The site plan had been recommended for approval by Ann Arbor planning commissioners at their Dec. 17, 2013 meeting. The item had previously been postponed by commissioners on Nov. 19, 2013.

The planning commission’s recommendation of approval of the project’s site plan was subject to variances for modifications related to parking lot and landscaping requirements. Those variances were considered and approved by the city’s zoning board of appeals on Jan. 22.

Planning commissioners also approved landscape modifications that would reduce the requirement – outlined in Chapter 62 of the city code – for depressed landscape islands within the site.

The planning staff had supported a recommendation of approval on Dec. 17, noting that the owner had addressed several issues that had previously raised concerns. Changes from the plan presented on Nov. 19 included:

• Adding 5,027 square feet of porous pavers to be installed in the expanded vehicle display areas along State Street and Oakbrook Drive.
• Adding eight new depressed landscape islands to the parking storage areas in the back of the site. The changes mean a loss of about 24 parking spaces.
• Changing the landscape modification request. The original request had included reducing the number of required trees to be planted on site by eight. The owner now plans to plant all of the required trees.

The project’s architect also explored the possibility of adding a “green” (vegetated) roof, but ultimately determined that it wasn’t feasible without making significant changes to the existing buildings. The question of whether the architect had considered a green roof to help with stormwater management was raised on Nov. 19.

Other parts of the project, which is located in Ward 4, were unchanged. It calls for a 4,877-square-foot addition to the Volkswagen building on the northern portion of the State Street frontage, bringing the total square footage to 18,722 for that structure. A 6,429-square-foot addition is proposed for the Porsche/Audi building, in the center of the site, which would create a total building size of 31,097 square feet. The site’s third building, housing the Honda dealership on the southern part of the property, would remain at 36,101 square feet.

A request was made by owner Steve Germain to add 248 parking spaces, bringing the total number of spaces to 1,039. The new spaces will be in three locations: (1) along the southern half of the South State Street frontage; (2) along the Oakbrook Drive frontage; and (3) in the rear car storage lots. The proposal would require three variances from Chapter 59 (off-street parking) in order to allow tandem parking, to reduce the aisle widths, and to exceed the maximum percentage (30%) of allowable small car parking spaces. Those are the variances granted by the ZBA at its Jan. 22 meeting.

The total expansion is estimated to cost $5.5 million.

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

The most significant item on the council’s Feb. 3, 2014 agenda is listed last – a resolution that would authorize the city administrator to exercise the city’s right of first refusal to purchase the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers property on South State Street. The council could adjust the order of the items at the start of the meeting.

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

Two new ordinances will also be given initial consideration at the Ann Arbor city council’s Feb. 3 meeting. One involves public art – which relates to leftover business from the council’s previous meeting. The second proposed new local law involves prohibitions against smoking in some public places.

Background on the possible acquisition of the Edwards Brothers property includes the fact that the University of Michigan has made an offer to Edwards Brothers to purchase the property for $12.8 million. But the city has a right of first refusal on the property as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011.

The resolution on tonight’s agenda approves the exercise of the city’s right of first refusal, appropriates necessary funds, and directs the city administrator to notify Edward Brothers Malloy about the exercise of the city’s right.

This effort began at the council’s Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, when councilmembers had directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information about the Edwards Brothers land. The due date for that gathering of information was specified in the council’s resolution as Jan. 30.

Public art is actually the topic of two separate items on the council’s agenda. One is a contract extension for the city’s part-time public art administrator, which had been on the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 agenda, but was postponed at that meeting.

The postponement took place in the context of a political horse trade offered by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council table on Jan. 21. Eaton indicated he’d support the public art administrator’s contract extension at the council’s subsequent meeting – but only if the council would move toward returning as-yet-unallocated money set aside during the now defunct Percent for Art program to its funds of origin (e.g., sanitary sewer fund, street millage fund etc.).

Both elements of the horse trade are scheduled for the Feb. 3 meeting. The move toward returning money out of the public art fund takes the form of initial consideration of an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance. The ordinance amendment, sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), would allow the council to return money accumulated under the city’s former Percent for Art program to the funds from which that money was drawn. The ordinance change would need a second and final council vote at a subsequent meeting to be enacted. Any transfer of public art money would require separate council action after the potential ordinance change.

Also getting initial consideration on Feb. 3 will be a new ordinance that would prohibit smoking in specific outdoor public areas. Made punishable through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of any city-owned building. The ordinance amendment would also authorize the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking.

In another item on its Feb. 3 agenda, the council will consider approval of a $398,703 contract plus a $40,000 contingency with Hubbell Roth & Clark Inc. to reconstruct Geddes Avenue from Huntington to Huron Parkway. The project, which includes five components, is scheduled to start in the spring of 2015 and may continue through 2016. The five components of the project are: reconstruction of Geddes, sanitary sewer on Geddes, sanitary sewer on Dover Place and Riverview, storm sewer on Geddes, and water main on Dover Place and Riverview.

Also on the council’s Feb. 3 agenda is a proposed expansion for Germain Motors – an auto dealership on South State Street, formerly Howard Cooper Imports.

The council will also consider setting a hearing date for one establishments that could potentially be recommended for non-renewal of its liquor licenses for non-payment of taxes: Banfield’s Bar & Grill.  Also originally on the list were  The Arena,  and Café Zola, but as of Monday morning, Feb. 3 they’d been removed. Those three businesses were also subject to the same scrutiny last year, and all eventually paid their taxes without having their licenses revoked.

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

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

Edwards Brothers Land

The council will consider moving ahead with the purchase of the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property at 2500-2550 S. State St. The University of Michigan has made an offer to Edwards Brothers to purchase the property for $12.8 million, but the city has a right of first refusal on the property.

The resolution approves the exercise of the city’s right of first refusal, appropriates necessary funds, and directs the city administrator to notify Edward Brothers Malloy about the exercise of the city’s right. As of the morning of Monday, Feb. 3, the online agenda item contained no other background information.

Reached by phone late Friday afternoon, city administrator Steve Powers told The Chronicle that he and other staff would be working over the weekend to finalize the information that the council would be provided before being asked to consider the possible purchase of the land. That includes the financing mechanism, source of funds, types of scenarios for the city eventually to shed ownership of the land, results of an environmental review, and possible zoning revisions to enhance property value. Powers allowed that the council might not be ready to vote at its Feb. 3 meeting, but confirmed that the council’s next regular meeting on Feb. 18 would still fall within the 60-day window of opportunity for action.

At its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, the council had directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information about the Edwards Brothers land. The due date for that gathering of information was specified in the council’s resolution as Jan. 30 – the same day that the land-purchase item was added to the Feb. 3 agenda.

At its following meeting, on Jan. 21, 2014, the council approved without discussion a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services on the property. That assessment included a survey of asbestos-containing materials.

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

The city’s right of first refusal on the property was a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million. In 2013, Edwards Brothers paid a total of $182,213 in real property taxes, not all of which is the city’s levy. The total city levy of 16.45 mills on $3 million of taxable value works out to about $50,000.

According to the tax abatement agreement, the event triggering the city’s 60-day right-of-first-refusal window is a formal notification to the city by Edwards Brothers, which was made on Nov. 27, 2013. If the council were to delay voting on the item until its Feb. 18 meeting, it would still be within that 60-day window.

The Feb. 3 agenda item requires an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council – because the resolution will change the city budget and involves a purchase of real estate. At least one councilmember will not be present for the Feb. 3 meeting. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) will be attending a professional conference of the Association of Physical Plant Administrators (APPA). He works in the University of Michigan’s energy office as Planet Blue energy conservation liaison.

Public Art

Two items related to public art appear on the council’s Feb. 3 agenda. One item is a contract extension for the city’s part-time public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves. The extension had been on the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 agenda, but was postponed at that meeting.

The postponement took place in the context of a political horse trade offered by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council table on Jan. 21. Eaton indicated he’d support the public art administrator’s contract extension at the council’s subsequent meeting on Feb. 3 – but only if the council would move toward returning as-yet-unallocated money set aside during the now defunct Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin (e.g., sanitary sewer fund, street millage fund etc.).

Both elements of the horse trade are on the Feb. 3 agenda. The move toward returning money out of the public art fund takes the form of an amendment to the city’s ordinance on public art.

Public Art: Part-time Administrator’s Contract Extension

The council will be asked again to consider a six-month extension for Ann Arbor public art administrator Aaron Seagraves – through June 30, 2014. The council will be asked to allocate $18,500 to cover the added term.

The budget expenditure for Seagraves’ contract will need support from at least an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council. That’s why some councilmembers’ dissatisfaction with the current $839,507 in unallocated money in the public art fund posed a credible possibility of a failed vote at the Jan. 21 meeting.

The proposal to postpone the vote on the contract extension came from Jack Eaton (Ward 4), who wanted to delay until the council’s next meeting, by which time a clear plan could be crafted to return the Percent for Art money to its funds of origin. The only dissenting vote on postponement at the Jan. 21 meeting came from Margie Teall (Ward 4). [Details of the council's deliberations are reported in The Chronicle's live updates from the Jan. 21 meeting.]

Seagraves is contracted to work an average of 20 hours a week.

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

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

The funds accrued to the public art fund during the time of the Percent for Art program are still subject to the same legal constraints – which require a thematic link between the original source of the funds (e.g., the street millage) and the piece of art to be funded.

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

The council debate at its June 3, 2013 meeting included wrangling about what to do with that fund balance, with Jane Lumm (Ward 2) arguing unsuccessfully that $845,029 should be returned to the funds of origin. The council voted to return only the money that had accrued to the fund in the most recent budget year – $326,464.

At their most recent meeting on Jan. 29, 2014, public art commissioners expressed concern over possible council actions on Feb. 3. “We’re volunteers trying to do things we’re passionate about, but there’s never any certainty about things,” Nick Zagar said at that Jan. 29 meeting. He noted that if the city eliminates the public art administrator’s position, “everything I’m sure will grind to a dramatic halt.” It’s hard to want to invest a lot of energy into the program, he added, given that commissioners don’t really have a clear direction about the program’s future.

Public Art: Ordinance Revision

At the June 3, 2013 meeting, the council did not ultimately vote on Lumm’s proposal to return Percent for Art money from earlier years to its funds of origin. That’s because the council rejected her proposal to amend the public art ordinance to allow that transfer to take place.

So Lumm’s ordinance proposal for the Feb. 3, 2014 meeting reprises the previous effort to amend the ordinance to allow the transfer of money accumulated during previous years of the Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin.

If the council votes to approve the ordinance on Feb. 3, it would still require a second vote at a subsequent meeting to be enacted. And any transfer of money would require a separate council action supported by an eight-vote majority.

Outdoor Smoking

On the council’s Feb. 3 agenda for initial consideration is a new ordinance that would prohibit smoking in specific outdoor public areas. Made punishable through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building.

The ordinance amendment also authorizes the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking, and to increase the distance from entrances to city buildings where outdoor smoking is prohibited.

Where no signs are posted noting the smoking prohibition, a citation could be issued only if someone doesn’t stop smoking immediately when asked to stop.

An existing county ordinance already prohibits smoking near entrances, windows and ventilation systems, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution – but the county’s ordinance can be enforced only by the county health department. The memo further notes that the Michigan Clean Indoor Air Act does not regulate outdoor smoking.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is listed as the sponsor of the ordinance change on the city’s Legistar system. At the council’s Oct. 21, 2013 meeting, he had announced his intent to bring forward a proposed ordinance regulating outdoor smoking, and reported at that time he’d been working with city parks staff on the issue.

Geddes Avenue Reconstruction: 2015

The council will consider approval of a $398,703 contract plus a $40,000 contingency with Hubbell Roth & Clark Inc. to reconstruct Geddes Avenue from Huntington to Huron Parkway.

The portion of Geddes to be reconstructed is indicated in yellow. Parcels currently lacking sanitary sewer service are indicated in red.

The project, which includes five components, is scheduled to start in the spring of 2015 and may continue through 2016. The five components of the project are: reconstruction of Geddes, sanitary sewer on Geddes, sanitary sewer on Dover Place and Riverview, storm sewer on Geddes, and water main on Dover Place and Riverview. [.pdf of map showing parcels currently lacking sanitary sewer service]

The components of the project, which the city is calling collectively the Geddes Avenue Improvements Project, could also include corrections of slope sloughing, and the construction of non-motorized improvements within the project limits.

The scope of the actual project is supposed to stem in part from public participation. So part of the contract with HRC includes a “robust public engagement process” to include the adjacent residents, various interest groups, and the public at large.

Germain Motors Site Plan

On the council’s Feb. 3 agenda is a proposed expansion for Germain Motors – an auto dealership on South State Street, formerly Howard Cooper Imports.

The site plan was recommended for approval by Ann Arbor planning commissioners at their Dec. 17, 2013 meeting. The item had previously been postponed by commissioners on Nov. 19, 2013.

The planning commission’s recommendation of approval of the project’s site plan was subject to variances for modifications related to parking lot and landscaping requirements. Those variances were considered and approved by the city’s zoning board of appeals on Jan. 22. Planning commissioners also approved landscape modifications that would reduce the requirement – outlined in Chapter 62 of the city code – for depressed landscape islands within the site.

The planning staff had supported a recommendation of approval on Dec. 17, noting that the owner had addressed several issues that had previously raised concerns. Changes from the plan presented on Nov. 19 include:

• Adding 5,027 square feet of porous pavers to be installed in the expanded vehicle display areas along State Street and Oakbrook Drive.
• Adding eight new depressed landscape islands to the parking storage areas in the back of the site. The changes mean a loss of about 24 parking spaces.
• Changing the landscape modification request. The original request had included reducing the number of required trees to be planted on site by eight. The owner now plans to plant all of the required trees.

The project’s architect also explored the possibility of adding a “green” (vegetated) roof, but ultimately determined that it wasn’t feasible without making significant changes to the existing buildings. The question of whether the architect had considered a green roof to help with stormwater management was raised on Nov. 19.

Other parts of the proposed project, which is located in Ward 4, were unchanged. It calls for a 4,877-square-foot addition to the Volkswagen building on the northern portion of the State Street frontage, bringing the total square footage to 18,722 for that structure. A 6,429-square-foot addition is proposed for the Porsche/Audi building, in the center of the site, which would create a total building size of 31,097 square feet. The site’s third building, housing the Honda dealership on the southern part of the property, would remain at 36,101 square feet.

Also, the owner – Steve Germain, who attended the Nov. 19 planning commission meeting with several members of the project team – would like to add 248 parking spaces, bringing the total number of spaces to 1,039. The new spaces would be in three locations: (1) along the southern half of the South State Street frontage; (2) along the Oakbrook Drive frontage; and (3) in the rear car storage lots. The proposal would require three variances from Chapter 59 (off-street parking) in order to allow tandem parking, to reduce the aisle widths, and to exceed the maximum percentage (30%) of allowable small car parking spaces. Those are the variances granted by the ZBA at its Jan. 22 meeting.

The total expansion is estimated to cost $5.5 million.

Liquor Licenses: Possible Non-Renewal

On the council’s agenda is a resolution setting a hearing date for one establishments that could potentially be recommended for non-renewal of its liquor licenses for non-payment of taxes: Banfield’s Bar & Grill.  Also originally on the list were  The Arena,  and Café Zola, but as of Monday morning, Feb. 3  those two businesses had been removed. Those three businesses were also subject to the same scrutiny last year, and all eventually paid their taxes without having their licenses revoked. The date of the hearing would be Feb. 25 at 9 a.m.

The council’s resolution would also appoint Jane Lumm (Ward 2) as the hearing officer. Lumm serves on the council’s liquor license review committee, along with Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Lumm served as the hearing officer for this kind of proceeding in 2013 as well. Also on that occasion, Banfield’s Bar & Grill, Café Zola and The Arena were on the hearing list. However, by the time of the hearing, Café Zola had resolved its issue. And at the hearing itself, Banfield’s Bar & Grill made an arrangement to resolve its outstanding issue.

Only the hearing on The Arena ultimately resulted in a city council recommendation to the state liquor control commission not to renew a license. Subsequently, The Arena did pay its taxes, and the council withdrew its objection to a license renewal for The Arena.

Planning Commission Bylaws

Again on the city council’s agenda is the approval of changes to the planning commission’s bylaws. The changes relate to the order of agenda items, and the length of time required for special accommodations, such as sign language interpreters. The change would require additional lead time so that special accommodations, including a sign language interpreter, can be made for people with disabilities, when requested at least two business days in advance of a meeting. The current bylaws specify just a one-day advance request.

The planning commission had given approval to changes in its bylaws about six months ago – at its July 16, 2013 meeting.

The bylaws changes were considered but postponed twice by the city council last year – first at the council’s Nov. 7, 2013 meeting, then at the Dec. 16, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws changes]

The council had held off voting to approve the bylaws changes as the planning commission has considered further revisions to its bylaws – related to the number of times someone can speak during a public hearing, and whether city councilmembers are allowed to address the planning commission during the commission’s meetings.

At a regular meeting of the planning commission, the additional revisions were discussed most recently on Nov. 6, 2013. The additional changes were also discussed at a working session on Jan. 7.

Appointments to City Boards, Commissions

Several nominations to city boards and commissions were made at the council’s previous meeting on Jan. 21. Confirmation votes will be taken at the council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Jim Simpson was nominated to fill the vacancy of Malverne Winborne on the public art commission. Winborne’s term ended on Dec. 31, 2013.

Daniel Lee was nominated to serve out the rest of Marta Manildi’s term on the Ann Arbor housing commission. Manildi’s term ends this spring, but she said she’d step down early if someone could be appointed.

Paige Morrison was nominated to serve out the rest of Jennifer Geer’s term on the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. Geer has resigned.

