The Ann Arbor Chronicle » Dusty’s Collision

Dusty’s Collision Site Plan OK’d by Council

Chronicle Staff — Tue, 22 Jul 2014 03:24:19 +0000

A new site plan for Dusty’s Collision at 2310 South Industrial Highway, south of Jewett, has been given approval in Ann Arbor city council action taken on July 21, 2014.

Aerial view of Dusty’s Collision site.

The proposal calls for building a 30,537-square-foot, one-story auto collision repair facility on a parcel that’s currently vacant. A previous building at that location was torn down in 2013. The new building would include 5,285 square feet for office use, a waiting area of 5,227 square feet, and 20,025 square feet for the repair area and garage. The project is estimated to cost $2 million.

The site will include 106 spaces of exterior parking, including 24 spaces that will be deferred until needed, according to the staff memo. One bicycle hoop – for 2 bike parking spaces – will be located near the front of the building.

The planning commission’s recommendation for approval, made at its June 3, 2014 meeting, was contingent on the owner – Whitney’s Collision West of Ann Arbor – providing one footing drain disconnect before the city issues a certificate of occupancy. [.pdf of staff memo]

At the July 21 city council meeting, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked for permission to refrain from voting, as it’s a client of his. Taylor is a local attorney. Permission was granted by the council.

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

July 21, 2014: Council Live Updates

Dave Askins — Mon, 21 Jul 2014 19:37:02 +0000

Editor’s note: This “Live Updates” coverage of the Ann Arbor city council’s July 21, 2014 meeting includes all the material from an earlier preview article published last week. The intent is to facilitate easier navigation from the live updates section to background material already in this file.

Outcomes from the meeting are also reported in the Civic News Ticker.

A common theme among several items on the Ann Arbor city council’s July 21, 2014 agenda is infrastructure. That includes physical infrastructure – like roads, sidewalks, bridges and buildings. But it also includes legal infrastructure. The council will be considering a resolution that would put a charter amendment in front of voters for the Nov. 4 election. The amendment would establish eligibility requirements for elected officials, after a federal court ruled earlier this year that the existing charter requirements are not legally enforceable.

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

Another significant item that was initially placed on the July 21 agenda – but is expected to be withdrawn by its sponsor, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) – is a resolution that would direct the city administrator to list the 415 W. Washington property for sale.

Two other land acquisition items on the agenda would put the city on the purchasing end. A resolution sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) would inquire with the owner of 2805 Burton Road, located just west of US-23, about whether it is available for purchase by the city. It’s the site of a long-in-the-works affordable housing project that has never started construction.

And a resolution sponsored by Margie Teall (Ward 4) would authorize the purchase of the property at 3401 Platt Road on behalf of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC). Cost of the purchase would be $195,000, to be reimbursed to the city by AAHC. The AAHC is undertaking reconstruction of its properties adjoining this parcel, and this acquisition would facilitate that.

The July 21 meeting is the council’s last one before the Tuesday, Aug. 5 primary elections. The meeting that week is shifted from Monday to Thursday, and will fall on Aug. 7.

Physical infrastructure on the agenda includes a $1,537,608 construction contract with Bailey Excavating Inc. for the Springwater subdivision improvements project. That work will cover the reconstruction of streets and some utilities – on Butternut Street from Cardinal Avenue to Springbrook Avenue, and Nordman Avenue from Packard Road to Redwood Avenue.

Another road reconstruction project on the agenda is a $3,445,200 agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) for the Stone School Road improvements project – between I-94 and Ellsworth Road. The planned work consists of reconstructing Stone School Road as a two-lane road with on-street bike lanes and concrete curb and gutter.

A second agreement with MDOT, which will require about $250,000 of local funding, will establish the city as construction manager for the construction of sidewalks on the south side of Scio Church Road between Delaware Drive and Maple Road, and on the south side of Barton Drive from about 250 feet west of Chandler Road to Longshore Drive. A portion of the funding for both projects will be derived from a special assessment of adjoining property owners.

Final approval of a special assessment for an additional sidewalk construction project also appears on the agenda. The sidewalk construction will be done as part of the reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning just north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14.

On July 21 the council will also be asked to approve a $104,107 contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. for the regular bridge inspection program. That includes the section of the Library Lane parking structure that is located under Fifth Avenue.

Six new pumps for the wastewater treatment plant to be purchased from Premier Pump Inc. for $425,682 is another agenda item.

With respect to legal infrastructure, a federal judge ruled earlier this year that eligibility requirements for elected officers in the city of Ann Arbor’s charter are not legally enforceable. On the council’s July 21 agenda is a resolution that would place new charter requirements on the ballot for voters to decide in the Nov. 4, 2014 election. The current charter language imposes one-year durational requirements on voter registration in the city and residency in the ward that a potential councilmember would like to represent. For mayor, the current requirement is simply a one-year durational requirement for voter registration in the city. That one year is calculated from the time an elected official takes office. The new requirements would impose a voter registration requirement at the time paperwork is submitted to qualify for the ballot.

Several items related to development also appear on the council’s July 21 agenda. The council will consider 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 council will also consider a site plan for Dusty’s Collision at 2310 South Industrial Highway, south of Jewett. The proposal calls for building a 30,537-square-foot, one-story auto collision repair facility on a parcel that’s currently vacant. The new building would include 5,285 square feet for office use, a waiting area of 5,227 square feet, and 20,025 square feet for the repair area and garage.

For State Street Village – a proposed 78-unit apartment project that will eventually appear on the council’s agenda – the council will consider giving initial approval at its July 21 meeting to the rezoning of the land. The 4.5-acre parcel would be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district).

Not tied to any particular project on the July 21 agenda is final consideration by the council of a change to downtown zoning. The item is confined to a 1.1-acre parcel at 425 S. Main St. at the southeast corner of William and Main. The council gave initial approval of the rezoning – from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) – at its June 16 meeting that followed a complex series of votes. At the same meeting, the council also gave initial approval to a change to the overlay character district for the parcel, after amending the height limit – from 100 feet to 60 feet. Zoning changes require two votes by the council, taken at separate meetings, because they are changes to the city’s ordinances.

Another ordinance change on the July 21 agenda – which is getting final consideration by the council – is one that clarifies the composition and appointment process for the city’s environmental commission. Related thematically to that item is a resolution that clarifies the composition of the city’s commission on disability issues.

The consent agenda for July 21 includes an item that indicates the approach of fall – approval of the change to traffic patterns for the Aug. 27-29 University of Michigan student move-in.

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

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

Physical Infrastructure

The council’s July 21 agenda includes several items related to the city’s physical infrastructure.

Physical Infrastructure: Springwater Street Reconstruction

The council will consider a $1,537,608 construction contract with Bailey Excavating Inc. for the Springwater subdivision improvements project. That work will cover the reconstruction of streets and some utilities – on Butternut Street from Cardinal Avenue to Springbrook Avenue, and Nordman Avenue from Packard Road to Redwood Avenue.

Funding for the project will be drawn from the street millage fund ($883,316), stormwater fund ($903,065), and drinking water funds ($489,574) for a total project cost of $2,275,955.

Funding from the drinking water and stormwater funds is based on the fact that the project includes replacing the existing water main and performing stormwater system improvements – including construction of sand filters within the Butternut Street and Nordman Avenue right-of-way. Construction is expected to start in August 2014 with completion expected this fall.

Physical Infrastructure: Stone School Road

The council will consider a $3,445,200 agreement with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) for the Stone School Road improvements project – between I-94 and Ellsworth Road. The planned work consists of reconstructing Stone School Road as a two-lane road with on-street bike lanes and concrete curb and gutter

A new 5-foot wide, concrete sidewalk will be constructed on the west side of the roadway from Pheasant Run Circle to Ellsworth Road. Included in the project is the replacement of the existing 16-inch water main in Stone School Road. The water main has broken several times. A short segment of 8-inch sanitary sewer is included in the project. Bioswales and “in-line” stormwater detention will be included. An existing jack-arch culvert under Old Stone School Road along Malletts Creek will be removed, in order to improve creek hydraulics, habitat and stormwater quality. New street lights along Stone School Road will also be installed.

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Scio Church, Barton

The council will consider an agreement with MDOT, which will require about $250,000 of local funding. It will establish the city as construction manager for the construction of sidewalks on the south side of Scio Church Road between Delaware Drive and Maple Road, and on the south side of Barton Drive from about 250 feet west of Chandler Road to Longshore Drive. A portion of the funding for both projects will be derived from a special assessment of adjoining property owners.

Here’s how the funding breaks down:

Project Funding
               Scio Church    Barton       TOTAL
Federal Share     $164,000   $36,000    $200,000
Local Share        199,474    42,626     242,100
Spcl Assess          1,626     1,980       3,606            

TOTAL             $365,100   $80,606    $445,706

Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk

The council will consider giving final approval of the assessment roll for the construction of a new sidewalk on Pontiac Trail, after a public hearing. The council voted to set the public hearing for the July 21 meeting on June 6, 2014. The cost that will be assessed to adjoining property owners is $72,218.

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

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

Infrastructure: Bridge Inspections

The council will consider approval of a $104,107 contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. for the regular bridge inspection program.

The city is required by federal law to inspect its bridges every two years. The city’s approach is to inspect about half of its bridges each year in order to even out the cost.

Bridges to be inspected include the section of the Library Lane parking structure that is located under Fifth Avenue, which is considered a bridge.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the following bridges will be inspected in 2014: Island Drive over the Traver Creek; Maiden Lane over the Huron River; Fuller Road (eastbound and westbound) over the Huron River; Huron Parkway over the Huron River, Norfolk Southern Railroad and Geddes Avenue; and Wastewater Treatment Plant Drive over the Huron River.

And in 2015, the following bridges will be inspected: Broadway over the Huron River; Broadway over Depot Street and the Norfolk Southern Railroad; E. Stadium Boulevard bridge over S. State Street; E. Stadium Boulevard bridge over the Ann Arbor Railroad tracks; Fuller Road over the Norfolk Southern Railroad; East Medical Center Drive over the Norfolk Southern Railroad; Eisenhower Parkway over the Ann Arbor Railroad; the portion of the Fifth Avenue parking structure under South Fifth Avenue; and the University of Michigan tunnel under Huron Parkway.

Funding will come from the major street fund ($133,500) and the sewage disposal fund ($2,500). The University of Michigan and the DDA will reimburse the city for about $6,600 for inspections related to facilities they maintain.

Infrastructure: Wastewater Pumps

An item to purchase six new pumps for the wastewater treatment plant is on the July 21 agenda. The pumps would be bought from Premier Pump Inc. for $425,682.

According to the staff memo accompanying the agenda item, the city’s wastewater treatment plant has six 150-horsepower secondary effluent pumps that are about 35 years old. When the plant is operating in typical mode, two of the six pumps are in continuous operation. Occasionally, when the Huron River is at high levels, additional pumps are used to pump secondary effluent simultaneously to the sand filters and the river.

Over the past three years, three of the pumps have failed. One of the pumps was irreparable, and the other two pumps were repaired but are not reliable for long-term use. The remaining three pumps are fully functional, but in a worn condition.

Failure of the secondary effluent pumps was unforeseen, according to the staff memo, so the cost of their replacement was not included in the design of the Facilities Renovations Project (FRP) currently under construction at the wastewater treatment plant. The city’s attempt to include replacement of the pumps in the FRP and to receive funding through the state’s revolving fund loan program was rejected by the Michigan Depart. of Environmental Quality, according to the staff memo.

Legal Infrastructure

A federal judge ruled earlier this year that eligibility requirements for elected officers in the city of Ann Arbor’s charter are not legally enforceable. That ruling was based on early 1970s decisions that struck down Ann Arbor’s city charter eligibility requirements as unconstitutional. On the council’s July 21 agenda is a resolution that would place new charter requirements on the ballot for voters to decide in the Nov. 4, 2014 election.

The current charter language imposes one-year durational requirements on voter registration in the city and residency in the ward that a potential councilmember would like to represent. For mayor, the current requirement is simply a one-year durational requirement for voter registration in the city. That one year is calculated from the time an elected official takes office. The new requirements would impose a voter registration requirement at the time paperwork is submitted to qualify for the ballot.

For example, a potential candidate for the city council would need to be a registered voter in the ward they seek to represent at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk. And a potential candidate for mayor would need to be a registered voter in the city at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk. With paperwork for partisan primaries due in April – for November elections – the new requirements would translate practically speaking to something similar to a six-and-a-half-month durational requirement. For independent candidates, that timeframe would be closer to three and a half months. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) provided a text of the correct draft to media outlets: [.pdf of July 18, 2014 charter amendment resolution text]

On the afternoon of Friday, July 18, the city attorney’s office was working with the state attorney general’s office on the wording of the charter amendment and the ballot proposal. The proposal has been divided into two questions – one focused on elective officers, and the other dealing with appointive officers.

According to information provided on the Michigan Secretary of State’s website, confirmed by the Washtenaw County clerk’s office, the council would have until Aug. 12, 2014 to meet the deadline for placing a question on the ballot. Before the deadline, the council has one additional meeting after July 21 – on Aug. 7.

So it would be an option for the council to postpone consideration of this amendment at their July 21 meeting.

Land Sale

Appearing initially on the July 21 agenda was an item sponsored by Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje with the title “Resolution to List for Sale 415 W. Washington and Appropriate Funds for Allen Creek Greenway Master Plan.” As of mid-day Friday, July 18, no text or memo was included in the resolution.

Warpehoski responded to an emailed query from The Chronicle by saying that the resolution might be pulled, depending on the outcome of a meeting of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy on July 18. [The item was then updated with text. The amount to be allocated for the master planning effort was $250,000.]

On July 19, however, Warpehoski announced that he’d be withdrawing the resolution. An excerpt from the comment he left on The Chronicle’s meeting preview article reads as follows:

At the request of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy Board, I am withdrawing the resolution from the Council agenda.

The resolution to fund the creation of a greenway master plan and development of the greenway through the sale of the non-floodway portion of 415 W. Washington was developed in partnership with Bob Galardi, chair of the Greenway Conservancy, and Jonathan Bulkley, chair of the Greenway Roundtable.

Bob and Jonathan had discussed the potential resolution with the Conservancy board. They found some initial support from the board. At their meeting on July 18, the Conservancy Board reviewed the final resolution, but were not able to come to agreement to support the resolution at this time. As the conservancy does not have clarity in supporting the resolution, I am withdrawing it. From the beginning, the my approach to this was that if the Conservancy was supportive then we could bring it forward. If the conservancy was not in support then we would not move forward in this way.

The city-owned 415 W. Washington parcel is highlighted in yellow.

Warpehoski indicated to The Chronicle that one reason a master plan for the greenway is important is that the lack of such a plan hurt the city’s application for funding from the state of Michigan to support renovations to the 721 N. Main property. The city did not receive the state grant after applying for it in early 2013.

In addition, Warpehoski wrote, there’s an opportunity to partner with the University of Michigan and a class taught by Larissa Larsen, a professor of urban and regional planning and natural resources. Such a partnership would reduce costs of the planning effort.

The idea of funding work on a master plan for the Allen Creek greenway was discussed most recently at the June 16, 2014 council meeting, in the context of a resolution that Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) had brought forward that would have jump-started an effort to redesign Liberty Plaza at the corner of Division and Liberty streets. Taylor’s resolution would have appropriated $23,577 for the work, which was to have included input from a variety of stakeholders, including adjacent property owners.

That resolution was ultimately referred by the council to the park advisory commission (PAC). At PAC’s July 15 meeting, two people spoke during public commentary to advocate for an integrated approach to the “library block,” which includes Liberty Plaza. But PAC postponed discussion related to Liberty Plaza and the council resolution, as only five of nine voting members were present. Taylor is an ex officio non-voting member of PAC, but had not discussed the resolution at previous PAC meetings. He attended PAC’s July 15 meeting.

The June 16 council meeting discussion featured the following exchange between Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Hieftje, recorded in The Chronicle’s live updates from the meeting:

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

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

If the council had directed the 415 W. Washington property to be listed for sale, it would have been the third downtown city-owned property to be listed for sale in the last year and a half. The council directed the city administrator to move toward hiring a broker for the old Y lot at Fifth and William at its March 4, 2013 meeting. And on Nov. 18, 2013, the council authorized the sale of the lot to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million.

And the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting to confirm its earlier decision to direct the city administrator to list the development rights for the top of the Library Lane parking structure for sale. On July 1, city administrator Steve Powers notified the council that he’d selected CBRE to market and broker the sale of the development rights.

The 415 W. Washington parcel is currently used as a surface parking lot in the city’s public parking system, which has averaged about $18,000 in revenue per month, or about $216,000 a year over the last two years. The parcel also includes several buildings that previously served as the road commission facility and the city maintenance yard. A study commissioned by the city of the property concluded that the cost of stabilizing and renovating all of the buildings could be as high as $6 million. [.pdf of Aug. 29, 2013 report] That study came after the 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios had stepped forward with an interest in the possible renovation and reuse of the building as artist studio space. For additional background on that, see “City Council Parcels Out Tasks: Open Space.”

Ultimately the city moved toward demolishing the buildings. The city administrator’s proposed FY 2015 budget included $300,000 for the demolition of the buildings, but the council amended out that allocation during its deliberations on May 19, 2014:

1:40 a.m. Budget amendment: 415 W. Washington demolition. This proposal will simply eliminate general fund support for demolition of the city-owned buildings at 415 W. Washington. [Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton, Anglin]

1:54 a.m. Outcome: The council approved this amendment over the dissent of Kunselman, Taylor and Warpehoski.

