Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Despite Ann Arbor’s reputation, on this occasion councilmembers appeared to be leaning to the right. The meeting featured public commentary that recalled a standard political joke about Ann Arbor during football season: “Fake left, run right.” (Photos by the writer.)

Both issues also had been postponed from previous meetings. However, the committees that were supposed to have provided more specific recommendations to the full council prior to Sept. 3 did not accomplish that work.

After the Sept. 3 council meeting, both of the relevant committees subsequently met. An update on their work is included in this council meeting report.

The DDA ordinance revisions have already been given initial approval by the council and are awaiting a final vote. The amendments to Chapter 7 include various changes to governance, including term limits for board members, as well as clarifications to the existing language on TIF capture. The amendments would enforce the existing language of the ordinance in a way that has an impact on the DDA’s TIF revenue that would roughly match the DDA’s projected revenues in its 10-year planning document.

However, since that 10-year document was last updated, the amount of new construction in the DDA district has resulted in significant increases in the taxable value on which TIF is computed. About $1 million a year is at stake – which would be distributed to the other jurisdictions whose taxes the DDA captures, instead of being collected by the DDA. The joint committee of DDA board members and city council members met on Sept. 10, and the group appeared to be ready to recommend that the council table the initially-approved ordinance changes and start from scratch, likely shedding the proposed changes to governance.

The approach the committee is now taking would remove the current Chapter 7 language expressing restrictions on the DDA’s TIF revenue, and replace it with a “cap” that would have a built-in annual increase. Among the scenarios the committee is weighing would be a cap set at a high-enough level that it would likely have no impact on the amount of the DDA’s TIF revenue, compared to the amount the DDA is receiving under its own current interpretation of the ordinance, which is disputed.

While the Sept. 3 postponement of the DDA-related ordinance was dispatched quickly, later in the meeting the council engaged in a substantial debate on an appointment to the DDA board – that of Al McWilliams. With only nine councilmembers present and his confirmation dubious – because it needed six votes on the 11-member council – mayor John Hieftje withdrew the nomination.

The council’s rules committee also met on Sept. 10 and reviewed revisions that had previously been recommended. Basing its work on a debate that the entire council had on July 15, 2013, the committee decided that none of the council rules on the length of speaking turns (for the public or for councilmembers) or for reserving time to speak at the start of meetings would be changed from the current rules. Among the proposed changes that survived committee discussion included: (1) adding public commentary at work sessions, (2) re-ordering the agenda to place nominations and appointments near the start of the meeting, and (3) prohibiting use of personal electronic communications devices while at the council table.

The council will take up the DDA ordinance as well as the internal rules issue at its next meeting on Sept. 16.

Other business handled by the council on Sept. 3 included passage of a resolution calling for work on better cleanup standards for 1,4-dioxane – which came only after lengthy debate about possibly postponing it in order to strengthen the language and seek the advice of additional stakeholders.

The council also passed a resolution recommended by the city’s energy commission, to direct city staff to develop a pilot program with DTE for a “community solar” project. Another resolution recommended by the energy commission failed to win council approval, however. It would have directed the city’s employment retirement system to divest from fossil fuel companies.

In land-related business, the council approved the city’s participation in two deals related to the city’s greenbelt program. Councilmembers also gave approval to a Hampton Inn project on Jackson Road and initial approval to a drive-thru to be constructed at a Shell/Tim Hortons at Eisenhower and Ann Arbor-Saline Road.

As part of city administrator Steve Powers’ report to the council, he mentioned that a memo on the review of the city’s crosswalk ordinance would be forthcoming. That memo was subsequently released.

Downtown Development Authority Ordinance

On the council’s Sept. 3 agenda was a final vote on revisions to the Ann Arbor city code regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance (TIF). At stake is around $1 million or more a year in tax revenue.

DDA Ordinance: Background

A joint council-DDA committee was appointed on July 1, 2013 with a charge to begin meeting immediately to work out a recommendation on possible legislation that would clarify the ordinance.

Ann Arbor DDA TIF revenue projections. The vertical line indicates the year when the clarified calculations would be implemented. The red line is the amount of TIF revenue assumed by the DDA in its FY 2014 and FY 2015 budgets, and in its 10-year planning document. The blue line is the estimated TIF revenue under the proposed clarified ordinance calculations. The yellow line is the estimated TIF revenue that the DDA would receive if the DDA continued to interpret the city’s ordinance in its own way. (Numbers from the city of Ann Arbor and DDA. Chart by The Chronicle.)

However, that committee did not convene until eight weeks later, on Aug. 26. The committee met on just that one occasion before the Sept. 3 council meeting. The postponement until Sept. 3 had come at the council’s May 6, 2013 meeting.

The council had given initial approval of an ordinance change at its April 1, 2013 meeting. The change would clarify the existing language in the ordinance – which outlines how the DDA is supposed to return excess TIF revenue to other taxing jurisdictions – to the extent that the revenue exceeds projections in the DDA’s TIF plan.

Until two years ago, the existing limitation expressed in the ordinance had never been applied. But in May 2011, the city treasurer called the issue to the DDA’s attention, characterizing it as a roughly $2 million issue, dating back to 2003. However, when the DDA retroactively calculated its revenue, as well as rebates to other taxing jurisdictions, it applied a methodology chosen to minimize the amount of “rebate” owed to other taxing jurisdictions, reducing the amount to roughly $1.1 million.

When challenged on its method of calculation, the DDA subsequently changed its position, claiming that the money it had already paid back to other taxing jurisdictions was a mistake. The DDA’s new position was to claim an interpretation of a clause in Chapter 7 as providing an override to limits on TIF revenue – if the DDA has debt obligations, which it does. So in 2012 and 2013, the DDA did not return any of its TIF capture to other taxing authorities. In addition to the city, those taxing authorities are the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw County, and Washtenaw Community College.

The proposal as approved at first reading by the council on April 1, 2013 would essentially enforce the language that is already in the ordinance, but disallow the DDA’s interpretation of the “debt override” clause. Compared to the DDA’s own 10-year planning document, revenue to the DDA under the ordinance change would be roughly similar. The minimal impact compared to the planning document depends on the enactment of the ordinance to apply beginning with fiscal year 2015. However, the 10-year planning document in question did not include a large amount of new construction in the downtown area, which has already generated higher TIF revenue than estimated in the 10-year plan.

The ordinance revision as approved at first reading also includes term limits for DDA board members, and would make the appointment of the mayor to the board of the DDA contingent on a majority vote of the council. Without majority support, the mayor’s spot on the board would go to the city administrator.

Serving on the joint council-DDA committee for the council are: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Representing the DDA are Sandi Smith, Joan Lowenstein, Bob Guenzel, and Roger Hewitt.

The Aug. 26 committee meeting was dominated by political squabbling. The only substantive concept that was batted around briefly at that meeting was the idea of defining some kind of fixed cap on TIF revenue. This approach would replace the existing ordinance language, which calibrates the DDA’s TIF capture with projections in the TIF plan. But the discussion never went as far as to include dollar amounts for the fixed cap.

DDA Ordinance: Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time on Sept. 3, Jim Mogensen began by saying that municipal finance is “broken” particularly as it relates to cities. In the context of the spirited conversation that’s going on about the DDA, he wanted to comment on the topic of municipal finance. He categorized Michigan cities in different ways. As Category A he described cities like Pontiac, Benton Harbor and Detroit, which have their own concerns related to municipal finance. In Category B, he said, there are cities like Lansing, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – because they have lots of governmental non-taxable land and that creates its own set of issues. In Category C, he put, Northville, Birmingham, and Gross Pointe.

Mogensen noted that Ypsilanti is in Category B, but has sprinkles of Category A as part of its challenges. Ann Arbor, Mogensen continued, is in Category B, but has sprinkles of Category C. Oftentimes, he said, Ann Arbor tries, as does the general public, to deny these challenges exist, Mogensen said, when it comes to setting the budgets and making things work. Some people say, “Well, you know, it must be those liberals – they’re always making us spend money on things that we shouldn’t be spending money on!” He alluded to the old quip about Ann Arbor, particularly during the football season: “Fake left, run right.” The reality is that there’s not much of that kind of spending in the budget, he said.

When people look at the city, they overemphasize perceived mismanagement, and underestimate those structural problems, Mogensen said. So when people think about the DDA, people overestimate and overemphasize perceived management prowess, Mogensen said, and they underestimate the tremendous set of conditions the DDA has, which include: limited scope of responsibility, very high density, and the ability to capture taxes. When you look at all that, he said, it’s obvious why some things happen. Coming out of this conversation, there should be a way to make sure the city can function well. There should be a way of making that happen without discrediting people who are a part of different organizations, he said.

