from constituents that they’d like to see an “Arrowwood Part II” and calls it a worthy goal. But she says that there needs to be criteria set for the use of the affordable housing trust fund. It’s there to create new capital assets, she says. It’s not for recurring expenses. She wants to protect this fund for capital assets and says it shouldn’t be used as a slush fund.

Kailasapathy also has mixed feelings about the Library Lane lot. She was the one vote in the 10-1 vote on the hiring of a real estate broker to sell the development rights. She says she’ll support this resolution, and she knows millions of dollars are needed and this is just a start. She’d support 100% of a Palio Lot sale going to affordable housing, she says.

9:00 p.m. Petersen agrees with Kailasapathy that this doesn’t end the conversation about the Library Lane lot. She looks forward to the conversation. It’s more than a great cause, she says – it’s one of the council’s budget priorities and supports economic development.

9:05 p.m. Kunselman says it’s nothing more than a “teaser” resolution, as it’s non-binding. The number of $8-10 million is different from the number that Jim Chaconas had given, he notes – it seems inflated. The same people who sponsored this resolution are the same people who voted to bond for a $50 million underground parking structure, he says. “We’ve spent more money housing cars than housing people.” He points toward a June 4, 2007 vote when the council had rescinded a previous affordable housing policy as part of a land sale – because the council needed the money from the sale of the First & Washington property to build the police/courts facility. When the sale is actually done, he’ll support putting that money into affordable housing.

9:06 p.m. Taylor says he’s delighted to be a co-sponsor. He says the resolution is a moral commitment to use the money for an important community need. Local government can’t wave a magic wand to make things affordable, he says.

9:09 p.m. Briere says that after Kunselman brought forward the resolution to sell the development rights, she’s had a conversation with Hieftje about what percentage should go to affordable housing. The council’s budget committee had recommended 10% at a minimum. She cautioned that she didn’t want to see the community benefit of affordable housing used as an argument for a project on the top of the Library Lane lot that might not be a community benefit. She’s recounting the contributions that the council has made to the affordable housing trust fund – including from the former Y lot and from a strip of land associated with that parcel, as well as general fund contributions.

9:11 p.m. Briere asks if it’s political or if it’s good policy – and she concludes it’s not a political circus, saying that it’s an attempt to make good policy.

9:14 p.m. Lumm is concerned about the percentage and the timing of the decision. She’d supported the minimum 10% of the council’s budget committee, she says. This was first brought up on April 7, she says. The 50% amount is not unreasonable, she adds. But she says that the city’s general fund reserves are currently on the low side. She wouldn’t support any more than 50%. Chaconas’ estimate of $6-7 million would go down as chunks were taken away for public space, she says. Lumm is also concerned about other needs the city might have. She ventures that it might make sense to postpone again.

9:14 p.m. Lumm says she could go either way on this.

9:17 p.m. Eaton says this decision is premature. He notes that it’s not clear that the council has decided that the Library Lane lot development rights will be sold. This would put pressure on the council to sell those development rights, and cautions that it would possibly taint a decision to sell those rights. He’s also concerned about a lack of clear criteria for use of money in the affordable housing trust fund. It should be restricted to capital investments, he says. So he resists the idea of accumulating such large sums. He’d expressed those concerns when the council had sold the former Y lot. So he won’t support the resolution, he says.

9:19 p.m. Kunselman said he’d detailed some problems at a previous meeting about the bonding used for the construction of the underground parking garage. [The issue relates to how many spaces can be dedicated to private use.] He wants to know if staff now has an analysis of how many spaces are available for private use. Powers says that some of that information is still being compiled, but notes that some of the issues were addressed in a confidential memo to councilmembers from the city attorney. Powers allows that the answer to the question probably affects how valuable the property is.

9:23 p.m. Warpehoski notes that some councilmembers have wanted to lock down the amount of space designated as public open space before moving forward – and didn’t feel that it was premature to make that determination. Similarly, he doesn’t think that locking down a percentage for affordable housing is premature. Warpehoski will support the resolution.

9:23 p.m. Lumm says that her point is that things do change and that she wants to see how much money the sale actually generates.

9:24 p.m. Lumm is reviewing the changing in funding strategies by MSHDA – the Michigan State Housing Development Authority.

9:26 p.m. Kunselman proposes an amendment, saying that the Ann Arbor Housing Commission is the largest affordable housing provider in the city. He wants to stipulate that 25% of all proceeds go to the AAHC – in addition to the 50% that would go to the affordable housing trust fund.

9:28 p.m. Briere gets clarification that Kunselman that he’s not confining the AAHC allocation to just downtown AAHC properties. She notes that money from the affordable housing trust fund has been used in the past for AAHC properties. She doesn’t think this amendment is necessary.

9:30 p.m. Briere says she’s heard the concern that too much money would be used for the AAHC. Kunselman says it’s important that the AAHC be given money “straight up” without having to come ask. He doesn’t think they should have to go through hoops – saying that AAHC shouldn’t have to go before the HHSAB.

9:32 p.m. Kunselman says the council has neglected the AAHC for so many years, trying to engage in speculative development. He cites the former Y lot, Near North and Burton Commons. He points out that AAHC is also looking to increase their number of units.

9:33 p.m. Teall appreciates Kunselman’s concern for the AAHC, but doesn’t think that AAHC has been neglected. It’s good for the process that when the AAHC needs funds, they come and request the funds and explain what the funds are needed for, she says.

9:37 p.m. Hieftje agrees with Teall and Briere that the AAHC can come and ask for money when they need it.

9:37 p.m. Outcome on the amendment: The council has voted to reject Kunselman’s amendment with support only from Kunselman, Kailasapathy and Eaton.

9:39 p.m. Briere speaks in support of the resolution, saying she’ll carry the concerns she’s heard back to HHSAB. Kunselman says he won’t support this for reasons he’s already described. He noted that he’d been the one to push forward the Y lot sale and he’d also been the one to push for the sale of Library Lane lot development rights. The resolution tonight is premature. He wants the council to have concrete information instead of making “grand gestures” to appease people.

9:42 p.m. Hieftje is now unable to resist responding to Kunselman’s remarks about using public TIF (tax increment finance) dollars to support parking – saying it’s an important economic development tool. He’s giving others on the council credit for some of the good things that have happened – reacting to Kunselman’s previous remarks about his own role.

9:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the policy on designating proceeds from sale of development rights on the Library Lane lot. Voting for it were Taylor, Teall, Warpehoski, Hieftje, Kailasapathy, Briere and Petersen. Anglin was absent. Kunselman, Lumm and Eaton voted against it.

9:43 p.m. DC-2 Remove funding for Larcom reskin. This is a proposal to recommend to the planning commission that the capital improvements plan (CIP) for FY 2017 and FY 2018 be revised to remove the $4.4 million that is included for a city hall reskinning project. The council postponed this item from its May 19, 2014 meeting. According to a staff memo written in response to a councilmember question, reskinning of the Larcom City Hall building would mean replacing the existing exterior walls and windows of the building. The result would be new squared-off exterior, eliminating the inverted pyramid design. The new exterior would hang vertically from the sixth floor. [For additional background, see City Hall Reskinning above.]

9:45 p.m. Lumm is reading aloud a prepared statement about other capital needs in the city. She describes the reskin of the Larcom building as being something that “might be nice” and expresses skepticism that the energy savings would translate to a positive business case.

9:48 p.m. Briere says that she has a bureaucratic problem with the resolution: The council can remove the funding, but the planning commission approves the content. The resolution asks the planning commission to remove the funding. So she had to ask what would happen if the planning commission removed the Larcom reskin from the CIP. Briere wants to remove the reference to the $4.4 million, but Petersen says that it’s merely an adjectival modifier of the project.

9:50 p.m. Petersen says that the council isn’t voting on the bureaucratic issue – and she’s going to support this resolution. She’s urging the council to explore the energy improvements. Hieftje says that he’ll support this resolution, because the city doesn’t have $4.4 million lying around. He recalls efforts the city had made to find federal dollars for the energy improvements.

9:52 p.m. Kailasapathy says that she doesn’t believe that there’s “free money” even if it comes from the federal or state government, because it’s all taxpayer money. She wants the cosmetic components of the project removed. “I just want to see this gone,” she says.

9:53 p.m. Teall won’t support this tonight. Energy efficiency is and should be a priority, she says. She recognizes that she’s fighting a losing battle. She’s concerned not just about the windows, but also about the insulation in the walls. Having the project in the CIP doesn’t mean we’re spending the money, Teall notes. She’s citing a common sentiment of Kunselman that the council shouldn’t tie the hands of future councils.

9:56 p.m. Kunselman says it’s ironic that he’d tried to fight the airport runway extension by removing it from the CIP, but he wasn’t sure he wanted to adopt that approach here. He wants to know more about the windows: Did they date from the 1960s? Powers notes that this is a project in the 2017 year of the CIP. Hupy confirms that it’s a very conceptual budget at this point. He confirms that the windows are original. Kunselman ventures that the title of the project can be changed from “reskinning” to something involving energy efficiency. He doesn’t think this resolution will do anything, but now suggests an additional resolved clause to address a title that will be more limiting in scope.

9:57 p.m. Hieftje suggests a recess to craft the language Kunselman is trying to come up with.

9:57 p.m. Recess.

10:05 p.m. Samuel McMullen, Ward 3 candidate for council, has arrived at the meeting.

10:05 p.m. We’re back.

10:09 p.m. Kunselman reads aloud the additional “resolved” clause that expresses a council desire that an energy-efficiency project be developed for city hall. Lumm is now arguing against the amendment based on skepticism that there’d be adequate payback. Kunselman allows that window replacements don’t pay back in energy savings, but it does affect the comfort for building occupants. It’s also a strain on the HVAC system, he ventures.

10:12 p.m. Kunselman says that if the building is going to be around for a few more decades, it might be worth putting in some new windows. Petersen says that she’ll support Kunselman’s amendment, characterizing it as formally asking what councilmembers have been talking about. Briere says that Kunselman’s amendment suggests a more cost-effective approach to the problems with the walls and windows. Briere notes that the building has historic status now that it is older than 50 years. She’s not particularly fond of the building, though.