Two pieces of land immediately adjacent to 415 W. Washington have been in the news recently. At their July 1, 2014 meeting, city planning commissioners approved The Mark condo project for the parcel on Liberty Street where a car wash is currently located. The proposal from developer Alex de Parry is to demolish an existing car wash at 318 W. Liberty and build an 11,910-square-foot structure with seven residential condominiums – five two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units.

And at the July 2, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, it was announced that the final site recommendation for a downtown stop for the WALLY rail line is for the east side of the railroad tracks between Liberty and Washington streets – opposite of where the former city maintenance yard was located at 415 W. Washington. It was reported at that meeting that it would not be a full station. Rather, it would be a platform with canopies and a ramp to Washington Street to the north and a sidewalk connection to the south onto Liberty. The stop would be built entirely within the railroad right-of-way – and there would be no taking of public or private property. The site would be contingent on the WALLY project moving forward.

Land Purchase: Burton Commons

Appearing on the July 21 agenda is a resolution for the city to inquire with the owner of 2805 Burton Road, located just west of US-23, about whether the land is available for purchase by the city. It’s the site of a long-in-the-works affordable housing project that has never started construction.

Animated .gif of the Burton Commons property showing the demolition of single-family homes on the parcels – from aerial images in the Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS system.

The land is immediately adjacent to US-23 to the east and Sylvan Park to the north. A residential neighborhood lies to the west of the land.

The resolution is sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who had told his council colleagues at their June 2, 2014 meeting that he’d be bringing forward such a resolution. The idea would be to use open space millage money to purchase the land. The resolution states that the estimated fair market value, according to the city assessor, is $628,800.

One-third of the open space millage proceeds are supposed to be allocated to acquisition of land within the city limits. At the June 2 meeting, Kunselman argued for the purchase based on the positive impact on climate change and the adjacency of Sylvan Park to the north.

The purchase of the land would also be consistent with a sentiment Kunselman expressed at a recent mayoral candidate forum – that there was resistance in Ward 3, which he represents, to “dumping and piling on” affordable housing in that ward.

Kunselman is a candidate for mayor in the Aug. 5 Democratic primary, along with three other councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The July 21 council meeting is the last one before the Aug. 5 election. That week the meeting is shifted to Thursday from Monday, due to the Tuesday election.

Land Purchase: 3401 Platt Road

On the July 21 agenda is an item that would authorize the city to purchase the parcel at 3401 Platt Road.

Purchase of the blue-highlighted parcel could be authorized by the city council at its July 21 meeting.

The parcel is adjacent to Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) properties that AAHC is planning to reconstruct.

Four units currently stand at the location, but AAHC has previously announced plans to demolish those structures and replace them with 32 units of housing – a net gain of 28 units.

Now, however, the AAHC is interested in expanding that project, using the additional adjacent property. At the planning commission’s July 15, 2014 meeting, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that because the AAHC has decided to expand its development on Platt Road, they’ll be holding another citizen participation meeting about that on Monday, July 28 at 7 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library’s Malletts Creek branch, 3090 E. Eisenhower. This is not the same site as a county-owned property on Platt Road, which is also being considered for affordable housing.

Earlier this year, at its April 21, 2014 meeting, council gave several approvals in connection with the AAHC renovations. The acquisition of the additional parcel will help the AAHC with its plans for the property.

Three of the existing four houses are in the floodway, and the water table is higher than the basements. When it rains, the properties flood. So the plan is to tear down the existing buildings, and construct new housing further north on the same site, on land that’s currently vacant.

The AAHC will be reimbursing the city for the $195,00 cost of the 1.17-acre property.

But it is the city that must execute the transaction, under Ann Arbor City Code, Chapter 8, Section 1:209(3):

All deeds, mortgages, contracts, leases, purchases, or other agreements regarding real property which is or may be put under the control of the housing commission, including agreements to acquire or dispose of real property, shall be approved and executed in the name of the City of Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor City Council may, by resolution, decide to convey or assign to the housing commission any rights of the city to a particular property owned by the City of Ann Arbor which is under the control of the housing commission and such resolution shall authorize the City Administrator, Mayor and Clerk to take all action necessary to effect such conveyance or assignment.

Development

On the council’s July 21 agenda are several items related to development.

Development: Jackson Drive-Thru

The council will consider approval of a site plan for a new drive-thru restaurant on Jackson Avenue – near the I-94 interchange. The planning commission recommended approval at its June 17, 2014 meeting.

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, commissioners granted a special exception use for this project, which does 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.

Development: Dusty’s Collision

The council will consider a site plan for Dusty’s Collision at 2310 South Industrial Highway, south of Jewett.

Aerial view of Dusty Collision site.

Development: State Street Village

A recommendation for the rezoning was given at the June 17, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Aerial view of State Street Village site.

At that meeting, commissioners recommended approval of a site plan, development agreement and rezoning for the project. It’s 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). 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.

Only the initial consideration of the rezoning issue will be before the council on July 21. The site plan approval will be considered at a future meeting, likely at the same meeting when the council gives final consideration to the rezoning.

Development: Downtown Zoning

The council will consider giving final approval to changes in two parts of the zoning code affecting the parcel at 425 S. Main, on the southeast corner of Main and William streets. Initial approval was given to rezoning from D1 to D2, with an amended height limit – of 60 feet. The original height limit in the ordinance revision considered by the council was 100 feet.

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

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

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

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

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

Upper-story setbacks, specified in the character district overlay along with the height limits, were specified based on the 100-foot limit. So the planning staff will likely present the council with some revised language on the setbacks, in order to be consistent with the amended 60-foot limit.

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

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

Those initial Dec. 3, 2013 recommendations from the planning commission had come in response to a previous direction from the city council, given at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. The council’s action in early 2013 came in response to the controversial 413 E. Huron development.

The item affecting 425 S. Main is just the first of what are expected to be several other changes recommended by the planning commission.

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

Board and Commissions

Two commissions are the topic of separate council agenda items: the environmental commission; and the commission on disability issues.

Boards and Commission: Environmental

The council will give final consideration to an amendment to the city ordinance establishing the environmental commission (EC). Initial approval was given at the council’s July 7, 2014 meeting.

The ordinance change relates in part to the way that nominations to the EC are made. The EC is one of the few boards or commissions in the city for which the mayor does not make nominations. The more familiar procedure – for most boards and commissions – includes a mayoral nomination at one council meeting, followed by the confirmation vote of the council at a subsequent meeting.

In the past, the council has mimicked this procedure for the EC by having some councilmember put a resolution on the agenda appointing a member to the EC, and then postponing the resolution until the next meeting. The ordinance revisions include clarification that the nominations put forward by the council as a body to the EC are to be made by the two councilmembers who serve as the council’s representatives to the EC.

Besides two slots for council representatives, the EC includes positions for members of the planning commission, park advisory commission, and energy commission. The ordinance revision to be given final consideration on July 21 makes clear that those groups make their appointments to the EC without further city council approval. This specific revision comes after the planning commission had selected Kirk Westphal from its membership to serve on the EC earlier this year. Some councilmembers voted against his confirmation, when the council was asked to confirm his selection two months ago. For background on that vote, see “Hutton, Westphal Reappointed to EC.”

The staff memo summarizes the changes to the ordinance regulating appointments to boards and commissions as follows:

clarifies that the councilmembers currently serving on the environmental commission nominate persons for “at-large” appointments, which are then approved by council resolution;

clarifies that the planning commission, park advisory commission, and energy commission each designate a representative to the environmental commission without council approval and for a one-year term;

clarifies that the 3-year terms should be equally staggered;

removes references to the Leslie Science Center Advisory Board, which no longer exists;

requires the city administrator or the designated support staff of the environmental commission to notify council of vacancies – previously this was delegated to the clerk’s office, which does not always have immediate knowledge of vacancies;

contains a few minor, non-substantive corrections and clarifications.

Mark Clevey’s name had been scheduled to be put before the council on July 7 to be confirmed as a member of the EC, but was withdrawn – because he is the selection by the energy commission to represent the energy commission on the EC. Once enacted, the energy commission appointment to EC (like that of other boards and commissions to the EC) will be for one year and will not need city council approval.

Boards and Commission: Disabilities

The council will consider a resolution that clarifies the membership on the city’s commission on disabilities. The clarification concerns the city council representative, who will be appointed for a one-year term annually. Currently the council’s representative to the commission on disability issues is Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

3:38 p.m. Names of speakers who have signed up for public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting are now available. A total of eight people are signed up for public commentary reserved time. Three people will be speaking in support of boycotting Israel and stopping the current assault on Gaza: Blaine Coleman, Mohammad Aggour, Mozhgan Savabieasfahani. Three people will be speaking about the recent eviction of a homeless encampment in Broadway Park. Thomas Partridge will be speaking in support of electing Democrat Mark Schauer as governor, affordable housing and accommodations for those with disabilities. And Kermit Schlansker will be addressing the council on the topic of “crime of city government.”

4:27 p.m. Responses from staff to councilmember questions are now available: [.pdf of July 21, 2014 staff responses]

4:44 p.m. There’s a large .pdf with a map in the agenda responses. Here’s just the map: [.pdf of parks map for underserved areas]. Here’s the rest of the agenda responses: [.pdf of just text from July 21, 2014 staff agenda responses]

6:19 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. Right now the council chambers are empty except for The Chronicle.

6:25 p.m. Most recent version of the charter amendment ballot proposal has now been sent around to councilmembers: [.pdf of latest version]

6:49 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) have arrived. About a dozen folks in the audience. Eaton quizzes a student here for a class assignment who wants her agenda signed: “Do you know what ward you live in?” “Yes, Two.” “I’m impressed!”

6:52 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers and city attorney Stephen Postema have arrived.

6:55 p.m. Still only two councilmembers in chambers. Now Jane Lumm (Ward 2) has arrived.

6:57 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje has arrived.

7:05 p.m. Still not here are Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

7:10 p.m. Now the only missing councilmember is Kailasapathy.

7:11 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance.

7:12 p.m. Roll call of council. Petersen and Kailasapathy are not here.

7:12 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:12 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved its agenda for tonight.

7:13 p.m. Communications from the city administrator.

7:14 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers notes that there’s a letter to HUD attached to the agenda, which indicates that Ann Arbor will continue to participate in the Urban County, as opposed to receiving CDBG funds on its own. Powers had told the council at its last meeting that this was the decision he’d be making, unless he received different direction. [.pdf of letter to HUD]. He also notes the Aug. 2, soccer game that will be taking place. Game start will be 4:06 p.m. Usual football game day regulations will apply. Powers will be a member of the county board’s road funding subcommittee. He’ll keep the council updated on the committee’s work, he says.

7:14 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.]

A total of eight people are signed up for public commentary reserved time. Three people will be speaking in support of boycotting Israel and stopping the current assault on Gaza: Blaine Coleman, Mohammad Aggour, Mozhgan Savabieasfahani. Three people will be speaking about the recent eviction of a homeless encampment in Broadway Park. Thomas Partridge will be speaking in support of electing Democrat Mark Schauer as governor, affordable housing and accommodations for those with disabilities. And Kermit Schlansker will be addressing the council on the topic of “crime of city government.” Hieftje has reviewed the rules on signs – that they must be held at the sides of the room.

7:18 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a former candidate for the state legislature. He calls on the public to support Mark Schauer for governor of Michigan. Local municipalities need to be fully funded, he says. Funding for additional affordable housing must be planned, he says. The Ann Arbor city council should be taking a statewide leadership role in providing access to people with disabilities. He calls on people to “put down their placards” and their calls for what to do about the Middle East.

7:22 p.m. Blaine Coleman begins to speak. Hieftje tells Mozhgan Savabieasfahani to move to the side with her sign. Coleman ticks through some grim statistics from the violence in Gaza. He calls for a public hearing on a boycott of Israel. Chants of “Boycott Israel, Stop Bombing Gaza!” Hieftje admonishes those who are joining the chant that only one person can speak at a time. Coleman is calling councilmembers by name, asking them to be the conscience of Ann Arbor. He tells them that the deaths of those in Gaza is partially on their hands. Background on recent Middle East events: [link to July 20, 2014 NYT article]

7:24 p.m. Sheri Wander tells the council she’s just returned from the Middle East. What the hell is wrong with humanity, she asks. She returned home to see people in Detroit hauled off to jail for protesting the shut-off of water. Then she got a call from friends of hers who were living in tents (Broadway Park in Ann Arbor) and were having their belongings bulldozed. Briere had said: “I can’t tell you what to do because you have no legal options.” That makes her sick, Wander says. Wander says she had heard candidates at the homelessness forum say that the law is the most important thing. It’s their job to change the law, she says.

7:27 p.m. Tracy Williams says he’s a resident of Mercy House and a member of Camp Misfit. He thanks those who have spoken out against what has been happening in Gaza. Here in Ann Arbor, campers were led to believe that if they stayed 50 feet away from the tracks they would be allowed to stay – and they’d abided by that. In response to the idea that the law is the most important thing, he ventures that the most important thing is to keep human beings live. He asks the council to meet a challenge: If they provide the councilmembers with a sleeping bag and a tarp, will they live outside for a week?

7:29 p.m. Timothy Green introduces himself as a MISSION board member. He thanks Briere for coming out in person to the eviction in process at Broadway Park. Homelessness has become illegal in Ann Arbor, he says. “You’re making them criminals,” he says. “You go to jail, that’s you guys’ answer! … It’s not right how the homeless are treated in this place,” he says.

7:32 p.m. Mohammad Aggour says that 13 days ago the Israeli government began its assault on Gaza. He’s 18 years old and attends Washtenaw Technical Middle College, he says. The casualties in Gaza are 70% women and children, he says. He says that he doesn’t want his tax dollars going to support this. He describes four children who were killed as they were playing soccer on the beach. “Forget about me being Arab,” he says. We have to focus on the fact that we are human. He calls for a boycott of Israel. He asks for a public hearing on a boycott of Israel.

7:37 p.m. Mozhgan Savabieasfahani takes the podium to rhythmic clapping. She says they are all ready to come to many more meetings in the future. Israel has been murdering the people of Palestine since the beginning, she says. She’s come to the council for the last 12 years, she says, asking them to do something. She says they will come back again and again to ask for a public hearing on a boycott of Israel. Without U.S. support, Israel could not undertake this military action, she says. It’s clear to the entire world that Israel is an “outlaw state,” she says. She holds the council responsible. “We are planning to come over and over and over again,” she says. The anger that they hear in her voice is nothing compared to the anger of a mother who has lost her child. Chants ensue: “Boycott Israel, Stop Bombing Gaza!” Hieftje says that he understands they’ll be coming back, but if they intend to disrupt city government, they should give some thought to whether that’s the image they want to present.

7:39 p.m. Kermit Schlansker is addressing climate change. Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, he says. The city has concentrated on removing factories from inside the city, he says, but we need to manufacture things, or else go broke. He says that the Platt Road property where the juvenile court stood previously should become a factory.

7:40 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has arrived in the interim.

7:40 p.m. Communications from council.

7:40 p.m. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) reports that Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) is ill and can’t make it. She sends her regrets.

7:42 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is explaining that the greenway master plan funding resolution will be withdrawn. The lack of a master plan hinders the ability to secure outside funding, he says. This resolution wasn’t the right approach at the right time, but he’s ok with that. There might be a different resolution next meeting, he says.

7:43 p.m. Warpehoski says that the issue that he’d talked about at the last meeting – a change to the way elections are conducted – is not ripe for this election cycle. But he’ll continue to work on it.

7:44 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) is talking about the proposed Glendale condo development. He says that the city should think about acquiring land using the open space and parkland acquisition millage. He thanks those for coming to speak on Gaza. Coleman asks from the audience, “So where’s the public hearing.”

7:46 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is talking about the public participation meeting last week on the proposed Toll Brothers development north of Nixon Road. The 900 units proposed in that general area will be a conflict point for the community, she says. She’s committed to holding another meeting about planning for the intersection of Dhu Varren and Nixon roads.

7:46 p.m. MC-1 Confirmations The council is being asked to confirm nominations to city boards and commissions that were made at the council’s July 7, 2014 meeting: Theresa Whiting, replacing John Sullivan on the airport advisory commission; and Shoshannah Lenski as a re-appointment to the energy commission.

7:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted confirm the appointments.

7:47 p.m. Public Hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Tonight there are six public hearings. The first two involve the rezoning of the parcel on the southeast corner of Main and William streets. Also receiving a hearing is the special assessment for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk project. Two site plans are the subject of public hearings – for Dusty’s Collision and for a drive-thru retail establishment on Jackson Road. Finally, a public hearing is being held on a change to the city’s ordinance on boards and commissions – which will clarify appointments to the environmental commission.

PH-1 Downtown Character Overlay Zoning Districts. [For additional background, see Development: Downtown Zoning above.]
PH-2 Rezoning of 1.1 Acres from D1 (Downtown Core Base District) to D2 (Downtown Interface Base District), 425 South Main Street.
PH-3 Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment roll. [For additional background, see Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk above.]
PH-4 Dusty’s Collision site plan. [For additional background, see Development: Dusty's Collision above.]
PH-5 2625 Jackson retail & drive-thru site plan. [For additional background, see Development: Jackson Drive-Thru above.]
PH-6 Amend ordinance on boards and commissions. [For additional background, see Boards and Commission: Environmental above.]

7:47 p.m. PH-1 Downtown Character Overlay Zoning Districts.

7:48 p.m. Edward Vielmetti says that he’s commenting about the way that the public has been informed about this proposed change. The packet does not include a map, he points out.

7:49 p.m. Blaine Coleman asks Mike Anglin when there will be a public hearing on the boycott of Israel. That draws a sharp rebuke from mayor John Hieftje to the effect that remarks during the public hearing must be confined to the topic of the public hearing.

7:51 p.m. Eppie Potts is addressing the council. She’s supporting the 60-foot height limit.