DDA Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off the deliberations, recalling the history of the proposal, and mentioning the meeting of the committee on Aug. 26. Not enough information was available to the committee when it met, he said. Staff had been directed to come up with draft language, he said. Kunselman told the council that he wanted to postpone action again, so the committee could meet again and bring back a recommendation that had more substance.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

The initial inclination was to postpone action until Oct. 7. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) reacted to that date, saying she might be out of town at that meeting. Kunselman asked city administrator Steve Powers if draft language could be ready as soon as the Sept. 16 council meeting. The joint council-DDA work session on Sept. 9, 2013 was floated as a possibility when the issue could be addressed. But Powers indicated that the Sept. 9 work session would be focused on the topic of the parking agreement – between the city and the DDA, under which the DDA manages the public parking system. He ventured it could be a challenge to schedule that many people to meet on an additional occasion. Mayor John Hieftje suggested postponing action until the next meeting, on Sept. 16, and assessing how things stand at that time.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), who’s a member of the council’s audit committee, noted that she’d requested that a review of Chapter 7 compliance be included in the city’s annual audit. [The DDA is a component unit of the city.] The answer that had come back from the auditor, Kailasapathy said, was that the ordinance language was unclear.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked if the DDA needed to be able to vote on something before the council acted. [The DDA board meets on the first Wednesday of the month, with its next regular meeting scheduled for Oct. 2.] Hieftje, who sits on the DDA board, indicated that he didn’t think the DDA would necessarily need to vote on anything before the council acted.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the DDA ordinance until its next meeting, on Sept. 16.

DDA Ordinance: Joint Committee Meeting – Sept. 10, 2013

The meeting of the council and DDA board joint committee – held the week after the council’s Sept. 3 session – was not attended by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) on the side of the council or by Bob Guenzel for the DDA. [Lumm was out of town due to a death in her family.]

The Sept. 10 meeting was different in tone from the Aug. 26 meeting, which featured bickering back and forth between councilmembers and DDA board members. The Sept. 10 session focused on a specific alternative to the current Chapter 7 language, which currently reads [emphasis added]:

If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction, and increase in value of property newly constructed or existing property improved subsequent thereto, grows at a rate faster than that anticipated in the tax increment plan, at least 50% of such additional amounts shall be divided among the taxing units in relation to their proportion of the current tax levies. If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction grows at a rate of over twice that anticipated in the plan, all of such excess amounts over twice that anticipated shall be divided among the taxing units. Only after approval of the governmental units may these restrictions be removed.

The last sentence of that section indicates that removal of those restrictions on TIF revenue to the DDA would require approval of the other taxing jurisdictions. However, the committee did not discuss that aspect of the current law, and appeared comfortable with the idea that the language could simply be replaced with a different conceptual approach – without approval or consultation with the other taxing jurisdictions.

The different conceptual approach would establish a basis level for the maximum captured taxable value in the DDA district and then set some clearly defined annual increase, keyed to a specific percentage or some variant of a consumer price index (CPI).

For example, the current taxable value on which the DDA captures taxes is roughly $137,000,000. That yielded roughly $3.76 million in TIF revenue to the DDA in fiscal year 2013, which ended on June 30. If that $137,000,000 were used as a basis for the cap, then a 3% increase applied annually would give the DDA a maximum of $5.063 million in 2023. In any given year, the DDA would receive the lesser of two values: (i) the unconstrained TIF captured on the taxable value; or (ii) the value of the cap.

The working document used by the committee showed two basic scenarios, one with a basis of $137,000,000 in taxable value for FY 2013, and a second one starting a basis of $167,000,000 for the following year, in FY 2014. The second one received more interest from the committee:

2. The maximum captured taxable value shall be fixed 
at a base value of $167,000,000 for tax year 2014. Each tax 
year thereafter, the maximum captured taxable value shall be 
increased by (CPI, 3%, 5%) per annum.

DDA TIF Capture Cap.
TIF value in millions with $167 million 
taxable value basis in FY 2014.
Columns correspond to yearly value of cap
assuming the increase indicated in the 
column header.
===================================
FY    CPI         3%     5%    10%
___________________________________
2013  $3.767  $3.767  $3.767 $3.767 (Actual)
2014   4.500   4.500   4.500  4.500
2015  tbd      4.635   4.725  4.950
2016  tbd      4.774   4.961  5.445
2017  tbd      4.917   5.209  5.990
2018  tbd      5.065   5.470  6.588
2019  tbd      5.217   5.743  7.247
2020  tbd      5.373   6.030  7.972
2021  tbd      5.534   6.332  8.769
2022  tbd      5.700   6.649  9.646
2023  tbd      5.871   6.981  10.611

-

The DDA would be projected to capture around $4.5 million in TIF this fiscal year (FY 2014), even on the Chapter 7 amendments given initial approval by the council. But under those amendments, the DDA’s TIF capture in FY 2015 would be $3.68 million, which compares to $3.75 million in the DDA’s 10-year planning document from earlier this year.

At the Sept. 10 committee meeting, not much interest was shown in defining the escalator in terms of a CPI. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) ventured that it might be appropriate to use 2.2% as an escalator – as that’s the figure used for the DDA’s 10-year planning document. DDA board treasurer Roger Hewitt objected that this was a fairly conservative number. Board chair Sandi Smith argued that any choice of a percentage would be “random” and that the choice of the escalator should be considered in the context of its implications for the DDA’s ability to complete projects described in a draft list of projects the DDA has recently assembled.

The development of the draft list came partly in response to pressure from the city council – dating back to April of this year – asking the DDA to explain what projects would not be undertaken if the DDA didn’t continue to receive TIF revenue based on its preferred interpretation of the city’s ordinance. An ordinance amendment included in the revisions given initial approval by the council would require closer integration of the DDA’s projects with the city’s capital improvements plan. The amendment was put forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

The authority shall submit their capital budgets to incorporate them into the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The authority shall at the time they submit their budget for Council approval identify that portion of the budget which is operating and that which is capital projects.

The project list was introduced at the Sept. 4, 2013 DDA board meeting. [.pdf of draft five-year plan]

Based on the committee conversation, the next step for the DDA appears to be comparing the different definitions for the escalator to its 10-year planning document and to the draft five-year project list. And based on that analysis, the DDA would come back with a recommendation for how the escalator should be defined.

For the council, the consensus appeared to be that the council will delay again at its Sept. 16 meeting – either by postponing or tabling a vote. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated a willingness to start with a fresh draft of ordinance changes, which would allow the council to shed the changes in the original proposal that would affect DDA board governance, including term limits. That would reset the requirement that the council approve the ordinance revisions at a first reading and then again at a second reading at a subsequent council meeting.

There’s an outside chance that a fresh first reading of the ordinance changes could be brought to the council for its consideration by Oct. 7, the first meeting in October. Even if a fresh first reading is not ready until Oct. 21, the second council meeting in October, an approval then would set up the council to give final approval on Nov. 7. That follows the Nov. 5 election, but the current composition of the council would still be at the table, no matter the general election outcome. So even if independent incumbent Jane Lumm were not to prevail in the Ward 2 race – which is also contested by Democrat Kirk Westphal and independent Conrad Brown – she would still be able to vote on Nov. 7.

Appointments to Boards, Commissions

At its Sept. 3 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council was asked to confirm just three of the four nominations made at the council’s previous meeting on Aug. 19.

One nomination that had been made on Aug. 19 – for Leigh Greden’s reappointment to the Ann Arbor housing commission – was withdrawn prior to the start of the Sept. 3 meeting.

Two nominations from Aug. 19 were confirmed: Devon Akmon’s appointment to fill a vacancy on the public art commission; and Logan Casey to fill a vacancy on the human rights commission. Akmon is an Ann Arbor resident and the new director of the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn. Casey is a graduate student at the University of Michigan.

Considered separately was the nomination of Al McWilliams’ appointment to the board of the Ann Arbor DDA.

Appointments: Background

The nomination of former city councilmember Leigh Greden to the Ann Arbor housing commission had been withdrawn before the Sept. 3 meeting, around 2:30 p.m. that same day.

Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje.

No conversation took place at the Sept. 3 meeting about Greden’s nomination. His initial appointment to the AAHC board in January 2011, replacing Jayne Miller, had been unanimous.

Earlier this year, at the council’s April 1 meeting, Nickolas Buonodono had been nominated to replace Greden on the AAHC board, after Greden had reached the end of his first term. Buonodono is an attorney, and a member of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party executive committee. However, that nomination was not on the council’s April 15 meeting agenda for confirmation. According to AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall, who spoke to The Chronicle in a telephone interview in mid-April, Greden was going to seek reappointment for a second term if he could accommodate his schedule to the meeting times. The housing commission is undergoing a major transition to a project-based voucher system, which the council authorized at its June 3, 2013 meeting on a unanimous vote.

The nomination of Al McWilliams to the Ann Arbor DDA also came forward from mayor John Hieftje with a wrinkle. Before he was nominated at the council’s Aug. 19 meeting, McWilliams’ name had appeared on an early version of the list of nominees for the council’s Aug. 8 meeting. The final version for that meeting, however, did not include his name.