10:14 p.m. Eaton says that the message to the planning commission is that the council won’t support anything that has the scope of a $4.4 million project. Teall says she’ll support the amendment, but not necessarily the main question. Hieftje reiterates his support for the main question and for the amendment as well.

10:15 p.m. Outcome on the amendment: The council has voted to approve the amendment.

10:16 p.m. Lumm is happy that it appears this will pass.

10:16 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve this resolution, over the dissent of Teall.

10:16 p.m. DC-3 Approve a five-year partnership agreement with Community Action Network for Operation of Bryant and Northside community centers. This is proposal for a five-year partnership between the city and the nonprofit Community Action Network. The partnership was recommended for approval by the Ann Arbor park advisory commission at its May 20, 2014 meeting. [For additional background, see Partnership with Community Action Network above.]

10:18 p.m. Taylor is reviewing the resolution. [Taylor is a council appointee to the park advisory commission.] Taylor says that CAN is uniquely qualified to provide this service. He encourages support of the resolution.

10:18 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the operating agreement with CAN for Northside and Bryant community centers.

10:18 p.m. DC-4 Approve application to MEDC for extension of LDFA term. This resolution would support the LDFA’s application to the MEDC for an extension of its current 15-year term, ending in 2018. The length of the extension would be for at least five years, and possibly as long as 15 years. [For additional background, see LDFA Extension above.]

10:21 p.m. Petersen is reviewing some points in a letter from the LDFA board to the council. First is that LDFA SmartZones are enabled by state statute. Second is that the LDFA has had its contract with SPARK audited. SPARK’s financials are now on SPARK’s website, she says. She notes that the LDFA has heard the council’s interest in high-speed telecommunications networks.

10:22 p.m. Carrie Leahy, chair of the LDFA board, has come to the podium to answer questions. She tells Lumm that the most serious conversations about who might be the satellite are Adrian and Brighton. She says that Flint is no longer on the table. She’s explaining that a satellite LDFA would set up its own TIF capture.

10:24 p.m. Lumm wants to know what the impact would be on the Ann Arbor Ypsi SmartZone. Leahy says the Ann Arbor Ypsi SmartZone funds wouldn’t be spent outside of Ann Arbor and Ypsi.

10:27 p.m. Hieftje ventures that Lumm is raising a good question: Why does the MEDC want to do this? SPARK CEO Paul Krutko says that MEDC worked with the legislature to see how to allow the LDFA program to continue. Currently there are 15 SmartZones, each with an opportunity to extend for five years. Three of the 15 have the chance to extend for 15 years. One of the three is already decided – Marquette. There’s a deadline set by the state, Krutko says, of June 30 and Sept. 30. The effort reflects the state’s emphasis on regional cooperation.

10:29 p.m. Leahy stresses that tonight’s resolution is just the first step. The application will then go to the MEDC. Then it will come back to the council. Krutko says that the LDFA wanted to come to the council early, because the other communities have a lot of steps to complete. Both of the communities still on the table are very interested, Krutko says.

10:32 p.m. Kailasapathy is returning to the topic of “windfall” gains that the LDFA had realized due to increased valuation in the TIF district. She’d proposed a budget amendment on May 19, when the council adopted next year’s budget, that would have reserved some of that windfall for construction of a high-speed telecommunications network. That amendment hadn’t succeeded. Kailasapathy wants to know if the LDFA can provide audited job creation numbers.

10:34 p.m. Leahy tells Kailasapathy that the LDFA has heard the council’s interest in infrastructure improvements and has begun to reach out to other communities and the MEDC to get more information about that.

10:35 p.m. Leahy says that the LDFA does not ask an independent party to verify the job creation numbers in an audit. “Why don’t you just do it?” Kailasapathy asks. Leahy says that the LDFA board has not had a meeting since the last council meeting.

10:37 p.m. Eaton is getting clarification from Leahy about the council’s options for denying an extension in the future. It sounds like the council could opt to extend only for five years, even if the MEDC approved an extension for 15 years.

10:38 p.m. Lumm says she doesn’t see any justification not to apply, because it would mean sending money elsewhere in the state.

10:42 p.m. Hieftje says he’s fully in support of this. He says that the city is interested in the best performance it can get out of Ann Arbor SPARK. Hieftje says that if the LDFA were to cease to exist, it would have no impact on the School Aid Fund.

Taylor is delighted to support this resolution. Both Ann Arbor SPARK and the LDFA do an excellent job, he says. About the drive for metrics, he says it’s the council’s obligation to oversee the money that is spent. It’s important to note, he says, that job creation statistics are not a science. It’s multivariable, he says.

10:46 p.m. Kunselman says he’s sitting on the fence. He doesn’t understand why the five-year extension is being discussed now five years ahead of the expiration of the LDFA. Kunselman expresses skepticism about the state’s reimbursement of the School Aid Fund, saying that the state has consistently underfunded the School Aid Fund. Powers quips that CFO Tom Crawford can’t speak for the governor except for the fact he’s not wearing a tie. Krutko corrects Kunselman’s understanding – pointing out that we’re only three years away from the expiration of the current LDFA.

10:47 p.m. Crawford is clarifying for Kunselman how the state reimburses the School Aid Fund.

10:47 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to support the LDFA’s application for the extension of its term, over dissent from Kailasapathy.

10:47 p.m. DC-5 Approve Bravo Brio Restaurant Group Inc. for a new Resort Class C liquor license. The restaurant is located at 760 Briarwood Circle.

10:49 p.m. Lumm is reporting out the liquor license review committee’s work on considering these license applications.

10:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recommend approval of Bravo Brio’s application for a liquor license.

10:49 p.m. DC-6 Approve P.F. Chang’s China Bistro Inc. for a new Resort Class C liquor license. The restaurant is located at 720 Briarwood Circle.

10:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recommend approval of P.F. Chang’s application for a liquor license.

10:50 p.m. Closed Session. The council has voted to go into closed session to discuss pending litigation.

11:30 p.m. We’re back.

11:30 p.m. Recess. The council immediately takes a break.

11:36 p.m. We’re back.

11:38 p.m. DC-7 Community Events Fund Disbursements. This allocates $1,972 from the FY 2014 Community Events Fund to the African-American Downtown Festival scheduled for June 7, 2014.

11:38 p.m. Outcome: The council has unanimously approved the allocation.

11:39 p.m. DB-1 Approve 515 Oxford (Delta Gamma) site plan. This is the same project for which the zoning was given final approval earlier in the meeting.

11:39 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Delta Gamma site plan.

11:39 p.m. DB-2 Approve Ruth’s Chris Site Plan This is the site plan for a new Ruth’s Chris Steak House on Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The planning commission recommended approval at its April 1, 2014 meeting. The site plan calls for renovating the single-story building at 314 S. Fourth Ave. and putting up a 1,943-square-foot second-floor mezzanine addition over the front part of the existing building. The current structure is 8,024 square feet, and most recently housed the Dream Nite Club, which closed in 2012. The project is estimated to cost $2.2 million. [.pdf of staff report on Ruth's Chris site plan] [For additional background, see Ruth’s Chris Site Plan above.]

11:39 p.m. Outcome: Without discussion, the council has voted to approve the Ruth’s Chris site plan.

11:39 p.m. DS-1 Approve amendment No. 4 to the contract with CDM Smith Michigan Inc. for the footing drain disconnect (FDD) program. This item is an extension of a contract with CDM Smith Inc. for continued work as part of Ann Arbor’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program. It had been postponed at the council’s May 5, 2014 meeting.

In the interim, the dollar amount of the contract extension has been reduced from $748,106 to $143,440. That reflects a reduction in the scope of the work. The original May 5 resolution called for the following activities to be funded: citizen support ($36,928); FDD citizens advisory committee meetings ($24,180); information management for sump pump monitors ($93,707); developer offset mitigation (DOM) program support; ($95,213); and multi-family FDD implementation ($498,005). No longer a part of the scope of work in the revised June 2 resolution are the FDD citizens advisory committee meetings, information management, or the multi-family FDD implementation. [For additional background, see FDD Program Contract Extension above.]

11:41 p.m. Eaton says he’s glad to see that the amount in the contract has been pared down. But he does not think the city should be spending money on the DOM, saying that the DOM should be funded by the developers. Residents in Ward 4 have expressed concern about the quality of work done by CDM Smith, Eaton says. When the work isn’t done right, water can freeze, he adds.

11:43 p.m. Eaton contends that about 1/3 of the houses that have had FDDs done don’t have a proper air gap in the discharge pipe. Eaton doesn’t think the city should continue to spend money to this consultant, when it should be funded by the developers, not taxpayers.

11:43 p.m. Teall says she doesn’t share the same level of distrust of the consultant that Eaton does. She allows that she’s heard from constituents who’ve had these issues. She says that the council hears a lot from only a few constituents.

11:46 p.m. Hupy is now at the podium. Teall asks him to respond to Eaton’s remarks. Hupy says there are simply not 1/3 of the houses with FDDs that don’t have proper air gaps. He says that the city is working through various complaints. Out of the nearly 600 installations the city has done, only five were frozen this past winter, he says. So the issue is not as widespread as it’s been reported, Hupy says. The city is now looking at solving the root causes of any problems, he notes.

11:48 p.m. Hupy describes what CDM Smith does: When a developer identifies a candidate for an FDD, they go in and verify that it’s a viable candidate and also verify that the work was done properly. Hupy doesn’t know why the program is set up so that the city pays for the administration of the DOM program. Hupy says that going forward, that would be an obvious aspect of the program to consider changing.

11:51 p.m. Teall asks what the impact on city staff would be if the resolution were not approved. Nick Hutchison says it would require about half the time of two full-time employees – that is, one FTE. And some workloads would need to be moved around. Summer road projects would need to be managed with outside resources, he says. Teall characterizes the situation as substituting different consultancies for the consultancy with CDM Smith. Teall says she’ll support the resolution. She’s dismayed by some of the communication that the council has been receiving from some people. There hasn’t been a balance from other members of the citizens advisory committee, she says.