7:52 p.m. Ted Annis rises to speak on PH-2. Hieftje tells him that will be in a few minutes.

7:52 p.m. Thomas Partridge is now addressing the council. He says that new zoning should be integrated with requirements on accessibility.

7:55 p.m. A woman is now addressing the council telling them that she’s glad the property is being rezoned from D-1 to D-2. She wonders if the effect will be to allow sunlight to fall on adjoining properties. There’s also a problem with building right on the alleyway, she says.

7:56 p.m. PH-2 Rezoning of 1.1 Acres from D1 (Downtown Core Base District) to D2 (Downtown Interface Base District), 425 South Main Street.

7:56 p.m. Ted Annis says he supports the item. He expresses thanks for all the work that has been done to get things straightened out.

7:58 p.m. Edward Vielmetti points out an error in the map that is in the planning staff report: Baker Commons has not been updated to show that it is no longer zoned PL (public land). He encourages the council to delay their vote, until accurate maps can be provided.

8:00 p.m. Andy Klein, an owner of the property, is speaking against this zoning change. This is against the recommendation of the city’s hired consultant as well as the city planning commission, he says. He reviews the history of the parcel. The report from the consultant calls the parcel a key gateway site, he notes. The planning commission had recommended D-2 with a height of 100 feet – which would give flexibility to avoid less appealing massive structures.

8:02 p.m. Joel Smith is addressing the council, saying that it’s a gateway parcel. He’s been the architectural team for the new Y site as well as the Zaragon building, he says. Good design can always be debated, he allows. D-2 with 60 feet would result in a 60-foot wall against someone’s backyard, he says.

8:04 p.m. Thomas Partridge says the council should allow for a building that is large enough to have accessibility for lower-income residents of the city. There should be office space that is affordable for lower-income residents and businesses in the city, he says. The council should give priority to the human elements of the zoning requirements, he says.

8:05 p.m. PH-3 Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment roll.

8:07 p.m. This hearing will be kept open through the next meeting at Margie Teall’s request, Hieftje says. Edward Vielmetti again addresses the council on the issue of maps. Several parcels are marked for future recovery instead of current recovery. He’s concerned that someone who might purchase a parcel that will be annexed won’t realize that they could be assessed these costs. He again encourages the council to delay consideration until an accurate map can be provided.

8:08 p.m. A resident who will be assessed is protesting the special assessment. She says they’re being forced and bullied into paying for a development. Her husband is a senior, she says. They already are in the city of Ann Arbor. She calls the assessment unfair.

8:09 p.m. Hieftje says that this public hearing will remain open in the event that the item, which comes later on the agenda, is postponed.

8:09 p.m. PH-4 Dusty’s Collision site plan.

8:10 p.m. Thomas Partridge says that the property should be accessible to seniors and the handicapped. There should be a universal requirement that all businesses be accessible, Partridge says.

8:11 p.m. Edward Vielmetti is complaining that the map does not have a scale bar.

8:11 p.m. PH-5 2625 Jackson retail & drive-thru site plan.

8:12 p.m. No one speaks on this public hearing.

8:12 p.m. PH-6 Amend ordinance on boards and commissions.

8:13 p.m. Edward Vielmetti says he was at city hall on Friday to pick up the agenda. At that time there was not a clean copy of the resolution. Hieftje points out to Vielmetti that this is not the item on the city charter amendment. “You should still do what I said!” he quips.

8:14 p.m. A-1 Approval of minutes.

8:14 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve its minutes from the last meeting.

8:14 p.m. Consent Agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

CA-1 Emergency PO with Barrett Paving Materials ($12,815).
CA-2 Emergency PO with E.T. MacKenzie for storm culvert repair on Dhu Varren ($76,882).
CA-3 Approve contract with Industrial Organizational Solutions, Inc. (I/O) to Conduct AAPD Promotional Assessment in FY15 ($32,755).
CA-4 Approve changes to traffic patterns and parking for the 2014 University of Michigan student move-in program from Aug. 27-29, 2014.
CA-5 Recognize the Skyline Friends of the Arts as a civic nonprofit organization operating in Ann Arbor for the purpose of obtaining a charitable gaming license.

8:14 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. No one does.

8:14 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve its consent agenda.

8:14 p.m. B-1 Main Street overlay text amendments. These next two items relate to the 1.1-acre parcel at 425 S. Main St. at the southeast corner of William and Main. The council gave initial approval of the rezoning – from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) – at its June 16 meeting, following a complex series of votes. At the same meeting, the council also gave initial approval to a change to the overlay character district for the parcel, after amending the height limit – from 100 feet to 60 feet. [For additional background, see Development: Downtown Zoning above.] This first item includes the height limit.

8:17 p.m. Briere notes it’s the second reading of an ordinance change. The language is slightly changed, she says. One of the issues is solar impact, she says. The original version called for a 100-foot building and a stepback after the fourth story. Establishing the 60-foot limit would put a 60-foot wall against someone’s property, she said.

8:19 p.m. Teall asks what the impact would be of amending the height to 100 feet. “I am not … the true god of planning,” Briere says, but attempts to explain. Building a four-story wall at the edge of the alleyway would be a possibility, whether the height limit is 100 feet or 60 feet. Planning manager Wendy Rampson comes to the podium at Anglin’s request.

8:22 p.m. Rampson reviews how the council amended the height from 100 feet down to 60 feet at its last meeting. Anglin says that he and other councilmembers are trying to protect delicate areas of transitions. When a proposal can change a neighborhood radically, that’s a concern, he says. He questions whether there should be a solid wall right on the alley.

8:25 p.m. Anglin wants to know how tall Baker Commons is. Rampson says she doesn’t know but can look it up. Anglin says he won’t approve anything until the council knows what could be built there. He doesn’t want a Stalinist building to be possible that can be used as a threat.

8:26 p.m. Anglin wants to send this back to the planning commission so that the planning commission can provide some examples of what could be built – before the battles start.

8:28 p.m. Lumm says she supports the 60-foot limit. She knows that the planning commission recommended 100 feet. She’s concerned about building up to the property line. Rampson clarifies that the east edge of the property is 16 feet away from the adjoining residential properties – because of the alleyway.

8:30 p.m. Rampson is reviewing the planning commission’s rationale for the stepbacks in the upper floors in conjunction with the 100-foot height limit. She notes that there is not currently a proposal to develop the property.

8:34 p.m. Hieftje says that he thinks there are some issues that might not be resolved tonight, and hints that a postponement might be in order. Petersen invites the property owner to the podium. The property owner and the architect are explaining how a 60-foot height would constrain design. Petersen asks about development fees. [She asked a question about fees in advance of the meeting that drew a staff written response that include the following: "The Varsity building, at 425 East Washington Street, paid approximately $20,000 in site plan fees, $23,000 in civil plan review fees, $319,000 in building permit fees; and $311,000 in utility connection charges. Inspection fees are not included in these figures. The Varsity is a 13-story, 177,000-square foot apartment building having a 695% FAR."]

8:35 p.m. Kunselman says he’d like to see an idea of what the property owner would propose and then the council could define the zoning around that.

8:37 p.m. Kunselman asks what the minimum height they could live with. Klein says that the bifurcated zoning – half the parcel D-1 and half of it D-2 – was something they could live with. The original conversation was not 60 feet versus 100 feet, but rather 60 feet versus 180 feet. It was well thought out and well debated by the planning commission, Klein says.

8:39 p.m. Kunselman says the council is struggling, but the council has to get it right. He’s open to what the owner can offer, being more flexible on the corner. There’s more back-and-forth between Kunselman and the owners.

8:41 p.m. Teall asks when the owners can develop some drawings. Hieftje invites the owners to sit back down. Rampson is asked for advice on how long it would take for planning staff to work with the owners. Rampson indicates that it would likely go back only to the ordinance revisions committee of the planning commission – so about a month. Hieftje stresses that the feedback from the council is about a four-story wall facing the residential side and a four-story blocky building.

8:43 p.m. Eaton says that four-story blocky buildings are typical of Main Street. Petersen asks that a more robust analysis of the upfront fees for development be provided during the period of postponement. Hieftje quips that the matter should be postponed until the second meeting in November. The second meeting in September is now the date certain to which a postponement is proposed.

8:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone consideration of the character district overlay for 425 S. Main with a specified height limit of 60 feet – until the second meeting in September.

8:46 p.m. B-2 425 South Main St. city-initiated rezoning. This is the zoning part of the question related to 425 S. Main.

8:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone consideration of the downzoning of 425 Main from D-1 to D-2 – until the council’s second meeting in September.

8:46 p.m. B-3 Environmental Commission ordinance amendment. This ordinance change clarifies the composition and appointment process for the city’s environmental commission. [For additional background, see Boards and Commission: Environmental above.]

8:47 p.m. Briere is reviewing what the ordinance amendment will do. She asks for the support of other councilmembers.

8:48 p.m. Anglin asks if PAC could appoint someone for a year to the EC and then appoint that same person the following year. That would depend on PAC, Briere says.

8:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the change to the city’s ordinance on boards and commissions to clarify how appointments to the EC work.

8:49 p.m. We’re in recess.

9:05 p.m. We’re back.

9:05 p.m. C-1 State Street Village Rezoning. For State Street Village – a proposed 78-unit apartment project that will eventually appear on the council’s agenda – the council is considering tonight giving initial approval to the rezoning of the land. The 4.5-acre parcel would be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district). [For additional background, see Development: State Street Village above.]

9:06 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to give initial approval to the State Street Village rezoning. Final approval will come at a future meeting.

9:06 p.m. DC-1 Membership composition of the commission on disability issues. This resolution would clarify the way that a council appointment was made to the commission on disability issues last year. [For additional background, see Boards and Commission: Disabilities above.]

9:07 p.m. Petersen is reviewing the appointment a year ago and what this resolution does.

9:07 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to amend the resolution appointing a councilmember to the commission on disability issues.

9:07 p.m. DC-2 Gun Safety Week participation. From a staff memo accompanying the resolution: “During the week of July 20, 2014 through July 26, 2014 the Ann Arbor Police Department will be providing free gun locks and gun safety information to members of the public and collaborating with other Washtenaw County law enforcement agencies to enhance public knowledge and promote gun safety.” Stats cited in the resolution include the fact that Michigan’s overall firearm deaths from 2001-2010 were 10,825 (10.83 per 100,000 residents), Michigan’s firearm suicides in 2010 were 601 (6.08 per 100,000 residents), and Michigan’s firearm deaths for children ages 0-17 from 2001-2010 were 555 (2.23 per 100,000 residents). The information is from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Fatal Injury Data.”

9:10 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is explaining the background. The issue of preventing gun violence and unintentional gun deaths tends to get emotional, he says. One thing that could have prevented the tragedy at Sandy Hook would have been a gun safe – if the guns that the shooter had used had been locked away by his mother, that wouldn’t have been possible. One of the things the Ann Arbor police department is doing is passing out gun locks. If your child is going on a play date, then you can ask: Will there be an unlocked firearm in the house?

9:11 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) is thanking Warpehoski. This is an issue that got her involved in politics, she says. We can do something, she says, and this resolution will help.

9:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the resolution on gun safety week participation.

9:11 p.m. DC-3 Charter amendment: Eligibility for elective office. A federal judge ruled earlier this year that eligibility requirements for elected officers in the city of Ann Arbor’s charter are not legally enforceable. That ruling was based on early 1970s decisions that struck down Ann Arbor’s city charter eligibility requirements as unconstitutional. On tonight’s agenda is a resolution that would place new charter requirements on the ballot for voters to decide in the Nov. 4, 2014 election.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) has provided a text of the correct draft to media outlets, after the Legistar version was not formatted correctly with strikethrough text: [.pdf of July 18, 2014 charter amendment resolution text]

9:12 p.m. The most recent version, as far as The Chronicle understands, is actually this one: [.pdf of most recent version]

9:13 p.m. Lumm is reviewing the three types of city officers: elected officials, paid appointed officials (city administrator, police chief, etc.) and volunteer appointed officials.

9:14 p.m. Lumm says that the city is in “no man’s land” because there are no legally enforceable requirements. Lumm says she’s not committed to a vote tonight, but wants the conversation to start tonight.

9:16 p.m. Briere thanks Lumm for bringing the proposal forward. She’s questioning Lumm’s contention, which Lumm made during her remarks, that the council has not adhered to the 7-vote majority requirement for non-city residents. Hieftje confirms the council has applied that requirement. Briere wonders if that is necessary to address in this proposal, but says it just restates what is already there, so she doesn’t have a problem with it.

9:19 p.m. Taylor says he thinks the conversation should start tonight, but thinks it should likely be postponed until the next meeting. Taylor then either misreads the proposal, or else doesn’t have the correct copy in front of him. Warpehoski says he is glad to see this coming forward. He thanks Lumm. He’s comfortable with voting on it tonight or also postponing.

9:21 p.m. City attorney Stephen Postema says that assistant city attorney Mary Fales has been working with the state attorney general on this. Fales is now reviewing the fact that the deadline is Aug. 12 for certification to the county clerk. Fales says that she anticipates that the language in the packet tonight would be approved by the AG’s office, based on the informal conversations she’s had with that office.

9:23 p.m. Petersen asks Fales to comment on the pros and cons of eliminating the one-year durational requirement. Postema corrects Petersen: There is no requirement there – even though you see it there in the charter. That’s what the federal court ruled, he says. Postema says that a one-year residency program is now considered constitutional. So the council could put the same language that is currently in the charter in front of voters for reenactment.

9:25 p.m. Warpehoski asks what the next chance would be to reenact eligibility requirements, if it failed? The same question can’t be asked for another two years, Fales explains. Kunselman asks that the new proposed language be read aloud – just the ballot questions. Fales is now reading aloud the ballot questions.

9:27 p.m. Fales is explaining Act 212 of 1999 – which says that city employees can’t be subject to residency requirements.

9:28 p.m. Briere says that the situation is at best confusing. She wants to know what the communications plan is so that citizens are in a position to make an educated decision. City administrator Steve Powers says that the city could use existing tools and devices in a way that educates but does not advocate.

9:30 p.m. Teall is asking about the appointive officers question. She says that it’s confusing to her. She wants two separate sentences.

9:32 p.m. Fales says that a single ballot question has to have a single statement. She ventures that it could be separated into three questions total. Teall doesn’t seem enthusiastic about that. Eaton says that it’s imperative to pass requirements for the elected officers. He wants just the one topic addressed. That’s what confused voters back in 2003, he says. We’re already complying with state law. He didn’t think it was worth the risk to confuse the voters. The first ballot question is necessary while the second one is not, Eaton says. Kunselman responds to Eaton: “I concur.”

9:34 p.m. Fales says that the phrase “a city officer” in the original charter language has the effect that it covers both kinds of officers – elected and appointed officers. So the AG’s office is requiring two ballot questions. Kunselman quips: “Then I don’t concur.”

9:35 p.m. Fales is reading aloud the ballot language to incorporate the final minor changes.

9:38 p.m. Briere is asking about the elimination of a reference to “or a party caucus.”

9:41 p.m. Fales says that the language was recommended to be struck by the AG’s office because Ann Arbor’s city charter doesn’t provide a mechanism for that nominating process, though it could do so under state law. Briere is describing a hypothetical scenario where a minority party determined a candidate by “bowling or knitting” – and wants to know how that candidate would be placed on the ballot. She wants to be confident that such a candidate would be eligible to run as representatives of that party.

9:41 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to place the two ballot questions on city charter eligibility requirements in front of voters in the Nov. 4, 2014 election.

9:41 p.m. DC-4 414 N. Main sidewalk easement. This is an easement in standard form, and is conveyed at no cost to the city.

9:42 p.m. Briere is explaining that this and the next item have councilmembers’ sponsorship, because the documentation was prepared too late to be placed on the agenda by staff.

9:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the 414 N. Main sidewalk easement.

9:42 p.m. DC-5 401 N. Fourth sidewalk easement. This is an easement in standard form conveyed at no cost to the city.

9:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the 401 N. Fourth sidewalk easement.

9:42 p.m. DC-6 List 415 W. Washington and appropriate funds for Allen Creek greenway master plan. This item has been withdrawn by its sponsor, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). [For additional background, see Land Sale above.]

9:43 p.m. Outcome: The council did not vote on this item, because it has been withdrawn.

9:43 p.m. DC-7 Purchase 3401 Platt Road. This parcel is located to the north of an existing AAHC property. Four units currently stand at the location, but AAHC has previously announced plans to demolish those structures and replace them with 32 units of housing – a net gain of 28 units. Now, however, the AAHC is interested in expanding that project, using the additional adjacent property.

At the planning commission’s July 15, 2014 meeting, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that because the AAHC has decided to expand its development on Platt Road, they’ll be holding another citizen participation meeting about that on Monday, July 28 at 7 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library’s Malletts Creek branch, 3090 E. Eisenhower. This is not the same site as a county-owned property on Platt Road, which is also being considered for affordable housing. [For additional background, see Land Purchase: 3401 Platt Road above.]

9:44 p.m. Lumm asks Jennifer Hall to come to the podium. She notes that the owner doesn’t want to accept the contingency that the AAHC gets financing. Lumm wants to know what happens if the AAHC doesn’t get financing for its project. Hall explains that the AAHC will re-apply until it gets the funding.

9:44 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to authorize the purchase of 3401 Platt Road on behalf of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

9:45 p.m. DC-8 Issuance of a downtown development district liquor license to RWB Group LLC dba Taste. This was recommended by the liquor license review committee.

9:45 p.m. Lumm, as chair of the liquor license review committee, is reading aloud a statement explaining the background.

9:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recommend issuance of a downtown development district liquor license to RWB Group LLC dba Taste.