And Peter Woolf was nominated to fill the vacancy of Lindsey-Jean Hard on the public market advisory commission.

Consent Agenda

The consent agenda 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. Here are some highlights from the Feb. 3 consent agenda.

Consent Agenda: Chelsea Tech Agreement

The council is being asked to approve an amendment to the renewal agreement for information technology services between the city of Ann Arbor and city of Chelsea. The contract is being amended to match fiscal years – by extending it an extra five months for a total of 17 months and $80,499.

The contract covers support for the help desk, management of the city’s website, server hosting, data backup and recovery, overseeing IT contractors, project management, and representing the city of Chelsea in regional technology efforts and meetings.

Consent Agenda: Street Closings

The council will be asked to approve street closings for FoolMoon (April 4, 2014) and FestiFools (April 6, 2014).

Consent Agenda: Firehouse Subs Grant

The council will be asked to approve a resolution accepting a grant of $25,736 from Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation Corporation. The money will be used to buy 11 automatic external defibrillator units for use by the fire department.

It was the fire department that applied for the grant to replace existing equipment. No local matching funds are required.

2:10 p.m. An update to the agenda noted above is that Cafe Zola and The Arena are now off the list of liquor licenses up for hearings on possible non-renewal recommendations. The only remaining establishment is Banfield’s Bar & Grill.

No background information is yet attached to the online agenda item on the possible Edwards Brothers land acquisition.

3:43 p.m. Names of people signed up for the 10 slots for public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting are now added to the agenda. Five people are signed up to talk about the public art ordinance: Bob Miller (chair of the public art commission); Susan Froelich; Shoshana Hurand; Lily Au; and David Olson.

Four people are signed up to advocate for the homeless community: Seth Best (in connection with the outdoor smoking ordinance); and Chris McKewan, Joel Reinstein, and Tracy Williams (all on the topic of camp evictions). Steve Carnes is also signed up to talk about camp evictions in an alternate slot.

Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about public transportation and expanding the geographic area of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

The second alternate slot is filled by James D’Amour, who is is signed up to thank the council for its support of the climate change action plan.

It appears no one will be speaking during public commentary reserved time on the potential Edwards Brothers land acquisition.

4:13 p.m. Supplemental documents for tonight’s meeting have now been distributed to councilmembers. However, the Edwards Brothers land acquisition does not appear to be covered. Three documents relate to the public art ordinance. A fourth document is the set of staff responses to council questions on agenda items. [List of Art Projects ] [Art Project Schedule ] [Art Budget Summary] [Staff Responses to Council Questions about Feb. 3, 2014 agenda items.]

4:42 p.m. It’s worth noting that the list of public art projects, as well as the councilmember questions, point to a possible focus during deliberations on what projects actually have funds committed to them. The proposed ordinance amendment would allow return of money to the funds of origin only if it’s not already committed to a project. But the return of funds is not a question that will be before the council tonight. Tonight is just a question of initial approval of the ordinance amendment that would allow the council to make such a transfer. That transfer would need to take place in a separate action. There could be some interest on the council in making that action a part of the FY 2015 budget approval process that culminates at the council’s second meeting in May.

6:14 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. Yellow stacks of printed agendas are here, and the CTN technician has installed mics for all the councilmembers and at the public speaking podium. A man named Bill has already arrived to stand in support of those who’ll be speaking on behalf of the homeless community.

6:28 p.m. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) is the first councilmember to arrive. Four people are now here in chambers who’ll be supporting advocates for the homeless community.

6:38 p.m. Eaton is introduced by Caleb Poirier to a group of homeless community advocates now numbering about 18 people. Poirer tells them that Eaton has been kind to them in print about the group’s goals. Eaton quips that the meeting could last a week to 10 days. He ventures the council will burn a lot of time talking about art and will probably go into closed session to discuss the Edwards Brothers property.

6:45 p.m. Eaton is still the only councilmember who has arrived in chambers.

6:47 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje has now arrived. So has city administrator Steve Powers. Chair of the public art commission Bob Miller has arrived. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has arrived.

6:54 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) has arrived. John Kotarski, vice chair of the public art commission, is here. Several students are getting signatures attesting that they’ve completed their attendance requirement for a class.

6:58 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) has arrived.

7:01 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) have now arrived.

7:03 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) has arrived, as has Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

7:07 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) has now arrived, so except for Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who’s expected to be absent, all councilmembers have arrived. They’re not all seated and ready to start, however.

7:08 p.m. And we’re off.

7:09 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. Only Kunselman is absent – because he’s attending a work-related conference in Dallas. Anglin was away from the table for the opening roll call.

7:10 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:10 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the agenda.

7:11 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers has introduced public services area administrator Craig Hupy. Hupy describes the wet snow as tough to plow. Both the pre- and mid-season salt purchase have been made. End of February or early March, he cautions that the city will need to make an additional salt purchase, so the council will be asked to approve that.

7:13 p.m. Powers asks Hupy about the high frequency of water main breaks. It’s been an extraordinarily cold winter, he says – it’s what would be expected. Thirty-plus years of data suggests that water main breaks are commensurate with the cold weather. As the ground freezes, it moves, Hupy says, and that causes breaks.

7:13 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje asks about the condition of city sidewalks, given the freezing rain. Hupy says they have a machine that they use, but it takes time.

7:18 p.m. Mary Jo Callan, director of Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development, is updating the council on the city and county response to the weather with respect to human services. She explains that they’re in communication with all the relevant human services agencies. At least 10 warming centers and 40 local nonprofits are a part of the mix, she says. They’re doing better at communication, she says. All the emergency shelters are full, she says. They’re over capacity. The Delonis Center, she says, had a January average of 165 a night, including more than 65 in the warming center. They’re continuing with the policy of not having weather amnesty on days like today, for example. Food Gatherers is providing meals. The county’s Project Outreach Team (PORT) is continuing to do outreach and engagement to people in tents, she says. PORT is housing 19 people in 15 hotel rooms around the community.

7:19 p.m. Callan says that she’s coordinating with the Ann Arbor police about how to deal with campers. “It’s a hideous winter,” she says. “But we all know there’s going to be a winter next year.”

7:19 p.m. INT-1 Proclamation honoring EMU’s Alpha Phi Omega fraternity. The fraternity is being recognized for service in the city’s GIVE 365 Volunteer Program at several recreation facilities and parks assisting with special events like the Trick or Treat Paddle and Buhr Blitz Day.

7:21 p.m. Public commentary reserved time. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Five people are signed up to talk about the public art ordinance: Bob Miller (chair of the public art commission); Susan Froelich; Shoshana Hurand; Lily Au; and David Olson.

Four people are signed up to advocate for the homeless community: Seth Best (in connection with the outdoor smoking ordinance); and Chris McKewan, Joel Reinstein, Tracy Williams (all on the topic of camp evictions). Steve Carnes is also signed up to talk about camp evictions in an alternate slot.

Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about public transportation and expanding the geographic area of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The second alternate slot is filled by James D’Amour, who is is signed up to thank the council for its support of the climate change action plan.

7:22 p.m. Thomas Partridge was signed up to speak, but isn’t here.

7:25 p.m. Bob Miller says he’s passed out a document that quotes Gov. Rick Snyder, saying that art “is integral to economic development.” The occasion was a state leadership award for the arts. Miller is now quoting from the patron who commissioned the “Spirit of Ann Arbor” on a building on Liberty Street – John Carver. Miller says that finding a sustainable funding model would satisfy critics and proponents. He’s describing the new program that the council put in place. He calls for viable transition from the old Percent for Art program to the new program.

7:27 p.m. Seth Best says he’s not there as a member of Camp Take Notice, but as a smoker. He’s concerned about the proposed $50 fine. He’s poor, he says, and can barely afford the cigarettes he buys. The ordinance will target the poor, he cautions. He allows that it might not be the healthiest for him, but speaks about the culture associated with smoking. The rituals associated with smoking provide a mechanism for getting to know people and making new friends, he says.

7:30 p.m. Susan Froelich says she’s a native Ann Arborite with a degree in the history of art from University of Michigan. She’s ticking through her public service in the area of art. She heard that the council had been discussing transferring money from the public art fund to its funds of origin. She stresses that it’s important to leave already-committed funds in the public art fund and to fund a full-time public art administrator.

7:33 p.m. Shoshana Hurand asks councilmembers: “Do you want to live in a remarkable city?” She introduces herself as a social worker but also an art administrator. She explains the work of an art administrator. She urges the council to retain the public art administrator position. She’s concerned that returning the money from the public art fund would lead to no investment in public art. She cautions against allowing Ann Arbor to be an unremarkable city.

7:36 p.m. Lily Au reads aloud the city’s mission statement. She compares art to food. “You cannot serve me art work,” she says, using props from a bag. She asks people to stand who support money going to help feed people and keep them warm. About 30 people stand.

7:40 p.m. David Olson tells the council that he grew up in Ann Arbor. Art has added a sense of community and quality of life to Ann Arbor, he says. He expresses strong support for the idea that funds remaining in the public art fund be spent on art. He ticks through several events that indicate the community supports the arts. [Such events are not eligible to be funded through the funds accumulated through the Percent for Art program.] He thanks those who’ve supported the public art program, saying the criticism has been harsh. It’s difficult work, he says, but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be done. He calls for supporting smaller, temporary art installations or participatory projects. Instead of giving up because the job is difficult, he calls for re-imagining the art program.

7:42 p.m. Chris McKewan is speaking for “Troll Village” and asks people to stand in support. Most of the center section of the audience is standing. He says the residents of Troll Village are human beings. He describes wandering the streets after being kicked out of a shelter. He asks the council to show the kindness he’d experienced on the streets to those residents of Troll Village.

7:44 p.m. Joel Reinstein is also speaking about the homeless camp evictions. He’s happy the evictions were not carried out. Those residents are human beings who deserve the same respect as the entrepreneurs funded by Ann Arbor SPARK. The overcrowded Delonis Center is not cutting it, he says. He calls for no more evictions.

7:46 p.m. Tracy Williams tells the councilmembers they’ll continue to see the group – because they’re not going away. He’s sent the council an email because the public speaking time is limited. He thanks Jason and Jim who have worked to stop the eviction of Troll Village. He calls for keeping a warming center open not just in the coldest weather.

7:47 p.m. Partridge and Hieftje are engaged in a back-and-forth over his speaking turn that he missed. Hieftje says that he’s not going to let Partridge speak, saying that he’s sure that Partridge will find an opportunity to speak sometime during the meeting.

7:49 p.m. James D’Amour is thanking the council for their support of the climate action plan. He’s come from a demonstration at the federal building protesting the Keystone pipeline.

7:52 p.m. Communications from council. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) commends the police department for the way that they’ve handled the issue of the campers down by the river. Eviction was a matter of life and death, he says. Rather than just evicting them, they worked with PORT, essentially as social workers, to deal with the sensitive issue.

7:54 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) cautions against seeing things like a cyclops – through one eye. If he only sees the good work through one eye, he misses the continuing need, he says. As long as there’s an economy that treats people like throwaway people, we’ll see crises like the city saw last month, he says. He calls for doing adequate emergency prevention work. The money has to come from somewhere, he says. He doesn’t have the answers. He appreciates the work that everyone is doing.

7:57 p.m. Hieftje says that no one has been turned away from the Delonis Center this winter. In the area known as Troll Village, he says that the city received complaints about camping in Riverside Park. That had resulted in an eviction notice being placed there – but not under the bridge. Having some place to go is very important, he says. Ann Arbor spends a greater percentage of its budget on human services than any other Michigan city, he says. He feels bad for residents in other Michigan cities. He criticizes state and federal governments for not doing what they should.

7:58 p.m. MC-1 Confirmation of nominations. The council is being asked to confirm four nominations that were made at the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting. Jim Simpson was nominated to fill the vacancy of Malverne Winborne on the public art commission. Winborne’s term ended on Dec. 31, 2013. Daniel Lee was nominated to serve out the rest of Marta Manildi’s term on the Ann Arbor housing commission. Manildi’s term ends this spring, but she said she’d step down early if someone could be appointed. Paige Morrison was nominated to serve out the rest of Jennifer Geer’s term on the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. Geer has resigned. And Peter Woolf was nominated to fill the vacancy of Lindsey-Jean Hard on the public market advisory commission.

7:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve all the nominations.

7:59 p.m. Hieftje is now saying that there’s no money in the public art fund that can be used on human services.

7:59 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 only one public hearing is scheduled – about the Germain Motors site plan.

8:02 p.m. PH-1 Germain Motors site plan. Thomas Partridge says he’s there to advance the notion that Ann Arbor needs a mayor who is responsive to citizens. He allows that Germain Motors is a prominent business, but says that it’s outside the downtown development authority area. He calls for an expansion of the DDA district.

8:02 p.m. Minutes of previous meeting.

8:02 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the minutes of the previous meeting.

8:03 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 Fuller Pool Boiler Replacement. The contract to replace the boiler is with Altech Mechanical Service LLC ($66,544).
• CA-2 Shared 800Mhz Simulcast System. The resolution to authorize a purchase order with Washtenaw County is for the city of Ann Arbor’s portion for maintenance of the shared 800 MHz Simulcast System ($36,500).
• CA-3 Chelsea Services Agreement. The resolution approves the renewal agreement for Information Technology Services between the city of Ann Arbor and the city of Chelsea ($80,499).
• CA-4 Firehouse Sub Grant Acceptance. The resolution accepts a grant from Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation Corporation. The money will pay for defibrillators ($25,736).
• CA-5 FoolMoon. The resolution will authorize street closings for FoolMoon on Friday, April 4, 2014.
• CA-6 FestiFools. The resolution will authorize street closings for the FestiFools parade on Sunday, April 6, 2014.
• CA-7 Insurance Board Minutes. The resolution accepts the board of insurance administration minutes of Jan. 23, 2014.

8:04 p.m. CA-7 Insurance board minutes. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reports that the insurance board had accepted all the recommendations for revisions to the insurance policies. City treasurer Matt Horning is in attendance to answer any questions. No questions are asked.

8:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has now approved the whole consent agenda.

8:05 p.m. C-1 Public art ordinance. This ordinance revision reprises a previous effort to amend the public art ordinance to allow the transfer of money accumulated during previous years of the Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin. That unsuccessful effort came eight months ago at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. At that meeting, the council did eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism from the public art ordinance, and also allowed the most recent year’s accumulation of money to be returned to the funds of origin. The council also returned that most recent year’s worth of funding – $326,464.

What’s up for initial approval tonight is an ordinance revision to allow the return of the money accumulated in previous years. The current balance of unassigned funds accrued in the Percent for Art fund as of Jan. 14, 2014 is $839,507. If the council votes to give initial approval to the ordinance change tonight, it would still require a second vote at a subsequent meeting to be enacted. And any transfer of money would require a separate council action. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

8:08 p.m. Lumm thanks Karen Lancaster and others for their work. She thanks her cosponsors. Lumm is describing what the ordinance would do. It would not in itself return art money to other funds. But she says that on second reading it’s her intent to bring forth a resolution that would return that money. She ticks through about $840,000 that she says should be returned. A breakdown of the maximum amount that could be returned to which funds is covered here: [Art Budget Summary]

8:10 p.m. Sumi Kailaspathy (Ward 1) picks up on David Olson’s remarks during public commentary and notes that his vision of a public art program is not fundable through the money in the public art fund – because of the thematic link that’s required to the funds of origin. She says Olson’s ideas were very good. This ordinance amendment does not say that Ann Arbor doesn’t want art, she says.

8:13 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) says he’ll vote in favor of the amendment at first reading. Things have been very quiet, he says, after the direction from the council to develop a transition from the old program to the new one. His expectation is that the transition will be funded. He didn’t think all the money in the fund would be necessary, but expected that those projects currently “in the pipeline” would also be funded. He includes art at Arbor Oaks Park, the Jewett Memorial, Canoe Imagine Art and the PowerArt project in those projects. He says that the way the ordinance has moved forward has caused turmoil on the art commission. He wishes there had been more collaboration.

8:16 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) recalls the work of the city council committee that had come up with a recommendation about a revision to the public art ordinance. We should be talking about how to fund public art, she says. The council had not thought through the fact that a transition needs deadlines and goals. She agrees with Lumm that the ordinance should be changed, but says that she also agrees with Taylor that we need a better plan. She says she’ll be offering an alternative at the next council meeting.

8:18 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) recounts the origins of the program and how concerns were raised about the legal basis for the program and the amount of money that started to accumulate. He says that the council is not giving up on public art, but it’s important to remember the history of how the program arrived at this point. He ventures that if the city had faced a lawsuit on the legality of the program, the city probably would have lost. This is not a war on public art, he says.

8:20 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) says that this ordinance amendment does not diminish the commitment to public art, but rather reaffirms the city’s commitment to basic services by returning public art money to its funds of origin. She agrees with David Olson’s remarks during public commentary that Ann Arbor needs to move away from monumental art as its basic approach to public art.

8:23 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) says she’s disappointed – as she’s not sure why this issue has arisen at this point. The recommendation had been to use public art money to fund a transition under direction from a full-time public art administrator. Taking away that funding doesn’t make sense to her. She calls the ordinance change a slap in the face of public art. It boggles her mind, she says. Using the “baked-in” approach, she cautions, inherently leads to monumental art. The private sector needs a public partner to dance with, she says. Teall is describing an NPR report she heard about Art Prize in Grand Rapids. She won’t support the ordinance amendment.

8:26 p.m. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) thanks Lumm for bringing forward the ordinance amendment. He reviews how the funds are restricted – saying they can’t be used to transition or for general administration. His problem is that the source of the funds drives decision-making under the Percent for Art approach. He says we should set out a method of administering those works in progress. He says the funding for the transition could be found in the FY 2015 budget process.