11:53 p.m. Eaton says that his 1/3 figure was based on the results of a survey done by the committee – Question 18. Hupy says that residents who reported that don’t understand what they’re looking at. Hupy adds that when the city inspects those situations, they don’t find 1/3 with inadequate air gaps.

11:55 p.m. Back and forth between Eaton and Hupy ensues. Eaton ventures that the survey documents a great deal of dissatisfaction. Hupy says that a question about whether you’d recommend the procedure to a neighbor had a 70% positive response.

11:57 p.m. Warpehoski says he understands and hears the concerns. He’s also a satisfied participant in the DOM program, he says. For him, it had worked well – as part of a basement renovation program. CDM Smith had answered his questions and worked with his general contractor. Warpehoski says that the council has approved site plans that have development agreements requiring FDDs, so he thinks the council needs to approve this resolution.

11:59 p.m. Lumm thanks Eaton for his work on this issue. She’s glad to see the reduced amount in the contract. The recommendation from the committee won’t be coming back until the fall, she notes. She doesn’t think it makes sense to stop all the development projects that are currently in process.

12:01 a.m. Kunselman gets confirmation that the DOM program is voluntary from the point of view of the homeowner.

12:03 a.m. Kunselman asks if there are houses in the queue for the DOM. Yes, about 13. But there are about 350 that are on the books as required. About 150-160 are at some point in the process. Kunselman asks if anyone who is paying $100 a month instead of doing an FDD. Yes, there are two.

12:04 a.m. Hieftje says he appreciates the light that Eaton’s work has shone on the issue. But the consequences of not approving this resolution would be onerous, he says.

12:06 a.m. Briere notes that the DOM program does not mandate FDDs, but rather that the flow mitigate in some way. Hupy confirms that. She wants to know if the city encourages alternatives to FDDs. Hupy says that the city reviews any ideas that developers have. He cites how some developers own enough fixtures that they can reduce flow in those and achieve the needed offset – e.g., Ann Arbor Public Schools and University of Michigan.

12:07 a.m. Briere asks if there’d be a benefit to having developers pay cash in lieu. Hupy isn’t sure.

12:08 a.m. Briere notes that some alternatives will need to be found, because there’s only a finite number of footing drains. Hupy agrees that there will be a point of diminishing returns.

12:09 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the CDM Smith contract for FDD work, over dissent from Eaton and Kailasapathy.

12:09 a.m. DS-2 Resolution No. 2 for special assessment district for Stone School Road reconstruction project. As part of a road reconstruction project for Stone School Road, the city is planning to install a sidewalk on the west side of the road. To fund the sidewalk construction, part of the cost will come from a special assessment of property owners. This resolution sets the roll of properties to be special assessed. [For additional background, see Stone School Road Sidewalk Special Assessment above.]

12:10 a.m. Kunselman says he’s very excited that this project is moving forward. He’s also excited that about 80% of the cost of the special assessment is being covered by public dollars.

12:10 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set the assessment roll for the Stone School sidewalk special assessment.

12:10 a.m. DS-3 Approve contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff Michigan Inc. South State Street transportation corridor study. This item would approve a $299,911 contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff Michigan Inc. to conduct a study of the South State Street transportation corridor. The 1.3 mile long area of the study extends from the intersection of Ellsworth Road and South State Street north to the intersection of Oakbrook Drive and South State Street. [For additional background, see State Street Transportation Corridor Study above.]

12:10 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff for the State Street transportation corridor study.

12:10 a.m. DS-4 Adopt the City of Ann Arbor urban and community forest management plan. This item would adopt the first comprehensive plan for managing Ann Arbor’s urban forest. The Ann Arbor park advisory commission recommended adoption of the plan at its meeting on April 15, 2014. [.pdf of Urban & Community Forest Management Plan] [For additional background, see Urban Forest above.]

12:12 a.m. Lumm says that it represents a huge amount of work. She’s thanking those who were responsible for its development. She says she agrees that the urban forest is a defining and highly-valued characteristic of the community.

12:14 a.m. Taylor says that the plan was presented to the park advisory commission a while ago. [He's a council appointee to the PAC.] PAC was extremely impressed with the plan, he says.

12:14 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to adopt the urban forestry plan.

12:14 a.m. DS-5 Accept a Fair Food Network grant for the Ann Arbor Farmer’s Market. This item would approve an agreement with the Fair Food Network to continue administering the Double Up Food Bucks program at the Ann Arbor farmer’s market. Approval would entail acceptance of $32,000 in funding. [For additional background, see Grant to Farmers Market for Food Stamp Recipients above.]

12:14 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the Fair Food Network grant.

12:15 a.m. DS-6 Amend Ann Arbor City budget for fiscal year 2014. This resolution would amend the current fiscal year’s budget (FY 2014) to ensure that expenditures do not exceed appropriated amounts. The budget amendment will ensure compliance with Public Act 621 of 1978. The total requested general fund budget amendment is $60,000. For all other funds, the amendment to be considered by the council on June 2 totals $310,000. [For additional background, see Amend Current Year's Budget above.]

12:15 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to amend the FY 2014 budget.

12:15 a.m. Communications from council. Teall notes that Cinetopia is starting. It runs from June 4-8 at the Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor and also in Detroit.

12:16 a.m. Hieftje notes that the Ozone House celebrated its 45th anniversary, and there was a recent celebration for the 50th anniversary of the city’s Elizabeth Dean trust fund.

12:16 a.m. Clerk’s report. Outcome: The clerk’s report has been received.

12:16 a.m. Public comment. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:18 a.m. Thomas Partridge salutes the council for passing the resolution on the distribution of proceeds from the sale of development rights for the Library Lot. It would have been better to have dedicated 100% of the money to affordable housing instead of 50%, he adds. Partridge says we need a new governor. He calls for the election of Democrat Mark Schauer.

12:22 a.m. Mark Koroi says he’s here to address the “debacle” that had occurred in the Bob Dascola lawsuit. The judge had excoriated the city in his opinion, and the city would now be paying tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees, he notes. Koroi says that Jack Eaton has stated publicly that the council had not given authorization for the city attorney’s action, so who did? Koroi says he’s endorsing McMullen in the race, but felt that Dascola should not have been denied access to the ballot.

12:25 a.m. Caleb Poirier is addressing the council on the challenge of dealing with the homeless population and those who are living under bridges. There are some unmet needs: toileting and trash removal. It’s the desire of his nonprofit to deal with the trash. He has a two-part request – to get trash into city dumpsters and to keep fecal matter out of the river. So he’d support port-a-potties at those locations.

12:28 a.m. Elizabeth Kurtz says she’s presentable because she just got her hair cut. Having lived on the streets for about 14 months, she’d been able to get into temporary housing. Generally she has little access to laundry and bathing facilities, she says. Despite the council’s resolution tonight, there’s little attention to immediate needs, she says. She describes herself as living a Third World existence. She was part of a Detroit Public Schools layoff – up until then, she was part of the middle class. We’ve got to get our priorities straight, she says.

12:31 a.m. Judy Bonnell-Wenzel is lamenting the fact that a friend of hers, Alan Haber, is away for the summer and is not here to speak in favor of a public commons on the Library Lot. She also says that people who have no place to sleep and unmet basic needs have no democracy. She worries about gentrification – pushing people out. She and her husband pay $527 a month for their housing, she says.

12:31 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the June 2, 2014 meeting agenda.

But the June 2 meeting agenda is dominated by items related to the physical attributes and layout of the city. Several items deal with city-owned physical assets, while several more involve land use and planning.

Possibly one of the more controversial agenda items related to physical infrastructure – and future development in the city – is a contract extension with CDM Smith Inc. for work related to the city’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program. While the city council suspended the program in certain areas of the city in 2012, it continued in other areas, backed by the city’s ordinance under which the city can require residents to disconnect their footing drains from the sanitary sewer system.

Also not suspended was the city’s developer offset mitigation program, which requires developers to offset the increased flow from new construction into the sanitary sewer system. The vote on the CDM Smith Inc. contract extension was postponed from the council’s May 5 meeting. The dollar amount of the contract extension has been substantially reduced in the meantime – from about $750,000 to $143,000.

Part of the backdrop of the CDM Smith contract extension is a lawsuit that’s been filed against the city, challenging the legal foundation of the footing drain disconnect ordinance. The city sought to remove the case from state court to the federal system, but at a hearing on the matter this week, a federal judge indicated he’d be remanding the case back to the Washtenaw County 22nd circuit court.

City assets on the June 2 agenda include trees – as the council will be asked to approve the city’s urban and community forest management plan. The council will also consider a resolution on the city’s possibly most recognizable asset – the city hall building. The resolution would remove a $4 million renovation of city hall (a “reskinning”) from the city’s capital improvements plan for 2017 and 2018. This resolution was postponed from the council’s May 19 meeting.

Another city-owned asset on the agenda is the Library Lane underground parking garage. The council has already directed the city administrator to engage a real estate broker to test the market for the development rights for the surface of the garage. The resolution on the June 2 agenda, which was postponed at the council’s April 7 meeting, would set a policy to deposit 50% of the net proceeds from the sale of the development rights into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

Land use and planning items on the June 2 agenda include a roughly $300,000 contract for study of the State Street transportation corridor. Related to transportation infrastructure, the council will also be asked to approve resolutions that move along the process of special assessing property owners on Stone School Road for the cost of installing a sidewalk on the west side of the road in connection with a road reconstruction project.

Also related to land use, three Ann Arbor housing commission properties will be given initial consideration for rezoning. A site plan and associated rezoning for the Delta Gamma house will be given final consideration. Also up for final consideration is a revision to the ordinance regulating drive-thrus. And the site plan for a new Ruth’s Chris restaurant to be located downtown on South Fourth Avenue will be given consideration.

A rate increase for Ann Arbor water, sewer and stormwater rates is on the June 2 agenda for final approval.

Two items connected to parks and recreation appear on the agenda. One is approval of the receipt of funding for a program that helps Bridge cardholders purchase local produce at the farmers market. The second item is approval of a five-year agreement with the Community Action Network to continue operating the city’s Northside and Bryant community centers.