9:45 p.m. DC-9 Authorize city to inquire about Burton Road property for parkland acquisition. This is a resolution that would direct city to inquire with the owner of 2805 Burton Road, located just west of US-23, about whether the land is available for purchase by the city. It’s the site of a long-in-the-works affordable housing project that has never started construction, called Burton Commons. The parcel is located in Ward 3. The item was sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). [For additional background, see Land Purchase: Burton Commons above.]

9:48 p.m. Kunselman says he’s just emailed everyone on the council some information. He’s explaining the background of the affordable housing development, which dates back to 2006. The road is unimproved, he notes. It’s not even fair to call it a road, he says. It’s a two-track. The adjacent neighbors are on a roller coaster ride wondering about the future of the property, he says. If this resolution doesn’t pass, or if the owner has no interest in selling, he’d propose rezoning the property to be consistent with the other land in the area.

9:49 p.m. When the greenbelt advisory commission had recommended the acquisition of development rights north of Loch Alpine, outside the city, it was clear to Kunselman that we were forgetting about the importance of parkland here in the city. It wasn’t fair for him to whine about that without putting a proposal in front of the council, he says.

9:52 p.m. Kunselman says he met with the park advisory commission’s land acquisition committee in closed session, so he couldn’t talk about that. He characterizes the map that LAC provided – showing areas “underserved” with parks – as flexible. His own property is classified as “underserved,” he says. He’s pointing out various barriers to developing the parcel on Burton Road – construction of a sound wall and paving of the road. He portrays this move as eliminating a competitor of the AAHC.

9:53 p.m. Kunselman is asking for the council’s blessing for the simple inquiry. It’s adjacent to an existing park, he says. He asks for the council’s indulgence in supporting this.

9:55 p.m. Warpehoski is proposing four additional “whereas” clauses and a “resolved” clause. He’s adding 312 Glendale into the mix, which has an assessed value $345,200. An inquiry would be made with the 312 Glendale owner, according to Warpehoski’s amendment. A controversial condo development is proposed for that site. The project had been postponed by the Ann Arbor planning commission at its July 1, 2014 meeting, following lengthy public commentary by neighbors who oppose the development.

9:59 p.m. Warpehoski says he’s grateful to Kunselman’s inspiration.

9:59 p.m. Anglin says that public lands can be used to mitigate flooding. That increases land values, he says.

10:01 p.m. Petersen says that the city is the largest property owner in the city and it would take land off the tax rolls. A vote to inquire shouldn’t mean that the city will purchase the land, she says. The city always complains when the University of Michigan does that, she notes.

10:02 p.m. Hieftje is expressing caution that this is buying out developers. He wants these proposals to come from the park advisory commission.

10:03 p.m. Here’s Warpehoski’s amendment: [.pdf of Warpehoski's amendment to include Glendale]

10:05 p.m. Briere is talking about meetings she’s had with residents who’ve had a development proposed near them, who want the city to purchase the land so it can become a park. There’s a difference between making a proactive effort to add parks, as opposed to acquiring land to block a development, she notes.

10:06 p.m. Glendale has been before the planning commission twice, Briere points out, and the Burton Road property has been in front of the council in the past. She wonders why they’re not talking about those other parcels where no one is proposing to develop something there. It’s never a mistake to ask a question, but she’s fearful this will open a door and give us a real problem with acquisition of more undeveloped land that the city has no way to deal with.

10:08 p.m. Kunselman cites Bluffs Park and Dicken Woods as examples of properties in some phase of development, which the city decided to purchase. He also points out that the city also purchased two vacant properties to provide access to Bluffs Park. Back-and-forth between Kunselman and Hieftje ensues.

10:10 p.m. The resolution is just asking to talk, Kunselman says.

10:11 p.m. Lumm cites staff member responses to Warpehoski’s questions, pointing out that staff doesn’t recommend using the Glendale property for stormwater management.

10:12 p.m. Warpehoski is now making a pitch for his amendment. He mentions the location as a possible dog park. He asks that councilmembers not vote yes on this if they know now that they won’t vote yes on the actual land acquisition.

10:15 p.m. Anglin says: “There’s a tremendous amount of water out there.” The topography in Ward 5 is different, he says. It was good that Dicken Woods was acquired, Anglin says, through Eaton’s efforts. Anglin is reviewing the work of county water resources commissioner. The Glendale development has been downsized considerably, Anglin allows. If you have land, it can absorb water, he says.

10:16 p.m. Outcome: Outcome on amendment: The council has voted to approve Warpehoski’s Glendale amendment. Dissenting were Hieftje, Petersen, Lumm and Teall.

10:18 p.m. Taylor says that PAC has expertise not only on the quality of land but also the ability of the city to incorporate these properties into the park system. So he wants to amend the resolution so that it sends the issue to PAC, instead of the city administrator for recommendation.

10:19 p.m. PAC would review the properties to determine if they are suitable for acquisition – by Oct. 1. If PAC so determines, then the city administrator would inquire with the owners about the availability of the property.

10:20 p.m. Hieftje wants to change the word “suitable” to “desirable.” That’s accepted as friendly. Lumm wants staff input as well as input from PAC. That’s fine with Taylor.

10:22 p.m. Kunselman says he had wanted to avoid wasting time – if the owner was not even interested in selling. There’s no sense in investing time in PAC’s review, if the property owner is not even interested in selling, he says.

10:24 p.m. AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall is asked to the podium. She describes how the Burton Commons development is a “friendly competitor.” She says that the obstacles that Kunselman has identified are significant to the redevelopment of the Burton Road property – the sound barrier, and the road. She says the owner would be interested in selling, but points out that they’ve invested $2 million in it.

10:25 p.m. Briere says she would be much happier if the council were considering other parcels that are not currently under consideration for development. Hieftje asks Briere to focus on Taylor’s amendment.

10:27 p.m. Briere says she has no problem sending it to PAC and the land acquisition committee of PAC.

10:28 p.m. Eaton is echoing Kunselman’s sentiments that we should put this in the right order – first find out if the owners might be interested in selling. He’ll vote against Taylor’s amendment.

10:28 p.m. Warpehoski ventures that council could go into closed session to hear the LAC report. Hieftje says that the discussion is still on Taylor’s amendment.

10:32 p.m. Outcome: Taylor’s amendment has been accepted as friendly.

10:34 p.m. Petersen agrees with Warpehoski’s point that councilmembers should not vote yes on this if they would not support the actual purchase of the property. Lumm is expressing some caution. Teall says she’d like to see both parcels become parks. But she’s concerned that because the proposals are not coming from PAC, she wonders about maintenance and programming. So she doesn’t think she can support the purchase in the end.

10:38 p.m. Eaton says that the greenbelt and open space millage included a commitment to voters to spend 1/3 of the proceeds on acquisitions within the city. He says he doesn’t think the Burton Road property will be developed anyway. The Glendale neighbors would probably adopt a park there and the maintenance costs would not be that great. Hieftje picks up on Eaton’s point that the Burton Road property won’t be developed, saying that this would be helping out a developer. LAC was “keeping their powder dry” in case properties like AAPS Eberwhite Woods or Pioneer Woods needed to be purchased, Hieftje says.

10:40 p.m. Briere focuses on the statement that 1/3 of the open space and parkland acquisition millage is supposed to be spent inside the city. She wants a historical breakdown. Sumedh Bahl, community services area administrator, approaches the podium. Bahl doesn’t know off the top of his head. Briere says that information needs to be sent out to all councilmembers. Warpehoski calls the question.

10:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to authorize inquiry about the availability of the property on Burton Road and on Glendale for sale – ~~but only after~~ and only if the land is available to seek input from PAC. Dissenting were Hieftje and Petersen.

Final wording on the key resolved clause was as follows:

RESOLVED, That Council authorizes City staff to inquire with the owner of 2805 Burton Road and 312 Glendale Road about the availability of the property for City purchase, in whole or in part, and if available, requests the Parks Advisory Commission and staff to review 2805 Burton Road and 312 Glendale Road and advise City Council prior to October 1, 2014 whether they are desirable for City purchase using parkland acquisition funds and private contributions

10:42 p.m. DB-1 Dusty’s Collision site plan. The proposal calls for building a 30,537-square-foot, one-story auto collision repair facility on a parcel that’s currently vacant. A previous building at that location was torn down in 2013. The new building would include 5,285 square feet for office use, a waiting area of 5,227 square feet, and 20,025 square feet for the repair area and garage. The project is estimated to cost $2 million. [For additional background, see Development: Dusty's Collision above.]

10:43 p.m. Taylor asks for permission to refrain from voting as it’s a client of his. Permission is granted by the council.

10:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the site plan for Dusty’s Collision.

10:43 p.m. DB-2 2625 Jackson retail & drive-thru site plan. This is 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. [For additional background, see Development: Jackson Drive-Thru above.]

10:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the site plan for the 2625 Jackson retail & drive-thru.

10:43 p.m. DS-1 Pontiac Trail sidewalk special assessment. The cost that will be assessed to adjoining property owners for this project is $72,218. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, sidewalk construction would be done as part of the reconstruction of Pontiac Trail beginning just north of Skydale Drive to just south of the bridge over M-14. The project will also be adding on-street bike lanes and constructing a new sidewalk along the east side of Pontiac Trail to fill in existing sidewalk gaps and to provide pedestrian access to Olson Park and Dhu Varren Road. That’s part of the city’s Complete Streets program. [For additional background, see Infrastructure: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk above.]

10:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone approval of the assessment roll for the Pontiac Trail sidewalk construction project.

10:45 p.m. DS-2 Contract with DLZ Michigan, Inc. ($104,107) for 2014-2015 bridge inspection project. The city is required by federal law to inspect its bridges every two years. The city’s approach is to inspect about half of its bridges each year in order to even out the cost. Bridges to be inspected include the section of the Library Lane parking structure that is located under Fifth Avenue, which is considered a bridge.[For additional background, see Infrastructure: Bridge Inspections above.]

10:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. for the 2014-2015 bridge inspection project

10:45 p.m. DS-3 Construction contract with Bailey Excavating, Inc. ($1,537,608) for the Springwater subdivision improvements project. This contract will cover the reconstruction of streets and some utilities – on Butternut Street from Cardinal Avenue to Springbrook Avenue, and Nordman Avenue from Packard Road to Redwood Avenue. [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Springwater Street Reconstruction above.]

10:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the construction contract with Bailey Excavating Inc. for the Springwater subdivision improvements project.

10:45 p.m. DS-4 MDOT agreement for the Scio Church and Barton Drive sidewalks project. This agreement with MDOT, which will require about $250,000 of local funding, will establish the city as construction manager for the construction of sidewalks on the south side of Scio Church Road between Delaware Drive and Maple Road, and on the south side of Barton Drive from about 250 feet west of Chandler Road to Longshore Drive. A portion of the funding for both projects will be derived from a special assessment of adjoining property owners. [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Scio Church, Barton above.]

10:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the MDOT agreement for the Scio Church and Barton Drive sidewalks project.

10:46 p.m. DS-5 MDOT agreement for the Stone School Road improvements project ($3,445,200). The affected portion of Stone School road is between I-94 and Ellsworth Road. The planned work consists of reconstructing Stone School Road as a two-lane road with on-street bike lanes and concrete curb and gutter. [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Stone School Road above.]

10:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to MDOT agreement for the Stone School Road improvements project.

10:46 p.m. DS-6 Purchase of six pumps for the wastewater treatment plant from Premier Pump Inc. ($425,682). The six secondary effluent pumps for the wastewater treatment plant are all in poor condition. [For additional background, see Infrastructure: Wastewater Pumps above.]

10:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of six pumps for the wastewater treatment plant from Premier Pump Inc.

10:47 p.m. DS-7 Public utilities easement for 500 Huron Parkway. This is standard easement conveyed without cost to the city.

10:47 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the public utilities easement for 500 Huron Parkway.

10:47 p.m. Clerk’s report.

10:47 p.m.Outcome: The clerk’s report has been accepted.

10:48 p.m. Public comment. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:49 p.m. Edward Vielmetti says that with the Glendale and the Burton Road issue, he appreciates the work that was done. But he says that the council should have availed itself of the option that Warpehoski had mentioned – to go into closed session to discussed the issue. That might have made for a shorter discussion, he says.

10:50 p.m. Hieftje offers the clarification that the action to remove the homeless encampment had been by MDOT, not the city. But there’s a longstanding city law against camping in the public parks, he notes. That would continue to be illegal, he says.

10:53 p.m. Briere says she hears routinely that some piece of vacant land has no owner, so that it’s somehow communal property. For those who decided that they wanted to live at Broadway Park, they knew they could not live in the park. But they believed that there was a piece of property near there that was not owned by anyone. “The days of pioneering are past in Ann Arbor,” Briere says. There’s no place that somebody doesn’t own, she says.

10:55 p.m. Kunselman says he appreciates Hieftje affirming that there are laws on the books against camping in public parks. He also addresses the possibility of rezoning Stone School Road to make tiny houses possible. He says it’s not as simple a matter as rezoning to PUD (planned unit development), and there’s a state law that has to be followed. Everyone took an oath to uphold the law, he says. To suggest that people can live in tents in PUD zoning is not accurate and that talk should stop, he says.

10:56 p.m. Lumm is thanking Paul Fulton, the IT staff member who assists councilmembers – as he is leaving the city to pursue a masters degree in Canada. He gets a round of applause.

10:56 p.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.

July 21, 2014: City Council Meeting Preview

Dave Askins — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 21:32:50 +0000

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

Another significant item appearing on the July 21 agenda is a resolution that would direct the city administrator to list the 415 W. Washington property for sale. That would follow the listing of two other city-owned properties in the last year and a half – the former Y lot and the development rights to the top of the Library Lane parking garage.

Two other land acquisition item on the agenda would put the city on the purchasing end. A resolution sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) would inquire with the owner of 2805 Burton Road, located just west of US-23, about whether it is available for purchase by the city. It’s the site of a long-in-the-works affordable housing project that has never started construction.

The July 21 meeting is the council’s last one before the Tuesday, Aug. 5 primary elections. The meeting that week is shifted from Monday to Thursday, and will fall on Aug. 7.

Six new pumps for the wastewater treatment plant to be purchased from Premier Pump Inc. for $425,682 is another agenda item.

With respect to legal infrastructure, a federal judge ruled earlier this year that eligibility requirements for elected officers in the city of Ann Arbor’s charter are not legally enforceable. On the council’s July 21 agenda is a resolution that would place new charter requirements on the ballot for voters to decide in the Nov. 4, 2014 election. The current charter language imposes one-year durational requirements on voter registration in the city and residency in the ward that a potential councilmember would like to represent. For mayor, the current requirement is simply a one-year durational requirement for voter registration in the city. That one year is calculated from the time an elected official takes office. The new requirements, would impose a voter registration requirement at the time paperwork is submitted to qualify for the ballot.

Not tied to any particular project on the July 21 agenda is final consideration by the council of a change to downtown zoning. The item is confined to a 1.1-acre parcel at 425 S. Main St. at the southeast corner of William and Main. The council gave initial approval of the rezoning – from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) at its June 16 meeting that followed a complex series of votes. At the same meeting, the council also gave initial approval to a change to the overlay character district for the parcel, after amending the height limit – from 100 feet to 60 feet. Zoning changes require two votes by the council, taken at separate meetings, because they are changes to the city’s ordinances.

The consent agenda for July 21 includes an item that indicates the approach of fall – approval of the change to traffic patterns for the Aug. 27-29 University of Michigan student move-in.

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

Physical Infrastructure

The council’s July 21 agenda includes several items related to the city’s physical infrastructure.

Physical Infrastructure: Springwater Street Reconstruction

Funding for the project will be drawn from the street millage fund ($883,316), stormwater fund ($903,065), and drinking water funds ($489,574) for a total project cost of $2,275,955.

Physical Infrastructure: Stone School Road

Physical Infrastructure: Sidewalks – Scio Church, Barton

The council will consider an agreement with MDOT, which will require about $250,000 of local funding, that will establish the city as construction manager for the construction of of sidewalks on the south side of Scio Church Road between Delaware Drive and Maple Road, and on the south side of Barton Drive from about 250 feet west of Chandler Road to Longshore Drive. A portion of the funding for both projects will be derived from a special assessment of adjoining property owners.

Here’s how the funding breaks down:

Project Funding
               Scio Church    Barton       TOTAL
Federal Share     $164,000   $36,000    $200,000
Local Share        199,474    42,626     242,100
Spcl Assess          1,626     1,980       3,606            

TOTAL             $365,100   $80,606    $445,706

Infrastucture: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk

Infrastructure: Bridge Inspections

The council will consider approval of a $104,107 contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. for the regular bridge inspection program.

The city is required by federal law to inspect its bridges every two years. The city’s approach is to inspect about half of its bridges each year in order to even out the cost.

Bridges to be inspected include the section of the Library Lane parking structure that is located under Fifth Avenue, which is considered a bridge.

Infrastructure: Wastewater Pumps

Six new pumps for the wastewater treatment plant to be purchased from Premier Pump Inc. for $425,682 also appear on the council’s July 21 agenda.

Legal Infrastructure

For example, a potential candidate for the city council would need to be a registered voter in the ward they seek to represent at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk. And a potential candidate for mayor would need to be a registered voter in the city at the time they submit their qualifying signatures to the city clerk. With paperwork for partisan primaries due in April – for November elections – the new requirements would translate practically speaking to something similar to a six-and-a-half-month durational requirement. For independent candidates, that timeframe would be closer to three and a half months. Updated July 18: The Legistar version of the resolution does not reflect the struck-through text and is confusing to read. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) has provided a text of the correct draft to media outlets: [.pdf of July 18, 2014 charter amendment resolution text]

Updated July 19 at 11:09 p.m.: City clerk Jackie Beaudry edited the Legistar entry to reflect the intended text accurately: [link]

So it would be an option for the council to postpone consideration of this amendment at their July 21 meeting.