McWilliams is founder of Quack!Media, an ad agency located in downtown Ann Arbor. Quack!Media lists the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority on its website as one of its clients. McWilliams has written advocacy pieces for bicycling on his blog.

Appointments: Council Deliberations – DDA

Mayor John Hieftje led off the conversation by noting that there are currently some openings on the DDA board. He asked for the council’s support on Al McWilliams’ nomination. Hieftje said he had wanted to find someone representing the Main Street business district and the entrepreneurial community, and he thought that McWilliams fit that description.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) indicated that she’d asked for a list of those who’d applied for the appointment to the DDA. She’d been told that the person in charge of the list was on vacation, but the list would be provided next week.

The second issue, she continued, was that McWilliams’ company, Quack!Media, is a vendor for the AAATA. The DDA grants money to the AAATA, she said, calling that a conflict of interest.

Hieftje told Kailasapathy that his assistant was out of town, and he had not had time to “rustle up those files” of applications. [Former DDA board member and local developer Ed Shaffran has indicated a willingness in serving again on the DDA board.]

Hieftje reviewed the fact that the process calls for him, as mayor, to make nominations. And he’d wanted to nominate McWilliams after reviewing the applications on file. Hieftje noted that there is an additional seat open on the DDA board, and that he’d be looking forward to bringing a nomination to fill that additional seat to the council’s next meeting. [The two seats that currently need to be filled are those of Newcombe Clark, who made an employment-related move to Chicago after serving out a four-year term on the board, and Nader Nassif, who resigned from the board this summer after being arrested for sexual assault.]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that she’d asked the city attorney about the conflict-of-interest question. Briere indicated that she didn’t think it was clear that a conflict of interest arose out of the situation that Kailasapathy had described. Briere asked city attorney Stephen Postema to comment on the question.

Postema essentially indicated that he didn’t think there’s an inherent conflict for McWilliams in serving on the DDA board, but if any conflict-of-interest issue arose while serving on the board, it could be dealt with when it came up.

Postema stressed that if there are two public entities involved, it’s not considered to be a conflict under the statute. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said that even though the state doesn’t define it as a conflict, the council has rules on the question. She didn’t think the state law is stringent enough. She ventured that McWilliams would need to recuse himself quite frequently, possibly including votes on the DDA budget.

Responding to Petersen, Postema indicated that the state statue is not as stringent as many people would like it to be. Postema noted that while Petersen might perceive a conflict, he was looking at it as a matter of state law.

By way of background, one state statute on conflicts of interest for a public official is Act 317 of 1968 “Contracts of Public Servants with Public Entities.” It’s the state statute to which DDA legal counsel Jerry Lax had appealed at the DDA board’s meeting three and a half years ago – on May 5, 2010. It involved a question about whether mayor John Hieftje and then-councilmember Sandi Smith should participate in a vote to allocate $2 million to the city of Ann Arbor, given the fact that they’re paid salaries as elected officials by the city of Ann Arbor.

The statute prohibits the public servants from soliciting contracts with entities by whom they are employed:

(2) Except as provided in section 3, a public servant shall not directly or indirectly solicit any contract between the public entity of which he or she is an officer or employee and any of the following: (a) Him or herself. (b) Any firm, meaning a co-partnership or other unincorporated association, of which he or she is a partner, member, or employee. [...]

In analyzing the situation for Hieftje and Smith in 2010, Lax pointed out that there was a specific exemption for contracts between two public entities [emphasis added]:

15.324 Public servants; contracts excepted; violation as felony. Sec. 4. (1) The prohibitions of section 2 shall not apply to any of the following: (a) Contracts between public entities.

Under that statute, Lax concluded it was not a problem for Hieftje and Smith to participate in the deliberations and vote on the resolution that the DDA board was considering.

Later in the May 5, 2010 meeting, however, the resolution considered by the DDA was proposed to be altered so that the $2 million payment was not described as part of any contract – because at that point the existing parking agreement between the city and the DDA had expired, and no money was owed under that contract. At that point, Lax indicated that the state statute did not provide an exemption – because the DDA was contemplating a grant. So Lax expressed his view that Hieftje and Smith should sit out the vote on amending the resolution, which they did. The attempted amendment failed, however, and the two subsequently returned to the table to vote on the resolution.

So in considering whether Al McWilliams would be able to participate in a vote to allocate money for getDowntown, for example – given that AAATA is a client of his company – it’s not obvious at first glance that Act 317 of 1968 would apply. If the money allocated to the AAATA’s getDowntown program takes place outside of a contractual agreement, then the inapplicability of the statute could be based on the same reasoning Lax used in the May 5, 2010 vote involving Hieftje and Smith.

However, based on the annual signed agreements that AAATA provided to The Chronicle in response to a request under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act, some basic getDowntown program funding is granted to AAATA by the DDA under that annual signed contractual agreement. Funding for getDowntown’s go!pass program, which was $479,000, does not appear to be covered by that annual contract. [.pdf of 2013 getDowntown agreement]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

During the council’s Sept. 3 deliberations, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) contended that there’s no conflict at all for McWilliams. As an example, Taylor cited employees of the University of Michigan who serve on the council. [Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is currently an employee, as is Hieftje. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was previously, but is no longer a UM employee.] Using the same standard would require the recusal of these councilmembers on any UM-related matter, Taylor contended.

If there were an actual conflict on a particular occasion, then it’s well established that someone can simply stand down for a particular vote, Taylor said. [Taylor has himself on occasion asked that councilmembers vote to excuse him from votes the council has taken, for example, when a bar that is a client of his law firm – Hooper Hathaway – had requested a special event street closure that required council approval.]

At that point in the deliberations, Kunselman asked if the other nominations to be considered that night could be separated out. Hieftje proposed voting on the confirmations of Devon Akmon and Logan Casey separately, which the council did.

Outcome: The council voted to confirm Akmon to the public art commission and Casey to the human rights commission.

Kunselman said he appreciated the fact that the issue had been raised about the appearance of a conflict, even if there’s not a legal conflict. However, Kunselman asserted that he had the prerogative to vote as he liked. So Kunselman was interested in confirming the appointment to the DDA board of someone who might be able to accept some “reform” of the DDA. And Kunselman didn’t think that McWilliams, as a DDA supporter, would be open-minded with respect to following city ordinances. So Kunselman stated that he would vote against the appointment of McWilliams.

Hieftje asked Kunselman if he’d met with McWilliams. No, Kunselman replied, but he’d read McWilliams’ public statements.

Briere said she has not met with McWilliams, but she’d talked with Maura Thomson, director of the Main Street Area Association, who was very enthusiastic about McWilliams being appointed. Briere then talked about the issue of perceived conflict of interest. Briere said she’s heard that she could have a conflict due to her spousal relationship. [Briere is married to local attorney David Cahill.] She’d heard that she’d had a conflict when she worked for a nonprofit that received city funding. If the council gets interested in the question of whether someone is even just “dimly friendly” with someone, then that will shrink the pool of those who are eligible to serve, Briere said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Briere noted that there were two former mayors who were UM faculty. She was surprised that people are considering this kind of thing to be a conflict. If a councilmember feels a nominee falls short of the mark, then they should be voted against based on the merits, she said.

Taylor added that if one of the goals is to have people who are involved in local business to be involved in civic life, then this level of relationship can’t be a prohibitive factor. The council’s conversation that night was already doing damage to the possibility that others will want to step forward, Taylor ventured.

By way of background, by state statute a 12-member DDA board must include either the mayor or the city administrator, and at least seven members having an interest in property located in the DDA district or be an officer, member, or trustee, principal, or employee of a legal entity having an interest in property located in the downtown district. And at least one of the DDA board members is required to be a resident of the downtown district. Three at-large members fill out the other seats.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) stated there are three questions to consider: qualifications, perspective, and conflict. He was not upset that the council was discussing any of these questions. Warpehoski reported that he’d met McWilliams only once. Based on that interaction, he said McWilliams has a sharp mind. So Warpehoski concluded McWilliams is qualified. Warpehoski wasn’t familiar with McWilliams’ perspective on the DDA, except for what Kunselman had reported earlier during deliberations.

On the question of conflict, Warpehoski stated that McWilliams should not vote on contracts that his company would service – but he didn’t think there would be that many votes fitting that description. He thought that the question of conflict is still a fair one to ask.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she was supportive of McWilliams’ nomination. Responding to Kunselman’s point about McWilliams’ attitude toward the DDA, Teall said that it’s natural that someone who wants to serve on the DDA would be supportive of the DDA.

Kailasapathy was skeptical that there would be only a few votes from which McWilliams would need to refrain. She stated that she thought there was a direct conflict of interest.

Hieftje asked for the ability to withdraw the nomination, so that some of the issues that had been raised could be explored.