The council will also be considering a resolution in support of the local development finance authority’s application to the Michigan Economic Development Corp. for a possible 15-year extension of the arrangement under which the LDFA captures taxes. The captured taxes are used to fund a business accelerator that’s operated by Ann Arbor SPARK through a contract with the LDFA. Without an extension, the LDFA would end in 2018.

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.

Amend Current Year’s Budget

On June 2 the council will consider a resolution amending the current fiscal year’s budget (FY 2014) to ensure that expenditures do not exceed appropriated amounts. The budget amendment will ensure compliance with Public Act 621 of 1978.

The total requested general fund budget amendment is $60,000. For all other funds, the amendment to be considered by the council on June 2 totals $310,000.

The non-general fund amount will cover right-of-way maintenance and purchase of materials that were necessary to deal with the severe winter weather. The general fund amount was the city’s cost for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s special election held on May 6. That amount will eventually be reimbursed by Washtenaw County – which in turn will receive reimbursement from the AAATA to cover the roughly $100,000 cost of the election.

FDD Program Contract Extension

A contract extension with CDM Smith Inc. for continued work as part of Ann Arbor’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program appears on the June 2 agenda. It had been postponed at the council’s May 5, 2014 meeting.

In the interim, the dollar amount of the contract extension has been reduced from $748,106 to $143,440. That reflects a reduction in the scope of the work. The original May 5 resolution called for the following activities to be funded: citizen support ($36,928); FDD citizens advisory committee meetings ($24,180); information management for sump pump monitors ($93,707); developer offset mitigation (DOM) program support; ($95,213); and multi-family FDD implementation ($498,005).

No longer a part of the scope of work in the revised June 2 resolution are the FDD citizens advisory committee meetings, information management, or the multi-family FDD implementation. The revised memo describes how the funding would only provide a bridge until recommendations from a study group have been received, which will determine the future of the FDD program:

This amendment would provide the services needed to bridge the gap until the SSWWE [Sanitary Sewer Wet Weather Evaluation] Project recommendations have been made. Presently, the anticipated timeline for completion of the SSWWE Project is in the autumn of 2014. That does not allow sufficient time to issue a new RFP, collect and review proposals, award a contract, and bring a new consultant up to speed to manage the remaining FDD and DOM work outlined above. Existing City staff does not currently have the available resources or expertise to perform the inspections required for the DOM program.

By way of additional background, in 2012 the city’s program to disconnect footing drains from the sanitary sewer system was suspended by the council in some areas of the city. Specifically, it was suspended in the Glen Leven and Morehead (Lansdowne neighborhood) areas. The program was allowed to continue in other geographic areas and as part of the city’s developer offset mitigation (DOM) program. The DOM requires owners of new developments to complete a certain number of FDDs to offset the additional flow in the sanitary system caused by new construction.

The CDM contract drew scrutiny at the May 5 meeting because the city is currently undertaking a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation (SSWWE) study. It’s supposed to yield a recommendation about whether to continue with the FDD program, and if so, in what form. In addition, the city’s ordinance – which requires property owners to undertake FDDs – was challenged in a lawsuit filed earlier this year. That case is pending as the city first removed the case from state to federal court. But the result of a May 28 hearing before a federal judge will be to return the case to the Washtenaw County 22nd circuit court.

The previous three iterations of the CDM contract totaled  about $3.6 million. The money for these contracts is drawn from the city’s sewer fund.

The proposed contract extension drew criticism during public commentary on May 5 from Frank Burdick, a Ward 4 resident who urged the council to reject it. Council deliberations on this item were included as part of The Chronicle’s live updates from the May 5 meeting.

Since the FDD program’s start in 2001, about 1,834 footing drains have been disconnected through the city program and 848 footing drains have been disconnected through the developer offset mitigation program.

Animation of contrast between the pre-FDD configuration and the post-FDD configuration. (Original illustration from screenshots of YouTube video by Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, modified by The Chronicle.)

Urban Forest

The city’s first comprehensive plan for managing Ann Arbor’s urban forest will be considered at the council’s June 2 meeting. The Ann Arbor park advisory commission recommended adoption of the plan at its meeting on April 15, 2014. [.pdf of Urban & Community Forest Management Plan]

An urban forest is defined as all the trees, shrubs and woody vegetation growing along city streets, in public parks and on institutional and private property. In Ann Arbor, about 25% is on public property, with 75% on private property. Based on a U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service i-Tree Eco Analysis done in 2012, Ann Arbor’s urban forest has an estimated 1.45 million trees. It creates a 33% tree canopy – the layer of leaves, branches and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above.

The city manages 43,240 street trees and about 6,900 park trees in mowed areas. A tree inventory conducted in 2009 didn’t include natural areas, she noted, so there are thousands of trees that aren’t counted. The urban forest includes over 200 species, representing 82 genera.

Map of selected tree variety by The Chronicle from city of Ann Arbor 2009 survey. Image links to dynamic map hosted on geocommons.com

PAC had been briefed on the 135-page Urban & Community Forest Management Plan at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting by Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest & natural resources planning coordinator. The management plan includes 17 recommendations, listed in priority based on community feedback for implementation. Each of the 17 recommendations includes action tasks and implementation ideas, case studies, and resources that are needed, including funding. The recommendations are:

1. Implement proactive tree maintenance program.
2. Strengthen tree planting and young tree maintenance programs.
3. Monitor threats to the urban and community forest.
4. Increase landmark/special tree protections.
5. Secure adequate city‐funding for urban forestry core services.
6. Develop street tree master plans.
7. Pursue grant and philanthropic funding opportunities.
8. Strengthen forestry related ordinances.
9. Update tree inventory and canopy analysis.
10. Develop urban forest best management practices.
11. Increase urban forestry volunteerism.
12. Strengthen relationships with outside entities who impact trees.
13. Implement community outreach program.
14. Obtain the best use of wood from removed trees.
15. Create city staff working groups to coordinate projects that impact trees.
16. Engage the city’s Environmental Commission in urban and community forestry issues.
17. Review the urban forest management plan periodically and update as needed.

City Hall Reskinning

At its June 2 meeting, the council will consider a proposal to recommend to the planning commission that the capital improvements plan (CIP) for FY 2017 and FY 2018 be revised to remove the $4.4 million that is included for a city hall reskinning project. The planning commission is the body that approves the CIP. But the council has budgetary discretion to fund projects in the CIP or not – so the resolution in some sense calls on the planning commission to take an action it does not have the authority to execute. This was a point made during deliberations at the council’s May 19, 2014 meeting when the item was postponed.

According to a staff memo written in response to a councilmember question, reskinning of the Larcom City Hall building would mean replacing the existing exterior walls and windows of the building. The result would be new squared-off exterior, eliminating the inverted pyramid design. The new exterior would hang vertically from the sixth floor.

The focus of the project is on improving energy efficiency. The memo describes existing windows as mostly single-pane glass on aluminum frames, which offer little insulation value. The project would also result in an incremental gain in square footage – because the lower floors would have the same footprint as the sixth floor, which is currently the largest floor of the building. The materials used for the exterior would “blend better” with the recently constructed Justice Center, which adjoins city hall.

Library Lot Sale Proceeds

On June 2 the city council will consider a resolution setting a policy for distribution of the proceeds from the sale of development rights on the Library Lot. The proposed policy would set aside 50% of the net proceeds to the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

The council has already directed the city administrator to hire a real estate broker to explore selling the rights to develop the site – above the Library Lane underground parking structure, which was completed in 2012.

The item was postponed at the council’s April 7, 2014 meeting. The vote was 6-5 to postpone, with dissent from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), and mayor John Hieftje.

State Street Transportation Corridor Study

The June 2 agenda includes a resolution for a $299,911 contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff Michigan Inc. to conduct a study of the South State Street transportation corridor. The 1.3 mile long area of the study extends from the intersection of Ellsworth Road and South State Street north to the intersection of Oakbrook Drive and South State Street. The money to pay for the study will be drawn in equal parts from the current fiscal year and next year’s general capital fund budget. The study will take a year, starting in June 2014.

The goal of the study is focused on transportation needs in the corridor and to provide base conceptual engineering plans for the redesign of the corridor – possibly including a boulevard “Complete Street” design. The redesign would be intended to “address all modes of travel; enhance vehicle flow; improve safety; create an aesthetically pleasing entrance to the City; and, utilize sustainable concepts such as low impact design (‘LID’), and low energy use lighting.”

The study of the area as a transportation corridor comes not long after a recently completed South State Street corridor plan, adopted by the city council into the city’s master plan at its July 15, 2014 meeting. That corridor plan established planning objectives for the land use along the corridor.

Besides Parsons Brinckerhoff, the other bidder for the work was DLZ.

Stone School Road Sidewalk Special Assessment

As part of a road reconstruction project for Stone School Road, the city is planning to install a sidewalk on the west side of the road. To fund the sidewalk construction, part of the cost will come from a special assessment of property owners. The extent of the project on Stone School Road runs from I-94 to Ellsworth Road. Construction is planned for the project during the 2014 and 2015 construction seasons.

The project is being funded in part through a federal surface transportation grant, which can pay about 80% of construction costs, but not engineering, testing or inspection costs. The total project cost is roughly $128,500, of which about $55,000 will be special assessed.

The council will be asked to approve a resolution directing the city assessor to set the roll of properties to be assessed.

Rezoning: Housing Commission Properties

At its June 2 meeting, the city council will consider giving initial approval to the rezoning of three Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. The planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The current PL (public land) zoning for some of the properties is a vestige of the AAHC properties’ status as city-owned land. The city council approved the transfer of deeds to the AAHC at its June 2, 2013 meeting. The three sites to be considered on June 2 are part of the housing commission’s major initiative to upgrade the city’s public housing units by seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

Rezoning is recommended for the following public housing sites, two of which are currently zoned as public land:

• Baker Commons: Rezone 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: Rezone public land to R4A (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. It’s in Ward 2.
• Maple Meadows: Currently zoned R1C (single-family dwelling district), the recommendation is to rezone it as 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.