Land Sale

Appearing on the July 21 agenda is an item sponsored by Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje with the title “Resolution to List for Sale 415 W. Washington and Appropriate Funds for Allen Creek Greenway Master Plan.” As of mid-day Friday, July 18, no text or memo was included in the resolution. But Warpehoski responded to an emailed query from The Chronicle by saying that the resolution might be pulled, depending on the outcome of a meeting of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy on July 18. [The item has since been updated with text. The amount to be allocated for the master planning effort is $250,000]

Updated July 19: Warpehoski has announced he will be withdrawing the resolution. For a detailed explanation, see the comment below.

The city-owned 415 W. Washington parcel is highlighted in yellow.

To complete a greenway master plan, the informal ballpark estimate from city staff for cost and timeframe, according to Warpehoski, is $150,000 to $200,000 and from 18 to 24 months. The resolution would likely stipulate that the cost of the master plan work would be reimbursed to the general fund from the net proceeds of the land sale.

Warpehoski indicated that one reason a master plan for the greenway is important is that the lack of such a plan hurt the city’s application for funding from the state of Michigan to support renovations to the 721 N. Main property. The city did not receive the state grant after applying for it in early 2013.

The June 16 council meeting discussion featured the following exchange between Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Hieftje, recorded in The Chronicle’s live updates from the meeting:

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

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

If the council directs the 415 W. Washington property to be listed for sale, it would be the third downtown city-owned property to be listed for sale in the last year and a half. The council directed the city administrator to move toward hiring a broker for the old Y lot at Fifth and William at its March 4, 2013 meeting. And on Nov. 18, 2013, the council authorized the sale of the lot to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million.

1:40 a.m. Budget amendment: 415 W. Washington demolition. This proposal will simply eliminate general fund support for demolition of the city-owned buildings at 415 W. Washington. [Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton, Anglin]

1:54 a.m. Outcome: The council approved this amendment over the dissent of Kunselman, Taylor and Warpehoski.

Land Purchase: Burton Commons

Animated .gif of the Burton Commons property showing the demolition of single-family homes on the parcels – from aerial images in the Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS system.

The land is immediately adjacent to US-23 to the east and Sylvan Park to the north. A residential neighborhood lies to the west of the land.

Kunselman is a candidate for mayor in the Aug. 5 Democratic primary, along with three other councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

The July 21 council meeting is the last one before the Aug. 5 election. That week the meeting is shifted to Thursday from Monday, due to the Tuesday election.

Land Purchase: 3401 Platt Road

On the July 21 agenda is an item that would authorize the city to purchase the parcel at 3401 Platt Road.

Purchase of the blue-highlighted parcel could be authorized by the city council at its July 21 meeting.

The parcel is adjacent to Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) properties that AAHC is planning to reconstruct.

Four units currently stand at the location, but AAHC has previously announced plans to demolish those structures and replace them with 32 units of housing – a net gain of 28 units.

The AAHC will be reimbursing the city for the $195,00 cost of the 1.17-acre property.

But it is the city that must execute the transaction, under Ann Arbor City Code, Chapter 8, Section 1:209(3):

All deeds, mortgages, contracts, leases, purchases, or other agreements regarding real property which is or may be put under the control of the housing commission, including agreements to acquire or dispose of real property, shall be approved and executed in the name of the City of Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor City Council may, by resolution, decide to convey or assign to the housing commission any rights of the city to a particular property owned by the City of Ann Arbor which is under the control of the housing commission and such resolution shall authorize the City Administrator, Mayor and Clerk to take all action necessary to effect such conveyance or assignment.

Development

On the council’s July 21 agenda are several items related to development.

Development: Jackson Drive-Thru

Aerial view of 2625 Jackson Ave.

Development: Dusty’s Collision

The council will consider a site plan for Dusty’s Collision at 2310 South Industrial Highway, south of Jewett.

Aerial view of Dusty Collision site.

Development: State Street Village

A recommendation for the rezoning was given at the June 17, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Aerial view of State Street Village site.

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.

Development: Downtown Zoning

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

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

The item affecting 425 S. Main is just the first of what are expected to be several other changes recommended by the planning commission.

Board and Commissions

Two commissions are the topic of separate council agenda items: the environmental commission; and the commission on disability issues.

Boards and Commission: Environmental

The council will give final consideration to an amendment to the city ordinance establishing the environmental commission (EC). Initial approval was given at the council’s July 7, 2014 meeting.

The staff memo summarizes the changes to the ordinance regulating appointments to boards and commissions as follows:

clarifies that the councilmembers currently serving on the environmental commission nominate persons for “at-large” appointments, which are then approved by council resolution;

clarifies that the planning commission, park advisory commission, and energy commission each designate a representative to the environmental commission without council approval and for a one-year term;

clarifies that the 3-year terms should be equally staggered;

removes references to the Leslie Science Center Advisory Board, which no longer exists;

requires the city administrator or the designated support staff of the environmental commission to notify council of vacancies – previously this was delegated to the clerk’s office, which does not always have immediate knowledge of vacancies;

contains a few minor, non-substantive corrections and clarifications.

Boards and Commission: Disabilities

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!

Request for Jesuit Home To Be Reconsidered

Mary Morgan — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:46:35 +0000

Ann Arbor planning commission meeting (June 3, 2014): A controversial request to allow up to six Jesuits to live together at 1919 Wayne St. did not secure sufficient votes for approval from Ann Arbor planning commissioners at their June 3 meeting. A vote by commissioners came after about an hour of public commentary and two hours of deliberations.

Dan Reim, one of the Jesuits who hopes to live at 1919 Wayne St. (Photos by the writer.)

However, at the end of the meeting – near midnight, long after supporters and opponents of the proposal had left – commissioners voted to reconsider the item, and then subsequently voted to postpone action until their next meeting on June 17.

The request – by the Ann Arbor Jesuit Community, formally known as the USA Midwest Province of the Society of Jesus – is for 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 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 required six votes, but the request initially 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 – were absent. An attempt earlier in the meeting to postpone the vote had failed, with a majority of commissioners wanting to take action that night, apparently assuming it would pass. The final vote to postpone – taken after all other agenda items were dispatched – was 6-1, over dissent from Giannola. The planning commission has discretion to grant a special exception use, which does not require additional city council approval.

During the proposal’s public hearing, 21 people spoke – the majority of them 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 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.

Three Jesuits who plan to live there – including Ben Hawley, pastor and director of campus ministry for the St. Mary Student Parish – attended the meeting. Rev. Daniel Reim, who serves as the head of household, apologized for the controversy that this request has caused. The group currently lives in a smaller house on Ferdon, which they said they’ve outgrown. Some supporters of the request noted how the men are good neighbors on Ferdon. The former owner of that house pointed out that nearby properties he’s built or renovated had sold for over $1 million, describing the argument about hurting property values as “silly.”

The public hearing will be re-opened on June 17, to allow for additional public input. The Jesuits are encouraging supporters to attend. On June 9, Reim sent an email suggesting specific ways that people can lobby commissioners and the city council.

In voting against the request, Giannola said she didn’t think the Jesuits fit the description of a “functional family.” Westphal said he wanted to get more information from the city attorney’s office about the risk of setting a precedent, and whether there could be conditions on the special exception use that would address concerns about the turnover of residents. Planning staff reported that the city attorney’s office had already vetted the item, but they would make additional queries based on commissioners’ feedback.

There was some question about whether a delay would affect the sales contract that the Jesuits have with the current owner, who also attended the June 3 meeting. The property is listed for sale at $795,000.

In taking up the issue on June 17, one additional wrinkle might be the composition of the commission at that meeting. Two commissioners who supported the request – Jeremy Peters and Eleanore Adenekan – indicated that they would be absent, and another supporter, Ken Clein, said he might also be unable to attend. So it’s possible that there will only be six commissioners at that meeting. That would mean all six commissioners would need to vote yes in order for the request to win approval.

The property is located in Ward 2. One of the Ward 2 city councilmembers, Jane Lumm, attended the planning commission meeting, but did not formally address the commission. 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.

In other action on June 3 – a meeting that lasted over five hours – commissioners postponed a rezoning and site plan request from the Ann Arbor housing commission for a property on North Maple, part of a major overhaul of the city’s public housing sites. The project would demolish the single family homes at North Maple Estates, and build apartments that would roughly double the density of low-income housing there. Some neighbors raised concerns about the proposal, which is on the commission’s June 17 agenda for consideration.

Other items on the June 3 agenda were dispatched with little discussion: (1) a site plan for Dusty’s Collision on South Industrial; (2) an expansion at the Rudolf Steiner High School on Pontiac Trail; and (3) a rezoning and area plan request to develop property on Research Park Drive, including an indoor-outdoor tennis facility.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street

Planning commissioners were asked to consider a request that would allow up to six Jesuits to live together at 1919 Wayne St.

Aerial view of 1919 Wayne St.

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 city code 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.

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.

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.

In giving her staff report, city planner Alexis DiLeo pointed out that a range of questions raised by nearby residents are addressed in the staff report. [.pdf of staff memo]

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

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Public Hearing

A public hearing drew 21 speakers and lasted about 45 minutes. Several speakers also wrote letters, which were included in the meeting packet. Here are some highlights.

Dan Reim introduced himself as one of the Jesuits who’s applying for the special exception use. He apologized to neighbors for the concerns that this has raised and the tensions that exist. He had hoped to attend the May 13 Oxbridge Neighborhood Association meeting to relieve these concerns. There’s a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding, he said. Reim identified several claims that neighbors have made, such as a negative impact on resale value of nearby homes, and the use of this house for UM Jesuit students. “These statements are not correct,” Reim said. “This is not student housing.”

In the foreground is Dennis Dillon, a pastoral associate at St. Mary Student Parish. Next to him is Ben Hawley, pastor and director of campus ministry. Both men would be among the Jesuits living at 1919 Wayne St.

In addition to Reim, other residents at the house would include Ben Hawley, pastor and director of campus ministry for the St. Mary Student Parish, and Dennis Dillon, a pastoral associate. In August, two new Jesuit priests would be arriving, both of them 33 years old. One of them will be starting a doctoral program at UM’s School of Public Health, and would be the only student in the house, Reim said. At this time, only five Jesuits are planning to live at the house. If a sixth person were to come, he would not be a student but would work at the parish, Reim said.

Reim talked about how the group would be like a family, sharing income and expenses. This would be their full-time residence. Chores, meals, recreation and prayers are shared. The head of household is the designated patient advocate, he noted. As religious brothers, they serve as each other’s primary support system. They’ve loved living in their current home on Ferdon, Reim said, where he’s lived for 10 years. But now they need a new home to accommodate more brothers. They’ll do everything they can to be good neighbors, he concluded.

Peter Nagourney told commissioners he’s co-chair of the North Burns Park Association. He was concerned about the precedent that would be set, and he didn’t believe the planning staff’s justification for granting a special exception use was valid. He highlighted a response from the Jesuits that stated the residents “will generally be members of the religious order that serve at St. Mary’s Student Parish…and/or will be pursuing degrees at the University of Michigan or other local institutions.” The term “generally” is non-specific, he said.

What’s more, the residents will be non-permanent, he added, because some residents will be students or interns, who’ll leave after they finish their studies. The occupants will continually change, Nagourney said. He also was concerned because the city doesn’t enforce its ordinances. In addition, he worried that this would set a precedent for other groups to claim similar status, which could in turn hurt property values. A charismatic leader with five followers, a cult or a commune could qualify, he said. So the city is “about to open the doors wide” to any number of other household types in residential neighborhoods. He urged commissioners to reject this request.

Scott Munzel is the attorney representing the Oxbridge Neighborhood Association to oppose the application. [.pdf of Munzel letter] Clearly the applicant is not a functional family, he said. The name of the organization includes the word “society,” he said, and a society is explicitly excluded from the city’s definition of a functional family. The Jesuits take vows, Munzel noted, but those vows are not directed to each other – they’re directed to the church. As an “ironic detour,” he joked, many families actually don’t operate in the way that the Jesuits describe. “Many families operate like a failed autocracy, subject to coup at any moment.”

Peter Nagourney, Scott Munzel and Eppie Potts all spoke against granting the special exception use request for 1919 Wayne St.

Even if the Jesuits were a functional family, Munzel continued, they’d fail to meet the standards of a special exception use, which include protecting the residential fabric of the neighborhoods and maintaining property values. He noted that other residential zoning districts – such as R4C – do allow for six unrelated residents in a home. There are thousands of structures in R4C districts, he said. Munzel also indicated his view that the decision about granting a special exception use is the purview of the zoning board of appeals

Liz Kamali lives in the Oxbridge neighborhood and supported the project. [.pdf of Kamali letter] She noted that her family had joined the Oxbridge Neighborhood Association soon after they moved into the area. But she had grave concerns about how ONA is handling this matter. She said the ONA board had violated its bylaws by not sending timely notice of a May 13 meeting, and it hadn’t been clear that the meeting would include a vote about hiring an attorney. There’s been a lack of communication between ONA and its members, she said. Specifically, the board didn’t notify all members that it was spending members’ money to hire an attorney to oppose the Jesuits’ request, which might not represent the prevailing sentiment in the neighborhood, she said. Kamali urged commissioners to grant the special exception use.

Prudence Heikkinen, who lives across from 1919 Wayne Street, said the proposed owners seem to be kind and good men, who would take responsible care of the home. But that’s not the basis on which the commission should make its decision. She’s lived there for 38 years, and said she’d focus her concern on parking. It’s already constrained, especially for overnight parking. The Jesuits state that they’ll park two cars in the driveway, but in the time she’s lived across the street, none of the other six previous owners of 1919 Wayne has consistently used the driveway. “It is simply too narrow and too crooked to do so,” she said. The addition of six cars to the neighborhood would diminish the enjoyment of her home, Heikkinen said.

Fran Youssef pointed out that a previous speaker, Liz Kamali, is a member of the St. Mary Student Parish, and said Kamali’s comments should be viewed in that light. Youssef said the ONA doesn’t function like Congress, so the fact that people weren’t notified according to the bylaws doesn’t mean the association was trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. She said she has two young children and it’s a very safe neighborhood. “I worry that with six adult males with cars and friends, the comings and goings, that it won’t be safe.” She also raised concerns about setting a precedent, saying it will affect the quality of life and resale value of homes there.

Gwen Nystuen and Ellen Ramsburgh (foreground) spoke against granting the special exception use.

Youssef said the men would be wonderful neighbors, but she doesn’t want to open a door to other religious groups. Regarding parking, she said the city doesn’t enforce parking regulations. “I’m a religious person – I’m not going to call the cops on these priests!” It’s not an appropriate neighborhood for them, she concluded. “I think there are many other places that would welcome you with open arms, and in any other circumstances, I’m sure we’d be friends and colleagues.”

Gwen Nystuen also spoke against granting the special exception use. [.pdf of Nystuen letter] A family is usually considered to be a group that owes their first allegiance to each other and that expect to be together permanently, she said. The six people who’d be living in the house at 1919 Wayne wouldn’t all stay there permanently, she said. This arrangement actually sounds like a co-op, she added.

The next speaker was Eppie Potts, who read aloud a definition of an association: “an organized body of people who have some interest, activity or purpose in common.” This is what the Jesuits are, she said, and associations can’t be granted a special exception use. If it’s approved, it sends a warning to everyone who lives in R1 districts that they might be seeing associations moving into their neighborhoods too, she said. The planning commission’s job is to uphold the city’s zoning ordinance. It’s the zoning board of appeals that interprets the ordinance, she contended.

Susan Davenport-Geer said as she tried to leave her office, a drunk, aggressive man blocked her way. This happens regularly, she added, “since a homeless shelter was foisted on a residential community by this very process and body, I believe. It’s an ugly and shameful piece of our history, and I know a lot about how it really came down.” The homeless shelter [at 312 W. Huron] resulted from money, power and privilege, she said. She told commissioners that she’s ashamed to live in a community whose elected and appointed officials would even consider this matter.

She had particular concerns about this specific special exception use. The Catholic church has enjoyed some of the longest and most expensive protection in history, she said. The question is whether Ann Arbor will hold accountable a vastly powerful, wealthy and privileged business – the Catholic church – “that has perpetrated violence throughout its long history on women and children and men,” she said. “Economic violence, political, cultural, gender, sexual violence, to name just a few of its methods.” She wanted to know what planning commissioners are going to do about this. If they don’t reject the request, they’ll be making possible the continuation of these abuses, she said.

Michael Clark lives next to 1919 Wayne, and opposes the special exception use.

Michael Clark, whose property abuts the northern border of 1919 Wayne, highlighted some of the points he’d made in a letter to commissioners. [.pdf of Clark letter] He agreed with previous speaker who opposed the request, especially as it relates to inconsistencies with the city’s master plan. He noted that the proposed owner of the property – USA Midwest Province of the Society of Jesus, Saint Ignatius Trust – is based in Chicago. “They have no ties to this neighborhood,” he said. “They transfer people in and out of Ann Arbor as they see fit.” The city has no way to monitor the number of people living there, or the temporary nature of their residency, he said.

Regarding property values, Clark said that several real estate professionals and attorneys have told residents that it would negatively affect property values. “Some recent studies have shown that property values are affected by as much as 24% when inconsistent groups have moved into the neighborhood,” he said. Clark urged commissioners to reject the request.