Lumm is echoing Eaton’s sentiments. “We need to make a clean break,” she says. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to head in that direction, she says.

8:28 p.m. Lumm cites a staff memo from May 2013 to support the idea that you can’t use Percent for Art money for general art administration.

8:33 p.m. Warpehoski notes that Lily Au had asked why the council is funding art instead of feeding people. Right now the answer is easy, he says: We can’t use that money, because it’s not general fund money. If we switch to a different approach, he says, the council might have to answer Au’s question, because it might create a situation where general fund money is stretched between art and feeding people. Reading The Chronicle’s coverage of the last public art commission meeting, he says that it’s clear that the council has tasked the commission with a lot of work. Warpehoski will support the ordinance change, but says that he doesn’t think that all of the $840,000 should be returned. He also wants something more specific than a vague allusion to funding the transition from the general fund.

8:34 p.m. Hieftje is reading from a Forbes article recounting the history of public art in America. He says it’s always been a great weakness of Ann Arbor’s public art program that it carries with it constraints on how the money is spent.

8:36 p.m. Hieftje laments the fact that Ann Arbor does not have four billionaires like Grand Rapids. He says he thinks that to generate private investment, the city will have to provide matching funds. He also says that the city will need a full-time art administrator to address fundraising.

8:39 p.m. Hieftje says it was a mistake in establishing the Percent for Art program to not provide enough staff support. He says that the private donor for a proposed project at the wastewater treatment plan had withdrawn. [That partner was the Ann Arbor Hands On Museum.] He talks about the beauty in taking wastewater and turning it into clean water that can be returned to the Huron River. Hieftje stresses that it’s not legal to restrict funding just to local artists – as long as it involves public money.

8:40 p.m. Briere is commenting on the role of private and public funding. It’s important for the city to partner with a nonprofit that can accept tax-deductible donations from the private sector.

8:41 p.m. Teall calls everyone’s attention to the timeline for projects. It takes a long time for projects like these to get done, she says.

8:44 p.m. Taylor reiterates Eaton’s point that the transition be funded through the FY 2015 budget process. He expects to see that budget proposal from the city administrator, he says. Taylor ventures that donations to the city would also be tax deductible, contradicting Briere’s remark. He cites IRS publication 526. Lumm and Taylor engage in back-and-forth on what Taylor said about priorities.

8:45 p.m. Petersen is trying to bring the council back to the point of the ordinance, which is not how to fund a transition between programs.

8:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the amended public art ordinance. Teall was the sole dissenting vote.

8:45 p.m. C-2 Outdoor smoking ordinance. The council is giving initial consideration to a new ordinance that would prohibit smoking in specific outdoor public areas. Made punishable through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building. The ordinance amendment also authorizes the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking, and to increase the distance from entrances to city buildings where outdoor smoking is prohibited. [For additional background, see Outdoor Smoking above.]

8:47 p.m. Warpehoski announces he’ll be asking for postponement until the council’s first meeting in March, in part to allow time for feedback from the city’s park advisory commission. He allows that the language about the fine wasn’t clear. [.pdf of highlighted proposed ordinance] He says the idea is not to be punitive, but rather to provide clean air for people who want to enjoy city parks. He points out the existing county ordinance already prohibits smoking around doorways and windows.

8:49 p.m. The motion to postpone has not yet been made. Warpehoski wants to hear any questions. No one has any. He makes the motion to postpone the initial vote on the ordinance until March 3, 2014.

8:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the initial vote on the new outdoor smoking ordinance until its March 3, 2014 meeting.

8:49 p.m. DC-1 Set liquor hearings. This resolution would set hearings on a recommendation for non-renewal of liquor licenses for just one establishment in the city. The date of the hearing would be Feb. 25 at 9 a.m. The three businesses originally subject to the hearings were The Arena, Banfield’s Bar & Grill, and Café Zola. They were all potentially be recommended for non-renewal due to non-payment of personal property taxes.

But by Monday morning of the council meeting on Feb. 3, only Banfield’s Bar & Grill remained on the list. The council’s resolution would also appoint Jane Lumm (Ward 2) as the hearing officer. Lumm serves on the council’s liquor license review committee, along with Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). [For additional background, see Liquor Licenses: Possible Non-Renewal above.]

8:50 p.m. Lumm is reviewing how the process works. She thanks staff for their work.

8:50 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set the date and time of the hearing on liquor license non-renewal.

8:50 p.m. DB-1 Art administrator contract. The council is being asked again to consider a six-month extension for Ann Arbor public art administrator Aaron Seagraves – through June 30, 2014. The council will be asked to allocate $18,500 to cover the added term. It’s a 20-hour-a-week appointment. The budget expenditure for Seagraves’ contract will need support from at least an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council. The item was postponed from the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting. [Details of the council's previous deliberations are reported in The Chronicle's live updates from the Jan. 21 meeting.] [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

8:52 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) allows that a concern had been raised about the appropriateness of funding Seagraves’ contract with Percent for Art money. He’s not working on transition work, she says. Still, she is willing to change the funding source from the public art fund to the general fund.

8:55 p.m. Lumm reads aloud the resolution as amended to draw the money from the general fund. Taylor says he likes the general fund the way it is and is content to fund the administrator’s contract extension from the public art fund. Warpehoski says he’d rather use the restricted funds instead of the general fund. The general fund should be only the last resort, he says. Taylor and Warpehoski won’t support Briere’s amendment. Hieftje says he’ll support funding the administrator’s contract out of Percent for Art money. He discounts the idea that there’s a legal problem using the money for administration.

8:57 p.m. Lumm wants to postpone, but Hieftje wants to handle the amendment first. Eaton questions the parliamentary principle cited by Hieftje. But they deal with the amendment.

8:58 p.m. Outcome: The amendment to draw the funds from the general fund fails with support only from Teall, Eaton, Briere and Lumm.

9:00 p.m. Lumm now moves to postpone the vote on the contract extension until the council’s Feb. 18 meeting. Briere asks Hupy if the postponement would affect the city’s ability to pay Seagraves between now and Feb. 18. Yes, he says. Briere asks a question that Hupy doesn’t understand.

9:03 p.m. Hupy clarifies that the council would be able to pay Seagraves under a scenario where the council returns money to the funds of origin. Briere says she sees no need to postpone. Hieftje alludes to the discussion at the last council meeting and says he also won’t support postponement. Eaton says that he supports postponement because he doesn’t think there are eight votes in support tonight. Hieftje responds: “I can accept that!”

9:04 p.m. Hupy and Lumm are talking about how the administrative funding works.

9:05 p.m. Hiefjte says that in light of Eaton’s remark, he’ll support postponement. Hupy clarifies that he will not be able to pay Seagraves if the resolution is postponed. Teall says: “That’s not right.”

9:06 p.m. Warpehoski asks what the impact would be on the progress of projects that Seagraves is working on. Hupy indicates there’d be a negative impact.

9:08 p.m. Taylor echoes Teall’s sentiments. This postponement would put the contractor out of work and he calls it “not proper.” He says that it’s unfortunate that this question of the contract is being linked to a different question about the larger issue.

9:10 p.m. Outcome on postponement: The postponement fails with Teall, Warpehoski, Briere, Petersen and Taylor voting against it.

9:12 p.m. Outcome on the main resolution: The council has rejected the six-month extension for the public art administrator’s contract. Voting against it were Anglin, Eaton, Kailasapathy, and Lumm, so it thus failed to achieve the eight votes it needed to pass.

9:13 p.m. Warpehoski raises his voice, expressing incredulity that those who opposed the contract did so. He tells them they’ve thrown Seagraves out of his job. He says “Shame on you!” to councilmembers who voted against the extension, and concludes his outburst with “I’m offended.” Eaton raises a point of order.

9:13 p.m. DB-2 Germain Motors site plan. The council is being asked to approve a proposed expansion for Germain Motors – an auto dealership on South State Street, formerly Howard Cooper Imports. The site plan was recommended for approval by Ann Arbor planning commissioners at their Dec. 17, 2013 meeting. [For additional background, see Germain Motors Site Plan above.]

9:13 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Germain Motors site plan.

9:14 p.m. DS-1 Planning commission bylaws. The council is being asked to approve a change to the planning commission’s bylaws. This was considered and postponed twice last year, as the planning commission has weighed additional changes to the bylaws. The planning commission is continuing to weigh those changes, which involve speaking turns and time during public hearings, and whether a city councilmember can address the commission.

The change in front of the council tonight relates to the order of agenda items, and the length of time required for special accommodations. The change would require additional lead time so that special accommodations, including a sign language interpreter, can be made for people with disabilities, when requested at least two business days in advance of a meeting. The current bylaws specify just a one-day advance request. If the council follows the previous pattern, this will be postponed. [For additional background, see Planning Commission Bylaws above.]

9:15 p.m. Eaton ventures that the rule on councilmembers addressing the planning commission is exactly reversed from what it should be: Councilmembers with a petition in front of the commission should be able to address the commission, he says.

9:15 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone consideration of the change to the planning commission’s bylaws until the first meeting in March.

9:15 p.m. DS-2 Geddes Avenue project. The council is being asked to consider approval of a $398,703 contract plus a $40,000 contingency with Hubbell Roth & Clark Inc. to reconstruct Geddes Avenue from Huntington to Huron Parkway. The project, which includes five components, is scheduled to start in the spring of 2015 and may continue through 2016. The five components of the project are: reconstruction of Geddes, sanitary sewer on Geddes, sanitary sewer on Dover Place and Riverview, storm sewer on Geddes, and water main on Dover Place and Riverview. [For additional background, see Geddes Avenue Reconstruction: 2015 above.]

9:18 p.m. Lumm and Petersen are engaging Elizabeth Rolla and Craig Hupy in a discussion about the project – as it’s in Ward 2, which they represent.

9:19 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract to reconstruct Geddes Avenue.

9:20 p.m. DS-3 Edwards Brothers property. This resolution would authorize the city administrator to move ahead with the purchase of the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property on South State Street. The University of Michigan has made an offer to Edwards Brothers to purchase the property for $12.8 million, but the city has a right of first refusal.

Specifically, the resolution approves the exercise of the city’s right of first refusal, appropriates necessary funds, and directs the city administrator to notify Edward Brothers Malloy about the exercise of the city’s right. As of early afternoon on Friday, Jan. 31, the item contained no other background information. Reached by phone late Friday afternoon, city administrator Steve Powers told The Chronicle that he and other staff would be working over the weekend to finalize the information that the council would be provided before being asked to consider the possible purchase of the land. That includes the financing mechanism, source of funds, types of scenarios for the city eventually to shed ownership of the land, results of an environmental review, and possible zoning revisions to enhance property value.

However, the information still wasn’t made available by the start of Monday’s council meeting. Powers allowed that the council might not be ready to vote at its Feb. 3 meeting, but confirmed that the council’s next regular meeting on Feb. 18 would still fall within the 60-day window of opportunity for action. [For additional background, see Edwards Brothers Land above.]

9:21 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the question until after a closed session. [Proper motion here would have been to table.]

9:22 p.m. Closed session. Outcome: The council has voted to go into closed session to discuss land acquisition and written communication protected by attorney-client privilege.

10:15 p.m. Three conversational pods here in city council, as we wait for the council to conclude its closed session.

10:58 p.m. The council has emerged from the closed session.

11:00 p.m. The council is back in open session.

11:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone consideration of the Edwards Brothers land purchase until its next meeting.

11:02 p.m. Communications from council. Hieftje is querying Eaton about his intentions for next meeting on the public art administrator. Eaton indicates that he intends to bring it back for reconsideration.

11:03 p.m. Briere ventures that Seagraves might continue not to continue his employment. In the next two weeks he might choose not to be reliable or forgiving, she says. So the council is taking a risk, she says. No matter what the funding its, the city still needs a public art administrator, she says.

11:03 p.m. Clerk’s report of communications, petitions and referrals. Outcome: The council has received the clerk’s report of communications.

11:03 p.m. Public comment general time. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

11:07 p.m. Thomas Partridge is addressing the council. He’s talking about a trip by president Barack Obama to East Lansing. Partridge hopes he’ll extend the visit to Ann Arbor. He’s talking about income disparity between the top 1% and the rest of the population. He’s complaining about snow-removal contractors for the Walden Hills Apartments. They allow “mountains of snow” in excess of 30 feet high, he says.

11:09 p.m. Edward Vielmetti is now addressing the council. He points out to the council that the habit of some of the boards and commissions is to submit their minutes late –highlighting the LDFA (local development finance authority). The council should insist that minutes be submitted promptly. He also highlights the downtown citizens advisory council minutes. The most recent minutes show only two people attending the last meeting, but the minutes were submitted as if it was a regular meeting, he said.

11:13 p.m. John Floyd says this has been the best snow plowing he’s experienced in the last 15 years. He alludes to a remark quoted from Joan Lowenstein who apparently characterized Jack Eaton as being wrong 100% of the time. He engages in a humorful dialogue that concludes with his presentation of a broken watch to Eaton – which Eaton can wear and thus be right at least twice a day.

11:15 p.m. A speaker is addressing the council on behalf of Camp Misfit, reprising themes from the public commentary at the start of the meeting. Seth Best follows up with remarks supportive of the homeless community. He also reiterates his concerns about the proposed outdoor smoking regulations. He suggests community service as an option to the $50 fine.

11:18 p.m. Caleb Poirier thanks the council for the work they do. He allows that a lot of good work is being done for human services in this city. He cites the Delonis Center for their good work. He compliments the AAPD officers who delivered the eviction notices, saying that they were apologetic about the fact they had to deliver the notice. He said that the message his group had tried to bring was multi-faceted. He allowed that all of these things need work.

11:18 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.

Two new ordinances will be given initial consideration at the Ann Arbor city council’s Feb. 3, 2014 meeting. One involves public art – which relates to leftover business from the council’s previous meeting. The second proposed new local law involves prohibitions against smoking in some public places.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the Feb. 3, 2014 meeting agenda.

Public art is actually the topic of two separate items on the council’s agenda. One is a contract extension for the city’s part-time public art administrator, which had been on the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 agenda, but was postponed at that meeting.

The postponement took place in the context of a political horse trade offered by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council table on Jan. 21. Eaton indicated he’d support the public art administrator’s contract extension at the council’s subsequent meeting – but only if the council would move toward returning as-yet-unallocated money set aside during the now defunct Percent for Art program to its funds of origin (e.g., sanitary sewer fund, street millage fund etc.).

Both elements of the horse trade are scheduled for the Feb. 3 meeting. The move toward returning money out of the public art fund takes the form of initial consideration of an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance. The ordinance amendment, sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), would allow the council to return money accumulated under the city’s former Percent for Art program to the funds from which that money was drawn. The ordinance change would need a second and final council vote at a subsequent meeting to be enacted. Any transfer of public art money would require separate council action after the potential ordinance change.

A third public art item is expected to be on the agenda as an item of communication – the annual public art plan for fiscal 2015, which was approved by the Ann Arbor public art commission at its Jan. 29 meeting. It lists projects that are underway, as well as potential new projects for the coming year.

Also getting initial consideration on Feb. 3 will be a new ordinance that would prohibit smoking in specific outdoor public areas. Made punishable through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of any city-owned building. The ordinance amendment would also authorize the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking.

In another item on its Feb. 3 agenda, the council will consider approval of a $398,703 contract plus a $40,000 contingency with Hubbell Roth & Clark Inc. to reconstruct Geddes Avenue from Huntington to Huron Parkway. The project, which includes five components, is scheduled to start in the spring of 2015 and may continue through 2016. The five components of the project are: reconstruction of Geddes, sanitary sewer on Geddes, sanitary sewer on Dover Place and Riverview, storm sewer on Geddes, and water main on Dover Place and Riverview.

Also on the council’s Feb. 3 agenda is a proposed expansion for Germain Motors – an auto dealership on South State Street, formerly Howard Cooper Imports.

The council will also consider setting a hearing date for three establishments that could potentially be recommended for non-renewal of their liquor licenses for non-payment of taxes: The Arena, Banfield’s Bar & Grill, and Café Zola. The three businesses were also subject to the same scrutiny last year, and all eventually paid their taxes without having their licenses revoked.

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.

Public Art

Two items related to public art appear on the council’s Feb. 3, 2014 agenda. One item is a contract extension for the city’s part-time public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves. The extension had been on the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 agenda, but was postponed at that meeting.

The postponement took place in the context of a political horse trade offered by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council table on Jan. 21. Eaton indicated he’d support the public art administrator’s contract extension at the council’s subsequent meeting on Feb. 3 – but only if the council would move toward returning as-yet-unallocated money set aside during the now defunct Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin (e.g., sanitary sewer fund, street millage fund etc.).

Both elements of the horse trade are on the Feb. 3 agenda. The move toward returning money out of the public art fund takes the form of an amendment to the city’s ordinance on public art.

A third public art item is expected to be added to the Feb. 3 agenda as well, but simply as an item of communication – the annual public art plan for fiscal 2015, which the Ann Arbor public art commission approved at its Jan. 29 meeting.

Public Art: Part-time Administrator’s Contract Extension

The council will be asked again to consider a six-month extension for Ann Arbor public art administrator Aaron Seagraves – through June 30, 2014. The council will be asked to allocate $18,500 to cover the added term.

The budget expenditure for Seagraves’ contract will need support from at least an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council. That’s why some councilmembers’ dissatisfaction with the current $839,507 in unallocated money in the public art fund posed a credible possibility of a failed vote at the Jan. 21 meeting.

The proposal to postpone the vote on the contract extension came from Jack Eaton (Ward 4), who wanted to delay until the council’s next meeting, by which time a clear plan could be crafted to return the Percent for Art money to its funds of origin. The only dissenting vote on postponement at the Jan. 21 meeting came from Margie Teall (Ward 4). [Details of the council's deliberations are reported in The Chronicle's live updates from the Jan. 21 meeting.]