Outcome: The council did not vote on McWilliams’ nomination because Hieftje withdrew it. The council’s vote looked like it might have failed on a 5-4 vote with Kunselman, Petersen, Kailasapathy, and Anglin possibly voting against it.

Council Rules Changes

The council’s Sept. 3 agenda included an item related to changes to its internal rules. This revision to the set of council rules was first presented to the council on June 17, 2013. However, a vote was postponed at that meeting.

The revisions were prompted by a desire to allow for public commentary at council work sessions – to eliminate any question about whether councilmembers were engaged in deliberative interactions at those sessions. By allowing for public commentary at work sessions, the council would ensure compliance with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The council’s rules committee also recommended additional changes, including a shortening of the individual speaking turns for public comment as well as shortening of time for councilmembers. Those additional changes were included in the June 17 version of the rules.

After again postponing a vote at its July 1, 2013 meeting, the council used its following meeting, on July 15, 2013, to eliminate one of the proposed rule changes – the shortening of public speaking turns. But the council postponed further revisions and a vote until Sept. 3.

The council’s rules committee – consisting of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and mayor John Hieftje – was supposed to meet before the Sept. 3 meeting to consolidate input from other councilmembers and perhaps present a clean slate of proposed revisions. However, in the interim, the rules committee did not meet.

Among the other changes that were part of the proposed revisions was the addition of a rule to disallow the use of mobile electronic communication devices at the council table. Another possible change would affect the council’s standard agenda template by moving nominations and appointments to boards and commissions to a slot earlier in the meeting, instead of near the end.

Council Rules Changes: Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a 2010 Michigan senate candidate and 2012 candidate for the Michigan house of representatives, who’s now a write-in candidate for Ward 5 city council this year. He spoke as an advocate supporting Martin Luther King Jr.’s agenda. Partridge called for emphasis on affordable housing, public transportation, and fair access to public meetings. He called for 3- to 5-minute public participation time. There should be no reductions in the amount of time offered to the public, he said. A forward-looking city council would look for new ways to increase public participation time, not to constrain it, he concluded.

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Partridge called on the council to be aware of the need for greater public participation. He complained that there’s been scant information on a recent murder of a UM student.

Mark Koroi reminded councilmembers that he’d spoken to the council previously on the topic of public commentary at working sessions. He said he wants to see the issue taken care of. He noted that Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was not in attendance at that night’s council meeting and referred to her a “the invisible woman.” More public commentary means that the council will hear more from Thomas Partridge and Blaine Coleman, Koroi allowed, adding that the U.S. Constitution and the Michigan Open Meetings Act should be upheld.

Council Rules Changes: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) recited the history of the proposal, but observed that time is the enemy of all and so the committee had not met. He reported that the rules committee was committed to meeting in a swift fashion. He suggested postponing the vote.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that part of the rationale offered for postponing until that night’s meeting – instead of waiting until Sept. 16 – was to change the rules to require public commentary at work sessions in time for the Sept. 9 work session. Warpehoski asked if postponement would preclude allowing public commentary at the Sept. 9 meeting.

City attorney Stephen Postema indicated that public commentary wouldn’t be precluded. From Postema’s remarks on Sept. 3 [emphasis added]:

You could just simply direct that public notice be given that there will be public commentary, if you wanted to put that as a part of the motion with a further direction I suppose to, in setting the agenda that public commentary will be listed. There’s certainly no prohibition of adding public commentary. Without it, I think what you’re focusing on, without it, the council rule says nothing about work session, and on the other hand the issue really is what’s going to be done at that meeting.”

Warpehoski asked that a postponement include direction to notice the public that public commentary will be provided and that it be added to the work session agenda.

By way of background, the actual wording of the current council rules contradicts Postema’s assertion that the council rule on agenda setting says nothing about work sessions. The rule actually sets forth an order of business for the council’s meetings and work sessions [emphasis added]:

RULE 3 – Agenda
3A – Preparation of the Agenda
The agenda for each Regular Council meeting and Council Work Session shall be prepared by the City Administrator. A resolution approving a contract shall only be included on the agenda if the City Attorney has reviewed the contract and the result of that review is included or with the proposed resolution.
The agenda will be prepared in accordance with the following order of business:

Moment of Silence
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call of Council
Approval of the Agenda
Introductions
Public Commentary – Reserved Time
Communications from Council
Public Hearings
Communications from Council
Approval of Council Minutes
Consent Agenda
Ordinances – Second Reading
Ordinances – First Reading
Motions and Resolutions
Council Business
Boards and Commissions
Staff
Communications from the Mayor
Communications from Council
Communications from the City Administrator
Communications from the City Attorney
Clerk’s Report of Communications, Petitions and Referrals
Public Commentary – General
Adjournment

Specification of an order of business – as opposed to required elements of any agenda – makes the listing as suitable for either work sessions or regular meetings.

As deliberations continued, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked if signing up would be required to speak at the work session. Postema indicated that he imagined it would simply be general time.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the change to council rules, but indicated it would allow public commentary at its next work session on Sept. 9. At that session, Thomas Partridge and Jim Mogensen addressed the council during public commentary time.

Council Rules Changes: Committee Meeting – Sept. 10

The rules committee met on Sept. 10. Mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) attended the meeting. Hieftje reported that the committee chair, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), had texted him that she would not be able to attend.

In reviewing the proposed changes, the committee determined that based on the July 15 full council deliberations, some rules proposed initially to be changed should be left intact. At the July 15 meeting, the council had voted explicitly to leave the duration of all types of public commentary speaking turns (public hearings, reserved time, general time) at three minutes.

And at the Sept. 10 committee meeting, the view of committee members was that the general sentiment of the council on July 15 indicated little enthusiasm for changing speaking times for councilmembers, or for changing the way that public speaking time is reserved.

Among the substantive changes that will likely be presented by the committee to the council at its Sept. 16 meeting will be: adding public commentary to work sessions; changing the order of the agenda to move nominations and appointments to earlier in the meeting; prohibiting the use of personal electronic communications devices while at the council table.

Pall-Gelman Plume

The council considered a resolution directing staff to explore actions available to the city on the issue of cleanup standards for an existing 1,4-dioxane plume on the city’s west side. Those options include meeting with the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality and petitioning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to help set cleanup criteria for the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane in Michigan.

Map of Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane plume, by Washtenaw County. Black arrow added to indicate baseball field at West Park. The yellow region is the estimated plume area where the 1,4-dioxane concentration is greater than 1 ppb (parts per billion). That area encroaches well into the city of Ann Arbor and extends outside the well prohibition zone (red border).

The actions to be undertaken by staff can be related to the Pall-Gelman plume or also site specific criteria for the Pall-Gelman plume. The goal would be to improve the cleanup standard for 1,4-dioxane. [.pdf of resolution as amended and approved] The resolution was sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje.

The history of Gelman Sciences, which caused the 1,4-dioxane contamination, goes back 40 years. The company was based in Scio Township and later acquired by Pall Corp. The MDEQ’s current 1,4-dioxane generic residential drinking water cleanup criterion was set at 85 parts per billion (ppb). But an EPA criterion set in 2010 was for 3.5 ppb.

The MDEQ was supposed to re-evaluate its own standards by December 2012, based on the EPA’s 2010 toxicological review. It missed that deadline, and according to the council’s resolution, is anticipated to miss a new deadline set for a year later in December 2013.

Pall-Gelman Plume: Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Roger Rayle introduced himself as chair of Scio Residents for Safe Water. He spoke in support of the resolution on the agenda calling on the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality to tighten up the standards for the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane cleanup. When the standards were loosened back in 1985, he said, it happened overnight. Implicitly addressing the potential criticism that the resolution might not be strong enough, Rayle noted that this doesn’t have to be the last resolution on this topic.

Rayle was glad that the council’s attention is back on this topic, he said. Ann Arbor’s water system could eventually be threatened, he observed, noting that a “new hit” was recorded on a well where nobody expected it. He described his work with GoogleEarth to show how the plume has spread. He called on Gov. Rick Snyder to get involved and to get the MDEQ straightened out, as well as the state attorney general’s office.

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, after the council had acted on the issue, Kai Petainen thanked the council for passing the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane resolution. But he called it insulting that some councilmembers weren’t previously aware of the issue, asking them where they’ve been. He complimented the city for its disclosure of a raw sewage spill recently.

Pall-Gelman Plume: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off the deliberations by describing the chemical properties of 1,4-dioxane. She also described the long history of the problem. Briere noted that some people had voiced concern that the people who have been involved in advocacy should have been involved in the drafting of the resolution – specifically, the Coalition for Action on Remediation of Dioxane (CARD). Briere agreed with that sentiment. So she said she had a substitute resolution she wanted the council to consider. She described the changes as minor, but noted that they included an added “whereas” clause.