Marie Quinlan supported the request, saying she’s known the Jesuits for 10 years as a member of the St. Mary Student Parish. She was surprised to learn about the opposition to this request. Quinlan described how she got to know the priests when she and her son were on a walk and saw Father Dan Reim watering his yard on Ferdon. The Jesuits’ home looks just like other homes in that neighborhood. It’s a blessing to know them and share a neighborhood with them, she said. Quinlan noted that previous speakers had expressed anger at how the Catholic church handled the sexual abuse of children by priests. “Believe me, I share that anger, and I know that the Jesuits are equally appalled. But no amount of anger can justify punishing those who have not and would never commit such crimes,” she said. It would be discriminatory and unfair, Quinlan added, saying “I ask that you not make a determination based on fear.”

Karla Goldman reported that the current owners of 1919 Wayne usually had three cars parked on the street, and there were no parking problems with that. If the adjacent church parking lot is available, she didn’t think there would be an impact on street parking. She said she’s not a member of the Catholic church, but she knows about the contribution that the parish makes to this community. She supported the Jesuits’ request.

Carl Babock told commissioners that he’s a builder in town, and had sold the house on Ferdon to the Jesuits 10 years ago. He listed several other homes in the neighborhood that he’s renovated and sold. After he sold the home to the Jesuits, he sold nearby homes on Baldwin for about $1.2 million each. He thought it was a silly argument to say that property values would decline. He said he knows the Jesuits personally, calling them a group of wonderful people. He thought they would be a wonderful addition to the Oxbridge neighborhood.

Elizabeth Shadigian lives across from 1919 Wayne and opposes the special exception use.

Elizabeth Shadigian, who also submitted a letter to the planning commission, has lived at 1916 Wayne Street for 20 years, across the street from 1919 Wayne. [.pdf of Shadigian letter] She told commissioners that she loves her neighborhood and is Catholic, but she’s firmly against the request. Granting the special exception use would be the equivalent of gender housing discrimination, she said. If the owners wanted to sell the house to people who met the requirements for a special exception use but who discriminated against Germans or against black people or against blind people or LGBT people, she and her husband would be opposed to it. So if the owners want to sell to people who discriminate against women, she and many of her colleagues are also opposed to that, Shadigian said. How can Ann Arbor, which appreciates diversity and civil rights, allow discrimination against women? Gender discrimination is in the Catholic church, in the Society of Jesus, “and it’s right here in front of you,” she said. She urged commissioners to talk to the city’s attorneys and look at the request in more detail than they have so far.

David Emerson said he didn’t think the issue was about ideology in any way. It’s about zoning laws, why they were instituted, and why they should be upheld. He thinks “these are probably fine gentlemen,” but they are not family and are not permanent. They call themselves brothers, Emerson said, but so do all the fraternities. Many of the supporters of the request are affiliated with the church, he noted, which he thought should raise questions about whether they’re biased.

Ann Shields lives close to 1919 Wayne, but said her concerns go beyond just this neighborhood. It’s difficult to understand why the Jesuits qualify as a functional family, she said, because it’s not a permanent arrangement. This isn’t a personal issue, she said, but the Jesuits aren’t a family for the purposes of getting a special exception use – and that’s what she encouraged commissioners to consider. If they approve this request, it could open the door for many other groups to make similar requests and establish group living situations in single-family residential area, which would change the character of those neighborhoods.

Andrea Van Houweling said she knew Jesuits would be wonderful neighbors, but they are a society – and the city’s zoning code states that a functional family can’t be a society, she noted. The Jesuits are saying that they aren’t a social society, she added, but they are a society. If the city approves this request, then why wouldn’t a fraternity be able to get a special exception use? She’s concerned that the zoning code won’t be enforced. [.pdf of Van Houweling letter]

Cevin Taylor, an attorney representing the Jesuits who are seeking a special exception use to live at 1919 Wayne Street.

Masoud Kamali noted that he is married to a previous speaker, Elizabeth Kamali, and he also supported the request. Not everyone who supports it is Catholic, he added – he was born Muslim, and isn’t Catholic. He said he’s from Iran, describing it as a country that’s portrayed negatively by many. He’s very aware of being discriminated against because of association.

The attorney representing the Jesuits, Cevin Taylor, added verbal remarks to supplement the letter he submitted to the commission. [.pdf of Taylor letter] He thanked the planning staff for the professional way that they’ve handled this process. He and the Jesuits have heard the neighbors’ concerns and will do their best to take those concerns into account. He noted that many issues have been raised, but the planning commission’s task is to determine if the request meets the zoning code requirements. The code states that the requirements must be “substantially” met, he noted, so there’s some leeway.

Taylor also argued that a functional family shouldn’t be held to a higher standard than a biological family. In a biological family, a father might need to move to another city for a year for work reasons, Taylor said. Death, divorce, remarriage, the birth or adoption of children – all of these changes might happen in a traditional family. Regarding the word “society” in the “Society of Jesus,” the zoning ordinance doesn’t exclude any entity that has a legal name using that word, he said. Regarding the word “generally” that was used in the Jesuits’ request, Taylor said he takes blame for that. The application states that residents “will generally be members of the religious order that serve at St. Mary’s Student Parish…and/or will be pursuing degrees at the University of Michigan or other local institutions.” He said they will all be members of the order – one student, with the others serving at the parish. He concluded by asking commissioners to approve the application.

The final speaker was Ellen Ramsburgh, who serves on the city’s historic district commission. She said the objection isn’t to who is applying. Rather, it’s that the request would be granted to a group that is not a functional family. The group could find housing in several other zoning districts, she noted. The planning staff’s description of the Jesuits’ living arrangement also describes any of the co-ops that are run by the Inter-Cooperative Council, she said. Those are located in districts that allow this type of living arrangement. She also noted that the relationship among members of the Jesuits’ house is impermanent and subject to assignments from the head of the Society of Jesus. The bond is not to the family unit, but to the organization. Within a biological family, there are usually contractual or legal agreements, she added, like a marriage certificate. Those contractual agreements don’t exist in the case of the Jesuits, she concluded.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion

Planning commission chair Kirk Westphal began the discussion by thanking speakers who commented during the public hearing, saying that commissioners depend greatly on their input. However, he added, the commission’s purpose is to look at petitions as they relate to city code.

The initial discussion lasted more than an hour, followed by a vote. At the end of the meeting – around midnight – commissioners took up the issue again, and ultimately postponed action.

This report summarizes and organizes the deliberations thematically.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion – Legal Issues

Responding to a query from Kirk Westphal, planning manager Wendy Rampson explained that she’d been involved in developing the city code related to the “functional family” designation. The case of Delta Charter Township v. Dinolfo resulted from a violation of the township’s limit on the number of unrelated individuals who could live in a house. The Delta case involved a family plus six unrelated individuals of a religious organization who challenged that zoning limitation, Rampson explained. Ultimately, the Michigan Supreme Court heard the case and ruled that all communities must make accommodations for non-traditional families.

Planning commissioner Ken Clein.

The term used to refer to these kinds of situations was “functional family,” she said. That term was adopted as part of the city of Ann Arbor’s code, as well as for other municipalities nationwide. In the mid-1990s, the city of Ann Arbor’s code was challenged in a case that went to the state court of appeals, which upheld the city code, she said. But there have not been any formal applications for the functional family designation until this one, she said. It was adopted into city code in 1991.

Ken Clein quipped that if it’s been almost 25 years with only one request, “there’s not a mad rush at this point.”

Jeremy Peters asked if granting this special exception use would set any kind of legal precedent for future, if other groups – religious or not – want to apply. City planner Alexis DiLeo replied that she didn’t think so. Each petitioner would have to state their case to the planning commission, she added. By their nature, special exception uses aren’t appropriate everywhere.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion – Functional Family

Diane Giannola asked if the request was for six specific individuals, or for any Jesuit. Alexis DiLeo replied that it would allow any member of the USA Midwest Province of the Society of Jesus to live at that location. Giannola wondered if there was any stipulation about requiring members to live there for a certain period. There’s no durational requirement, DiLeo said.

DiLeo also clarified for Giannola that the special exception use (SEU) is attached to the address, not to the property owner. If the SEU is granted, it would apply as long as the residents meet the criteria of the SEU – for example, as long as the residents are Jesuits. The SEU lapses after two years, if its requirements aren’t met.

Giannola wondered how this would be different from a fraternity or sorority. DiLeo cautioned that she wasn’t as familiar with fraternities or sororities, but her understanding is that members reside in a house for one to four or five years while in school. They don’t make medical decisions for each other, or pool their income, or share their material possessions. If something happens, they’d probably call their parents, she said. DiLeo said her assumption is that co-housing works in a similar way. An SEU is made on a case-by-case basis, she noted.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

Jeremy Peters asked how this functional family designation might apply to a same-sex couple with more than two adopted kids, who under Michigan law might be technically unrelated. DiLeo said it would likely be a strong case for the functional family designation. If people like that apply, their request would be evaluated based on the ties that bind them together, she said.

Ken Clein asked whether the city attorney’s office was in agreement with the planning staff’s assessment of the functional family designation in this case. DiLeo said the planning staff as a whole discussed it, and discussed it with the city attorney’s office. The city attorney’s staff knows that planning staff is recommending approval of the SEU, “and did not find any reason to object or advise us otherwise,” she said.

Clein clarified again that if the Jesuits moved out of that house, the SEU would no longer apply and any other group would have to seek a new SEU. Yes, DiLeo said – if a different family type moved in that needed an SEU, then they would have to apply for it. The SEU doesn’t transfer to a different address or to a different family type.

Bonnie Bona pointed out that if an individual member of the Jesuit community purchased the house from the Society of Jesus, the SEU would remain in effect. DiLeo again noted that the SEU is not tied to the owner – it’s tied to the family type that’s granted the SEU.

Bona also wanted to know what options were available for six unrelated people to live, regardless of whether they were considered a functional family. DiLeo replied that the options would be to live in residences located in any R4 zoning district or in the downtown districts, zoned D1 or D2.

The city code has three residential occupancy options, DiLeo explained: (1) the functional family designation; (2) a traditional family of any size; or (3) four unrelated residents, or up to six residents in R4 districts. If there are seven unrelated residents, their only option is to seek a functional family designation, she said.

DiLeo noted that these “residential occupancy” options – outlined in Chapter 55, Section 7 of the city code – do not apply to “rooming or boarding houses, fraternity or sorority houses, student cooperatives, emergency shelters, or convalescent homes.” Those types of arrangements are allowed as special exception uses in the R2B and R4 districts.

Kirk Westphal cautioned against using the rationale that there are other places the Jesuits could live as a reason for making the planning commission’s decision.

Eleanore Adenekan asked about the word “society” in the group’s name. When the planning staff and city attorney’s office reviewed this application, what did they think about that word, given that a functional family can’t be a “social society.” DiLeo replied that the Society of Jesus is a religious order.

Planning commissioner Eleanore Adenekan.

Peters asked about the Jesuits’ commitment to each other, outside of their commitment to the religious order. Dan Reim, who would be the head of household, said there’s a long training period, when they learn a particular spirituality within the Catholic church. It focuses how they live their life, and what their mission is. All of that they share in common, he said, and their religion is lived out on a daily basis through their life together. They take vows of poverty, he said – that’s why they don’t own their own cars or homes. All salaries come into a common pot, he said, and expenses are shared.

Bona thanked them for coming forward, and for facing some harsh criticism. “I think we would all feel unfairly treated if we became suddenly responsible for every one of our distant relatives’ mistakes,” she said, referring to criticism of the Catholic church.

Bona noted that all families face conflicts, and wondered how the Jesuits dealt with that. Communication is key, Reim replied. They are focused on helping improve people’s lives. From a faith perspective, “we believe that’s through our encounter with Christ,” he said. By sharing and practicing their faith together, talking to each other and praying together, that works pretty well. He said they struggle like everyone else.

Bona said she was trying to get at the issue of family and permanence. In a co-op, if you didn’t get along with others, you could just move out. Reim replied that the Jesuits take a vow of obedience to the next-highest person in the religious order. That person is responsible for assigning you to wherever you might go. That vow means they don’t get to choose where they go or what they do, Reim explained. You have the option of leaving the order, he added, but he thought their vows encourage them to work harder on sorting things out.

Adenekan asked about their daily routine. Reim said they work morning until evening, with their most intense work at the parish occurring on weekends. Each person is assigned a day off during the week. There are other Jesuits who might visit them and stay at the house for short periods. Biological family members might also visit, he said.

Adenekan clarified with Reim that if one Jesuit brother moves out, another brother would come to take a similar role within the household. She likened it to a divorce and remarriage within a traditional household. In response to another query, Reim said he’s the official patient advocate for Ben Hawley, and Hawley is the patient advocate for Reim. That’s an important distinction between the Jesuits and a co-op housing arrangement, he said. Regarding the pooling of resources, when purchases need to be made, the brothers discuss it and reach a consensus, he said.

Adenekan wondered if the graduate student who’d be living there would be moving on after his studies. Reim said the student might move, or might stay and continue working at the parish. If the student moves, another student might come, he added – depending on if there’s a Jesuit who gets accepted into a university graduate program. Or another Jesuit who’s doing ministry at the parish might live there. In general, there won’t be more than six Jesuits living there, he said, and maybe less than five.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion – Neighborhood Impact

Kirk Westphal asked staff to respond to concerns about the stability of the neighborhood and turnover.

City planner Alexis DiLeo.

Alexis DiLeo replied that the neighborhood is predominantly owner-occupied, single-family homes of traditional families. There aren’t many rental properties or student rentals. A family of any size or four unrelated people could live at 1919 Wayne without a special exception use. There would be no requirements about the type of unrelated people who could live there – that is, residents could be four unrelated students. The city doesn’t regulate the number of cars that residents own, she noted, but there is a residential parking permit program in that neighborhood. Any household is entitled to a total of five permits.

Responding to a query from Westphal, DiLeo said the functional family designation falls under the residential occupancy section of the zoning code. That section talks about types of family arrangements and number of people. It doesn’t talk about gender, age or other characteristics. Individual or family roles are not regulated for traditional biological families, she noted. So if a functional family designation is approved, there can be different types of individuals within that family.

Responding to a query from Westphal, DiLeo explained that the planning commission could add conditions to the special exception use. Those conditions might relate to the number of parking spaces, the number of people allowed to live there, or other issues, she said.

Jeremy Peters wondered if putting restrictions on residents – like student status, gender, or age – would violate federal fair housing laws. Planning manager Wendy Rampson indicated that the staff couldn’t answer that legal question on the fly. The point of a “functional family” designation was to allow for types of living arrangements that have traditionally been kept out of single-family neighborhoods, she said. Peters noted that density would increase only by two people, compared to the four unrelated people that would be allowed to live there otherwise.

Wendy Woods asked about the issue of property values. DiLeo suggested that residents could contact a realtor or property appraiser to ask about property values. The city code does speak to the need to preserve property values, she said. But as a functional family, in the eyes of the city they would be a single-family household. She’s certain that there are six-person traditional, biological families in that neighborhood, so she didn’t think it was an unreasonable size. Other special exception uses allowed in that neighborhood are churches and childcare centers. Types of uses that are considered inappropriate for single-family neighborhoods include restaurants or a home business that’s out of character with the neighborhood.

Given the location, DiLeo didn’t think a six-person “functional family” household was out of character with the neighborhood.

Westphal asked about the experience of other communities with this type of designation, and how it worked. DiLeo didn’t have information about specific experiences, but said she’d surveyed other communities’ code. Some have definitions that are almost identical to Ann Arbor’s, while others include the phrase “religious order” explicitly as a type of functional family.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion – Parking

Kirk Westphal raised the possibility of requiring that more than two of the six cars should be parked at the adjacent church lot. Alexis DiLeo said she took the Jesuits at their word when they said they would be parking two cars in the garage and two cars in the driveway. The cars aren’t assigned to specific individuals, she noted – keys are kept in a bowl, and the person who needs to leave takes the first car at the end of the driveway. She said they indicated that they drive smaller vehicles.

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters.

Ken Clein noted that the Jesuits have lived on Ferdon for about 10 years. He wondered if the city had any complaints about parking at that location. Dan Reim, the head of household for the Jesuits, said they’ve have no complaints. He noted that the homeowner next to them asked that they not park in front of that home, and they’ve complied with that.

Eleanore Adenekan confirmed that because of the system the Jesuits use – not owning individual cars – they don’t have to deal with moving cars. They just take the one that’s most convenient to use. She asked if there would be any meetings there, or gatherings for ministry. No, Reim replied.

Jeremy Peters asked why the Jesuits had chosen this house, rather than a house located in areas that wouldn’t require a special exception use. Reim said they like their current house on Ferdon and wouldn’t leave, but it has only four bedrooms and a small guest room. They’ve outgrown it. The house on Wayne fits their lifestyle, he said. There aren’t many seven-bedroom houses, he noted, and they’ve been looking for quite some time. The bedrooms are an appropriate size.

Reim again apologized, saying he had no idea it would become such a big issue and take up so much of people’s time.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion – Zoning Board of Appeals

Jeremy Peters asked staff to clarify why the special exception use request was being handled by the planning commission, not the zoning board of appeals. He noted that the question had been raised during the public hearing.

Alexis DiLeo replied that the city code is clear – the planning commission is the entity that determines whether a group is a functional family, and also is the entity that approves special exception uses.