Seagraves is contracted to work an average of 20 hours a week.

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

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

The funds accrued to the public art fund during the time of the Percent for Art program are still subject to the same legal constraints – which require a thematic link between the original source of the funds (e.g., the street millage) and the piece of art to be funded.

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

The council debate at its June 3, 2013 meeting included wrangling about what to do with that fund balance, with Jane Lumm (Ward 2) arguing unsuccessfully that $845,029 should be returned to the funds of origin. The council voted to return only the money that had accrued to the fund in the most recent budget year – $326,464.

Public Art: Ordinance Revision

At the June 3, 2013 meeting, the council did not ultimately vote on Lumm’s proposal to return Percent for Art money from earlier years to its funds of origin. That’s because the council rejected her proposal to amend the public art ordinance to allow that transfer to take place.

So Lumm’s ordinance proposal for the Feb. 3, 2014 meeting reprises the previous effort to amend the ordinance to allow the transfer of money accumulated during previous years of the Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin.

If the council votes to approve the ordinance on Feb. 3, it would still require a second vote at a subsequent meeting to be enacted. And any transfer of money would require a separate council action.

Outdoor Smoking

On the council’s Feb. 3 agenda for initial consideration is a new ordinance that would prohibit smoking in specific outdoor public areas. Made punishable through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building.

The ordinance amendment also authorizes the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking, and to increase the distance from entrances to city buildings where outdoor smoking is prohibited.

Where no signs are posted noting the smoking prohibition, a citation could be issued only if someone doesn’t stop smoking immediately when asked to stop.

An existing county ordinance already prohibits smoking near entrances, windows and ventilation systems, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution – but the county’s ordinance can be enforced only by the county health department. The memo further notes that the Michigan Clean Indoor Air Act does not regulate outdoor smoking.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is listed as the sponsor of the ordinance change on the city’s Legistar system. At the council’s Oct. 21, 2013 meeting, he had announced his intent to bring forward a proposed ordinance regulating outdoor smoking, and reported at that time he’d been working with city parks staff on the issue.

Geddes Avenue Reconstruction: 2015

The council will consider approval of a $398,703 contract plus a $40,000 contingency with Hubbell Roth & Clark Inc. to reconstruct Geddes Avenue from Huntington to Huron Parkway.

The portion of Geddes to be reconstructed is indicated in yellow. Parcels currently lacking sanitary sewer service are indicated in red.

The project, which includes five components, is scheduled to start in the spring of 2015 and may continue through 2016. The five components of the project are: reconstruction of Geddes, sanitary sewer on Geddes, sanitary sewer on Dover Place and Riverview, storm sewer on Geddes, and water main on Dover Place and Riverview. [.pdf of map showing parcels currently lacking sanitary sewer service]

The components of the project, which the city is calling collectively the Geddes Avenue Improvements Project, could also include corrections of slope sloughing, and the construction of non-motorized improvements within the project limits.

The scope of the actual project is supposed to stem in part from public participation. So part of the contract with HRC includes a “robust public engagement process” to include the adjacent residents, various interest groups, and the public at large.

Germain Motors Site Plan

On the council’s Feb. 3 agenda is a proposed expansion for Germain Motors – an auto dealership on South State Street, formerly Howard Cooper Imports.

The site plan was recommended for approval by Ann Arbor planning commissioners at their Dec. 17, 2013 meeting. The item had previously been postponed by commissioners on Nov. 19, 2013.

The planning commission’s recommendation of approval of the project’s site plan was subject to variances for modifications related to parking lot and landscaping requirements. Those variances were considered and approved by the city’s zoning board of appeals on Jan. 22. Planning commissioners also approved landscape modifications that would reduce the requirement – outlined in Chapter 62 of the city code – for depressed landscape islands within the site.

The planning staff had supported a recommendation of approval on Dec. 17, noting that the owner had addressed several issues that had previously raised concerns. Changes from the plan presented on Nov. 19 include:

• Adding 5,027 square feet of porous pavers to be installed in the expanded vehicle display areas along State Street and Oakbrook Drive.
• Adding eight new depressed landscape islands to the parking storage areas in the back of the site. The changes mean a loss of about 24 parking spaces.
• Changing the landscape modification request. The original request had included reducing the number of required trees to be planted on site by eight. The owner now plans to plant all of the required trees.

The project’s architect also explored the possibility of adding a “green” (vegetated) roof, but ultimately determined that it wasn’t feasible without making significant changes to the existing buildings. The question of whether the architect had considered a green roof to help with stormwater management was raised on Nov. 19.

Other parts of the proposed project, which is located in Ward 4, were unchanged. It calls for a 4,877-square-foot addition to the Volkswagen building on the northern portion of the State Street frontage, bringing the total square footage to 18,722 for that structure. A 6,429-square-foot addition is proposed for the Porsche/Audi building, in the center of the site, which would create a total building size of 31,097 square feet. The site’s third building, housing the Honda dealership on the southern part of the property, would remain at 36,101 square feet.

Also, the owner – Steve Germain, who attended the Nov. 19 planning commission meeting with several members of the project team – would like to add 248 parking spaces, bringing the total number of spaces to 1,039. The new spaces would be in three locations: (1) along the southern half of the South State Street frontage; (2) along the Oakbrook Drive frontage; and (3) in the rear car storage lots. The proposal would require three variances from Chapter 59 (off-street parking) in order to allow tandem parking, to reduce the aisle widths, and to exceed the maximum percentage (30%) of allowable small car parking spaces. Those are the variances granted by the ZBA at its Jan. 22 meeting.

The total expansion is estimated to cost $5.5 million.

Liquor Licenses: Possible Non-Renewal

On the council’s Feb. 3 agenda is a resolution that would set hearings on a recommendation for non-renewal of liquor licenses for three establishments in the city. The date of the hearing would be Feb. 25 at 9 a.m.

The three businesses subject to the hearings are The Arena, Banfield’s Bar & Grill, and Café Zola. They could all potentially be recommended for non-renewal due to non-payment of personal property taxes.

The council’s resolution would also appoint Jane Lumm (Ward 2) as the hearing officer. Lumm serves on the council’s liquor license review committee, along with Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Lumm served as the hearing officer for this kind of proceeding in 2013 as well. Also on that occasion, Banfield’s Bar & Grill, Café Zola and The Arena were on the hearing list. However, by the time of the hearing, Café Zola had resolved its issue. And at the hearing itself, Banfield’s Bar & Grill made an arrangement to resolve its outstanding issue.

Only the hearing on The Arena ultimately resulted in a city council recommendation to the state liquor control commission not to renew a license. Subsequently, The Arena did pay its taxes, and the council withdrew its objection to a license renewal for The Arena.

Planning Commission Bylaws

Again on the city council’s agenda is the approval of a change to the planning commission’s bylaws. The changes related to the order of agenda items, and the length of time required for special accommodations, such as sign language interpreters. The change would require additional lead time so that special accommodations, including a sign language interpreter, can be made for people with disabilities, when requested at least two business days in advance of a meeting. The current bylaws specify just a one-day advance request.

The planning commission had given approval to changes in its bylaws about six months ago – at its July 16, 2013 meeting.

The bylaws changes were considered but postponed twice by the city council last year – first at the council’s Nov. 7, 2013 meeting, then at the Dec. 16, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws changes]

The council had held off voting to approve the bylaws changes as the planning commission has considered further revisions to its bylaws – related to the number of times someone can speak during a public hearing, and whether city councilmembers are allowed to address the planning commission during the commission’s meetings.

At a regular meeting of the planning commission, the additional revisions were discussed most recently on Nov. 6, 2013. The additional changes were also discussed at a working session on Jan. 7.

Appointments to City Boards, Commissions

Several nominations to city boards and commissions were made at the council’s previous meeting on Jan. 21. They’ll be voted on at the council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Jim Simpson was nominated to fill the vacancy of Malverne Winborne on the public art commission. Winborne’s term ended on Dec. 31, 2013.

Daniel Lee was nominated to serve out the rest of Marta Manildi’s term on the Ann Arbor housing commission. Manildi’s term ends this spring, but she said she’d step down early if someone could be appointed.

Paige Morrison was nominated to serve out the rest of Jennifer Geer’s term on the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. Geer has resigned.

And Peter Woolf was nominated to fill the vacancy of Lindsey-Jean Hard on the public market advisory commission.

Consent Agenda

The consent agenda 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. Here are some highlights from the Feb. 3 consent agenda.

Consent Agenda: Chelsea Tech Agreement

The council is being asked to approve an amendment to the renewal agreement for information technology services between the city of Ann Arbor and city of Chelsea. The contract is being amended to match fiscal years – by extending it an extra five months for a total of 17 months and $80,499.

The contract covers support for the help desk, management of the city’s website, server hosting, data backup and recovery, overseeing IT contractors, project management, and representing the city of Chelsea in regional technology efforts and meetings.

Consent Agenda: Street Closings

The council will be asked to approve street closings for FoolMoon (April 4, 2014) and FestiFools (April 6, 2014).

Consent Agenda: Firehouse Subs Grant

The council will be asked to approve a resolution accepting a grant of $25,736 from Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation Corporation. The money will be used to buy 11 automatic external defibrillator units for use by the fire department.

It was the fire department that applied for the grant to replace existing equipment. No matching funds are required.

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!

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

The largest proposal was a revised version of a 14-story apartment complex at 624 Church St. The development, located in Ward 3, was expanded after an additional property was acquired next to the original site. The project is a 116,167-square-foot building with 123 apartments and about 230 bedrooms. It would stand adjacent to and over the existing two-story Pizza House restaurant at 618 Church, and would extend to the southeast corner of Willard and Church, where the building’s entrance will be located.

Questions from commissioners covered a range of topics, including concerns over the 48 parking permits that the developer has secured from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in the Forest Avenue parking structure. Two commissioners expressed concern that the structure is frequently full already, and that additional spaces taken up with 624 Church St. residents will make it even more difficult to park there.

Other issues raised during deliberations related to the location of the bike storage room, the use of a proposed outdoor plaza space next to Pizza House, the type of materials to be used in the building and design of the building. The vote to recommend approval of the project was unanimous.

Also recommended for approval on Dec. 17 was the zoning of two properties on South State Street – 1643 and 1645 S. State – as C1 (local business district). One of those properties houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The land had been annexed into the city from Ann Arbor Township in 2011. That same year, a previous request for zoning the land as C3 had been recommended for denial by commissioners.

Another State Street project – a revised version of an expansion at Germain Motors – was recommended for approval by commissioners in a unanimous vote. The commission had voted to postpone action on Nov. 19, 2013, pending issues that were resolved in the version presented on Dec. 17.

624 Church St.

An expanded proposal for a residential development at 624 Church St. was on the Dec. 17 agenda. Commissioners were asked to recommend approval of both the site plan and draft development agreement. [.pdf of site plan] [.pdf of draft development agreement] [.pdf of staff memo]

Nearly a year ago, the planning commission had recommended approval of an earlier version of this development at its Jan. 15, 2013 meeting. Subsequently, the developer bought an adjacent parcel at 1117 Willard to expand the project, which is located next to and over the Pizza House restaurant on the west side of Church, south of South University. The Tice family, which owns Pizza House, is partnering with Opus Group of Minnetonka, Minnesota, and 624 Partners LLC. When Pizza House expanded in 2006, the project included foundations that would allow for a taller building eventually to be constructed.

The original plan was for an 83,807-square-foot, 14-story building addition with 76 residential units. The current plan is for a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms. The apartment building would stand adjacent to and over the existing two-story restaurant at 618 Church, and would extend to the southeast corner of Willard and Church, where the building’s entrance will be located. Existing buildings at 624 Church Street and 1117 Willard would be torn down.

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

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

Other features of the project and development agreement include:

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

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

City planner Matt Kowalski

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

At the DDA board’s Dec. 4, 2013 meeting, board members considered a request, which was ultimately tabled, for an extension of the contractual agreement under which parking permits for 624 Church could be purchased. The developer wants the ability to extend the contract’s 15-year commitment to instead cover a 30-year financing period – based on feedback from firms that would be providing the financing. The DDA board ultimately voted to table the question pending further review by the board’s operations committee.

City planner Matt Kowalski reported that planning staff and the city’s design review board had some concerns about the placement of the building’s bike storage room. To address concerns about the room’s location and safety, the architect has added more glass windows to increase visibility into the room. Even so, staff would still prefer that the room be located in a more prominent part of the site, Kowalski said. Other recent developments have included bicycle rooms that aren’t used very much, he reported.

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

624 Church St.: Public Hearing

The only speaker during the public hearing was Brad Moore, the project’s architect. Several other members of the development team, including Dennis Tice, attended the meeting but did not formally address the commission.

Brad Moore, architect for the 624 Church development

Moore noted that the previous project had been approved. That project had resulted in concerns from the adjacent property owner to the west regarding the lack of any setback on the property line, he said. So the building has been redesigned to address some of those concerns.

In the process of that redesign, they became aware that the owner of the property to the south was willing to sell, Moore reported. So that’s been folded into the redesign and has resulted in a better project overall, he said. The city’s design review board agreed, and liked it better than the previous version, he added.

Moore highlighted some of the changes. Using different fenestration patterns helps break up the mass, he noted, as do changes in color and materials. An outdoor space for residents on the roof was added.

He pointed out that one of the biggest concerns from the design review board for the original proposal was that the outdoor plaza on the ground level hadn’t been “definitively programmed.” The owners of Pizza House had reported that they didn’t have much outdoor seating, so the new design includes overhead glass, rolling garage doors, which will help control the wind that might move through that space. The interior designer for Pizza House has come up with a “garage bar” concept, Moore explained, with the idea that it would be a very active space on the street.

Regarding the bicycle parking issues, Moore said they’ve done as much as they can to address the concerns, by adding transparency to the room. There’s a conflict over “who gets the street space,” he noted. The design review board really wanted to have active space near the street, and he didn’t feel that a bike room would qualify as active streetscape – and that’s why the room wasn’t moved to the front of the building. He said the developer plans to promote the bike room, which will be well-lit and under security observation at all times, Moore said.

Moore concluded by saying that other representatives of the design team were on hand to answer any questions.

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Trash Collection

Sabra Briere asked about the trash and recycling collection. Her understanding was that containers would be wheeled out into what looks like a “blind alley.”

Planning commissioner Sabra Briere, who also serves on city council

Brad Moore explained that there will be a trash room with compactors and recycling bins in it.

On trash days, the trash collection truck will pull into an alley off Willard. Dumpsters that are similar in size to those used by Zaragon Place will be wheeled out from the trash room, he said. The truck will lift and empty the dumpster, which will then be wheeled back into the trash room.

Moore said that designers met on site with city staff – including drivers of the trash collection trucks – to make sure it was a workable solution.

Briere said that, in general, she’s heard complaints from residents about the “warning claxon” from trash trucks – the sound that’s made when those trucks back up. She said she didn’t see a way around that issue, but she was eager to come up with a different mechanism for devising alleys so that they aren’t blind and don’t require trucks to back up.

Moore replied that he understood those concerns, but he noted that the alley already serves a dumpster for a neighboring property. “So we’re not doing anything that isn’t already occurring in that location,” he said.

Briere pointed out that now there will be several hundred more people listening to the “beep beep beep … and I will get complaints.”

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Plaza

Briere then asked about the street-level plaza area, asking Moore if he had a good rendering of that. Kowalski noted that some renderings of that area were included in the commission’s meeting packet. Moore said the renderings were uploaded to the city’s eTRAKit site.

Briere asked if the space would be for use in three seasons or four seasons. Moore replied that it won’t be used year-round, because there’s no way to heat it. The space could be used on rainy days, however, because it’s covered. He described its use as primarily from mid-April through mid-October.

Image of proposed Pizza House plaza at 624 Church

In response to another query from Briere, Moore noted that there will be security cameras monitoring the space, and that it won’t be open 24 hours a day. The site will be secured by closing the garage doors on one side. The other side is secured with chain-link fencing, he said. There will be a door into the plaza from the inside of Pizza House. People who use the space will be “age-verified,” Moore said.

Kirk Westphal asked about the materials of the garage doors. Moore described the doors as being completely transparent, made out of polycarbonate glazed panels in a steel frame. Westphal said it seems a shame to not be able to use the space during colder periods, and he wondered if space heaters that are used in other outdoor locations could be used there too. Moore said he’d have to check with the city’s fire marshal. The ceiling will need to be fire-rated, he said, but he wasn’t sure if space heaters would be permitted.

Diane Giannola clarified with Moore that this plaza would be part of Pizza House, and wouldn’t be a “party room” for apartment residents.

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Parking

Wendy Woods asked about parking. Moore explained that 53 spaces are required by city code, and five will be provided on site. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board had already granted permits for the remaining 48 spaces in the Forest parking structure about a half-block away, he noted. What the developer is asking for now is an extension option for the term of the permits, he said. The zoning ordinance calls for a 15-year term, but the developer needs a longer term than that in order to get financing for the project, Moore explained.

Woods reported that she parks at the Forest structure, because she works for the University of Michigan at East Quad – which is located near the proposed development. The parking structure is shared by the university and the city, she noted. The structure sometimes fills up, Woods said, adding that she’s always wondered whether the DDA is overselling some of these spaces. She said she understood that it’s not the developer’s problem. People are encouraged to bike or walk, but the reality is that it’s difficult to find available spaces in the parking structures that are near campus, she said.

Planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Paras Parekh

Woods described it as “a problem in the making,” and she wanted to highlight it. “Already there are days when you get there and you can’t get into that lot because it’s already full.” She joked that some people say a UM parking pass is just a license to look for a space – it doesn’t guarantee that you’ll get a space.