At the planning commission’s May 6 meeting, AAHC director Jennifer Hall explained that PL 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. She 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.

For these three sites, planning commissioners also voted 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.”

Delta Gamma Site Plan, Rezoning

The city council will be asked on June 2 to give final approval of a rezoning request for 515 Oxford, to convert a house for use as an annex to the Delta Gamma sorority. The main sorority house is located nearby at 626 Oxford. The council gave initial approval to the rezoning at its May 5, 2014 meeting. Also on the June 2 agenda is consideration of the site plan approval for the same project. The site plan was recommended for approval by planning commissioners on April 15, 2014.

Aerial view showing the location of 515 Oxford, south of Geddes and at the eastern end of South University.

The rezoning request, recommended by the planning commission on Jan. 23, 2014, is to rezone the parcel from R4A (multi-family dwelling) to R2B (two-family dwelling and student housing). Most of the surrounding parcels are zoned R2B, although the site immediately to the north is also zoned R4A. Also nearby is public land (PL) where the University of Michigan’s Oxford Houses complex is located.

The two-story house at 515 Oxford includes two one-story wings. It is currently a rental property with three units – a studio apartment, one-bedroom apartment, and four-bedroom apartment – and a maximum occupancy of 8 people. One of the units is in a former garage.

The proposal for a renovation would accommodate a maximum of 20 residents, including a required resident manager.

The building is notable because it was originally designed in 1940 by architect George Brigham, who used it as his home and architectural studio. He designed over 40 houses in Ann Arbor, including many in Arbor Hills and Barton Hills between 1936 and 1958.

Drive-Thru Ordinance: Final Approval

On the city council’s June 2 agenda is final approval of amendments to Ann Arbor’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus. Initial approval came at the council’s May 5 meeting. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code.

The proposed revisions define a drive-thru in this way: “Any building or structure, or portion thereof, that is constructed or operated for the purpose of providing goods or services to customers who remain in their vehicle during the course of the transaction.” The revisions also clarify that a drive-thru is an accessory use, not the principle use of the building. A project in which a drive-thru would be the principle use would not be allowed. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance.

In addition, the changes would require drive-thrus to obtain special exception use permits, which would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Drive-thrus would not be allowed in the C1, D1, D2, and other commercial districts.

Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

When considering whether to grant a special exception use – which does not require additional city council approval – the planning commission considers these issues:

1. Is the location, size and character of the proposed use compatible with the principal uses of the district and adjacent districts? Is it consistent with the Master Plan? Is it consistent with the surrounding area? Will it have any detrimental effects to the use or value of surrounding area, or the natural environment?

2. Is the location, size, character, layout, access and traffic generated by the use hazardous or inconvenient or conflicting with the normal traffic of the neighborhood? Is off-street parking safe for pedestrians? Do the necessary vehicular turning movements block normal traffic flow? Are any additional public services or facilities needed by the use, and will they be detrimental to the community?

3. Is the maximum density and minimum required open space at least equal to the standards normally required by the Zoning Ordinance for the district?

The planning commission recommended the changes at its April 1, 2014 meeting.

The proposed amendments were first reviewed by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee in 2007, but never moved forward to the full commission for consideration. The ORC most recently reviewed these changes in March of 2014. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed amendments]

Ruth’s Chris Site Plan

The site plan for a new Ruth’s Chris Steak House on Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor is on the June 2 agenda for consideration. The planning commission recommended approval at its April 1, 2014 meeting.

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

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

Part of the planning commission’s discussion focused on whether there might be outdoor dining in front of the restaurant. The project’s architect indicated that at this point, outdoor seating wouldn’t be appropriate, in part because of bus traffic. The building is located near the Blake Transit Center, a hub for public transportation. The architect also indicated that the restaurant will be using valet parking, with valets positioned in front of the building.

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

Utility Rates

The council will consider giving final approval to higher utility rates – for water, sewer and stormwater. Initial approval came at the council’s May 19 meeting.

Water rates will increase across all tiers of consumption. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is will increase from $1.35 to $1.40. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.85 to $2.96 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.88 to $5.08. A unit is 100 cubic feet, which is 748 gallons.

Sewer rates will increase from $3.65 to $3.85 per unit. And stormwater fees would increase for all tiers of impervious service. For the middle tier – for more than 2,187 square feet but less than or equal to 4,175 square feet – on a quarterly basis, the increase would be from $24.85 to $26.32.

According to the staff memo accompanying this agenda item, the recommended rate changes in water, sewer, and stormwater would increase revenues to the water, sewer, and stormwater funds by $765,119, $1,171,931 and $410,235 respectively. The reason given for the rate increases is to cover maintenance and debt payments, and to maintain funding for capital improvement requirements. The city calculates the impact to be an additional $6.25 per quarter or $24.98 per year for an average consumer, which is a net increase of 4.2%.

Water consumption for a typical single family is assumed at 19 units per quarter.

History of city of Ann Arbor water rates. The city converted to a tiered system 10 years ago in 2004, based on usage. The 2015 amount is proposed.

Grant to Farmers Market for Food Stamp Recipients

At its June 2 meeting, the city council will consider approval of an agreement with the Fair Food Network to continue administering the Double Up Food Bucks program at the Ann Arbor farmer’s market. Approval would entail acceptance of $32,000 in funding.

The Double Up name stems from the fact that it provides a match of up to $20/person/day for people using SNAP (Bridge cards/EBT/food stamps) to purchase Michigan-grown produce at farmers markets in Michigan.

The city of Ann Arbor has received Double Up Food Bucks grant funding since 2010.

Partnership with Community Action Network

A proposal for a five-year partnership with the nonprofit Community Action Network is on the June 2 agenda. The partnership was recommended for approval by the Ann Arbor park advisory commission at its May 20, 2014 meeting.

The agreement would be for CAN to continue operating the city’s Bryant and Northside community centers, which the nonprofit has been managing since 2008. The proposed amount is not to exceed $130,000 annually – an increase of $25,000 from the current agreement. The higher amount is included in the FY 2015 general fund budget for parks and recreation that the city council approved on May 19. According to a staff memo, the higher amount will address increases in fixed costs and “assist in retaining quality staff that is at the core of the services that CAN provides.” [.pdf of staff memo]

The staff memo also noted that a request for proposals (RFP) was not issued for this work, because CAN has been the sole respondent to the previous two RFPs and the city is satisfied with its work.

During the May 20 PAC meeting, CAN received praise for their work from several commissioners and Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager. CAN executive director Joan Doughty and deputy director Derrick Miller were on hand to answer questions. Part of the discussion focused on CAN’s exemption from the city’s living wage requirement, which the city council granted in 2012 for a three-year period through Nov. 8, 2015. Doughty noted that the exemption was sought in part because CAN was paying a living wage to part-time employees who were high school or university students, which limited the nonprofit from paying higher wages to full-time workers. She also pointed out that the city parks and recreation unit isn’t required to pay the living wage to its seasonal workers.

LDFA Extension

On the council’s June 2 agenda is an item that would express city council support of the local development finance authority’s application to the Michigan Economic Development Corp. to extend the life of the tax capture arrangement for up to 15 years. Without an extension, the LDFA would end in 2018.

Ann Arbor’s local development finance authority is funded through a tax increment finance (TIF) district, as a “certified technology park” described under Act 281 of 1986. The Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC) solicited proposals for that designation back in 2000. The Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti “technology park” is one of 11 across the state of Michigan, which are branded by the MEDC as “SmartZones.”

The geography of the LDFA’s TIF district – in which taxes are captured from another taxing jurisdiction – is the union of the TIF districts for the Ann Arbor and the Ypsilanti downtown development authorities (DDAs). It’s worth noting that the Ypsilanti portion of the LDFA’s TIF district does not generate any actual tax capture.

The LDFA captures Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) operating millage, but those captured taxes don’t diminish the school’s budget. That’s because in Michigan, local schools levy a millage, but the proceeds are not used directly by local districts. Rather, proceeds are first forwarded to the state of Michigan’s School Aid Fund, for redistribution among school districts statewide. That redistribution is based on a per-pupil formula as determined on a specified “count day.” And the state reimburses the School Aid Fund for the taxes captured by SmartZones throughout the state.

In FY 2013, the total amount captured by the LDFA was $1,546,577, and the current fiscal year forecast is for $2,017,835. About the same amount is forecast for FY 2015.

The extension of the LDFA is made possible by Public Act 290 of 2012, which amended the Local Development Financing Act to allow a SmartZone to capture school taxes for an additional five years or an additional 15 years. The staff memo accompanying the resolution describes the five-year extension as possible “upon approval of the MEDC President and the State Treasurer, if the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti SmartZone LDFA agrees to additional reporting requirements and the LDFA requests, and the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti approve, the amendment of the LDFA tax increment financing (TIF) plan to include regional collaboration.”

A 15-year extension is possible, according to the memo, “if, in addition to the above requirements, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, as the municipalities that created the SmartZone, enter into an agreement with another LDFA [a "Satellite SmartZone"] that did not contain a certified technology park to designate a distinct geographic area, as allowed under Section 12b of the Act…”

The council’s resolution states that if the MEDC approves the extension, the city of Ann Arbor will work with the LDFA and the city of Ypsilanti to identify another LDFA – called the “Satellite SmartZone LDFA.” The arrangement will allow the Satellite SmartZone LDFA to capture local taxes in its own distinct geographic area for the maximum 15 years allowed by statute.

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed revisions define a drive-thru in this way: “Any building or structure, or portion thereof, that is constructed or operated for the purpose of providing goods or services to customers who remain in their vehicle during the course of the transaction.” The revisions also clarify that a drive-thru is an accessory use, not the principle use of the building. A project in which a drive-thru would be the principle use would not be allowed. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance.

City council action came at its May 5, 2014 meeting.

In addition, the changes would require drive-thrus to obtain special exception use permits, which would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Drive-thrus would not be allowed in the C1, D1, D2, and other commercial districts.

Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

When considering whether to grant a special exception use – which does not require additional city council approval – the planning commission considers these issues:

1. Is the location, size and character of the proposed use compatible with the principal uses of the district and adjacent districts? Is it consistent with the Master Plan? Is it consistent with the surrounding area? Will it have any detrimental effects to the use or value of surrounding area, or the natural environment?

2. Is the location, size, character, layout, access and traffic generated by the use hazardous or inconvenient or conflicting with the normal traffic of the neighborhood? Is off-street parking safe for pedestrians? Do the necessary vehicular turning movements block normal traffic flow? Are any additional public services or facilities needed by the use, and will they be detrimental to the community?

3. Is the maximum density and minimum required open space at least equal to the standards normally required by the Zoning Ordinance for the district?

The planning commission recommended the changes at its April 1, 2014 meeting.

The proposed amendments were first reviewed by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee in 2007, but never moved forward to the full commission for consideration. The ORC most recently reviewed these changes in March of 2014. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed amendments]

This item would require a second vote by the council at a future meeting for final approval.

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

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.

John Kotarski and Bob Miller of the city’s public art commission presented images of a revised design for public art on the East Stadium bridge, a $400,000 project that includes columns of louvered glass panels on the bridge as well as underneath it, along South State Street. The artist – Catherine Widgery, who’s based in Massachusetts – had changed her original proposal at the request of a selection committee. The public art commission is seeking feedback on this new design, including at a public forum on Monday, April 21 at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library.

The public art commission likely will vote on a recommendation at its April 23 meeting. The proposal would then be forwarded to the city council for approval.

Also heading to city council is the site plan for a new Ruth’s Chris Steak House, which planning commissioners voted to recommend on April 1. The plan involves major renovations to the existing building at 314 S. Fourth Ave., which most recently housed the Dream Nite Club that closed in 2012. The renovations include adding a second-floor mezzanine level to the front of the building.

Part of the planning commission’s discussion focused on whether there might be outdoor dining in front of the restaurant. The project’s architect, Stephen Fry, indicated that at this point, outdoor seating wouldn’t be appropriate, in part because of bus traffic. The building is located near the Blake Transit Center, a hub for public transportation. “Ruth’s Chris is about a known and consistent dining experience,” Fry said, “and we just don’t feel we can control it out there.”

Fry also reported that the restaurant will likely be using valet parking, with valets positioned in front of the building. “So we’re going to activate the street with humans that are dressed up and looking good,” he said.

Commissioners also reviewed proposed ordinance revisions related to drive-thrus, and recommended that the city council approve the changes. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code.

In addition, the changes would require that drive-thru projects obtain a special exception use from the planning commission, and would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance. Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

The changes will give planning commissioners more discretion in approving drive-thru businesses, including restaurants, banks, pharmacies and other types of drive-thrus.

Ruth’s Chris Steak House

The planning commission’s April 1 agenda included review of the site plan for Ruth’s Chris Steak House.

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

The site plan calls for renovating the single-story building at 314 S. Fourth Ave. and putting up a 1,943-square-foot second-floor mezzanine addition over the front part of the existing building. An open space in front of the building – about 220 square feet – would also be filled in as part of the new addition.

The current structure is 8,024 square feet, and most recently housed the Dream Nite Club, which closed in 2012. The property owner is Dean Zahn Properties in Saline. The project is estimated to cost $2.2 million. [.pdf of staff report]

The recommendation of approval is contingent on addressing the following issues: (1) a discrepancy in the property legal description; (2) a license agreement for emergency egress across the front of the Fourth & William parking structure; and (3) construction of one bicycle parking space in the Fourth & William parking structure or payment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to install the space.

Because the site is within the D-1 zoning district, it’s exempt from vehicle parking requirements. No outdoor dining is proposed.

No one spoke during the public hearing on this project. The planning staff recommended approval of the site plan.

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

Ruth’s Chris Steak House: Commission Discussion – Fire, Water

Wendy Woods asked about fire suppression, pointing to comments in the staff report:

If an automatic sprinkler system is not being required by the Building Official, there will be no fire department connection (FDC) on this building, making the location of the FDC in relation to a supporting fire hydrant null. However, should a sprinkler system be installed, according to City Standards, the FDC is required within 100 feet of a supporting hydrant. With that said, the hydrant located on the southwest corner of E. Liberty and S. Fourth Ave is approximately 135-150 feet from the proposed FDC for Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse. This does not meet City Standards.

If the building was to be suppressed, in the interest of public safety and welfare, and adding an additional hydrant in order to meet the 100 foot requirement negatively impacts other aspects of the street layout and accessibility of parking and pedestrian traffic, then the current distance from the E. Liberty/S. Fourth Ave. hydrant to the proposed FDC would be considered acceptable in the Fire Marshal’s review.

Stephen Fry of Concept Design, the Grand Rapids firm that’s designing this building, said there was a question about whether building code required this renovation to include an automatic sprinkler system, because there isn’t going to be a change of use – it was a restaurant, and it will remain a restaurant. After talking to city building officials, Fry said, he believes a fire suppression system will be required. It will add more than $100,000 to the project, he said.

Stephen Fry of Concept Design, a Grand Rapids architectural firm that’s designing the Ann Arbor Ruth’s Chris Steak House.

That requirement might also entail putting in another fire hydrant, Fry added, but he’s been working with the fire department and believed they were close to agreeing that existing fire hydrants in the area will suffice. However, he said, “if they want one, then we’ll provide it.”

Sabra Briere asked Fry to explain the emergency egress issue. Currently, Fry replied, there’s a five-foot-wide egress area on the southeast corner of the site. Because the building will have a second floor, it needs a second means of egress that goes to the public right-of-way, he explained. Fry didn’t want to put an exit along the front of the building, so he’s planning to tuck it onto the building’s south side. To do that, a revocable easement from the city needs to be obtained. If the city ever revokes the easement, he said, then the restaurant would need to install an exit door on the front. “It’s a technical issue that we need to legally take care of,” Fry said.

Bonnie Bona asked about stormwater management, saying it’s nice when an existing building can contribute to the “first flush” stormwater treatment. She asked how it would be done – would they cut through the slab and install an infiltration system? Fry responded by saying that “this building is in a significant state of disrepair.” Between 50-100% of the floors will be removed, and most of the building will be gutted. The back doors don’t open, so they’ll be putting in new doors. If they need to make the door big enough to bring in large concrete basins, “that’s what we’ll do,” he said.

The concept is that the roof water will be fed from the roof directly to two tanks buried below the floor in the rear of the building, near the alley. The tanks will slow down the runoff rate from stormwater that flows from the roof, before entering the city’s stormwater system. If the rainfall is too fast for the tanks to contain, the water will overflow into the stormwater system.

Bona asked what the potential is for actual infiltration. Fry said he had mixed emotions about this approach, saying that he knows the city’s engineering staff really wants to locate infiltration tanks on the site. “But this is a 66-year-old building,” Fry said, “and architecturally, I’m a little bit concerned about inducing water around foundations that have been there that long, that I don’t know what condition they’re in.” There are impervious surfaces in every direction for miles, he noted. “It makes me architecturally nervous about the structure,” he said.

Fry hopes to reach a compromise with the city about how to handle the infiltration. Given the age of the building, the current proposal “is just asking for trouble,” he said. An architect typically has three problems, Fry added: “Water, water and water.” Part of the process will entail excavating that part of the building to see what’s there, he noted. Until that happens, it’s hard to know what they’re dealing with. “The commitment is there for [stormwater] detention,” he said. “We’ll do our best for infiltration.”

Ruth’s Chris Steak House: Commission Discussion – Design

Woods asked if the rendering of the building would actually be what the structure looked like after it was built. Fry replied that it would be very close to that. Adding a second floor will make the building “feel more at home in a very large monumental sort of neighborhood,” he said. “This is a tough street.”

Bonnie Bona.

Fry said he had to convince investors to even look at the building. The location includes a lot of bus traffic but no other retail, he noted. So Ruth’s Chris will be a good transitional use, because it’s a destination restaurant and doesn’t rely on foot traffic as much, he said. They can control what happens inside the building, Fry added, so what’s going on outside isn’t as important.

Bona noted that the proposal is a fairly small second-floor addition to a downtown building. Current downtown zoning doesn’t allow for a one-story building if it’s new construction, she said. Is there any potential for further additions on top of the existing building? Fry replied that the existing building won’t support a second floor, so they’ll be building new support structure for the addition. The design is also nearly the maximum allowable square footage that doesn’t require an elevator, which would be a significant cost, he said.

Fry also reported that a single-floor roof allows for economical kitchen venting – that’s one reason why this building was chosen. He noted that some of the investors didn’t even want to add any second floor, but Fry thought it was the only way to make the restaurant successful. “The private dining sector in this town seems to be very strong, and Ruth’s Chris is certainly a player in that,” he said.

Bona thought the second-floor facade added a lot to the streetscape. She appreciated that it would be a real second floor, saying that there’s a restaurant nearby with a second floor “that’s just open space to the first floor. It’s basically a fake second floor.” [She was referring to Tios, at 401 E. Liberty.]

Regarding the streetscape, Bona asked Fry for his thoughts on the use of the sidewalk. Fry noted that there’s some broken concrete that needs to be repaired. He said the restaurant would be a good neighbor for that area, and would likely make seasonal changes to the planters in front of the building. The restaurant is very serious about having a valet service, Fry added, “so we’re going to activate the street with humans that are dressed up and looking good.”

The sidewalk is only 12 feet wide, Fry noted, so there’s not a lot of room. The restaurant would likely go along with whatever improvements are proposed for that block. There’s a lot of activity on the sidewalk during the day, but the restaurant doesn’t intend to be open for lunch initially, Fry said. He added that the restaurant hopes to bring more activity at night, so lighting will be critical to make the sidewalk safe.

Paras Parekh asked about the potential for outdoor seating. There’s no restaurant policy against it, Fry replied, but “we do not think it’s appropriate for this location.” The sun never hits that east wall, he said, and it’s difficult for the restaurant to control the outdoor setting. “Ruth’s Chris is about a known and consistent dining experience,” Fry said, “and we just don’t feel we can control it out there.” He wasn’t sure there’d be room for tables anyway, given the valet service.