That added clause was as follows:

Whereas, Thousands of residents of The City of Ann Arbor and neighboring municipalities including Scio Township, Ann Arbor Township, have been working for over 20 years for the protection of the surface and ground waters of the State from the continuing threat and actual contamination from 1, 4-dioxane contamination originating at the Pall/Gelman Sciences, Inc. (“PGSI”) Wagner Road facility, and for effective containment and proper treatment of waters already impacted by the contamination; [.txt of original resolution] [.txt of modified resolution]

Briere described the MDEQ as eager to talk to the city about the issue and as welcoming the resolution.

Mayor John Hieftje, who’d co-sponsored the resolution with Briere and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), indicated that the city’s lobbyist, Kirk Profit, has been working hard to keep the issue in front of the state. Margie Teall (Ward 4) thanked Briere and Warpehoski for their work on the resolution. Teall said she was glad there might be some movement on the part of the MDEQ.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) complained that the resolution came to the council only late last week. She characterized the resolved clauses as not having “enough teeth.” The language could be strengthened by defining specific cleanup criteria, defining, goals and consulting the expertise of CARD members, Petersen said. So she wanted the resolution postponed.

Briere asked assistant city attorney Abigail Elias to explain the “teeth” of the resolution. Elias described the settlement between the city and Pall-Gelman related to the northwest supply well. Elias was not sure what might be added to strengthen the resolution any further.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) said she didn’t want to bring up the issue, but as long as Petersen had done so, she was going to pursue it – that of involving those who’ve been advocating on the issue for a long time. She described herself as a social-scientist-turned-CPA, and thus valued the input of more people. She had mixed feelings about the process used to develop the resolution.

Petersen indicated she wanted to move to postpone the resolution. Hieftje asked city environmental coordinator Matt Naud to approach the podium.

Hieftje ventured that the resolution was about as strong as it could be made at this time. Naud responded by describing the Pall situation as very complicated. CARD has worked hard on the issue and there’s a long list of things they’d like done, Naud said. What’s clearly expressed in this resolution, Naud said, is that the federal government, the EPA, now thinks 1,4-dioxane is more cancer-causing than the EPA previously thought. The state of Michigan’s job is to take that and promulgate it under the Clean Water Act, but that hasn’t been done, Naud said.

Environmental coordinator Matt Naud answered questions from the podium.

Naud said the resolution is a message to the MDEQ. Changing the standard would radically change the attention being paid to the Pall-Gelman site, he said. Michigan has had an 85 ppb standard for a very long time, when everyone else has had a much lower [that is, more demanding or stronger] standard, Naud says.

Petersen asked what the risk would be in using the resolution language to identify a specific standard for cleanup as a goal. Naud explained that he wasn’t sure what number would come out of the state of Michigan’s algorithm. Naud went on to describe part of the problem as getting access to data, and noted that some of Rayle’s work has included hand-entering data from paper copies. Petersen wanted to postpone a vote on the resolution, in order to add CARD’s “wish list” to the resolution.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Naud why the state is dragging its feet. Naud indicated that it’s a broader problem than just the 1,4-dioxane issue.

Kunselman asked what the city is doing in the way of contingency planning – in the event that a 1,4-dioxane plume reaches Barton Pond, which is the source of most of the city’s drinking water. That’s the question that needs to be addressed, Kunselman said. “What would we do?” Would the city have to filter out the 1,4-dioxane before pumping drinking water to residents? He had no problem postponing or voting on the resolution that night. But he wanted the city to think about what it’s doing itself, as opposed to asking others to do something.

From left: Ward 5 councilmembers Chuck Warpehoski and Mike Anglin.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) characterized the problem as one of court decisions, saying that the courts are generally going to find in favor of Pall-Gelman. He said that when he started serving on the council, he attended some CARD meetings and it was very confusing. Anglin said he wanted the city council to hold a work session on the topic of the 1,4-dioxane plume. He pointed out that the issue had arisen in connection with the City Apartments project: Who would be responsible if the 1,4-dioxane contamination were to penetrate to that site? Anglin indicated he was in favor of postponement, because of the magnitude of the issue. But he thanked Briere and Warpehoski for their effort.

Briere characterized the issue as “not a new emergency,” saying that it’s an ongoing problem. The first step seems to be to get MDEQ to act, Briere ventured. Naud indicated some agreement with that idea. The change at the federal level should have trickled through to the state level, Naud said. But it hasn’t and so Pall-Gelman says that currently they don’t have to worry about areas that have concentrations below 85 ppb.

Briere said she had assumed that other councilmembers were already up to speed on the issue, and she thought that the opportunity to achieve something should be seized. Naud said there’s no question that the state should have acted in some way, and that’s why the resolution focuses on that.

Petersen asked if the purpose of the resolution was just to put MDEQ on notice. Naud indicated basic agreement with that characterization. Petersen ventured that a delay of two more weeks shouldn’t be a problem, saying she wanted to hear from CARD on the question, to see if the language can be strengthened. She then formally moved for postponement.

Hieftje said he didn’t think that the resolution could be strengthened and characterized it as providing a start to a conversation. The resolution would give the city’s lobbyist something to work with, Hieftje said. He was impressed that Roger Rayle had been consulted and had spoken in favor of the resolution during public commentary. So Hieftje indicated he’d vote against postponement.

Kunselman expressed concern that the city is “going it alone.” Briere says she’s talked to other elected representatives – county commissioners, Scio Township representatives, and members of the state legislature. She said it’s not Ann Arbor going it alone, but rather Ann Arbor taking the first step. Taking that first step, she says, seems to be vital. She’d attended a briefing with Evan Pratt, Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, and the message at that briefing was that the first step is for MDEQ to change the 85 ppb number. [Based on remarks made at the most recent meeting of the Washtenaw board of commissioners, the board will be considering a similar resolution on 1,4-dioxane at its Sept. 18, 2013 meeting.]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked for a basic status report on how things stand with respect to the city’s water supply. Naud indicated that when 1,4-dioxane was detected in the city’s northwest supply well in 2003, the city stopped using that well.

Naud described various locations where the city tests for 1,4-dioxane. Taylor described himself as delighted the proposers had brought the resolution forward, saying that a revised version might be a “scootch” more detailed. He indicated that he didn’t think that a delay of two weeks would matter.

Teall asked about the testing locations. Naud described how there are a couple hundred monitoring wells. Anglin asked about the city’s conversations with the EPA.

Warpehoski indicated he was going to violate the council rules by sending the media Briere’s revisions to the resolution via email. [Because Warpehoski did that, The Chronicle was able to include the revised resolution in its brief on the resolution filed from the meeting.]

Warpehoski supported the approach that Briere had taken as “more surgical” than to try to hang a bunch of wish-list items on it, as if the resolution were a Christmas tree. He summarized the intent of the resolution as saying to the MDEQ: “Do your job!” Warpehoski indicated that Briere had done a lot of heavy lifting on the resolution.

Outcome on postponement: On a 4-5 vote, the motion to postpone failed. Voting against postponement were Teall, Warpehoski, Anglin, Hieftje and Briere. Voting for postponement were Kailasapathy, Petersen, Taylor and Kunselman. Lumm and Higgins were absent.

The council continued with deliberations on the resolution. Kunselman indicated he’d support it. He ventured that if the city’s water system were compromised, then Ann Arbor would connect to the Detroit system. But responding to a question from Briere, Naud indicated that he wasn’t sure that connecting to Detroit would be the city’s first option. Kunselman noted that it’s important to hear what the contingency plan is.

Kunselman asked what the criteria would be for shutting down Barton Pond as a water source. City administrator Steve Powers indicated he’d follow up on that. Hieftje stated that shutting down Barton Pond is not imminent. Briere asked Naud if there’s any imminent risk. Naud replied that the geology in this area is complicated. There’s a lot of science and research that would need to be done to determine if the plume could get to Barton Pond and if so, how fast, Naud said. He allowed that 1,4-dioxane has shown up in places where it was not expected.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to direct city staff to take action related to helping set cleanup standards for 1,4-dioxane.

Energy Commission Recommendations

Two resolutions sponsored by the city’s energy commission were considered by the council on Sept. 3. The first called on the city’s employee retirement system to divest from fossil fuel companies. The second directed city staff to work with DTE to create a community solar pilot project.

Energy Commission Recommendations: Fossil Fuels

An energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013 recommended that the city council urge the city’s employee retirement system board to cease new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest current investments in fossil fuel companies within five years. The resolution defined a “fossil fuel company” to be any of the top 100 coal companies or top 100 gas and oil extraction companies. The top three coal companies on the list are: Severstal JSC; Anglo American PLC; and BHP Billiton. The top three gas and oil companies on the list are: Lukoil Holdings; Exxon Mobil Corp.; and BP PLC. The basic consideration of the resolution is the importance of the role that greenhouse gas emissions play in global warming.

The resolution cited the city of Ann Arbor’s Climate Action Plan, which has a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2025 and 90% by 2050. The resolution warned that fossil fuel companies have enough fossil fuel reserves that, if burned, would release about 2,795 gigatons of CO2. That’s five times the amount that can be released without causing more than 2°C global warming, according to the resolution.