City planning manager Wendy Rampson responded, explaining that the construction of the Forest parking structure had been a partnership between the city and UM. A percentage of the spaces are designated for the city, with the other portion for university parking. [The DDA's website indicates that 497 spaces are available for public parking. There are 854 total spaces in the structure.]

Paras Parekh noted that he also works for the university and parks at the Forest structure on occasion, “and it’s been a frustrating experience.” He wondered if the DDA has indicated why the 48 permits would be acceptable. Moore replied that he didn’t have data from the DDA about the percentage of parking that’s still available. He pointed out that the DDA staff had looked at the entire parking system’s capacity, and had determined where those permits would be located. They could have given out parking permits in multiple structures, he said, adding that “I wasn’t privy to that analysis.” [The developer had requested that the permits would be located in the Forest structure.]

Parekh said that whenever he’s parked at the Forest structure, it’s always been a challenge to find a spot. He thought that adding 48 parking permits could increase the challenging experience that everyone faces there. He joked that perhaps there’s been a study showing that if you look long enough, you’ll eventually find a spot. Moore reiterated that it’s a DDA decision.

Bonnie Bona continued the focus on parking. She clarified with Moore that the development was seeking a contribution-in-lieu by securing permits from the DDA. She asked whether there is an option to buy parking and not use it.

By way of background, the Ann Arbor DDA, which operates the public parking system under contract with the city, had approved its recommendation of a specific contribution-in-lieu-of-parking policy more than two years ago, at its July 7, 2010 board meeting. The city council then formally adopted the DDA’s recommended policy, at its April 2, 2012 meeting, with the policy’s two options: (1) purchase monthly parking permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% of the current rate for such permits, with a commitment of 15 years; or (2) make a lump sum payment of $55,000 per space.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona

At the Dec. 17 planning commission meeting, Moore responded to Bona by saying he wasn’t aware of a buyout option for parking. [Planning manager Wendy Rampson clarified details of the CIL options later in the meeting.]

Bona said she understood the need of having parking in order to secure financing for the project. She asked what the arrangement is if residents don’t actually have a need for parking. Are the spaces incorporated into the unit’s rent? No, Moore replied – the parking spaces would be a separate rental contract.

Bona asked what happens if it turns out that the development doesn’t use all of the parking permits. Moore said it would be determined by the building’s management. They might choose to discount the permits until the permits were sold – he imagined that would be the first approach. Moore noted that feedback from other high-rise apartment buildings in the area indicates all available parking spots are always rented out to residents.

Bona said she wanted to ensure that the parking spots aren’t tied to apartment rentals, and that there would be some flexibility “so that we’re not encouraging residents to park there if they really don’t need a car.” She said she didn’t know how the resale market for parking permits worked – whether someone could put an ad on Craigslist, for example, and resell a permit.

Regarding bicycle parking, Bona said she was disappointed that the bike room is located in the back of the building. Based on observations of other buildings, a bike room doesn’t get used in that location, she said. “You may become one of our posterchilds for changing the bike storage requirement, and not allow them to be put in places where they’re not actually going to be used,” she told Moore. If residents don’t use the bike storage room, where would they park their bikes?

Moore replied that residents always have the option of taking their bikes to their apartments.

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Top Floor

Bona asked whether the roof on the top floor was “solar ready.” It certainly would be available for that, Moore said. He knew that the developers were making a list of features that could be counted as points toward LEED certification, but he didn’t know if solar panels would be a part of that.

Jim Caesar of Opus Group came to the podium to respond. He said the management team is very concerned about putting anything on the roof, because it will be used for hooks to hold scaffolds for window-washing. There will also be a lot of PVC pipes, ducts and other rooftop equipment, he noted. The footprint is so small that he expects it will be “a maze of mechanical equipment” and not suitable for solar panels or a green roof.

Bona asked what mechanicals will be on the roof. Caesar said there will be three or four heat pump plant condensers, which he described as coils with fans beneath them. The heat pump system will be in the mechanical “penthouse” on the roof next to the elevator shaft. The condensers will be outside because they need to blow heat into the atmosphere, he said. Caesar described other equipment that will be on the roof, including 20-22 bathroom exhaust shafts and about 35 plumbing vent stacks.

Bona noted that the sound from that mechanical equipment will also result in phone calls to Briere – a reference to Briere’s previous comments regarding noise from trash trucks. Bona recommended that the development team should be prepared to address the issue of noise from the rooftop when they present the project to city council for approval.

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Materials

Kirk Westphal followed up on some issues raised in the design review board report about building materials.

Planning commission chair Kirk Westphal.

Specifically, the report stated that: (1) the base of the building should be broken up and varied – the east and south side should have as much detail as the other sides of the building; and (2) the horizontal elements at the top of the second floor and top floor of the building are not visually strong enough.

Westphal said that for him, the plane of the windows and the pre-cast concrete is pretty flush, and that might be troubling to people who want more articulation at the second floor and top floor. “It reads pretty flat to me,” he said, “but that’s not our purview.” Westphal indicated that any changes to the design in that regard would be welcome.

Responding to another query from Westphal, Moore replied that one of the design review board members had noticed some fading of the red-colored pre-cast concrete. To address that, Moore said the building will use concrete that balances the red and brown pigments, to try to mitigate concerns that the red pigment tended to fade more quickly.

Bonnie Bona pointed out that the details in the drawings were different in some of the renderings. For example, one of the renderings showed more articulation in the design than was visible in other renderings, she noted. She suggested making sure that when the project is presented to the city council, the intended design should be consistent throughout all of the renderings – “just so everyone knows what they’re approving.”

Sabra Briere noted that one of the lampposts in the rendering is white. Most of the lampposts she’s seen are black. “Or rust,” Westphal quipped – a reference to the rusted-out lampposts on Main Street that are being replaced.

Moore said the lamppost that Briere indicated was an existing one, and he’d make sure that the color was represented accurately.

Outcome: Commissioners recommended approval of the site plan and development agreement for the 624 Church St. development. It will now be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

South State Zoning

The planning commission was asked to recommend zoning two properties on South State Street – 1643 and 1645 S. State – as C1 (local business district). One of those properties houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

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

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

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

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

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

According to a Dec. 17 staff memo, the adoption of the corridor plan into the city’s master plan prompted city planning staff to initiate the current zoning request. The C1 zoning is consistent with recommendations in the master plan, which calls for a mixed-use neighborhood retail center in that area to serve the Yost and Burns Park neighborhoods.

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

No one spoke during the public hearing on this project.

South State Zoning: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona noted that some of the discussion regarding development of the South State corridor plan had involved a desire not to discourage small-scale industrial uses, because there are very few locations in the city where that is allowed. She wondered if there was any opportunity in C1 zoning districts to get a special exception use, that would allow industrial uses.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson

Not for a truly industrial use, replied city planner Matt Kowalski. The existing auto repair shop also wouldn’t be allowed under C1 zoning – so the operation will be considered a non-conforming use, he said. Paras Parekh clarified with Kowalski that even though the auto repair shop is non-conforming, it would be allowed to continue operating, and could change ownership and still remain in operation.

Bona said the storage use and auto repair don’t make a lot of sense to her, in an area where the city wants to encourage a more vital environment.

Sabra Briere recalled the earlier discussion about the proposed C3 zoning of these properties. There had been a desire to have a larger retail establishment at Biercamp, she noted. Will C1 be better for that purpose than C3? Kowalski reiterated the two main restrictions of C1 zoning compared to C3 – that C1 zoning doesn’t allow for drive-thrus, and limits the size of a business to 8,000 square feet. In C3, there are no limits on size.

Briere asked what the zoning was for the adjacent parcel where the Produce Station is located. That parcel is C3, Kowalski reported.

Briere indicated that she’d like to see a map of that entire South State area, with preferred zoning indicated for all the parcels. Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the State Street corridor plan didn’t actually have a proposed zoning map. Rather, it showed clusters of properties with recommendations for those clusters – not for specific parcels.

Wendy Woods recalled when commissioners had taken a walking tour of the State Street corridor, and how it had been helpful in understanding the different uses in that area and the traffic flow. [See Chronicle coverage: "South State Corridor Gets Closer Look."] She supported the C1 zoning.

Outcome: The C1 zoning for 1643 and 1645 S. State St. was recommended for approval. It will now be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Germain Motors Expansion

A proposed expansion for Germain Motors – an auto dealership on South State Street near the intersection with Oakbrook, formerly Howard Cooper Imports – was on the Dec. 17 agenda. The item had previously been postponed by commissioners on Nov. 19, 2013.

Commissioners were asked to recommend approval of the project’s revised site plan, subject to variances for modifications related to parking lot and landscaping requirements. Those variances will be considered by the city’s zoning board of appeals. Also on the agenda was a request of the planning commission, which does not require review by the city council – to approve landscape modifications that would reduce the city code’s Chapter 61 requirement for depressed landscape islands within the site – was also on the agenda.

The planning staff had supported a recommendation of approval on Dec. 17, noting that the owner had addressed several issues that had previously raised concerns. Changes from the plan presented on Nov. 19 include:

• Adding 5,027 square feet of porous pavers to be installed in the expanded vehicle display areas along State Street and Oakbrook Drive.
• Adding eight new depressed landscape islands to the parking storage areas in the back of the site. The changes means a loss of about 24 parking spaces.
• Changing the landscape modification request. The original request had included reducing the number of required trees to be planted on site by eight. The owner now plans to plant all of the required trees.

The project’s architect also explored the possibility of adding a “green” (vegetated) roof, but ultimately determined that it wasn’t feasible without making significant changes to the existing buildings. The question of whether the architect had considered a green roof to help with stormwater management was raised on Nov. 19.

Other parts of the proposed project, which is located in Ward 4, are unchanged. It calls for a 4,877-square-foot addition to the Volkswagen building on the northern portion of the State Street frontage, bringing the total square footage to 18,722 for that structure. A 6,429-square-foot addition is proposed for the Porsche/Audi building, in the center of the site, which would create a total building size of 31,097 square feet. The site’s third building, housing the Honda dealership on the southern part of the property, would remain at 36,101 square feet.

Owner Steve Germain – who had attended the Nov. 19 meeting with several members of the project team, but did not come to the meeting on Dec. 17 – would like to add 248 parking spaces, bringing the total number of spaces to 1,039. The new spaces would be in three locations: (1) along the southern half of the South State Street frontage; (2) along the Oakbrook Drive frontage; and (3) in the rear car storage lots. The proposal would require three variances from Chapter 59 (off-street parking) in order to allow tandem parking, to reduce the aisle widths, and to exceed the maximum percentage (30%) of allowable small car parking spaces.

The total expansion is estimated to cost $5.5 million. No one spoke during a public hearing on the project.

Germain Motors Expansion: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona began by asking why the porous pavers were being proposed for that particular location, in the vehicle display area. City planner Matt Kowalski replied that part of the reason was that the owner didn’t want to put the pavers in areas that would be used by customers, because it could be a potential trip hazard. Kowalski noted that the city staff didn’t give advice for the specific location.

From left: Bob Wanty of Washtenaw Engineering, and John Oney of Architectural Alliance in Worthington, Ohio. They were on hand to represent the Germain Motors project.

Bob Wanty of Washtenaw Engineering confirmed that they didn’t want to put the pavers in customer areas, and there really wasn’t another good location – other than the one that’s proposed for display vehicles.

Bona also pointed out that she was the one who had brought up the potential of a green roof for the project. She thanked the architect for looking into it. She referred to a written response from the architect that stated any energy savings would be insignificant. Bona contended that “may not necessarily be true.” She said she knows there’s a significant temperature difference between a white roof and a green roof, and allowed that more data is needed for an analysis.

Regarding the requested variances, Bona said they all seemed reasonable to her.

Wendy Woods thanked the project’s representatives for the work they’d done to make changes in the site plan. She was curious about how the traffic flows in the lower back area of the property. How do cars get in and out? It looked pretty full to her.

Kowalski replied that the aisle will be slightly reduced in a couple of areas, but he’d been out to the site and had seen how the staff handles the vehicles there. The lower storage area doesn’t get a lot of customer traffic, he noted. Wanty confirmed that description, noting that it’s a fairly steep slope between the State Street level and the lower level at the back of the site, and customers generally don’t go there. It’s almost all storage.

Woods asked about snow removal – where does the plowed snow go? Wanty replied that cars are moved so that the plow can go in, and the snow is pushed over to the stormwater detention basin area.

Outcome: Commissioners recommended approval of the site plan. It will now be forwarded to the city council for consideration. The planning commission also approved the project’s landscape modifications.

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

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan, Ken Clein, Jeremy Peters.

Next meeting: The regular meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2014 has been scheduled as working session instead. The session begins at 7 p.m. in the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Commissioners recommended approval of the project’s site plan, subject to variances for modifications related to parking lot and landscaping requirements. Those variances will be considered by the city’s zoning board of appeals. Commissioners also approved landscape modifications that would reduce the requirement – outlined in Chapter 62 of the city code – for depressed landscape islands within the site.

The planning staff had supported a recommendation of approval on Dec. 17, noting that the owner had addressed several issues that had previously raised concerns. Changes from the plan presented on Nov. 19 include:

• Adding 5,027 square feet of porous pavers to be installed in the expanded vehicle display areas along State Street and Oakbrook Drive.
• Adding eight new depressed landscape islands to the parking storage areas in the back of the site. The changes means a loss of about 24 parking spaces.
• Changing the landscape modification request. The original request had included reducing the number of required trees to be planted on site by eight. The owner now plans to plant all of the required trees.

The project’s architect also explored the possibility of adding a “green” (vegetated) roof, but ultimately determined that it wasn’t feasible without making significant changes to the existing buildings. The question of whether the architect had considered a green roof to help with stormwater management was raised on Nov. 19.

Other parts of the proposed project, which is located in Ward 4, are unchanged. It calls for a 4,877-square-foot addition to the Volkswagen building on the northern portion of the State Street frontage, bringing the total square footage to 18,722 for that structure. A 6,429-square-foot addition is proposed for the Porsche/Audi building, in the center of the site, which would create a total building size of 31,097 square feet. The site’s third building, housing the Honda dealership on the southern part of the property, would remain at 36,101 square feet.

Also, the owner – Steve Germain, who attended the Nov. 19 meeting with several members of the project team – would like to add 248 parking spaces, bringing the total number of spaces to 1,039. The new spaces would be in three locations: (1) along the southern half of the South State Street frontage; (2) along the Oakbrook Drive frontage; and (3) in the rear car storage lots. The proposal would require three variances from Chapter 59 (off-street parking) in order to allow tandem parking, to reduce the aisle widths, and to exceed the maximum percentage (30%) of allowable small car parking spaces.

The total expansion is estimated to cost $5.5 million. It will now be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

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

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

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

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

A public hearing on the downtown zoning review drew seven speakers, all of whom had previously addressed the commission on this topic. Andy Klein – one of the owners of a site at the southeast corner Main and William, which is being considered for downzoning – spoke against rezoning that property, calling himself the “lone dissenter.” Other speakers at the hearing were in favor of downzoning in general, including at that site. The recommendation for that property – possibly one of the most controversial – was not debated or acted on by commissioners at their Nov. 19 meeting.

Attached to the commission’s Dec. 3 agenda was a communication from Scott R. Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture, written on behalf of KRG Investments, the owners of the Main and William property. It suggests a third option to consider as a compromise, and indicates that Bonney will attend the Dec. 3 meeting to make a presentation about this proposal in person. [.pdf of Bonney's letter]

After the planning commission finalizes and approves its resolution regarding these downtown zoning recommendations, the resolution will be forwarded to the city council for consideration. The intent is for the council to review the recommendations and give direction to the commission about which recommendations to implement.

At that point, the commission’s ordinance revisions committee would work with city planning staff to craft actual ordinance language. Any specific ordinance changes would be reviewed by the full commission and ultimately would require city council approval before taking effect. That process would include additional opportunities for public input.

In addition to downtown zoning, three other projects were on the Nov. 19 agenda. Commissioners recommended approval of a proposal to build two restaurants adjacent to Macy’s at Briarwood Mall. They also recommended approval of a four-story addition to the existing two-story building at 210-216 S. Fourth Ave., between East Liberty and East Washington in downtown Ann Arbor, known as the Montgomery Building. The expansion will create 32 new housing units, including four studios, 14 one-bedroom, and 14 two-bedroom units.

One project that didn’t move forward was a proposed expansion of Germain Motors – the former Howard Cooper dealership on South State Street. Owner Steve Germain and his daughter Jessica Germain attended the meeting and described the growth of their business, with a 55% increase in combined sales compared to last year. They indicated that expanded showrooms and additional parking and vehicle display areas are needed to accommodate future growth. However, planning staff recommended postponement to address several outstanding issues, and commissioners acted on that advice.

Downtown Zoning Review

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

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

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

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

Commissioners made several amendments during their deliberations on Nov. 19, and adopted the following recommendations, which will likely be part of the final resolution to the city council. In general, the changes reflect a downzoning in an attempt to lessen the impact of development on adjacent residential neighborhoods:

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

The only draft recommendation that was not discussed on Nov. 19 was for a parcel located at the southeast corner of Main and William (425 S. Main). A surface parking lot and a building that currently houses DTE offices are located there.

Commissioners are expected to weigh two options for that site at their Dec. 3 meeting: (1) Rezone the parcel from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District; or (2) Change the maximum height in the Main Street Character District to 100 feet when within 20 feet of a residential zoning district and add a tower diagonal maximum and/or “shadow setback” requirement to limit shading on adjacent residential properties.

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

Downtown Zoning Review: Public Hearing

The public hearing on the downtown zoning review drew seven speakers – all but one in favor of downzoning. All of them had previously addressed the commission on this topic.