Kirk Westphal.

Kirk Westphal followed up, asking whether the design would be flexible enough to allow outdoor seating in the future, if the restaurant decided to do that. There’s nothing to preclude it, Fry replied. He noted that the Ruth’s Chris in Grand Rapids has a really nice sidewalk in front and is in a location with a nice environment, so there is outdoor dining. “If there’s a need, we will certainly evaluate that,” Fry said.

The restaurant’s biggest concern is the bus traffic on Fourth Avenue, which causes significant noise, Fry told commissioners. There’s also not a lot to look at, he added – just the wall of the federal building across the street. Westphal noted that the buses stop running at night.

Diane Giannola wondered if the architect had considered having a rooftop deck. Yes, Fry said, but again it came down to whether the restaurant could control the outside environment. There would be kitchen exhaust and other noise, he said, so it didn’t seem to make sense at this location.

Ken Clein said he’d like to see outdoor dining too, but agreed that it probably wasn’t the best location to do that. As a destination restaurant, Clein thought it was a good use of the site, especially considering that it’s been vacant for a long time. “I’m a vegetarian, and I’m still supportive of it,” Clein joked. Fry replied that there’d be options for vegetarians, too.

Clein, who is also an architect, asked about the building materials, which Fry described. There would be some tweaks to respond to recommendations from the city’s design review board regarding the colors of the facade, Fry said. “It all needs to reflect quality and craftsmanship – that’s the idea.” The company doesn’t dictate the design of the franchises, he added, so every building is unique. Fry said he designed the Ruth’s Chris restaurant in Grand Rapids too, which is located inside the Amway Grand Plaza Hotel.

Ruth’s Chris Steak House: Commission Discussion – Misc.

Responding to a query from Woods, Fry said that the bicycle parking in the Fourth & William structure is visible from the sidewalk.

City planner Matt Kowalski.

Briere asked if a citizens participation meeting had been required for this project. No, Fry replied, but they did mail out some notifications to surrounding property owners. There were no responses.

Jeremy Peters asked about the staff memo regarding a discrepancy in the property line. The current legal description does not include the western 8 feet at the back of the property, adjacent to the alley. City planner Matt Kowalski explained that it appears to be a clerical error when the deed was drawn up more than 60 years ago. There’s no question about who owns it – it’s clearly part of the lot, he said.

Fry added that it can’t be changed without filing a lawsuit, and that’s being done. “I understand that our odds are extremely high that it’s going to go through,” he said, because the owner has been paying taxes on that portion of the property for decades.

Westphal asked about shielding noise from the restaurant’s mechanical systems. Fry indicated that the noise would be very similar or less than previous restaurants located in that same building. The kitchen, which was built for Maude’s restaurant, is huge, Fry said.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson said the city’s challenge is that it’s difficult to enforce the noise standards – especially after equipment has been installed – other than sending police to respond to complaints. Fry noted that the site is surrounded by a parking structure to the south, a surface parking lot to the north, and an alley on the west. The noise would be shielded in the front by the new second floor addition, he said. Westphal suggested exploring quieter models of mechanical systems, if possible.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the site plan. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes

Commissioners considered several amendments to the city’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code.

The proposed revisions define a drive-thru in this way: “Any building or structure, or portion thereof, that is constructed or operated for the purpose of providing goods or services to customers who remain in their vehicle during the course of the transaction.” The revisions also clarify that a drive-thru is an accessory use, not the principle use of the building. A project in which a drive-thru would be the principle use would not be allowed. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance.

In addition, the changes would require drive-thrus to obtain special exception use permits, which would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Drive-thrus would not be allowed in the C1, D1, D2, and other commercial districts.

Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

When considering whether to grant a special exception use – which does not require additional city council approval – the planning commission considers these issues:

1. Is the location, size and character of the proposed use compatible with the principal uses of the district and adjacent districts? Is it consistent with the Master Plan? Is it consistent with the surrounding area? Will it have any detrimental effects to the use or value of surrounding area, or the natural environment?

2. Is the location, size, character, layout, access and traffic generated by the use hazardous or inconvenient or conflicting with the normal traffic of the neighborhood? Is off-street parking safe for pedestrians? Do the necessary vehicular turning movements block normal traffic flow? Are any additional public services or facilities needed by the use, and will they be detrimental to the community?

3. Is the maximum density and minimum required open space at least equal to the standards normally required by the Zoning Ordinance for the district?

The changes will give planning commissioners more discretion in approving drive-thru businesses, including restaurants, banks, pharmacies and other types of drive-thrus.

The proposed amendments were first reviewed by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee in 2007, but never moved forward to the full commission for consideration. The ORC most recently reviewed these changes in March of 2014. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed amendments]

Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

In introducing the proposal, planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that planning commission chair Kirk Westphal had requested that staff look into these changes. The issue has been around for a long time, she said.

Since the changes were first considered in 2007, the city’s South State Street corridor plan has been approved, Rampson noted. [It was added to the city's master plan in 2013.] There’s been discussion about how to make the city’s major commercial corridors more pedestrian friendly, she said, by bringing buildings closer to the front of properties and reducing the impact of vehicles. So it made sense to bring forward these proposed revisions related to drive-thrus, she said.

Rampson pointed out that these changes would not preclude having drive-thrus in office, C2B or C3 zoning districts. Rather, it would give planning commissioners the opportunity to look at the layout of the site, though there are some design restrictions. For example, the ordinance revisions would prevent a drive-thru window from being located between a sidewalk and the main building.

These proposed changes, coupled with revisions that the city made two years ago in the off-street parking ordinance, should help minimize the impact of a drive-thru, Rampson said.

Finally, the changes would also give the planning commission the discretion to reject a drive-thru proposal, if it’s in a location that commissioners feel isn’t appropriate, Rampson noted. The intent is to give commissioners the tools they need to make sure a drive-thru works on a particular property, she said.

The biggest impact will likely be on banks that are built in the future, Rampson said, because currently regulations related to drive-thrus haven’t applied to banks at all.

No one spoke during the public hearing on this item.

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes: Commission Discussion – Definition, Use

Ken Clein asked whether these revisions would impact car washes. No, Rampson replied, because car washes are considered a separate use. She noted that in C2B districts, car washes, automobile service stations and filling stations are allowed as special exception uses.

Wendy Woods.

In the definition of a drive-thru, Clein wondered whether the word “motor” should be added in front of “vehicle” – in case some “intrepid entrepreneur” wanted to have a bicycle or skateboard drive-thru at some point. Rampson noted that the definition describes “customers who remain in their vehicle.” She thought it would be hard to say that someone is “in a skateboard” or “in a bike.” There are also motorized bicycles, she noted.

But Rampson agreed that Clein’s suggestion to add the word “motor” would allow more clarity. If someone proposed a different kind of drive-thru – or a walk-up window, for example – she didn’t think the city would be concerned about that.

Clein proposed an amendment to add the word “motor” to the definition. The revised definition would state: “Any building or structure, or portion thereof, that is constructed or operated for the purpose of providing goods or services to customers who remain in their motor vehicle during the course of the transaction.”

Bonnie Bona agreed that there would be no problem with a walk-up or bike-up window, because those wouldn’t cause conflicts with sidewalks and pedestrians.

Outcome on amendment: It passed unanimously.

Wendy Woods noted that there are drive-thru funeral homes, including some in Detroit. That’s another kind of use, though she hoped it wouldn’t come to Ann Arbor. She asked whether the ordinance needed to mention that use.

Rampson replied that the advantage of the proposed approach is that the drive-thru is associated with many different uses. It’s only the drive-thru component that would trigger the special exception use requirement.

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes: Commission Discussion – Past Projects

Bona asked Rampson to share an example that had been discussed at the ordinance revisions committee – a drive-thru on Plymouth Road, near the Holiday Inn North Campus hotel. In that project, the back doors of the building faced Plymouth Road, Bona noted. How would the proposed ordinance revisions have helped the planning commission deal with that project?

Paras Parekh.

[Bona was referring to a project that the planning commission recommended for approval at its Jan. 15, 2013 meeting. The retail development – called The Shoppes at 3600 – is located at 3600 Plymouth Road, just west of US-23.]

Rampson told commissioners that if the proposed ordinance revisions had been in place at that time, the project would have required the commission to grant a special exception use. The drive-thru could not be located between the main building and a public right-of-way. For that project, the window was actually located on the side of the building, Rampson noted, so it wasn’t between the main building and the sidewalk. Commissioners had been more critical of the exiting driveway that led around the back of the building, between the building and the Plymouth Road sidewalk.

However, Rampson said, commissioners could have applied other standards of the special exception use to require modifications to the project.

Rampson also pointed to the drive-thru at the Tim Horton’s on Ellsworth Road, which planning commissioners recommended for approval on March 6, 2012. In that case, the drive-thru window is facing Ellsworth. So if the proposed ordinance revisions had been in place at that time, the city would have required that the building or the window be reoriented.

Woods noted that other drive-thru projects have created problems, like the Walgreens at the corner of Washtenaw and Huron Parkway. It’s very difficult to use the drive-thru, she said, because of traffic coming in from Huron Parkway. And pedestrians “pretty much take their life in their own hands when they want to cross the street to get over there,” she added.

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes: Commission Discussion – Special Exception Use

Bona said the special exception use allows the developer to be creative about how to solve the problem. She indicated that she preferred this approach, rather than requiring specific design restrictions. The intent is to not prioritize cars over the pedestrian experience, she said.

Jeremy Peters agreed, saying that the standards outlined in the special exception use might yield better designs. He said he was a fan of taking this approach, instead of banning drive-thrus completely. Businesses that have the need for a drive-thru still have that option.

Responding to a query from Kirk Westphal, Rampson said that if existing drive-thrus need renovations that require an administrative amendment to the site plan or planning commission approval, it’s considered a pre-existing, special exception use. But if a project requires going to city council to get site plan approval, then the special exception use would need to be re-established by the planning commission.