Energy Commission Recs: Fossil Fuels – Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Mike Shriberg spoke on behalf of the city’s energy commission, asking the council to support the community solar resolution and the fossil fuel divestment resolution. He mentioned Seattle, San Francisco, State College and Boulder as examples of cities that have divested from fossil fuel companies. He described the increased financial risk as minimal.

From left: Ward 3 councilmembers Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman. Visible in the audience is Jeff Hayner.

Monica Patel also spoke in support the resolutions on community solar and fossil fuel divestment – on behalf of the Ecology Center. She delivered the council petitions signed by Ann Arbor residents in support of the resolutions.

During public commentary reserved time, Jeff Hayner – who’s running as an independent for city council in Ward 1 against incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere – talked about the balance between vision and common sense. He spoke in support of the community solar resolution. He also spoke in support of the divestment of fossil fuels companies, but urged caution and warned of possible financial losses. Is social gain worth the financial risk? he asked. Hayner thanked Roger Rayle for speaking during public commentary about the 1,4-dioxane resolution, saying that it’s a complex problem that is not going away.

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Kai Petainen said it doesn’t make sense to divest from an entire sector of the economy – a reference to the fossil fuel divestment resolution. [.pdf of statement from Kai Petainen emailed to The Chronicle following the Sept. 3 meeting]

Energy Commission Recs: Fossil Fuels – Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje led things off by saying, as a member of the energy commission, he could say that the issue had been thoroughly reviewed and researched. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) referred to Jeff Hayner’s public commentary, which indicated that there could be a financial impact. Have there been any other examples of divestment along these lines? Briere asked.

City administrator Steve Powers indicated that the last time it came up was in connection with South Africa. So it was a long time ago, Briere concluded. Briere asked Nancy Walker, executive director of the retirement system, to come to the podium and comment. Briere wanted to know if Walker would be concerned if the council were to approve the resolution.

Walker said the board had been made aware of the resolution and had some discussion at its meeting just that afternoon. The board had not taken a position, she said, but would certainly consider a council resolution. She indicated that there would be some financial implications. Right now, the trustees have made a conscious effort over the last several years to shift the investments away from separately managed accounts, to either co-mingled funds or mutual funds – particularly indexed funds. That’s a very low-cost way to invest the money, she said. For example, 25% of the fund is invested in domestic large cap equity, and on that, the blended rate is about 2.5 basis points – on more than $100 million.

On initial investigation, Walker said, there really aren’t any indexed funds that exclude fossil fuel companies. If the city were to pull more money out of an indexed fund and put it into a separately managed fund, there would probably be a fee of 20-30 times the fees for an indexed fund.

There are really three separate considerations, Walker explained: fiduciary duty (beneficiaries are the primary concern); cost impact; and consideration of other options. Some of the other options included environmentally-friendly, socially-responsible, corporate-governance type funds. There are not a lot of such funds out there, Walker said, based on initial investigation.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) wanted to know what the differential would be of an indexed fund compared to a socially-responsible fund. Walker indicated that they had not gotten to that point of being able to say. But assuming that the return was equal, Walker said, you could anticipate a 30-40 basis point differential on the return, just due to the increased cost of fees.

Outcome: A 5-4 vote fell short of the six-vote majority needed to pass on the 11-member council. Voting against the resolution were Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) were absent.

Energy Commission Recommendations: Community Solar

The second energy-related resolution also stemmed from an energy commission recommendation – that the council direct city staff to work with DTE to develop a “community solar” pilot program. A “community solar” program would allow people to invest in a solar energy system, even if the energy that’s generated would be located off-site from their own electric meter.

The goal is to create a program that would assist the work of the Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association (GLREA), which has a grant to work statewide, investigating the feasibility of and constraints facing this collective approach to alternative energy generation. As an example of this approach, the council resolution cited the Cherryland Electric Cooperative in Traverse City. The resolution asked that details of a pilot program be ready for consideration by the Michigan Public Service Commission by March 31, 2014.

The goal of community solar is to allow people who don’t own the property where they live, or whose own property is shaded or poorly oriented for solar energy production, to support the production of solar energy.

Outcome: The council voted to direct staff to work with DTE to develop a community solar pilot program.

Ann Arbor Greenbelt

The council considered two deals adding land to the city’s greenbelt program. The program is funded by the voter-approved open space and parkland preservation millage.

The Sheldon and Wolf property is indicated in red. The green highlighted area denotes area already protected as a part of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program. The heavy green line is the boundary encompassing eligible properties. This is the northwest corner of the boundary area.

The first deal – the Sheldon and Wolf property – involved 20 acres in Webster Township. It’s located on Zeeb Road, next to active farmland and other property that has already been protected by the city’s greenbelt program.

The purchase price, after deducting a $6,500 landowner donation, is $47,500. Webster Township is contributing $2,000 and Cherry Republic is contributing another $2,300, leaving the city’s share of the purchase price at $43,200. Due diligence, closing costs and a contribution to the endowment brings the city’s total contribution to $82,067.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the acquisition of development rights on the Sheldon and Wolf property.

The second deal involved participation in the acquisition of two pieces of land owned by DF (Domino’s Farms) Land Development LLC. The appraised value of the land is $322,000, of which the city would contribute up to $32,200. The lead agency on the deal is the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, which voted to approve the purchase of the two parcels at its Aug. 13, 2013 meeting. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended the city’s participation at its July 11, 2013 meeting.

According to the city administrator’s report from the Sept. 3 meeting, there will be a motor coach tour of the city’s greenbelt program’s protected properties on Saturday, Sept. 21 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. The cost is $10. People can register by calling 734.794.6000 ext. 42798.

Outcome: The council voted to authorize the city’s participation in the acquisition of the DF Land Development property.

Hampton Inn on Jackson Road

The council considered a proposal to build a new Hampton Inn at 2910 Jackson Ave., across the street from Weber’s Inn.

A drawing of the proposed Hampton Inn on Jackson Avenue – next to the larger existing Clarion Inn – was shown to planning commissioners at their July 2 meeting. The design includes improved pedestrian features.

The four-story hotel, located on an 8.8-acre site north of Jackson and south of I-94, will include 100 bedrooms and 51,608 usable square feet. A 163-room Clarion Hotel stands on the same site, east of the proposed new hotel.

The planning commission gave this “planned project” a recommendation of approval at its July 2, 2013 meeting.

Planning commissioners had discussed the proposal at length during their June 18, 2013 meeting. Ultimately, they unanimously voted to postpone action on that occasion, instead asking the developer to address concerns over pedestrian access within the site.

The planned project status was sought so that the existing foundation can be used. In 2008, an earlier site plan had been approved, but nothing beyond the foundation was built. At the time, no maximum front setback had been required. Now, however, a maximum front setback of 50 feet is required on at least one of the site’s three front property lines. A planned project status would allow that requirement to be waived.

Hampton Inn: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge told the council that he is wary of the planning commission’s approval of the project. We don’t want more pedestrian casualties or deaths, he said. Many people use this stretch of Jackson Road to deliberately speed, he contended.

Andy Wakeland with Giffels-Webster Engineers of Washington Township, Mich. – the civil engineer for the Hampton Inn project – addressed the council. He discussed the pedestrian issues, calling it a pedestrian-friendly site and said, “We’re pretty proud of it.”

The architect for the project – Jeff Ryntz of Victor Saroki and Associates – also addressed the council. He recalled how the project was started several years ago, and the foundations had been completed. In the interim, the city had changed its area, height and placement zoning ordinance, and those concerns had to be addressed. He noted the planning commission voted 8-0 to recommend approval.

Hampton Inn: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to answer questions. He asked if there’s any plan to install signalization of crosswalks like HAWK or rapid flashing beacons. No, she answered. He asked for some explanation of the traffic analysis. Rampson reported that city planner Jill Thacher and traffic engineer Pat Cawley had visited the site. The location of the crossing was the best one available, Rampson explained.

Warpehoski ventured that of the bad options, he can see how this could be the best one. But as consultations with MDOT continue and as the project goes through the building permit phase, he wanted attention paid to the issue, and urged that every appropriate analysis and protection is put in.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the planning commission [on which she serves as the city council representative] delayed the project, asking for additional pedestrian amenities within the site. However, the crosswalk had been a part of the initial proposal, she says.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) suggested that he and Warpehoski could meet with Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority staff about the bus stop.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the stormwater detention pond. He ventured that the overflow discharge goes to the expressway. Yes, and that will need to be approved by MDOT, explained a representative of the developer. Kunselman asked if MDOT would dictate the signage on the crosswalk. Rampson was not sure if the signs would be different from the other signs next to crosswalks in the city.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that Ann Arbor has the highest hotel occupancy rate in the state.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the Hampton Inn planned project.