Ray Detter said he was speaking on behalf of the downtown citizens advisory council. The group based its support of the 2009 zoning revisions on the goal of minimizing the negative impact of downtown development on neighbors in terms of height, scale, shading and harm to natural and historic resources, he said. In general, Erin Perdu has done a good job of summarizing the community’s view, Detter told commissioners.

Detter noted that at the Nov. 12 working session, which he and several others attended, they were pleased that the planning commission was supportive of changes to the three locations where the city “made past zoning mistakes,” he said. The advisory council believes the Ann Street lot should be downzoned from D1 to D2, as it’s clearly an interface area across the street from historic properties in the Old Fourth Ward, he said. But it’s also true that D2 zoning should be used for the property south of Ann Street all the way to North Fourth Avenue, he added.

From left: Ray Detter, Jeff Crockett and Chris Crockett.

Detter said the advisory council was also pleased that the commission supported decreasing the allowable height of property between Campus Inn and Sloan Plaza from 150 feet to 120 feet, and to use diagonals, setbacks, stepbacks, and a shadow setback requirement to eliminate shading. There should also be at least a 25-foot separation between Sloan Plaza and any development next to it, he said. The advisory council supported rezoning the other parcels on the north side of East Huron between North Division and North Fifth – from 180 feet to 120 feet with possible diagonals, setbacks and stepbacks. That includes the Ahmo’s site, he noted, and the property management office next to Ahmo’s. The 120-feet zoning change should also be extended to include the northeast corner of North Fourth, where a former gas station is located.

Detter said there were cheers during the Nov. 12 working session when it seemed that commissioners agreed that the property at the southeast corner of Main and William should be rezoned from D1 to D2. Apparently that’s still open to discussion, he noted, but the downtown citizens advisory council definitely supports D2 on that entire site. He encouraged commissioners not to give premiums to things that the community doesn’t want – like student housing – but instead to give premiums to features that the community supports, like more open space and affordable housing. Also, the advisory commission supports giving no approvals or premiums unless the development follows recommendations of the design review board, which he said should include a member of the historic district commission.

Jeff Crockett supported what Detter had said, and added that he’s been pleased with the process in that it reflects community input. He encouraged the city in the future to look carefully at the landmark tree ordinance and toughen it up. He liked the idea of D2 on the William and Main site, and also supported creating shadow setbacks as well as a review of premiums every two to five years.

Chris Crockett also thanked the commission for reviewing A2D2, especially in proximity to residential areas. She noted that although the property at Main and William is viewed as a gateway to the city, it’s also adjacent to a residential area and D2 zoning there is as valid as any. She was happy that the commission is reconsidering the use of premiums. People hadn’t understood the ramifications of the original zoning, she said, and didn’t realize that the city would end up with “essentially dormitories.” The premiums haven’t led to good architecture or good development, she said. The city also needs affordable housing, to make sure there’s a good urban mix.

Eleanor Linn told commissioners she hadn’t seem the most recent draft of recommendations before she wrote her comments, so some of the things she was asking them to consider are things that are now in the recommendations. She read her statement, which noted that she lives near the 13-story Landmark “private student dormitory” at South University and Forest. She’s learned something about the problems of high-rise buildings invading residential neighborhoods, she said. Large setbacks are crucial, and she supported 40-60 foot setbacks where D1 or D2 zoning abuts residential zoning. D1 buildings are far too tall to ever abut residential areas. She wants lower height limits where D2 abuts residential, and she hoped the city would review other vulnerable parcels that aren’t included in this current review. She also thinks it’s necessary to reinstate the cash-in-lieu option for affordable housing, if it’s legally possible.

Marc Gerstein also read a statement that had been prepared before he’d seen the updated recommendations. He also lives near South University and Forest, and urged that no D1 zoning should abut residential areas. He supported rezoning the Main and William parcel to D2, and lowering the height limit on the parcel next to Sloan Plaza with bigger side setbacks. He supported shadow setbacks and other requirements that would reduce the impact of D1 and D2 zoning on residential areas. There should always be an interface between D1 parcels and residential areas, and the city should re-examine areas where this occurs – like on the north side of Willard, between East University and South Forest. He also wanted protections for Hill Auditorium and Burton Tower, which are across from D1 zoning on Thayer Street.

Andy Klein, one of the owners of the property at the southeast corner of Main and William.

Andy Klein introduced himself by saying he was the “lone dissenter.” He’s one of the owners of the property at Main and William, where the DTE building is located. It’s interesting to hear other people’s comments about property that you’ve spent millions of dollars on, he said. He respects the concerns that have been voiced, but there’s no pressure to make any changes on the site. It’s been owned by his family and other investors for over 30 years, Klein said, “and that’s the way it’s going to stay.” Whatever they do with the site in the future will respect the residents and protect the property value, he said, and would be something that the city would be proud of.

Reducing the zoning from D1 to D2 is a “Draconian measure,” Klein said, and is a response to other buildings that have been developed in an “untasteful way.” Every other corner of that intersection is zoned D1, he noted. Lowering the height by 40% could be an option, and adding a diagonal requirement is a flexible solution, he said. “I just don’t think that solutions that are so harsh that they really destroy the potential development of a key site in the city makes a lot of sense.”

Klein noted that his voice is the only one on his side. He can’t come to every meeting and he doesn’t have a group of people to argue vehemently on his behalf. “But my voice is important,” Klein said. His family and other investors have contributed millions of dollars to the city’s tax base, and continue to do so. He urged commissioners not to impose D2 zoning at the site.

[Attached to the commission's Dec. 3 agenda was a communication from Scott R. Bonney of Neumann/Smith Architecture, written on behalf of KRG Investments, the owners of the Main and William property. It suggests a third option to consider: Keep the D1 zoning on that site, but reduce the maximum height to 122 feet and add a tower diagonal maximum of 50% of the maximum diagonal dimension of the site. The letter, which includes diagrams showing the impact this proposal, indicates that Bonney will attend the Dec. 3 meeting to make this presentation in person.] [.pdf of Bonney's letter]

The last speaker Doug Kelbaugh, who said he was speaking as a private citizen. [Kelbaugh is a professor at the University of Michigan College of Architecture and Urban Planning.] It’s been a “very productive if tedious process for you,” he told commissioners, but he was in favor of continuing it in some way. He knew there were no additional funds for consultants, but he hoped the commission would ask the city council for more funding to continue the zoning review beyond the current scope.

In particular, he hoped they could look at extending some of their “wise decisions.” For example, he hoped to extend the zoning changes next to Sloan Plaza, with lower height limits, all the way along the north side of Huron to Main Street, or perhaps even further west to Ashley or First. The changes at Division and Ann should also be extended all the way to Main Street or further, he said. Other edges of the downtown – like the church site at Huron and State Street, and the block of Thayer – need to be re-examined, where D1 zoning hits the UM campus. Kelbaugh hoped the city could find the wherewithal to continue its zoning review.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Affordable Housing

The commission considered this draft recommendation regarding affordable housing:

• Revise the affordable housing premium so that the provision of affordable housing or a contribution-in-lieu of affordable housing is mandatory for receiving any premiums in the D1 or D2 districts.

In reviewing the proposed recommendations at the start of the Nov. 19 discussion, planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the draft recommendation to add a contribution-in-lieu as an option for the affordable housing requirement was seen as problematic by the city attorney’s office. Any type of in-lieu-of payment is very difficult in Michigan because the state statute does not clearly indicate that it can be done, she reported. It’s more straightforward with elements like parking, she added. But with affordable housing, it’s harder to draw a connection between the need for affordable housing in one location, and addressing that need through a payment to the affordable housing trust fund, which can be used to support affordable housing anywhere in the city, not just downtown. The commission could still include it in their recommendations, she said, but as it moves to city council, it might be tempered by advice from the city attorney.

Kirk Westphal highlighted a communication regarding a more detailed recommendation that had been approved by the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB). It was included as part of the planning commission’s meeting packet. [.pdf of HHSAB recommendation] The HHSAB recommended modifying the premiums to require building affordable housing or making a cash-in-lieu contribution to affordable housing, and included a detailed formula for calculating contributions:

(i) For purposes of obtaining any premium listed in (_______) above, developments less than 400 FAR shall provide 10% of the total square footage as dwelling units affordable to very low income households. Projects exceeding 400 but less than 700 FAR shall provide 15% of the total square footage as dwelling units affordable to very low income households.

(ii) Payment in Lieu Formula, Discretion of City Council to Allow. Dwelling units affordable to very low income households shall be provided by the development of units on-site, or through an affordable housing contribution “in lieu of” units. The amount shall be set consistent with a “payment in lieu” formula set by recommendation of the HHSAB annually by the end of March each year and submitted to City Council for approval or rejection.

(iii) Calculation for Pro Rata Amounts. When the affordable housing requirement results in a fractional unit, the fractional unit shall be converted to an affordable housing contribution in lieu of units, using the following formula: the fraction shall be multiplied by the per-unit affordable housing contribution as determined by the formula adopted annually by City Council.

(iv) Recommendation of Planning Commission, Approval of City Council required. For each proposed development utilizing a premium to exceed base FAR, the Planning Commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial, and City Council, in its sole discretion, may approve or deny payment of an affordable housing contribution in lieu of all or part of units on site.

Westphal wondered whether commissioners would be able to “button down” the legal issue that night related to the contribution-in-lieu approach to affordable housing. Rampson indicated that it would not be possible to determine that at the meeting. She also didn’t think the issue could be handled in isolation from other recommendations.

From left: Ken Clein, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Rampson and Bonnie Bona.

Sabra Briere asked Rampson is there’s any scenario that she’s heard the city attorney support when it comes to cash-in-lieu for affordable housing. Rampson noted that the planned unit development (PUD) approach includes a contribution-in-lieu option. That’s possible because a PUD is “a very special animal under state law,” she said.

But in a standard zoning district, the only requirement for affordable housing is if a developer wants to secure premiums. The question becomes whether there’s a nexus between that requirement and making a payment into a fund that won’t necessarily result in what you’re looking for – affordable housing in the downtown. So one possibility might be to create a separate fund to be used only for affordable housing downtown, Rampson said. But according to the city attorney’s office, even that might not be sufficient, she added.

“Any time you’re asking people for money in exchange for approval of zoning, there is some discomfort about that,” Rampson said. It’s different when you ask for requirements like parking or landscaping, she said. Requiring affordable housing is a bit of a stretch in Michigan, she noted, but it’s the contribution-in-lieu option that becomes really problematic.

Ken Clein said he’s in favor of affordable housing downtown, but he pointed out that you can build a lot more affordable housing outside of the downtown, where land prices are lower. Rampson replied that if you require contributions to affordable housing that can be spent outside of the downtown, you’d be creating an island in the downtown where affordable housing isn’t deemed appropriate – that’s one way of looking at it, she said.

Briere noted that at the Nov. 18 city council meeting, the council had revised the ordinance regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Starting in FY 2016, the DDA will put aside $300,000 annually to use on affordable housing within the DDA’s boundaries or within a quarter mile of those boundaries. It will be challenging, Briere said, but the goal is to encourage affordable housing downtown. She wondered if the zoning could require affordable housing as a gateway for getting a housing premium.

Rampson replied that because seeking a premium is optional, that might be possible. Briere pointed out that it might then discourage the development of housing altogether.

Bonnie Bona felt that the most effective approach to affordable housing is when it’s part of a mixed-income development. If the city collects affordable housing funds and steers those funds toward property that’s less valuable, “we’re actually segregating,” she said. The gap in housing options is big enough that it requires multiple approaches, Bona said. She wondered if the recommendations to the council can include a recommendation to look more deeply into this issue, working with the city’s housing and human services advisory board.

Later in the meeting, Bona proposed a revised recommendation: “Review options for providing additional affordable housing within mixed-income projects and through a fund, with the assistance of the housing and human services advisory board.”

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Sabra Briere, who also serves on the city council representing Ward 1.

Paras Parekh asked whether they needed to specify D1 and D2 districts, or whether the recommendation was for the whole city. Bona felt it’s an issue for the entire city, but the downtown zoning review is why it’s being addressed. She didn’t want to be restrictive.

In response to another query from Parekh, Bona said the phrase “mixed-income projects” is to prevent segregating affordable housing into one location. “We don’t want housing projects, if we can help it,” she said.

Wendy Woods was concerned about including a reference to the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB). She didn’t feel the recommendations should be so specific at this point. She made a motion to strike that reference from the recommendation.

Ken Clein said he didn’t feel strongly about it, noting that the commission can always consult with other entities if it wants to. But if the recommendation specifies the HHSAB, he wondered whether they should also specify consulting with the city attorney’s office. The suggestion elicited a laugh from commissioners. Clein said his point is that the recommendation might be getting “too in the weeds” by specifying who they’ll consult.

Rampson noted that HHSAB did provide very specific feedback to the commission regarding the affordable housing issue.

Bona thought that including a reference to HHSAB acknowledges that the commission has received that feedback, and that it’s important. Affordable housing also is a complicated topic – much more so than something like LEED certification, she said. Affordable housing has been a problem for centuries, Bona added, and the city doesn’t seem to be any closer to a solution.

Outcome on amendment to strike the reference to HHSAB: It failed on a 1-8 vote, with support only from Wendy Woods.

Commissioners also discussed the phrasing “and through a fund.” Bona said she’d stayed away from saying “payment-in-lieu” because of concerns that the city attorney’s office had raised.

Clein suggested using the phrase “or through other funding mechanisms” instead. It was accepted by Bona as a friendly amendment.

Another amendment was suggested by Woods, to add “D1 and D2 districts.” Bona said she wanted to leave it vague. She pointed out that the title of the overall resolution is “Recommended Downtown Zoning Amendments.” She thought that adding D1 and D2 would be redundant, and noted that it’s not included in the other recommendations.

Woods pointed out that earlier in the evening, commissioners had discussed concerns about possibly locating affordable housing outside of the downtown. That’s why she wanted to be more specific.

Outcome on amendment to add D1 and D2: It passed on a 6-2 vote, over dissent from Bonnie Bona and Jeremy Peters. Sabra Briere was out of the room during the vote.

The final revised recommendation states:

Review options in D1 and D2 districts with the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB) for providing additional affordable housing within mixed-income projects or through other funding mechanisms.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to make this recommendation.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Residential Premiums

Commissioners discussed how to combine these two separate items from the draft resolution:

• Reduce the residential use premium from 0.75 sf to 0.25 sf per square foot of residential use to encourage the use of other premiums.
• Include other types of premiums in addition to the ones currently available.

The consensus was to make the first recommendation less specific, and to include several examples of the types of premiums that commissioners would like to see. Affordable housing was left out in favor of a broader goal of workforce housing.

Jeremy Peters suggested a premium of the shadow setback, but when planning manager Wendy Rampson asked whether commissioners wanted that as a premium or a requirement, the consensus initially was to recommend shadow setbacks as a requirement.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Ken Clein suggested making LEED silver certification as a premium. Rampson reminded commissioners that LEED certification is already included as an A2D2 premium – silver, gold and platinum certification can result in additional floor-area ratio (FAR). Only two projects so far – at 618 S. Main and 624 Church St. – have proposed using LEED certification as a premium, she reported. And because the developer of 618 S. Main subsequently scaled back that project, that premium isn’t needed. There are also energy efficiency “points” that are required as a gatekeeper to securing premiums.

Bonnie Bona counseled against being too specific at this point regarding LEED certification, and suggested a more general recommendation of increasing the energy efficiency requirements as a premium.

Sabra Briere noted that the LEED premium is the only one that comes with a penalty. That is, if you get a premium to build additional FAR on the premise that the building will be LEED-certified, but it doesn’t achieve that status, then there’s a financial penalty. “I’m not going to even try to replicate the incredibly complex equation that nobody understood sitting around the table except maybe the person who was proposing it – and maybe not,” she said. But it reminded her that when the city grants premiums, there’s an expectation that the city will reap a benefit. One option would be to look at applying a cash penalty for other premiums that aren’t met. She described her suggestion as “a very unformed thought.”

Later in the discussion, Briere pointed out that the directive from council was not to rewrite the zoning ordinance at this point. It was to make broader recommendations. What’s needed is for the council to clearly define the problems that it wants the planning commission to address, and at that point the commission can work on revising the ordinance. Getting into details at this point could really bog down the work, she said.

Rampson cautioned that if the commission sent recommendation to the council that are too general, the subsequent direction from council might not be clear. Briere countered that if the planning commission is too specific, it could result in some councilmembers pushing back because they don’t like the specifics. Briere indicated that if the commission looks like it’s done all the work, that’s not a good approach.

Rampson also pointed out that if more options are provided as premiums, it might dilute the ability to encourage any one particular goal, like residential development.

The final revised recommendation states:

Reduce the residential premium with the goal of encouraging the use of other existing or proposed premiums to compensate for this reduction, such as increased energy efficiency certification, open space with landscape, active ground floor use, balconies, and workforce housing.

Outcome: This recommendation was passed unanimously.

Briere suggested eliminating another recommendation related to residential premiums, which she felt could be addressed elsewhere:

• Revise the residential use premium to be more specific about the types of units that will be eligible for premiums.

Bona agreed, saying she was very opposed to having premiums for specific unit types that could be reconfigured soon after a building is constructed. The buildings need to be designed to be flexible, if they’re going to last a long time, she added. One possibility is to require that developers show the interior design during the site plan phase, to show that the interior could be flexible, she said.

Clein agreed with Bona, saying it would be very difficult to enforce any kind of interior requirement.

Outcome: This recommendation was eliminated on a 7-2 vote, over dissent by Eleanore Adenekan and Jeremy Peters.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – East Huron

Commissioners discussed two related draft recommendations for the East Huron area:

• Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District to 120 feet and add a tower diagonal maximum and/or “shadow setback” requirement to limit shading on adjacent residential properties.
• Rezone the block bounded by Huron, Division, Ann and Fifth Avenue from E. Huron 2 Character Overlay District to East Huron 1 Character Overlay District.