Ken Clein agreed that the special exception use was a good tool for this purpose. It raised the bar a little, in terms of the planning commission’s expectations, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners recommended approval of the ordinance revisions. The proposal will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Stadium Bridge Artwork

John Kotarski, vice chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, gave a presentation to commissioners about the proposed artwork for East Stadium bridge. Also on hand were AAPAC chair Bob Miller and Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

John Kotarski, vice chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission. Seated in the background are AAPAC chair Bob Miller and Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

In early August of 2013, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for public art on the East Stadium bridge in Ann Arbor. 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’s presented to AAPAC and then later to the city council for approval. Members of the panel are Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. [.pdf of panel feedback]

Kotarski reviewed the process, which started in November 2011. The goal had been to unify the East Stadium bridge overpass and the South State Street underpass, and connect to the neighborhoods. The artwork was intended to connect with different modes of transportation, to be viewed by people walking, biking or in cars. A total of 32 proposals had been originally received.

Kotarski said AAPAC “constantly” is asked the question: Why not pick a local artist? “The short answer is the city attorney said we can’t,” Kotarski told commissioners. The city can’t have an open competition and restrict artists to only ones who live in this area, he said. However, he added that AAPAC did extensive outreach to local artists, contacting local organizations and asking them to spread the word about the request for proposals. Seven Michigan artists presented proposals, but none were selected as finalists.

Although Widgery’s work stood out in many ways, Kotarski said, the selection panel wanted her to refine it. For example, her original proposal called for 12 four-by-six-foot acrylic/aluminum or glass banners etched with images of trees, to be hung from existing lightpoles on the bridge. It would have required the lightpoles to be reinforced in some way. The panelists also wanted a more dramatic structure, Kotarski said.

Widgery’s new design for the bridge features stand-alone, louvered glass columns that are etched with images of trees. The same type of louvered glass panels are also used under the bridge along South State, affixed to the wall of the underpass. The panels are lit, so that the etchings stand out at night, Kotarski explained.

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

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along 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.

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.

Kotarski noted that he and Miller will be making similar presentations at a public forum and at meetings of local groups like the planning commission. The public forum will be held on Monday, April 21 at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. starting at 7 p.m.

AAPAC will review the input and likely vote on a recommendation for the project at its April 23 meeting, Kotarski said. That recommendation would then be forwarded to the city council for approval. The hope is to have the artwork installed by the fall of 2014 or early spring of 2015.

Kotarski concluded by saying that “not one penny of the money spent on this artwork could be spent on potholes. This is a completely different fund.” He said the money to fix potholes comes from state revenue, not local taxes. “So this is not art versus potholes – I want to assure you of that,” he said.

The funds for the East Stadium bridge artwork are from the city’s former Percent for Art program, which the city council eliminated at its June 3, 2013 meeting. The project’s budget had been approved prior to the council’s decision to suspend funding for new projects. That decision occurred on Dec. 3, 2012.

The specific Percent for Art money for this project comes from street millage revenues. The Percent for Art funding mechanism set aside 1% for public art from the budget of each of the city’s capital projects, such as street work.

Stadium Bridge Artwork: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere confirmed with John Kotarski that the structures would be lit from below. She wondered if the lighting would be solar-powered. Bob Miller replied that the city is getting estimates from the electrician, but the structures won’t be lit with solar power. Briere asked if it would connect with the same electrical system that’s heating the stairs coming up to the bridge from South State. Miller wasn’t sure.

Sabra Briere.

When Briere expressed disappointment that the lighting wouldn’t be solar, Miller said that it would be possible, if the city wanted it.

Miller highlighted the fact that these structures will be on both the east and west ends of the bridge – along the north side.

Ken Clein said he’d seen the previous designs, and thought this version was a great improvement. The lighting makes a big difference. He thanked AAPAC for its work.

Briere noted that the structures on the bridge are adjacent to sidewalks, and thus are removed from traffic. Miller replied that a previous iteration had positioned the structures in a landscaped area on the east end. But feedback from neighbors, who didn’t want the landscaping disturbed, resulted in moving the structures out of that area, but next to the sidewalk.

Briere hoped there would be less risk of vehicular accidents in the proposed location. Miller replied: “I didn’t know there was a risk to begin with.”

Briere said there are always risks, so she wanted to make sure the structures were separated from traffic.

Kirk Westphal asked about maintenance costs, citing the example of a car hitting one of the structures. Miller replied that the artist has been asked to provide a maintenance schedule. That will be part of the final proposal.

Westphal asked if there would be a plaque identifying the artist. Aaron Seagraves indicated that there would be a plaque of some sort.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Meeting Schedule

Commissioners were asked to approve their meeting schedule for fiscal 2015, which runs from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. [.pdf of meeting schedule]

Ann Arbor planning commissioners.

The planning commission meetings are held on Tuesdays. During the week of an election, the meetings are typically rescheduled for a Thursday. However for the next fiscal year, which begins on July 1, 2014, the planning staff is recommending that the planning commission meetings be moved to Wednesday after an election, rather than to Thursday.

Sabra Briere asked whether there would be any conflicts with Wednesday meetings. Briere said she was thinking about all the neighborhood and citizen meetings that occur on Wednesdays, and trying to determine “how to adjust my mental schedule.” Planning manager Wendy Rampson thought they’d encounter the same potential conflicts on Thursdays. There are only a limited number of options, she noted, and the staff tries not to conflict with other city boards and commissions.

Rampson reported that city staff hadn’t anticipated the Tuesday, May 6 election. [The election is being held for the sole purpose of voting on a transit tax, which was put on the ballot by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.] The elections staff will be using the hallways outside of council chambers on May 6, she noted. The planning staff felt that there would likely be too much noise, so they’ve scheduled the May 6 meeting to be held in the Washtenaw County boardroom, at 220 N. Main St.

That change of venue will get planning commissioners accustomed to the new location, Rampson said. Later in the calendar year, their meetings will be held at that location while asbestos abatement occurs on the second floor of city hall, where the council chambers are located.

Outcome: Commissioners approved their meeting schedule.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners, as well as two opportunities for public commentary. No one spoke during public commentary on April 1.

Communications & Commentary: City Council

Planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the city council’s April 7 agenda will include the joint resolution regarding the former Edwards Brothers property, which planning commissioners passed at their March 18, 2014 meeting.

The resolution included recommendations on uses for the site on South State Street, which the University of Michigan is acquiring. The intent is to encourage representatives from the city and UM to discuss their mutual interests in that area – weighing the university’s need to expand its facilities against the city’s interest in strengthening its tax base.

Issues include the possible private development of the section that fronts South State, impact on the park-and-ride lot in that area, and the extension of Oakbrook Drive from South State to South Main, through UM property. The council will be considering the same resolution.

The council’s April 7 agenda will also include the planning commission’s resolution about the use of the Library Lane surface, which commissioners also approved on March 18, 2014. That resolution will be attached to the agenda as an item of communication, Rampson said.

Communications & Commentary: ZORO

Wendy Rampson reported that the city attorney’s office and city planner Alexis DiLeo have been working on the Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO) project. “I just thought you’d be excited to hear that,” she joked. There’s still a lot of work to be done, but the staff is trying to move it forward, she added.

ZORO 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 project is being overseen by the city attorney’s office, with support from planning staff and work by an outside consultant. Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald is the lead staff person for ZORO.

At a Jan. 7, 2014 planning commission work session, Rampson had reported that the project had been stalled for about six months. The slow progress has been a point of frustration for commissioners over the years.

Communications & Commentary: Downtown Zoning

Bonnie Bona reported that the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC) is working on revisions to the downtown zoning ordinance. The planning commission had made recommendations about the revisions at its Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. Those recommendations were subsequently approved by the city council on Jan. 21, 2014, when the council directed the planning commission to craft the corresponding zoning ordinance language to reflect the recommendations.

The ORC started with the rezoning of property at Main and William to D2, Bona said, and that will be on the planning commission’s agenda in May. The next piece is to look at the area north of Huron Street, including potentially rezoning some sites and adjusting the overlay district in that area.

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 is kicking off its streetscape framework project. He’ll be 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.]

Ken Clein.

In response to a query from Wendy Woods, planning manager Wendy Rampson said the framework will include an economic evaluation of the use of sidewalks – whether it’s for dining, outdoor sales, or other activities. The intent is to help provide better guidance about what should be allowed on the sidewalks.

Related to downtown sidewalks, Sabra Briere said she keeps hearing from constituents about problems with handicapped accessibility. In many locations, it’s difficult or impossible for someone in a wheelchair to maneuver, she said. Many times, outdoor seating is marked off with a fence that blocks access at a handicapped parking spot, Briere noted. Any time there are barriers put in place unknowingly, “we’re making a mistake,” she said.

The city should be really sensitive to the situation, so she hoped that Clein could bring that up as the streetscape project moves forward.

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

Next meeting: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

If approved by the city council, the amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code.

In addition, the changes would require drive-thrus to obtain special exception use permits, which would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance. Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

When considering whether to grant a special exception use – which does not require additional city council approval – the planning commission considers these issues:

1. Is the location, size and character of the proposed use compatible with the principal uses of the district and adjacent districts? Is it consistent with the Master Plan? Is it consistent with the surrounding area? Will it have any detrimental effects to the use or value of surrounding area, or the natural environment?

2. Is the location, size, character, layout, access and traffic generated by the use hazardous or inconvenient or conflicting with the normal traffic of the neighborhood? Is off-street parking safe for pedestrians? Do the necessary vehicular turning movements block normal traffic flow? Are any additional public services or facilities needed by the use, and will they be detrimental to the community?

3. Is the maximum density and minimum required open space at least equal to the standards normally required by the Zoning Ordinance for the district?

The changes will give planning commissioners more discretion in approving drive-thru businesses, including restaurants, banks, pharmacies and other types of drive-thrus. Commissioner Jeremy Peters noted that he preferred the approach of requiring a special exception use, rather than an outright prohibition of drive-thrus.

The proposed amendments were first reviewed by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee in 2007, but never moved forward to the full commission for consideration. The ORC most recently reviewed these changes in March of 2014. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed amendments]

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