Bonnie Bona asked if the ZBA has any role to play if the planning commission rejects this request. Wendy Rampson said the next step would be for someone to take the issue to circuit court. There’s been some case law in Michigan that encourages all administrative remedies to be pursued before taking it to court, she said. Some courts have held that to mean taking the issue to the ZBA, even though the ZBA has no jurisdiction. Rampson said she couldn’t say definitively that the issue couldn’t be brought to the ZBA, but in the normal course of action the next step would be circuit court.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion – Enforcement

Bonnie Bona asked planning staff to explain what should be done if someone is violating the city code. Wendy Rampson confirmed that enforcement is complaint-driven. It’s very difficult in court to prove over-occupancy, because it’s the city’s word against that of the residents, she said. Enforcement for over-occupancy primarily takes place through the city’s rental housing inspection program. She’s heard there’s a concern about over-occupancy at the Vitosha Guest Haus Inn – saying that it might be that neighbors have contacted community standards about parking but planning staff haven’t been contacted about zoning issues there.

The approach would be to meet with the property owner and give them time to make corrections, she said. If they don’t, the city can write tickets for civil infractions – but then it’s up to the court. So the staff has tools, she said, but they’re not the easiest tools to administer.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion – Conclusions

Diane Giannola said that this arrangement doesn’t seem like a functional family to her. It’s more of a cross between a fraternity and co-op. Members of fraternities and sororities have bonds for life, she said – they feel like family, but live in a larger group housing. A co-op lives more like a family, but it’s more temporary, she said. Because the special exception use applies to an entire religious group – and not six specific individuals – Giannola couldn’t think of it as a functional family.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

She could see awarding the group a special exception use if there were no place else in the city. But many other zoning districts allow for six unrelated people to live.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson clarified that the code refers to functional family types, not individuals. It was clear when consulting with the city attorney’s office that the code does not require specific individuals to be designated a functional family. Giannola said there’s too much transiency, because in this case the SEU would apply to an entire religious order.

Kirk Westphal asked if there would be any way to put legal requirements on the term of residency, to regulate the transiency. Alexis DiLeo said she hadn’t seen any examples of that in other communities, and she’d need to consult with the city attorney’s office. Rampson added that it’s a very difficult question, and the federal fair housing and civil rights laws might play into it. The planning staff hadn’t explored this particular issue in depth, and they couldn’t provide an answer that evening.

Ken Clein said he respectfully disagreed with Giannola. It seems that the commission is bordering on holding the Jesuits to a higher standard than a six-member traditional family. It could quickly lead to a sense of discriminating against people like this, he said. In traditional families, there are divorces, and people leave home. To say that a traditional family is permanent might be overstated, he thought. This request meets his understanding of a functional family designation.

Regarding impact on the neighborhood, Clein didn’t think there’s any solid evidence that property values would be negatively impacted. The church next to the house probably has more impact than this group would. It’s important to handle the parking so that it won’t impact other residents, but he didn’t think it would be detrimental to the neighborhood.

Eleanore Adenekan agreed with Clein. As a realtor, she evaluates houses based on the condition of the house and the neighborhood, not on who lives there or how long they’ve lived there. Her daughter previously lived in that neighborhood, she said, and it’s a residential, family-friendly area. These Jesuits aren’t teenagers, she added. They know how to maintain a home, and she’s supporting their request. She said she’s listened to concerns and has empathy for that, but noted that the Jesuits are committed. Their vows won’t result in a transient lifestyle, she said. She reported that her son attended a Jesuit school in New York City, so she’s familiar with that order.

Planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Wendy Woods also was supportive of the request, saying it met the definition of a functional family. The main difference is that for the Jesuits, there will be a cap on the number of people living there. A traditional family doesn’t have that same constraint. She hoped that if it was approved, there would be community healing. There were some unfortunate comments during the public hearing, she noted. Woods also noted that there had been some concern about students living there, but she cautioned against making generalizations about students.

Bonnie Bona said she’d been through the same “mental gyrations” that other commissioners have gone through, taking all the comments to heart. Her view is that the definition of functional family is the Ann Arbor Jesuit community, which is listed as the family type on the SEU resolution. Like a traditional family, members will come and go. She didn’t share Giannola’s concern. Bona felt very comfortable with the group of Jesuits, and with the idea that this SEU doesn’t set a precedent. Future requests will also be based on the city’s standards and criteria, not on precedent. She thought the Jesuits could be strong neighbors.

Westphal didn’t know if this would set a precedent if any other religious group came forward with a similar request. Legal documents like health care proxies give him comfort with this particular group functioning as a permanent unit, but is that something that other religious orders have? He said he was struggling with these issues, even though he was comfortable with this particular group.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion – Initial Motion to Postpone

Kirk Westphal pointed out that this was the first time the commission had dealt with this functional family issue, and he wanted more time to research the experiences of other communities and to further consult with the city attorney’s office. He wanted to get more “comfort with making sure this fits everybody’s expectation with what we’ve agreed to hold ourselves to with the master plan and the stability of neighborhoods.” He said he felt ill-prepared to make a determination.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the planning commission.

Jeremy Peters observed that one of the main concerns is permanence. He didn’t know if language could be crafted in the SEU to deal with that, or if that would be exclusionary under federal fair housing laws.

Peters moved to postpone the item to get more information from the city attorney’s office with regard to possible restrictions on turnover of residents, and other legal issues.

Westphal asked staff how long it might take to have discussions with the city attorney’s office. “Years and years,” DiLeo quipped. [The city attorney's office generally has a reputation for taking a long time to deal with requests.] She said they could start the next day, and with the goal of bringing something forward at the commission’s June 17 meeting.

Bonnie Bona supported postponement, “so when we do vote, we’re all comfortable.”

Wendy Woods wondered what postponement would do to the Jesuits’ plans to buy the house. Dan Reim reported that the Jesuits have committed a certain amount of money, which they’d lose if they withdrew the offer or couldn’t move ahead with the deal. They have a sales contract on the house, which is listed at $795,000.

When asked to weigh in, the property’s current owner, Steffen Urbaniak, said he wasn’t going to make a decision on the spot that night. He wasn’t clear about the commission’s decision-making process, and wanted to take some time to consider what it means for him and his wife. They’d had this offer for quite some time, and are planning to move to China on July 1. They don’t have other offers at this time.

Woods pointed out that the commission’s decisions have consequences. She wasn’t in favor of postponing. Eleanore Adenekan also opposed postponement, though she noted that the sales contract could be extended if both parties agree.

Ken Clein also weighed in against postponing, noting that the city attorney’s office has already reviewed the information prepared by the planning staff and didn’t have any problem with it. He thought a postponement might be the equivalent of a vote against it, because it could possibly kill the real estate deal.

Steffen Urbaniak, current owner of 1919 Wayne St.

Clein clarified with planning staff that six votes would be required to pass the special exception use.

Bona said if it’s postponed, she’d like to see it at the next planning commission meeting on June 17.

DiLeo again stressed that the planning staff worked one-on-one with the city attorney’s office in crafting the language of the special exception use resolution. It’s very specific to this particular situation, and she noted that the resolution is significantly longer than most resolutions. “I don’t know how much more the city attorney’s office even has to offer, relative to precedent-setting,” she said. She added that she could work with the attorney’s office regarding what kind of additional conditions might be included, beyond the current resolution.

DiLeo said it would help if Westphal could clarify exactly what he’d like to see as conditions. “Going to the city attorney’s office with open-ended questions, you don’t get the level of specificity that I think you might be looking for,” she explained.

Westphal replied that he was interested in restrictions that might address the degree of turnover among residents. He also wanted time for the Jesuits to meet with the Oxbridge Neighborhood Association.

Peters said he opposed postponement. He explained that he had moved to postpone becuase Westphal, as chair, couldn’t make the motion. Peters had wanted Westphal’s concerns to be discussed.

Outcome on initial vote to postpone: It failed on a 3-4 vote, with support from Kirk Westphal, Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion – Additional Comments

Wendy Woods noted that the decision on the special exception use does not require city council approval. She confirmed that there would also be no recourse to take this item to the zoning board of appeals.

Outcome on granting the special exception use: It needed six votes to pass, and failed on a 5-2 vote over dissent from Kirk Westphal and Diane Giannola.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Reconsideration

At the end of the meeting around midnight, during the agenda item for commission proposed business, Jeremy Peters said it might be worth looking at the bylaws regarding special exception use – especially considering that not all members of the planning commission were present for the vote. [Sabra Briere and Paras Parekh were absent.]

Planning commission chair Kirk Westphal noted that the commission did have the ability to take up items for reconsideration. “I sensed there was some degree of surprise with the vote,” he said.

Diane Giannola pointed out at an item can only be brought back for reconsideration by someone who voted on the prevailing side. In this case, that meant only she or Westphal could bring it back.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson read from the relevant section of the commission’s bylaws:

Section 12. After a motion has been decided, any member voting with the prevailing side may move for reconsideration of the motion at the same or the next regular meeting. No motion may be reconsidered more than once.

Bonnie Bona said she likes the fact that planning commissioners tend to vote their conscience, rather than taking a straw vote or negotiating votes, which she said feels like a political process. So it’s appropriate that they voted, and then can reconsider it if that’s what is desired.

Westphal noted that it’s rare to have two commissioners absent. He indicated interest in reconsideration. Saying that it was late – about midnight – Giannola proposed waiting two weeks until the June 17 meeting. It could be reconsidered at that time.

Bona thought the commission should act sooner, or the Jesuits might lose their sales contract for the property. Giannola pointed out that four people could live there without a special exception use – just not more. Westphal noted that the whole point of buying the house was that it would accommodate more people.

There was some discussion about another section of their bylaws, regarding acting on agenda items after 11 p.m. From the bylaws:

Article VII: Section 2. No agenda item will be taken up by the Commission after 11:00 p.m., except by the consent of five (5) Commission members present. In those cases where agenda items are not completed, they will be put forward to the next regular meeting of the Commission and placed first on the agenda.

For the previous hour, commissioners had followed this rule for other items on their agenda. Wendy Rampson noted that their current discussion was not actually an item on the agenda, but Bona wanted to go through the process so that there’d be no question that the vote to reconsider was official.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to extend the meeting to consider this item.

Westphal asked Giannola if she wanted to make a motion to reconsider. She did not. So Westphal then moved to reconsider the special exception use item for the house on 1919 Wayne St. He said even though waiting two weeks might jeopardize the sales contract, it benefited the community to have a more thorough discussion.

Ken Clein then moved to postpone the reconsideration. Rampson pointed out that commissioners hadn’t yet voted on the motion to reconsider. Clein withdrew his motion.

Outcome: Commissioners passed the motion to reconsider, over dissent from Diane Giannola.

Rampson reported that her computer had just stopped working. It was about 12:10 a.m.

Planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Jeremy Peters.

Peters moved to postpone until the June 17 meeting.

Rampson said that the planning staff would notify people who attended the meeting about the commission’s decision. She asked if commissioners wanted to re-open the public hearing.

Giannola supported re-opening the public hearing, “since nobody’s here right now to see what we’re doing.” [Other than commissioners, planning staff and The Chronicle, no other people were at the meeting at this point.]

Westphal commented that it’s possible the planning commission would add conditions to the special exception use, which might change how some residents feel about it.

Bona also supported re-opening the public hearing. She asked Rampson to encourage the Jesuits and the Oxbridge Neighborhood Association to meet before the June 17 planning commission meeting, to try to address some of the residents’ concerns.

Westphal hoped to get some guidance from the city attorney’s office before June 17. Rampson said an updated staff report can be provided. It would be available online by the end of the day on Friday, June 13, as part of the June 17 meeting packet.

Westphal suggested that the Jesuits and neighborhood association could meet sometime after the updated staff report is available, but before June 17. Bona didn’t think that adding a bit of legal information would change the dynamic between the Jesuits and the neighbors. She cautioned against constraining when those groups should meet.

Woods agreed with Bona. She wondered if someone from the city attorney’s office could attend the June 17 meeting. Rampson said she’d ask, but typically the city attorney’s staff are reluctant weigh in at meetings, other than on questions of fact.

Westphal clarified with Rampson that a simple majority was required to pass a motion to postpone.

Outcome: On a 6-1 vote, commissioners postponed the item until June 17, over dissent from Diane Giannola.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: June 17 Meeting

After the vote, two commissioners who supported the request – Jeremy Peters and Eleanore Adenekan – indicated that they will be absent, and another supporter, Ken Clein, said he might also be unable to attend. So it’s possible that there will only be six commissioners at that meeting – which means all commissioners would need to vote yes in order for it to pass.

On Friday, June 13, the planning staff posted a revised staff report on this item, incorporating responses based on the June 3 discussion. The staff continues to recommend approval of this request. [.pdf of June 17 staff report]

North Maple Public Housing

Planning commissioners were asked to recommend approval of rezoning a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). Commissioners 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.

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. [.pdf of staff memo]

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. Planning staff recommended postponement on that specific action so that the request to vacate a portion of Seybold Drive’s right-of-way can be given proper public notice.

In general, the postponement on the North Maple Estates reconstruction was recommended to allow time to address several outstanding issues related to the project, and to draft a development agreement.

Rendering of proposed Ann Arbor housing commission project at 701 N. Maple.

Proposed layout of the Ann Arbor housing commission’s development on North Maple.

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.

At that May 6 meeting, planning commissioners recommended rezoning for three AAHC properties: (1) Baker Commons, at the southeast corner of Main and Packard, from public land to D2 (downtown interface); (2) Green/Baxter Court Apartments, at the northwest corner of Green and Baxter roads, from public land to R4A (multi-family dwelling district); and (3) Maple Meadows at 800-890 S. Maple, from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The rezoning for those sites was subsequently given initial approval by city council at its meeting on June 2, with a final vote expected later this month.

North Maple Public Housing: Public Hearing

During the project’s public hearing on June 3, four neighbors voiced a variety of concerns about the proposal, including traffic related to the new curbcut on Dexter Avenue, increased density, and security.

Laura Fisher spoke during a public hearing on the North Maple Estates project.

Laura Fisher told commissioners that she wasn’t concerned about the project in general, but she did have concerns about the proposed curbcut onto Dexter Avenue. At that spot, Dexter Avenue narrows from five lanes to two. She lives near the intersection of Dexter and Valley Drive, across from the proposed curbcut. A lot of people turn left from Dexter into Valley Drive, she said, so that’s another issue, and a lot more study needs to be done regarding traffic.

Fisher also noted that the foot and bicycle traffic has increased in that area over the past 10 years, especially after the opening of Plum Market and Aldi at the corner of Maple and Dexter. People walk along Dexter Avenue to get there, and they walk in the road because there’s no sidewalk. Currently, people from North Maple Estates also cross Dexter Avenue without using the light at Maple. The staff report about the North Maple Estates didn’t address these issues, she said.

Joyce Garrett lives on Allison Drive, directly west of North Maple Estates. She said there were several residents who were not notified of the February citizens participation meeting about this project. It appears that there will be a lot more people living on that site, she noted, and that all the buildings will be significantly closer to the property lines. She was concerned about the impact of construction, and about what kind of fence or other barrier would be put up to prevent people from crossing into her property. Now, a lot of people cut through her yard. There’s also a bright light on the back of the community center that shines into the back of her house. She hoped things like that would be changed. She also thought the city’s sanitary sewer line runs along her back fence, and she wondered if that would be excavated.

George Dentel also lives on Allison Drive. He wondered why the residents who are most affected by this planning commission meeting – the people currently living in North Maple Estates – weren’t notified about it. He’s talked with them and they were shocked, he said. The current homes there have neat yards and playgrounds. “We’ve been living peacefully with this development for 25 or 30 years or more,” he said. Dentel didn’t understand the motivation for this project. Was it financial? “It certainly can’t be for the benefit of residents,” he said. He wanted to know if there are legal measures that residents can take to oppose the project. Most of the people who live on Allison and Hollywood oppose this project, he concluded.

Another Allison resident, Mike Kvicala, told commissioners that his house is directly behind the basketball court. He referred to the staff memo’s mention of “conflicting land use,” and asked for an explanation. His understanding was that the project would cut down the trees and scrub, and he wanted clarification of that. The biggest concern of most nearby residents is the density, he said, which will double. He wondered why there were five-bedroom units. He said he’s seen news items about immigrants “stuffing grandma and uncles and aunts” into apartments.

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

Another concern is building materials, like using vinyl, and he wondered how it would be maintained. The housing commission historically has done a poor job of maintaining its properties, he said, with a “revolving door” of administrators. He disagreed with a previous speaker who said there hadn’t been problems with North Maple Estates. He said he’s rebuilt his fence twice after kids have knocked it down, and he’s had outbuildings destroyed. “I’m constantly having police actions, so I’m concerned about security.” With increased density, there will potentially be more problems, he said.

Three representatives of the housing commission and project team spoke during the hearing, and were on hand to answer questions. AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall told commissioners that there’s been a lot of deferred maintenance, and that’s why AAHC has taken on this overhaul of its properties. Some just need rehab, but “this particular site is not one of them” – it needs to be rebuilt.

The houses at North Maple Estates have problems with their original construction and site design, Hall said. Eight of the 20 units are located at the lowest part of the site and have problems with water infiltration. So demolishing the houses and building new units will be better for residents as well as for the surrounding neighborhood. She said there was an opportunity to increase affordable housing on the site. Currently there are 10 four-bedroom houses and 10 five-bedroom houses. The proposed site plan would have more units with fewer bedrooms, so there’s more of a mix, Hall noted.

Scott Betzel of Midwestern Consulting spoke next. He’s the project’s civil engineer. The site presents an opportunity to increase density, be connected to public transportation, and use the land in a better way than it currently is, he said. The units will be new, modern and efficient. They will be ADA compliant and alleviate flooding problems. A key feature will be stormwater management – there isn’t any on the existing site, he noted.

Regarding the new curbcut onto Dexter Avenue, Betzel reported that it was examined by the city’s traffic engineer, who thought it was safe. A new sidewalk will be added to connect with an existing sidewalk at the corner of Dexter and Maple. Regarding landscaping, he said the conflicting land use buffer is required to be a minimum of 15 feet, but it will be more than that between the adjacent residential properties to the west. The large trees will be preserved, and more evergreen trees will be added. He thought it would be a benefit to the neighborhood and to AAHC residents.