Wendy Rampson explained that if these recommendations are approved, the height limits for properties adjacent to city hall and the University of Michigan Credit Union site – currently a parking lot off of Ann Street, next to city hall – would be reduced from 180 feet to 120 feet.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Kirk Westphal clarified with Rampson that owners of those properties weren’t interviewed for this zoning review. He said he wouldn’t be comfortable making the changes proposed for the East Huron 1 Character District, adding that it’s beyond the scope of the council directive.

Diane Giannola said she’s not in favor of shadow setbacks. She wondered how it would affect property rights. Shadows come from everything, including trees, she said, “and when you own property, you don’t necessarily own the sun.” The concept is way too vague, she added, and she’d rather see diagonals used to address the issue of shadowing.

Jeremy Peters didn’t think it was fair to talk about trees in this context. It’s clear that the shadow setbacks refer to buildings, he said. He didn’t support removing it.

Sabra Briere voiced concern over investments that people make in solar panels and alternative energies that rely on solar gain. What happens when something happens next door that shades the investment? It’s a different set of property rights at stake, she said, compared to the rights that Giannola mentioned. Briere supported the idea of shadow setbacks, because the city is encouraging alternative energy investments and they need to be protected. “We have to come up with a way to balance the individual’s rights with the community’s rights,” Briere said.

Westphal was cautious about introducing a completely new tool at this point, and would prefer to stick to responding to the council’s charge.

Paras Parekh wondered why the shadow setbacks were only proposed for the East Huron 1 Character District, and not elsewhere. On philosophical grounds, he had concerns about requiring something in one part of the city that wasn’t required anywhere else.

Rampson noted that Briere’s concerns are more related to solar access law, and the shadow setback requirement wasn’t intended to regulate solar access. The reason Rampson included a mention of shadow setbacks in the draft was because commissioners had discussed the issue at the Nov. 12 working session. It was specified for that particular part of town because of D1 zoning that abuts residential neighborhoods located to the north, “which is probably the worst shadow configuration that you could get,” Rampson said. Perhaps there’s a better term to use instead of shadow setbacks, she added.

Ken Clein agreed that solar access rights are best left for longer-term study.

Bonnie Bona noted that this section of East Huron is the only area where D1 zoning is directly adjacent to residential. She described this part of the downtown zoning as a “major flaw” in the final A2D2 zoning. She thinks an interface district is needed around the entire downtown, but “we need it here more than anywhere.” Especially in the winter, there’s a lot of shade. If the shadow setback isn’t included, Bona said she’d then support rezoning that area to D2. She noted that the Sloan Plaza site could also be built to a greater height, which would impact the residential neighborhood to the north.

Briere cautioned against rewriting the East Huron 1 Character District – in terms of height and shadow setback. That’s too ambitious to do on the fly at midnight, she said. Instead, Briere proposed recommending that the East Huron 1 Character District be revised.

After further discussion – which included distinguishing between “setback” and “step-back” – commissioners reached a compromise wording:

Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District (on the north side of Huron, between Division and State) to 120 feet. Include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north.

Outcome: The revised recommendation was unanimously approved.

Regarding the draft recommendation to rezone the block bounded by Huron, Division, Ann and Fifth Avenue from East Huron 2 Character Overlay District to East Huron 1 Character Overlay District, commissioners were reluctant to make that specific recommendation at this time. Clein noted that it wasn’t part of the charge from the city council. Westphal said he’d be willing to strike it.

Clein and Peters both suggested that instead of this recommendation, the commission should create a separate recommendation that would focus on review of additional sections of the downtown.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to strike the draft recommendation to rezone block bounded by Huron, Division, Ann and Fifth Avenue.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Review of Other Areas

Ken Clein proposed adding a new recommendation to request that the planning commission review any area where D1 zoning directly abuts or is within 25 feet of residential or historic districts, and to review whether those areas should be rezoned to D2 or whether to modify the zoning in these sensitive areas.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Ken Clein, who is a principal with Quinn Evans Architects.

Sabra Briere noted that one area where D1 abuts an historic district is on Main Street. About a third of the block between Liberty and William is not in an historic district, and is zoned D1. “The day that someone proposes a 180-foot tall building [there] is a day that this body will … hear from the public about problems with that,” she said. Briere noted that other areas have been mentioned by members of the public as problematic, including Thayer Street, South University, and some parts of Forest, for example. She supported Clein’s recommendation.

Diane Giannola felt that if any area abutting an historic district must be rezoned, then there likely won’t be any D1 zoning downtown – because there are so many parts of downtown that are designated historic districts. Jeremy Peters noted that Clein was suggesting only to review those areas, not to actually make recommendations at this point.

Wendy Rampson clarified that the current review already includes all the areas where D1 directly abuts residential. The review does not include areas that abut historic districts, she added.

Giannola thought Clein’s proposal was outside of the council’s charge, and that it would require an entirely new study, starting the process all over again. Bonnie Bona also said she didn’t support the proposal.

Briere noted that the planning commission and council have heard from people who want the city to review all character districts. It’s true that it wasn’t in the council’s charge to the commission, she said, but people have brought it up. She suggested recommending that the council consider whether all the areas that aren’t zoned D2 need to be re-evaluated.

Rampson pointed out that the planning commission and staff spent six years creating the A2D2 zoning, which was just adopted in 2009. “If you are really opening the door to rethinking all of the character districts, are you really ready to say that’s a priority, given your work program – to revisit everything in the downtown?”

Briere said the only way to get more specific direction from council is to put a resolution on the council agenda, which she was reluctant to do. Instead, she wants to take a “deep dive” into the Redevelopment Ready project, to see if the city’s existing ordinances match its master plans. She’d also like to get the ZORO (zoning ordinance reorganization) project completed, before taking on something else. She said she was struggling to find a way to indicate that the commission has heard the problems that people have raised.

Wendy Woods noted that for sites next to the University of Michigan, it didn’t make sense to be overly concerned about zoning. “The university can change what it has on campus next year, if they want to. We could be worried about shadowing Hill Auditorium, and it could be gone – because that’s the reality.” She thought the commission should focus on what it was asked by council to do.

After some additional discussion, Clein offered to withdraw his proposal.

Outcome: Clein withdrew his proposed recommendation.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Other Recommendations

Two draft recommendations were accepted without substantive discussion:

• Rezone the parcel located at 336 E. Ann from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface).
• Revise the premium conditions to require compliance with Design Review Board recommendations for a project to receive any premium in the D1 or D2 districts.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Adjournment

At about 12:30 a.m., commission chair Kirk Westphal said he wasn’t prepared to tackle the remaining draft recommendations. He offered to entertain a motion to adjourn.

Outcome on adjournment: The motion passed 8-1, over dissent from Jeremy Peters.

Downtown Zoning Review: Commission Discussion – Final Public Commentary

After adjournment, Westphal realized he had omitted the final public commentary. The only person remaining was Ray Detter, who told commissioners: “I’ve got a lot to say, but you’re not really interested in hearing it.”

Germain Motors Expansion

Earlier in the meeting, commissioners discussed a proposal to expand two buildings and the parking area for Germain Motors – the former Howard Cooper dealership on South State Street. Planning staff had recommended postponement, to allow the owners to address staff feedback on the project.

Aerial view of Germain Motors site, outlined in green. South State Street is on the left (west) side of this property. Expansion is proposed for the two smaller buildings on the north and center of the site that fronts South State.

The proposal calls for a 4,877-square-foot addition to the Volkswagen building on the northern portion of the State Street frontage, bringing the total square footage to 18,722 for that structure. A 6,429-square-foot addition is proposed for the Porsche/Audi building, in the center of the site, which would create a total building size of 31,097 square feet. The site’s third building, housing the Honda dealership on the southern part of the property, would remain at 36,101 square feet.

Also, the owner – Steve Germain, who attended the Nov. 19 meeting with several members of the project team – would like to add 248 parking spaces, bringing the total number of spaces to 1,039. The new spaces would be in three locations: (1) along the southern half of the South State Street frontage; (2) along the Oakbrook Drive frontage; and (3) in the rear car storage lots. The proposal would require three variances from Chapter 59 (off-street parking) in order to allow tandem parking, to reduce the aisle widths, and to exceed the maximum percentage (30%) of allowable small car parking spaces.

The owner also wants a variance from Chapter 62 (landscaping) to eliminate the requirement for interior depressed landscape islands in the car inventory and display areas.

The total expansion is estimated to cost $5.5 million. In a staff memo, city planners called the project an upgrade to the appearance of the site, but also cited several concerns.

The work would result in the loss of three out of four landmark trees on the property, to be mitigated by planting 11 additional trees. City staff were concerned by that reduction in landmark trees, as well as by the proposed request for planting fewer interior landscaping trees. Another concern was the additional amount of impervious surface that would be created by this expansion.

That was also an issue cited by the Malletts Creek coordinating committee, a group that includes representatives from the city, the office of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, the Huron River Watershed Council, and Pittsfield Township. That committee, which is focused on improving the condition of the Malletts Creek watershed, felt that a variance might be justified or mitigated only if the project included offsetting stormwater management on the site – such as green roofs, sand filters, or other low-impact development techniques.

Germain Motors Expansion: Public Hearing

Four people – all affiliated with Germain Motors and its proposed expansion – spoke during a public hearing on the project.

John Oney of Architectural Alliance, the architect for an expansion of Germain Motors – formerly the Howard Cooper dealership on South State Street.

John Oney of Architectural Alliance in Worthington, Ohio, gave an overview of the project. He said it’s their goal to work through any issues and hopefully agree to any conditions that the city deems to be appropriate so that the project can move forward as quickly as possible.

The existing site was “piece-mealed together,” Oney said, so they’d like to develop a comprehensive master plan to upgrade the buildings to the new “image requirements” of the auto manufacturers, to address the working needs of the business as it expands, and to improve the State Street corridor and the dealership’s customer experience. The new design is intended to provide connecting pedestrian walkways throughout the campus, as well as additional landscaping and upgraded building materials, he said.

Oney showed some architectural renderings of the buildings, then introduced Steve Germain. He said Germain had taken “a leap of faith here in these uncertain economic times to acquire the dealership and make some significant improvements.”

Steve Germain, owner of Germain Motors, began by introducing his daughter, Jessica Germain. He told commissioners that they live in Columbus, Ohio, “but don’t hold that against me, please.” He noted that Jessica Germain is a 2004 graduate of the University of Michigan, with strong ties to this community. One of her responsibilities is to help manage this region, and he said he was proud of her work.

Germain described how his business had acquired most of the assets of Howard Cooper Imports about a year ago, noting that Cooper has been a member of this community for over 45 years. They purchased the three dealerships on South State Street, and the rights to four franchises. They took over a business with a great reputation both in the industry and in this community, he said. The business employs 92 people, Germain reported, saying it was an honor to carry on a tradition with such wonderful employees in a vibrant market.

In order for the business to continue to grow and prosper, Germain added, they need to do three things. They need to upgrade the facilities to meet the requirements of the manufacturers. They need to provide ample, safe and convenient parking to enhance the customer experience and allow the business to create more jobs. Third, he said, they need to maximize their storage capacity and grow their inventory to meet the market demand.

Jessica Germain then reviewed the sales for the past 10 months. She said the business has achieved significant growth, beyond industry averages. Ann Arbor’s demographics align with Honda’s target buyers for fuel-efficient and economic products, she said. Honda sales from January through October of 2013 have exceeded last year’s sales by 31%.

Volkswagen sales are up 40% compared to last year, she reported, and sales for Audi have increased 76%. The business services both the Ann Arbor and Toledo markets for the luxury brand of Porsche, Germain said, and sales have increased 89% in 2013 compared to the first 10 months of 2012. In the sale of pre-owned (used) cars, sales are up 108% in 2013.

Jessica Germain and Steve Germain of Germain Motors.

Strengthening the inventory for new and pre-owned sales gives the business an opportunity and range of price points to provide in this market, she explained. Overall, they’ve seen a 55% increase in combined sales, but she said the business still hasn’t met the requirements and expectations of manufacturers. Germain Motors aspires to exceed those requirements, she added.

Steve Germain spoke again, saying that when they acquired the business in September 2012, they soon realized that the potential in this market with these brands would require that they expand the inventory. Their first thoughts were for off-site storage, he said, but it’s not recommended because of the costs involved in security, fencing and shuttling cars back and forth. They also considered a parking deck, but the cost at about $18,000 per space would put the total cost at over $3.6 million. He indicated that the proposal that was before the planning commission is the best approach.

Bob Wanty of Washtenaw Engineering, the project’s civil engineer, noted that there are three issues that the planning staff raised. One is the increased amount of impervious surface. The city also would like to add additional landscaping islands and address some stormwater management issues. The landscaping islands that the city is requiring are located in the storage area, Wanty said, but he argued that the requirement of landscaping islands should apply to parking for the public, not for storage.

Regarding staff concerns over a “heat island effect,” Wanty noted that over 50% of the vehicles sold are lighter in color – silver and white – and these cars would be parked there 24/7. He contended that the site plan exceeds the city’s requirements for interior landscape island area by 2,300 square feet. Wanty noted that the soil is mostly clay, so the landscape islands don’t really result in infiltration. The site has a very good stormwater management system, he said. He described the system, and noted that it meets the county water resources commissioner’s standards.

Germain Motors Expansion: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona asked about the requested landscape modifications, and wanted to know whether there are any alternatives if the required landscaping can’t be provided on site – such as planting trees at another location. City planner Matt Kowalski replied that there’s an option of planting trees to mitigate the removal of landmark trees, but it has to occur on public land and meet other standards, such as proving that the mitigation can’t occur on site. The city’s natural features coordinator didn’t feel Germain Motors had met that requirement, he said. This applies only to mitigation trees, Kowalski noted. There are no options like that for trees required under the city’s landscaping ordinance, other than a variance.

Bona pointed out that 103 trees are required to be planted, but the proposal calls for planting 95 – eight trees short of the requirement.

Bona asked about the extension of the parking 32 feet toward State Street, on the south side of the site. Bob Wanty of Washtenaw Engineering replied: “That is not parking. That is display.”

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona, and city planner Matt Kowalski. Kowalski was recently elected to the Dexter city charter commission.

Bona referred to the presentation that Kowalski had given earlier in the meeting, which included a slide that showed cars parked on the lawn. “I can’t let that go,” Bona said. She asked whether the business is proposing to pave that area. Yes, Wanty replied. Are those cars allowed to be parked there now? she asked. “They’re not there,” Wanty said. Kowalski noted that the cars were parked there that morning, prompting Steve Germain to call out: “But they won’t be there tomorrow.”

“This is a huge amount of parking,” Bona said, so the total number of required trees and the depressed landscape islands need to be provided. She understands that their business requires a lot of parking, and that the site is sloped so there area certain areas where parking can’t be located. Because the parking doesn’t directly benefit the public, she said, “I think you have even more of a responsibility to help Tree City plant urban trees in areas that are impervious.” She wouldn’t be voting in favor of a variance. “You’ve got to do your fair share.”

Sabra Briere said she wanted to echo Bona’s comments, saying that an area to display vehicles is still parking. Adding impervious surface impacts the Malletts Creek area, especially since that area has clay soil and the Malletts Creek system is already overwhelmed, Briere said. For her, the big issue is that there will be a lot of polluted water running off that surface.

Ken Clein asked whether other dealerships in town have asked for variances to not put in landscape islands and trees. Kowalski wasn’t sure how many dealerships are left in Ann Arbor. There’s Varsity Ford, but that dealership hasn’t done any recent renovations, he said. There was a Fiat dealership project, but no variance had been requested for that. [Planning commissioners had recommended approval of the Fiat project on West Stadium Boulevard at their Aug. 21, 2012 meeting.]

Clein said he agreed that the requirement for landscape islands shouldn’t be waived, and that the full amount of trees should be planted to mitigate the removal of landmark trees. Otherwise, it would seem like the city is giving the business a free pass, he said. The purpose of planting trees isn’t just because Ann Arbor is Tree City, he said, but because it helps mitigate the impact of climate change a little. “Those eight trees may not save the world, but those eight trees done again and again and again may help,” Clein said.

Paras Parekh asked why the business didn’t feel that the eight trees could be added to the site. Wanty replied that the trees could probably be squeezed onto an area on the site’s slope, but vegetation is already located there and it’s “like a jungle.” Putting in more trees would disturb the existing vegetation, he said, and create the potential for erosion. He noted that the city requires the mitigation trees to be interior to the site, not on the perimeter.

Rick Meader, a landscape architect with Washtenaw Engineering, came to the podium. He said the landmark trees are only characterized as landmark in aggregate. They aren’t “big, majestic oaks,” he said. Three of them are box elders that are being replaced with better trees, he said, including oaks and tulip trees.

In response to a query from Kirk Westphal, Kowalski said the business submitted one alternative plan, which included a parking structure on the lower level of the site. It didn’t result in any landmark trees being removed. Westphal wondered if there were a middle option, in order to preserve the trees but still provide the amount of desired parking. Kowalski replied that there might be other options – such as quadruple stacking – but probably anything would require some sort of variance.

Westphal wondered if quadruple stacking was possible. Wanty said they didn’t look at that option, and it would entail re-aligning the aisles and spaces. It was something they could look at, he said.

Wendy Woods noted that the Malletts Creek coordinating committee had suggested some options, like the use of green roofs and other low-impact development techniques. She wondered whether the business would consider any of these.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Jeremy Peters.