Tim Hortons Drive-Thru

The council was asked to give initial approval to a drive-thru at the Shell station and Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway.

The requested changes to the PUD (planned unit development) regulations would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The businesses are located on a 1.44-acre site.

The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building. Access to the drive-thru lane would be off of the site’s existing entrance from Ann Arbor-Saline Road. A PUD had previously been approved by the council at its July 2, 2012 meeting, but without plans for a drive-thru restaurant. The city planning commission had unanimously recommended approval of the request for a revision at its July 16, 2013 meeting.

Tim Hortons: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) led off deliberations by asking for a representative of the project to come forward. He noted that the area plan doesn’t support a car wash. But possible use of a car wash was left in the PUD description, so Warpehoski said he wanted it removed. The developer’s representative did not have any objection. Warpehoski also wanted to strike the language that described the ability for someone to get food and beverage without leaving their vehicle as a public benefit.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

One of the requirements of the rezoning allowed on a discretionary basis by the city council under a planned unit development (PUD) is that the project have some public benefit. Warpehoski objected to inclusion of the drive-thru as a public benefit: “To say that somebody now doesn’t have to spend the 10 extra calories between getting out their car to get their salt-sugar-fat fix?! I don’t see that as a public benefit and I don’t want us to list that as some big thing that we’re modifying our zoning for in our ordinance.”

Warpehoski also didn’t like the idea of describing the drive-thru as a “gateway.”

Margie Teall (Ward 4) followed Warpehoski’s turn with questions of the developer’s representative. She ventured that the adherence to architectural design standards would ensure appropriate development of the “gateway site.” All that was being requested at this point, the developer said, was a small drive-thru window, which amounted to 109 square feet of space. Teall wanted to make sure the design of the window fit the architecture. The developer indicated that he proud of the building’s appearance.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) recalled the planning commission discussion. [She serves as the council's representative on the commission.] She asked for an explanation of why the proposed seating area is an appropriate place for such an area.

The developer indicated that the location can be a welcoming symbol or a “gateway.” At the citizens participation meeting, they were told there was quite a bit of pedestrian and bicycle traffic in the area – so the seating area was thought to be a good amenity. Briere asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to comment on the number of residents in the area. Rampson indicated that there are a lot of people who cross through the area. So there’s a lot of pedestrian travel, in addition to the auto travel, Rampson said.

Briere ventured that confusion results from the fact that there’s a list of eight items of benefit, and it’s not clear if each item is a discrete benefit. So she had no problem removing an item from the list. Briere asked Rampson to explain how it’s determined what counts as a public benefit for the purpose of evaluating a PUD.

“It’s fairly unusual to have a gas station PUD,” Rampson replied. The property was originally owned by the school district, she reported. She said that the planning commission felt that as a whole, the items were felt to be a benefit. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the previous iterations of the PUD. Did more public benefits get added to the list each time? Kunselman questioned whether an amendment to a PUD really requires an additional benefit above and beyond the original public benefit.

Kunselman stated that if the word “gateway” were removed, he’d be fine with everything else. Rampson reported that the owners of the project have expressed concern about making a substantive change, which would require an additional reading and approval by the city council. City attorney Stephen Postema ventured that the proposed change by Warpehoski wouldn’t be substantial enough to require additional council approvals.

From left: Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Briere said that the advantage of putting items in the PUD language is that the developer can be held accountable for those items.

Teall appreciated Briere’s remarks about accountability. She didn’t have a problem with stating more benefits or with the word “gateway.” She appreciated the attention to detail the developer was giving the project. She said she wouldn’t support Warpehoski’s proposed amendments to the language. [The property is located in Ward 4, which Teall represents.]

Mayor John Hieftje said he didn’t think the change was substantial. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) thought it was important to consider the gas station as a gateway based on its entry location. She also pointed out that Tim Hortons has healthy choices on its menu. Anything that helps beautify the corridor should be supported, Petersen said.

Warpehoski suggested separating his proposed amendment into the part about the car wash and the part about the public benefits.

Outcome on amending the public benefits language: The council approved that amendment over dissent from Teall, Anglin, and Petersen.

Outcome on amending out “car wash”: The council approved eliminating the word “car wash.”

Outcome on changes in the Tim Hortons/Shell PUD: The council voted to give initial approval to the PUD changes. The council will need to vote again at a subsequent meeting, after a public hearing, to give the changes final approval.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Crosswalk Ordinance

During council communications time, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) reported that she’s been working with city staff on getting a report from a professional traffic engineer regarding a recommendation for the city’s crosswalk ordinance.

Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers.

She indicated that she might bring forward a resolution at the next meeting calling for an independent review of the crosswalk ordinance and the associated infrastructure.

During his report to the council, city administrator Steve Powers indicated that he’ll be providing an update to the council on the review of the new crosswalk ordinance, and of the sanitary sewer overflow in the Arboretum that had taken place at the start of the weekend.

That memo was released subsequent to the meeting. [.pdf of crosswalk memo] [.pdf of WMU study mentioned in memo]

Comm/Comm: Regional Transit Authority

During communications time toward the end of the evening, mayor John Hieftje noted that an October city council work session [likely to be set for Oct. 14] will include representatives from the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA).

Comm/Comm: Fuller Road Station

During council communications time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) alerted his council colleagues that he’d be bringing forward a resolution that would rescind the memorandum of understanding between the city and the University of Michigan in connection with the Fuller Road Station. [Rescinding the memorandum of understanding is something that Kunselman talked about during his Democratic primary re-election campaign, at a June 8, 2013 candidate forum. Kunselman prevailed in the Aug. 6 primary over challenger Julie Grand.]

Comm/Comm: North Main Huron River Corridor Task Force

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave an update on the work of the North Main Huron River Corridor task force. Their final report has been submitted. [It's now on the Sept. 16 council agenda as a resolution that would formally accept the report.]

The report includes some before-after photos depicting possible improvements, like a pedestrian bridge across the Huron River connecting the Argo berm to the DTE-MichCon property. The task force was established at the council’s May 7, 2012 meeting, and a report had been due at the end of July. But Briere had apprised the council at previous meetings of the slight delay.

Briere apologized for the delay in the delivery of the report. She hoped there would be a presentation at the next council meeting on Sept. 16.

Comm/Comm: D1 Zoning Review

During her council communications, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that the D1 zoning review could be delayed. More public meetings have been added than were originally planned.

Comm/Comm: Sensory Garden

During council communications, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) announced that on Sept. 15 at 1 p.m. a Sensory Garden will be dedicated at Liberty Plaza – the downtown park at Division and Liberty. It’s a project of the Ann Arbor commission on disability issues, in collaboration with the city’s adopt-a-park program and the University of Michigan Matthaei Botanical Gardens. A ceremony will be held to honor former commissioner Pamela Baker-Trostle.

Comm/Comm: Anti-Israel Protests

During public commentary reserved time, Henry Herskovitz cited two news articles about the protests in front the Beth Israel Congregation on Washtenaw Avenue, in which he regularly participates. He noted that at the previous council meeting [on Aug. 19, 2013], the council had been asked to express its displeasure about the protests. He objected to comments made by mayor John Hieftje and other councilmembers. Herskovitz noted that Hieftje had indicated that the city had tried all legal methods to stop the protests, which Herskovitz feared could be interpreted by some to mean that now illegal methods should be used. He reported that three days earlier, someone had spat on a protestor. A police officer had come out to investigate and to view video of the incident, Herskovitz said.

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

Absent: Jane Lumm, Marcia Higgins.

Next council meeting: Sept. 16, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

A drawing of the proposed Hampton Inn on Jackson Avenue – next to the larger existing Clarion Inn – was shown to planning commissioners at their July 2 meeting. The design includes improved pedestrian features.

The four-story hotel, located on an 8.8-acre site north of Jackson and south of I-94, will include 100 bedrooms and 51,608 usable square feet. A 163-room Clarion Hotel stands on the same site, east of the proposed new hotel.

The planning commission gave this “planned project” a recommendation of approval at its July 2, 2013 meeting. The city council’s action came at its Sept. 3, 2013 meeting.

Planning commissioners had discussed the proposal at length during their June 18, 2013 meeting. Ultimately, they unanimously voted to postpone action on that occasion, instead asking the developer to address concerns over pedestrian access within the site.

The planned project status is being sought so that the existing foundation can be used. In 2008, an earlier site plan had been approved, but nothing beyond the foundation was built. At the time, no maximum front setback had been required. Now, however, a maximum front setback of 50 feet is required on at least one of the site’s three front property lines. A planned project status would allow that requirement to be waived.

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

From left: Jeremy Peters and Paras Parekh cast their first votes as Ann Arbor planning commissioners on July 2, 2013.

The proposal for a Hampton Inn at 2910 Jackson Ave., across the street from Weber’s Inn and next to Clarion Inn, had been postponed at the commission’s June 18, 2013 meeting. The owner was asked to address concerns over pedestrian access within the site.