Architect John Mouat.

Architect John Mouat of the Ann Arbor firm Mitchell & Mouat began by noting that the color of the buildings as shown in the meeting packet will be different – not the olive green that’s on the rendering. He described how the apartments will be distributed in eight buildings so there won’t be one big building. The smaller units are located near the community building, while the larger units, which are intended for larger families, are closer to the playground. He noted that the site includes about a 20-foot drop from one side to the other, and a major goal for this project is to put the buildings on higher ground. The buildings will also have fairly large porches, he said, and there won’t be patios in the back. They’re trying to create a secure, friendly environment, Mouat concluded.

Hall wrapped up the commentary by adding that this project will include a community center so that AAHC will have on-site property management, which is not part of the existing complex.

North Maple Public Housing: Commission Discussion

Before discussion began, planning commissioner Wendy Woods announced that her husband, Ronald Woods, served on the housing commission board. Ronald Woods attended the June 3 meeting, but did not formally address the board. She said she personally did not benefit from the project, but would be willing to recuse herself if any planning commissioners objected. No one did.

Before the vote to postpone, discussion lasted about 35 minutes. Most of the commissioners’ questions related to issues that were raised during the public hearing.

North Maple Public Housing: Commission Discussion – Fencing, Landscaping

Diane Giannola asked about the fencing. AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall replied that the current fencing is probably inadequate in every housing commission site. It will be replaced, she said, and they can keep an eye on that to make sure it’s not torn down. Having an on-site property manager will make that easier to do.

Scott Betzel of Midwestern Consulting.

Giannola wondered if it would be possible to build a six-foot-high wood fence around the site. Hall replied that she wasn’t sure AAHC owned the fencing, but they’ll look into it. The type of replacement fencing will depend on cost. “We can only do what we have enough money to do,” Hall said.

Bonnie Bona asked staff to give an explanation of requirements for the conflicting land use buffer. City planner Alexis DiLeo explained that a buffer is required when there are different types of adjacent land uses – in this case, single-family sites abutting a proposed multi-family development. The buffer must be at least 15-feet wide, with a designated number of trees. There must also be either a hedge, berm or wall. For this project, a hedge will be used. Existing plants can be used to meet part of the requirement, DiLeo noted.

Bona said that in previous projects, construction trucks have pressed down the soil, which later causes new plants to grow very slowly. She wondered whether construction equipment can be kept away from the buffer area. Scott Betzel of Midwestern Consulting noted that on this site, the buffer will be at the bottom of a slope, so the land there likely won’t be compacted. They’ll be planting 86 trees in the buffer along the west side and 107 bushes.

Responding to another query from Bona, Betzel said a large number of trees will stay in place at the north half of the site, as well as on the southern quarter. Those are where the highest-quality of existing trees are located, he said. They’ve tried to save as much of the trees and hedgerow as possible, he added.

North Maple Public Housing: Commission Discussion – Infrastructure

Responding to a resident’s concern about the sewer line, Scott Betzel said the closest sewer line appears to be about 30 feet away from any fence.

Bonnie Bona asked about plans for lighting on the site. Alexis DiLeo reported that a photometric plan showed that no light would spill onto adjacent properties, and the pole fixtures are all “dark-sky friendly,” which have shields and downward-directed light. That compares to the current “wall pack” lighting that includes visible fixtures and bulbs. Bona said she lives near a city streetlight that’s “pretty obnoxious.” She wanted to make sure that the lamp itself is shielded on the bottom.

Ron Woods, president of the Ann Arbor housing commission’s board.

Betzel said no wall packs are proposed for this site. He wasn’t sure how tall the lights would be. Bona noted that it’s an important issue, especially since the site’s density will be increased. “When we’re asking the neighbors to live with more, I think we have to give them more,” she said.

Regarding the neighbor’s complaint about the community center light, Jennifer Hall said she’d be happy to remove it now. The proposed new lighting would all be on the street – no lighting would be placed in back of the buildings. So there would be no lights near the surrounding neighborhood, she said.

Bona also asked about sidewalks within the site, next to where cars will be parked. She said she’s always concerned about the overhang of a vehicle that might reduce the width of a sidewalk. Betzel replied all sidewalks in front of parking are seven feet wide.

Wendy Woods asked about the proposed detention pool, and wondered how deep the water would be. It concerned her, because children would be in that area. Betzel said that most of the time, the ponds would look like sloped grassy areas, with wetland plants like cattails at the bottom. It would be no deeper than five feet during a 100-year storm, he said. It’s designed to drain within 24-48 hours. John Mouat added that the playground was designed to be further away from the detention ponds.

Responding to a query from Bona, Hall noted that the existing buildings have no insulation. There are constant sewage backflows because the pipes are smaller than the ones required now. AAHC is spending thousands of dollars annually for repair and cleanup. So the houses are beyond the point where they can be rehabbed. Hall pointed out that the investors are requiring that the new buildings meet Enterprise Green Communities standards, so they will be higher energy efficiency buildings.

North Maple Public Housing: Commission Discussion – Management, Security

Wendy Woods was glad there will be an on-site manager. She asked about security on the site. Jennifer Hall replied that she gets a monthly report from the Ann Arbor police department for calls to all of the public housing sites. She doesn’t see reports about calls to surrounding neighbors, however. Hall said police chief John Seto had told her that the public housing sites don’t draw more police calls than other neighborhoods. Woods said problems from increased density aren’t necessarily tied to income or social status, and she wanted people to keep that in mind.

Hall observed that the site has a strong slope on the west side, so the design doesn’t accommodate back porches. That might help with security issues. She also noted that the west side includes the lowest-density units. The higher-density units are clustered together in an area where there aren’t any adjacent single-family neighborhoods.

Jeremy Peters asked about the role of the on-site manager. Hall explained that currently, complex managers are based out of Miller Manor, which is several miles away. They hold office hours at North Maple Estates a couple of hours each week. What’s more, the current community center is actually a converted house. The new community center will have offices and meeting space, and a manager who’ll be there every day. There will be a broad range of activities offered there for both children and adults, Hall said.

North Maple Public Housing: Commission Discussion – Density

Bonnie Bona said she’s a little uncomfortable with the rezoning to increase density on this site. She thought that the housing commission had planned to keep the density unchanged.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

She noted that the existing houses are 50 years old, but should have lasted 100 years. The city needs to know that the housing commission will take care of its properties. “The worst investment is for the city to keep doing this over and over again,” Bona said. She hoped the commission would do it right this time, even if it costs more upfront to do that.

Jennifer Hall explained that all the funding for public housing has come from HUD. The AAHC did an analysis about how much it would need to maintain its properties, and the amount is about three times more than what HUD provides, she said. Hall agreed with Bona, but said “I’m not made of magic – I can only use what funding sources are out there.” The advantage of the new financing approach, she added, is that there’s an opportunity to use private capital investment that’s not available for public housing. The private investors, including Chase Bank, want to ensure that their investment will last for the term of the agreement, which is a minimum of 20 years.

The process includes putting a portion of rent revenues into a capital reserve fund, Hall explained. That wouldn’t be possible with just 20 units, she added – there wouldn’t be enough funds to maintain the buildings, and they wouldn’t be able to get investors for the project. So the density is needed in order to make the project viable, she said.

Jeremy Peters confirmed with Hall that this would be the first addition to the city’s affordable housing stock in recent memory. Hall estimated that the city was losing 100 units of affordable housing each year. She noted that Avalon Housing recently opened an apartment complex on Pauline, but there are eight fewer units than in the previous apartment complex there.

Peters said that the city has made affordable housing a priority, yet there seems to be a struggle to add more units. That should be kept in mind when commissioners evaluate the increased density of this North Maple proposal, he said.

North Maple Public Housing: Commission Discussion – Traffic

Kirk Westphal asked about the traffic issues raised during the public hearing. Scott Betzel reiterated that he’d spoken with the city’s traffic engineer, and they both agreed that adding the Dexter Avenue curbcut seemed like a logical and conventional solution to the situation. Planning manager Wendy Rampson said that planning staff would follow up with the traffic engineer to take another look at it.

Jennifer Hall explained that the site requires a second exit for fire emergencies. One of AAHC’s concerns is that they don’t want it to be a cut-through street, so they’d be willing to look at adding speed bumps or other traffic calming measures.

North Maple Public Housing: Commission Discussion – Misc.

Ken Clein highlighted information in the meeting packet about housing costs, saying that it might be confusing. It was a sheet with rent and income data for “Maple/Platt,” which had been distributed at the citizens participation meeting in February. Jennifer Hall clarified that AAHC is also working on a project for a site on Platt Road. So this information showed a range of income levels to illustrate who would be eligible for AAHC’s housing. The information provided in this sheet also referred to 70 total units, which is the combination of proposed units on both the North Maple and Platt sites, Hall said.

Bonnie Bona directed staff to double-check the mailing addresses, to make sure all nearby residents are provided with adequate notification.

Hall offered to pass out her business card to residents who were interested in following up with her about the issues raised during the public hearing. She said she’d be willing to come out and meet with neighbors, if they wanted to set up a meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone the three items related to this AAHC request: Rezoning, site plan, and street vacation. The items are on the commission’s June 17 agenda for consideration.

Rudolf Steiner Expansion

The site plan for expansion of the Rudolf Steiner High School was on the June 3 agenda. The private school is located at 2230 Pontiac Trail, north of Brookside.

The project – estimated to cost $2.5 million – involves building a one-story, 19,780-square-foot addition to the existing classroom building. The building will include a 9,990-square-foot gym, with the remaining 9,790 square feet used for classrooms and storage.

According to the staff memo, an existing Quonset hut on the east side of the site will be removed, as will a 48-inch white oak tree immediately east of the proposed addition. The school will be required to plant 12 trees for mitigation. In addition, 17 new trees will be planted as part of the project.

Parking will be increased by 31 spaces to accommodate special events and discourage parking in nearby neighborhoods, according to the staff memo. A total of 32 bicycle parking spaces will be provided near the north entry to the new addition. No additional enrollment beyond the previously approved 120 students is proposed. The school has operated at that location since 2002.

Site plan for Rudolf Steiner High School expansion. The yellow section is the existing building. The white section indicates the proposed addition.

Commissioners were also asked to approve a special exception use for the project. That’s required under Chapter 55 of the city’s zoning code because the site is zoned R1D (single family dwelling). Private schools are allowed within that zoning district, if granted a special exception use. The planning commission has discretion to grant a special exception use, which does not require additional city council approval.

The only speaker at a public hearing on this item was Dave Leclair of Livingston Engineering, the project’s site engineer. He introduced other members of the team, and said they were on hand to answer questions.

Rudolf Steiner Expansion: Commission Discussion

There was no discussion on the special exception use item.

From left: Victor Leabu, facilities manager for the Rudolf Steiner High School, and Dave Leclair of Livingston Engineering.

For the site plan resolution, city planner Jeff Kahan told commissioners it had been amended to include the phrase “subject to a modified utility easement agreement addressing the proposed bioswale located within the easement area.” A water utility line is located under the bioswale. The city needs to have access to the water main, if it needs repair. If that happens, the owners of the property would be responsible for restoring the bioswale, which is about 6 inches deep.

Responding to a query from Ken Clein, Kahan explained that the school is proposing an additional 31 parking spaces that would extend the existing parking lot to the east. The intent is to accommodate overflow parking for school functions. Currently, overflow parking is on the lawn.

Also, the fire marshal recommends that emergency access be put in place to the street that’s south of the site. The fire marshal agreed that a gate could be placed there too, to prevent the emergency access from becoming a regularly used route to the street.

Kirk Westphal asked what kind of feedback the school has received from surrounding neighbors. Victor Leabu, the school’s facilities manager, said the school has been there about 12 years, and some of the families live in the neighborhood. Most of the feedback was positive, he said. One issue was that since the gym is higher and the lights might be on at night, someone wondered what the impact on the neighborhood might be. There aren’t any houses directly in that area, however, and the school plans to use shades on the windows at night, he said.

Outcome: In separate unanimous votes, commissioners granted the special exception use and recommended approval of the site plan. The site plan will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Research Park Project

The June 3 agenda included a proposal to rezone six sites along Research Park Drive, as well as an area plan for development of the parcels.

Laith Farjo of Qubit Group.

Another item related to amendments to Chapter 55 of the city’s zoning code to allow outdoor recreation as a special exception use in the office/research/limited industrial (ORL) zoning district.

The six lots are undeveloped and total 16.6 acres. Four of the lots, on the southern end of the site, are owned by Qubit Corp. LLC; BMS Holdings LLC owns the northern two sites.

The rezoning would be from RE (research) to ORL. The proposed area plan – which is less detailed than a site plan – includes an indoor-outdoor tennis facility on one of the lots. It also includes five two-story buildings that could accommodate office, research, and limited industrial uses on the remaining lots, each with their own parking lot and access point to Research Park Drive.

Prior to construction, the project must go through the city’s site plan approval process, which might require a traffic impact study.

The text amendment to Chapter 55 would delete a current restriction that recreation sites must be within an enclosed building. The change would allow outdoor tennis courts to be built in the ORL zoning district.

Two people spoke briefly at the public hearing. Jim Barnwell of Desine Inc. and Laith Farjo, a representative of Qubit Group LLC, the site’s owner, introduced themselves and said they’d be available for questions.

Aerial view showing Research Park Drive parcels.

Area plan for four sites in a proposed development on Research Park Drive. The image is oriented with east at the top.

Research Park Project: Commission Discussion

Responding to a query from Diane Giannola, planning manager Wendy Rampson said that commissioners had been briefed on the project at a working session last year.

Kirk Westphal asked what kind of feedback had been received, and if any changes are being considered based on the feedback. Laith Farjo, one of the owners, replied that everyone was very positive. Several people from surrounding businesses had attended the citizen participation meeting, he said, and liked the idea that the project would be bringing more life into that area. The hours are also complementary to existing businesses, he added. A juniors tennis facility would be the first phase, and would mostly be used in the evenings and weekends.

Outcome: In separate unanimous votes, commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning, area plan and amendments to Chapter 55 of the city’s zoning code. The items will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Dusty’s Collision

A site plan for Dusty’s Collision at 2310 South Industrial Highway, south of Jewett, was on the June 3 agenda.

Aerial view of Dusty’s Collision site.

The recommendation is contingent on the owner – Whitney’s Collision West of Ann Arbor – providing one footing drain disconnect before the city issues a certificate of occupancy. [.pdf of staff memo]

The only speaker at this item’s public hearing was Rich Henes, a principal with Cornerstone Design Inc., the project’s architect. He said he was there to answer questions.

Dusty’s Collision: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona said she couldn’t see much pedestrian access on the site – just the parking lot. She granted that it was a vehicle-centric business, but said that people might need to walk or take the bus there while their car is being repaired.

Architect Rich Henes of Cornerstone Design Inc.

Rich Henes of Cornerstone Design said pedestrians could use the driveway, adding that it’s close to the road and there will be bike parking on the north corner.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson pointed out that there’s a sidewalk connection from the building’s entrance to the public sidewalk.

Jeremy Peters asked about plans to mitigate potential runoff from any hazardous materials that might be used. Henes replied that the building will have internal trench drains, with the runoff contained and disposed of legally.

Peters also asked about a comment in the staff report from the Mallets Creek Coordinating Committee: “The MCCC recommended that the petitioner consider conducting soil borings from the detention basin in order to increase infiltration design of the storm water basin. It is also recommended that the property owner take special care to monitor and contain any dripping fluids from damaged vehicles.”

Henes said the concern related to an existing bioswale on the north side of the property. The MCCC wants the owner to install a pipe that will direct runoff from that bioswale toward the center of the site. “But the water table is so high that it would be useless to do that,” Henes said. Rampson pointed out that the site plan complies with the county water resource commissioner’s current rules.

Ken Clein confirmed with the planning staff that the project’s landscaping plan meets the city’s requirements.

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

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners, as well as two opportunities for public commentary. Here are some highlights from June 3.

Communications & Commentary: Affordable Housing

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters reported that he, Wendy Woods and Eleanore Adenekan met in late May with members of the city’s housing & human services advisory board and staff of the Washtenaw County office of community & economic development. It was the first in what will likely be a series of meetings regarding affordable housing. The intent is to look at issues where these three groups have similar interests, and eventually to provide some strong guidance for city and county leaders, he said.

Tentatively, Peters said, the group has identified four broad issues to discuss: (1) refining premiums offered to developers in the downtown D1 and D2 zoning districts; (2) investigating possible policy advocacy at the state level, to make the process of building or purchasing affordable housing units simpler and more predictable; (3) looking at actions to allow for workforce housing within the city in ways that are ultimately respectful of each neighborhood’s character; and (4) investigating what fee-based roadblocks might be modified or removed to make new construction of an affordable nature easier to do, in areas zoned for that type of residential development.

Communications & Commentary: Ordinance Revisions

Planning commission chair Kirk Westphal reported that the ordinance revisions committee had met immediately prior to the regular June 3 planning commission meeting, and continued discussion of possible changes to downtown zoning. No date has been set for the next ORC meeting. Members include Westphal, Bonnie Bona, Wendy Woods and Diane Giannola.

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

Absent: Sabra Briere, Paras Parekh.

Next meeting: Tuesday, June 17, 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.

Dusty’s Collision Project Goes to Council

Chronicle Staff — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 04:00:36 +0000

A site plan for Dusty’s Collision at 2310 South Industrial Highway, south of Jewett, was recommended for approval at the Ann Arbor planning commission’s June 3, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of Dusty’s Collision site.

The project will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

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