Wanty replied that the site currently drains into a sediment forebay, then into a wetland, then into a second wetland – before it enters Malletts Creek. It’s a good system to break down any oils, he said, and there’s very little silt or sediment that comes off of the site. The new cars don’t leak the fluids that older cars would leak, he noted. “So we’ve really got a clean site here,” Wanty said. That’s why they felt that additional stormwater management wasn’t necessary.

John Oney indicated that a green roof had been considered, but it wasn’t economically feasible so they didn’t pursue it.

“So it looks like what we have is a difference of opinion,” Woods said. Kowalski clarified that the site plan meets the stormwater management requirements. That shouldn’t be confused with a separate issue, he said – the landscaping requirements, and the functions that the interior landscape islands serve.

Bona took issue with Oney’s contention that a green roof isn’t economically feasible. She recommended that he contact A3C Architects, who’ve been monitoring the temperature of their roof – a black section, a white section and a green section. The amount of heat that’s retained from their green roof in the winter, and the amount of heat that’s not absorbed in the summer, significantly reduces the building’s heating and air-conditioning costs, Bona said. A green roof is not just for the environment, she added. There are strong reasons why that greenery moderates the temperature of the roof.

Jeremy Peters echoed some of the previously stated concerns about runoff and water quality. As someone who previously lived near Malletts Creek, he agreed with the coordinating committee’s suggestions. He also agreed with Bona’s suggestion to look at installing a green roof.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on the Germain Motors proposal.

Montgomery Building Apartments on S. Fourth

Planning commissioners were asked to recommend approval of a four-story addition to the existing two-story building at 210-216 S. Fourth Ave., between East Liberty and East Washington in downtown Ann Arbor. It’s known as the Montgomery Building, because from the late 1920s until 1960 it housed a Montgomery Ward’s department store.

The plan calls for creating 32 new housing units, including four studios, 14 one-bedroom, and 14 two-bedroom units.

Aerial view of the Montgomery building (indicated with crosshatches) at 210 S. Fourth Ave. in downtown Ann Arbor.

City planner Matt Kowalski gave the staff report. The estimated $3.8 million project would expand the existing 17,273-square-foot building to 38,373 square feet, with housing on the second through fifth floors. The footprint of the existing building won’t change, and the ground floor would remain commercial space. Current tenants include Salon Vertigo and Bandito’s Mexican Restaurant. The top floor will include a stair/elevator lobby, restroom, wet bar, and access to several roof decks. Part of the fifth-floor roof will be covered in vegetation as a green roof.

The third-floor addition will be set back 11 feet from the existing building’s facade. The fourth floor will be set back an additional nine feet.

Because the building is located in an historic district, it required a certificate of appropriateness from the city’s historic district commission. The HDC granted that certificate at its Sept. 12, 2013 meeting.

The site is zoned D1, which allows for the highest level of density. According to a staff memo, eight footing drain disconnects will be required.

According to a report from the July 10, 2013 citizen participation meeting, the units will be marketed to “anyone who wants to live downtown.” If approvals are received, construction is expected to begin next summer.

Montgomery Building Apartments on S. Fourth: Public Hearing

Three people spoke during a public hearing on this project. Luke Norman, who lives on South Fourth Avenue, wondered if there would be any affordable housing in this development.

Brad Moore, the project’s architect, told commissioners that the project would rejuvenate the building. The plan is to completely reconstruct the facade and give it a look that’s “more characteristic of its heyday,” he said, while adding some additional stories to increase the amount of downtown residential space.

Rendering of proposed Montgomery Building addition.

The hope is to also increase the amount of retail space along that section of Fourth Avenue, he said, in conjunction with the development at Fourth and Liberty. [Moore is also the architect for an expansion project on the adjacent property – a three-floor addition to the Running Fit building at East Liberty and South Fourth, which will create six residential units. That project received a recommendation of approval from planning commissioners at their Oct. 15, 2013 meeting but still needs city council approval.]

The proposed setbacks of the upper floors are intended to prevent a feeling of the building encroaching on the street, Moore said. He said he had additional information if the commissioners had any questions.

Ray Detter noted that the downtown citizens advisory council had looked at this project. The proposed changes will be a marvelous addition to that block, he said, and it’s a positive direction to restore something that’s part of the city’s past and will be part of its future. The advisory council strongly supports the addition of mixed-income housing in that part of the downtown, Detter said.

Montgomery Building Apartments on S. Fourth: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona began by taking up a question asked during public commentary: Is there any affordable housing in this project? Brad Moore replied that there’s nothing that would be dedicated affordable housing, but there are some studio apartments – at about 500 square feet apiece – that would have a lower rent than the other units, because of the smaller size. The one-bedroom apartments will average about 750-800 square feet, and the two-bedroom units will be about 950 square feet.

Brad Moore, architect for the Montgomery Building expansion.

Bona said it would be nice to get some market-rate affordable units rather than subsidized affordable housing. She hoped that if the project is forwarded to the city council for approval, it would include pricing for the various units, relative to income levels. For example, would someone who makes 80% or 60% of the area median income be able to afford the rent?

Bona then asked about the building in relation to neighboring parcels. Moore explained that a portion of the building on the north and south sides will be built up to the property line. Bona wondered how it was possible to put in windows there, considering the fact that the building adjacent to this proposed expansion could also add additional floors someday.

Moore said that the developer will be applying for a variance from the building board of appeals in order to install windows on walls that aren’t set back from the property line. He indicated that a city building official has told him that it’s been the city’s practice to grant such a variance for a limited quantity of windows, with the caveat that additional fire sprinklers must be installed to prevent fire from shooting out the windows into the adjacent building.

There’s also the understanding that if the adjacent building increases in height, the windows would be blocked in, Moore said. There are other opportunities for light in the units, so the windows on those sides would be “supplemental,” he said.

Ken Clein confirmed with Moore that the windows on the property line would be non-operable. He also asked about exterior materials that will be used. [Clein is an architect, and typically asks about exterior materials.] Moore explained that some of the color choices were made in response to feedback from the historic district commission.

Wendy Woods asked about the west side of the building, facing a back alley. The units on that side have balconies over the alley – what would those balconies be facing? Moore replied that most of the buildings on the other side of the alley are three stories high. So balconies on the Montgomery Building’s second and third floors would be looking across the alley at other residential units. Moore confirmed for Woods that the trash pickup and recycling takes place in that alley.

In response to another query from Woods, Moore reported that the studio apartments will be in the building’s southwest corner.

Clein asked about the first floor “arcade,” and wondered if that configuration would remain. Moore noted that the arcade walkthrough ceased to exist 10 years ago, when the hair salon expanded across the back of the building. The rear entrance from the alley serves only the hair salon and as an emergency exit. He said there’s been no commitment to a specific layout, so it’s possible that they could reestablish the arcade walkthrough.

Diane Giannola asked if there would be any coordination in the construction of this project and the adjacent expansion at the corner of Fourth and Liberty.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

It’s possible, Moore replied, though he noted that the buildings have separate ownership. The merchants on that street are sensitive about the sidewalks being closed all summer, so there’s an effort not to do that, he said. It depends on the timing of the construction for each project, however.

Jeremy Peters said he’s glad to see a project that could revitalize an area that seems to need some help. He liked the fact that the design would evoke the building’s historic facade, and was happy to see more density in the downtown core.

Bona asked about the building’s mechanicals. She said one deficiency in the city’s zoning code is a lack of requirements to screen the mechanical units. When screening does occur, it sometimes looks worse than just leaving the mechanicals exposed, she said.

Moore explained that there would be a screen of the rooftop mechanicals, behind the penthouse. The building will likely use a heat-pump system, he said, so that the only equipment mounted on the roof will be a boiler and a chiller. There will be a parapet around the perimeter of the roof that’s about two feet tall, and the mechanical screen will rise above that, but will be unenclosed at the top.

Bona wondered what it would look like if someone were to look down onto the roof from a taller building. Moore indicated that there might be room for potential solar panels toward the back of the roof, but three sides in front will have a green roof, wrapping around patios.

Sabra Briere asked about the noise that would be generated by the mechanicals. She hears from people about the noise caused by such heating and cooling elements, especially from residents whose units back up to shared alleys. Moore said he hoped the screening would address that to some extent. He didn’t know how many decibels the equipment would generate. Briere hoped he would keep the noise factor in mind as the project moved forward.

Clein noted that from his experience, most modern boilers and chillers are fairly quiet. [Clein is a principal with Quinn Evans Architects.] Condensers and pressers tend to make a lot of noise, he observed – but those won’t be used in this project. He wondered whether the mechanicals include an emergency generator. Moore replied that the generator will likely be located in the basement.

A slide from the city planning staff’s presentation showing a photo of the 1960 fire at the Montgomery Building on South Fourth Avenue.

Wendy Woods noted that fires had occurred in both the Montgomery Building and the adjacent Running Fit structure – was it the same fire? No, Moore replied. The fire at the Running Fit building pre-dated the Montgomery Building fire, which occurred in 1960. He noted that in doing historic research for this project at the Bentley Historical Library, he was amazed by how many buildings had burned in Ann Arbor. “It seemed to be a big problem,” he said.

Kirk Westphal said people were pleased that the building design respected the historical context. Referring to the city’s master plan, Westphal noted that it strongly encouraged active uses on the ground floor. He asked if the owners were willing to abide by those desires. “Absolutely,” Moore replied.

Westphal also asked about the contractor that would be used for this project – did they use local labor? Moore wasn’t certain but thought that they did. He noted that the contractor is a firm based in Ypsilanti.

Clein pointed out that despite the questions from commissioners, this is the kind of development that’s needed downtown and he hasn’t heard many people object to the project.

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

Briarwood Mall Restaurants

Planning commissioners were also asked to recommend approval of a site plan and development agreement for two restaurants at Briarwood Mall. [.pdf of development agreement] The project was originally considered at the commission’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting, but postponed because of outstanding issues.

Angeline Lawrence gave the staff report. The proposal calls for building two new freestanding restaurants – one at 6,470 square feet, the other at 7,068 square feet – on the east side of the Macy’s building at Briarwood Mall, 700 Briarwood Circle. The restaurants would be two chains: P.F. Chang’s and Bravo! Cucina Italiana.

Aerial view of Briarwood Mall. The cross-hatched section indicates the parcel where two new restaurants are proposed, adjacent to Macy’s.

The parking lot north and east of the new restaurants would be reconfigured, reducing the total amount of parking by 188 spaces. Bicycle parking will be added to the north and west entrances to Macy’s.

The estimated cost of the project is $1,577,094. The site is located in Ward 4.

Originally, the planning staff had indicated that the project would require rezoning a portion of the parking lot from P (parking) to C2B (business service. However, according to a memo accompanying the commission’s Nov. 19 meeting packet, planning staff have subsequently determined that because the original 1973 Briarwood Mall zoning anticipated the expansion of Hudson’s (now Macy’s ) to the east, no rezoning is needed.

The city’s planning staff previously had recommended postponement in order to allow the developer to deal with some outstanding issues related to zoning, landscaping, easements and utilities. Those issues are now resolved, according to staff.

For example, concerns had been raised about the location of the area for trash and recycling. That area has been reconfigured and approved by the city’s solid waste staff. Also, plans were eliminated for a new detention pond on the northeast corner of the mall site, based on a recommendation by the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. Instead, an existing detention pond on that site will be dredged and retrofitted.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants: Public Hearing

The only speaker during the public hearing for this project was Scott Richardson, representing the Briarwood Mall owners. He noted that he and the project’s engineer were on hand to answer any questions.

Briarwood Mall Restaurants: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona asked staff to explain how they interpreted “this convoluted site” during their review of the project. She described it as a fairly odd-shaped site, and some of the improvements are being included not just near the restaurants, but elsewhere around the Macy’s building. She clarified with staff that the improvements, such as adding landscape islands in the parking area, are being done in response to the addition of the two restaurants.

Scott Richardson, a representative of the Briarwood Mall owners.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson pointed to a page in the meeting packet that showed the site configuration of the mall and indicated each parcel’s ownership. [.pdf of site configuration] She said that at the Oct. 15 meeting, the planning staff was still struggling to understand how the parcel configuration ended up that way. As far as staff can tell, the parcels inside the mall’s “ring road” never went through a formal land division process, she said. “That was what we tried to untangle.”

Macy’s owns the land where the restaurants are proposed, Rampson explained, so the mall owners – Simon Company – are buying and developing that parcel.

Bona then asked Scott Richardson about the future development of the mall. It’s important to make sure that “we’re not boxing ourselves into something that looks like the past, instead of like the future,” she said. Bona wondered whether the mall site’s subdivisions would prevent the site from more progressive development in the future.

Richardson replied that when the company looks at a master plan for any mall that it’s developing, “we tend to lose sight of the property lines.” When there’s a “win-win” for all of the parties involved, he said, “there’s ultimately a deal that can be done” to allow for what he called “grand development.” Even though parcel lines might change, nothing being done for this restaurant deal will eliminate the possibility for anything in the future, he said. Representatives for Simon Company meet at least quarterly with representatives from the key department store companies, he said, to talk about issues that arise, including opportunities for future development.

As an example, it would be possible to develop the property so that the road in front of the two new restaurants becomes “like an intimate Main Street,” Richardson said, with additional shops, restaurants – or even a parking structure with some residential units above it, built to face the street. He said that everyone recognizes the fact that a lot of parking is underused, and a lot of the site is undervalued and can be improved. It’s not a change that happens quickly, he added, but it’s something “that we certainly have on our plate, to make sure that we think big picture – because the last thing you want to do is sell yourself short in the future for a bird in the hand today.”

Bona said she was glad Richardson “could see more optimism here than I’m seeing, so I’ll take you at your word.” She then asked about the number of trees and bioswales on the site, saying that at first glance it seemed to her to be in excess of what would be required by the two new restaurant buildings. She noted that it seemed to relate to the fact that two parcels were impacting this development – a parcel owned by Macy’s, a the parcel owned by Simon Company.

City planner Angeline Lawrence replied that 169 trees are required by code for the Macy’s parcel, but the city allowed the developer to count some of the existing trees on the site as part of that total. That means that only 133 trees will be added, she said.

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioners Jeremy Peters and Paras Parekh.

Bona also wondered how the regional detention system worked. Lawrence replied that the existing detention pond is just to the north of the proposed new restaurant site. There’s a similar pond on the other side of Briarwood Circle, she said. The plan calls for dredging sediment from the bottom of the existing detention pond that’s near the to-be-developed site, and to install a new pipe that would allow runoff to flow into that pond.

Rampson added that when Briarwood Mall was developed, a regional detention system was created for the whole area. The detention ponds drain east into Malletts Creek.

Jeremy Peters asked about a possible scenario in which one of the core companies at the mall goes out of business, and was sold to a “less cooperative” holding company. Would the property lines pose any problems in that case? Richardson replied that the property lines have nothing to do with what happens in that situation. There are legally binding documents between the mall developer and the property owner, he explained, that restrict what a retailer can or can’t do with their property. There would also be a dialogue between Simon Company and the retailer, he said, because Simon Company has more invested in Briarwood Mall than any individual retailer, and would “vigorously” protect its asset.

Saying that she frequented the mall, Eleanore Adenekan asked about handicapped parking spaces. Richardson assured her that all of the spaces are being designed to meet current Americans with Disabilities (ADA) codes.

In response to a query from Ken Clein, the project’s engineer – Gary Tressel, with the engineering firm of Hubbell, Roth & Clark in Bloomfield Hills – explained that the lights in the parking lot at Macy’s will be retrofitted with LED fixtures. The new parking area will also have LED fixtures.

Noting that it wasn’t directly related to this project, Wendy Woods asked about a new skating area at the mall. Richardson replied that an inside “faux ice” skating rink was installed in the mall near the JC Penney store. He described how skaters use special shoes with pads to simulate ice skating.

Outcome: The site plan and development agreement was unanimously approved. The proposal will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

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

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Aerial view of Germain Motors site, outlined in green. South State Street is on the left (west) side of this property. Expansion is proposed for the two smaller buildings on the north and center of the site that fronts South State.

The proposal calls for a 4,877-square-foot addition to the Volkswagen building on the northern portion of the State Street frontage, bringing the total square footage to 18,722 for that structure. A 6,429-square-foot addition is proposed for the Porsche/Audi building, in the center of the site, which would create a total building size of 31,097 square feet. The site’s third building, housing the Honda dealership on the southern part of the property, would remain at 36,101 square feet.

Also, the owner – Steve Germain, who attended the Nov. 19 meeting with several members of the project team – would like to add 248 parking spaces, bringing the total number of spaces to 1,039. The new spaces would be in three locations: (1) along the southern half of the South State Street frontage; (2) along the Oakbrook Drive frontage; and (3) in the rear car storage lots. The proposal would require three variances from Chapter 59 (off-street parking) in order to allow tandem parking, to reduce the aisle widths, and to exceed the maximum percentage (30%) of allowable small car parking spaces.

The owner also wants a variance from Chapter 62 (landscaping) to eliminate the requirement for interior landscape islands in the car inventory and display areas.

The total expansion is estimated to cost $5.5 million. In a staff memo, city planners called the project an upgrade to the appearance of the site, but also cited several concerns.

The work would result in the loss of three out of four landmark trees on the property, to be mitigated by planting 11 additional trees. City staff were concerned by that reduction in landmark trees, as well as by the proposed request for planting fewer interior landscaping trees. Another concern was the additional amount of impervious surface that would be created by this expansion.

That was also an issue cited by the Malletts Creek coordinating committee, a group that includes representatives from the city, the office of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, the Huron River Watershed Council, and Pittsfield Township. That committee, which is focused on improving the condition of the Malletts Creek watershed, felt that a variance might be justified or mitigated only if the project included offsetting stormwater management on the site – such as green roofs, sand filters, or other low-impact development techniques.

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers at city hall, where the planning commission holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]