A June 28 letter from Andy Wakeland, the project’s civil engineer, outlined several changes that the design team made in response to commissioners’ concerns. [.pdf of Wakeland’s letter] The changes include building a wood chip path with a picnic table area along the front wooded area of the site, connecting to two previously proposed entrances from Jackson Avenue. The plan now also includes an alternate pedestrian route at the west entrance, crossing the front parking lot in a more direct route to the hotel’s front door. Several commissioners praised the changes and thanked the development team for being responsive.

In other action, commissioners followed the planning staff’s recommendation and voted to postpone a proposed $1.2 million expansion to the U-Haul business at 3655 S. State St., south of the I-94 interchange. Commissioners spent about an hour raising concerns and asking questions, many related to landscaping, site visibility, and how the site will look from South State Street after the changes are made.

This was also the commission’s annual organizational meeting, when officers are elected and bylaws are reviewed. Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods were re-elected chair and vice chair, respectively, and Ken Clein was elected secretary, replacing Bonnie Bona. Planning manager Wendy Rampson introduced staff recommendations for changes to the bylaws, including an item regarding the provision of special accommodations for the public, such as a sign language interpreter. The proposed amendment would change the advance notice required for special accommodations from 24 hours to 48 hours. This change is consistent with recent changes adopted by the city clerk’s office, according to Rampson.

July 2 was the first meeting for two new planning commissioners: Jeremy Peters and Paras Parekh. They were appointed last month by the Ann Arbor city council for terms ending June 30, 2016. The former commissioners whose seats they filled – Tony Derezinski and Eric Mahler – were on hand to receive recommendations of appreciation. Derezinski said he was reminded of an old saying from law school: Whoever loves good laws and good sausage should observe neither in the making. “Well, we made a lot of great sausage here,” he said.

Hampton Inn

The first major agenda item was a “planned project” proposal to build a new Hampton Inn at 2910 Jackson Ave., across the street from Weber’s Inn. Commissioners had discussed the proposal at length during their June 18, 2013 meeting. Ultimately, they unanimously voted to postpone action at that meeting, instead asking the developer to address concerns over pedestrian access within the site.

A drawing of the proposed Hampton Inn on Jackson Avenue – next to the larger existing Clarion Inn – was shown to commissioners at their July 2 meeting. The design includes improved pedestrian features.

A June 28 letter from Andy Wakeland, the project’s civil engineer, outlined several changes that the design team made in response to commissioners’ concerns. [.pdf of Wakeland’s letter] The changes include building a wood chip path with a picnic table along the front wooded area of the site, connecting to two previously proposed entrances from Jackson Avenue. The plan now also includes an alternate pedestrian route at the west entrance, crossing the front parking lot in a more direct route to the hotel’s front door. Overall, the changes are intended to improve pedestrian connectivity within the site, as well as with areas surrounding the site.

Planning intern Katy Ryan presented the project, describing the changes that had been proposed since the commission’s June 18 meeting.

The proposed four-story hotel, located on an 8.8-acre site north of Jackson and south of I-94, would include 100 bedrooms and 51,608 usable square feet. A 163-room Clarion Hotel is on the same site, east of the proposed new hotel.

A previous site plan for that location had been approved in 2008, and a Super 8 motel there was demolished. The foundation was laid for a new Hampton Inn, but the project was never completed and the building permits and site plan expired.

The owner is seeking planned project status so that the existing foundation can be used. In 2008, no maximum front setback had been required. Now, however, a maximum front setback of 50 feet is required on at least one of the site’s three front property lines. A planned project status would allow that requirement to be waived. The existing foundation is set back 72.4 feet from the north property line.

A public benefit is required in order to secure the planned project status. The owner originally cited the benefit as using the existing infrastructure.

Several members of the development team – as well as the owner, Akram Namou – attended the meeting, but no one spoke at a public hearing on this item.

In addition to a request to recommend approval of the planned project site plan, commissioners were asked to recommend approval of an amended development agreement and modifications to the city’s landscaping requirements.

Hampton Inn: Commission Discussion

For the benefit of the two new commissioners, Bonnie Bona briefly described the proposal’s history. She said commissioners didn’t have any issues with the requested landscape modifications. That request was to modify requirements of Chapter 62 – the city’s landscape and screening ordinance – which requires that at least 50% of the site’s interior landscape area be depressed bioretention and used for stormwater management. Instead, this site plan proposes 39% bioretention in one large area in front of the Hampton Inn.

Andy Wakeland with Giffels-Webster Engineers of Washington Township, Mich., is the civil engineer for the Hampton Inn project. He attended the planning commission’s July 2 meeting.

Bona noted that the main concern from commissioners related to the request for planned project status. She explained that a planned project is a special request to deviate from the requirements of the city’s ordinances, in exchange for providing a public benefit. In this case, the deviation is the front setback, which is required so that buildings are built closer to the front street. Being closer to the front street is important to improve access for pedestrians, Bona said – although in this location, it doesn’t really make a difference.

She commended the developer for improving pedestrian connectivity and making up for the fact that the building will be located at the back of the site. Some of the changes are subtle, she said – like straightening the path on the east side of the site. But the changes make it seem like pedestrians are intentionally being accommodated. The change to the sidewalk on the site’s west side is a significant improvement, Bona said. Now, pedestrians don’t have to cross the drive multiple times.

Bona said that although the picnic area in the back and the wood chip path in the front might be minimally used, “I hope they do provide a benefit for the people who stay at the hotel.” Finally, she called the small improvements at the Clarion Inn site “icing on the cake.” She concluded by saying that she appreciated the changes, especially considering that this is located in an auto-centric part of the city. It will be a long time before these properties are changed again, she said. When more pedestrians start using that area and public transit increases, “this site will be ready for it.”

Jeremy Peters said he echoed Bona’s comments. Given that the setback is so far back, the changes that were made help mitigate that as much as possible, he said.

Ken Clein appreciated that the development team had been responsive and quick in addressing the commission’s concerns. They had done a good job with the location, he said. Kirk Westphal also thought that the changes had enhanced the site.

Sabra Briere asked if the city had received any response yet from the Michigan Dept. of Transportation regarding the crossing across Jackson Avenue, from the Hampton Inn site to the tip of the Weber’s Inn property, then across eastbound Jackson to a relocated bus stop south of Jackson. Planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that it had been part of the previously approved development agreement with the site’s owner, and that the agreement called for the owner to install the crossing. That would be a major improvement, she noted – because the city wouldn’t have funds to install a crosswalk there anytime soon.

Later in the meeting, Rampson reported that at the end of April, the city had received a communication from MDOT about the site plan stating that the locations of the sidewalk, sidewalk ramps and crosswalks were still acceptable.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the Hampton Inn planned project site plan, amended development agreement and modifications to the city’s landscaping requirements. The project will next be considered by the city council for approval.

U-Haul Expansion

On the July 2 agenda was a proposed expansion to the U-Haul business at 3655 S. State St., south of the I-94 interchange.

Aerial view of U-Haul site on South State Street, indicated with crosshatches.

The current site includes a 8,861-square-foot retail/service building and four self-storage buildings, ranging in size from 3,000 square feet to 5,250 square feet.

The expansion calls for building a 1,246-square-foot addition to the front of the existing retail building, facing South State. The project also includes a new 4,994-square-foot, one-story warehouse and an 11,696-square-foot, one-story self-storage building. Both of the new buildings would be toward the rear of the site – currently a flat grassy area – and would not be visible from South State Street. The warehouse building will be used to provide storage for items that customers don’t need to access on a frequent basis. Unlike the self-storage facility, the warehouse will be accessed only by employees, to store or retrieve items for customers.

The project will bring the site up to code regarding landscaping, with additional right-of-way buffer vegetation, four new landscape islands, 22 new trees and shrubbery.

A detention pond was built in the early 1990s as part of a previously planned expansion that was not completed. That former site plan has expired. The pond will become part of an upgraded stormwater management system designed to meet current city standards.

The overall project is estimated to cost $1.2 million.

A staff memo noted that this site was part of the area covered in the South State Street corridor plan, which the planning commission had voted to add to the city’s master plan at its May 21, 2013 meeting. That corridor plan calls for office uses at that location in the future. Currently, the property is zoned M1A (limited light industrial district), and no rezoning is being requested. The corridor plan also recommends “enhanced non-motorized access to buildings, and aesthetic improvements recognizing State Street as a gateway corridor to the City,” according to the memo.

In order for the corridor plan to be added to the city’s master plan, the city council would also need to approve taking that action. However, councilmembers postponed action on that at their July 1, 2013 meeting, after Marcia Higgins said she had some concerns.

A concern related directly to this project came from a nearby property owner, Zakhour Youssef. He had sent an email to the commission complaining about the upkeep of the site, and indicating that the property would be better used for an upscale development. [.pdf of Youssef email] He owns properties at 2750 and 3776 S. State. From his email:

It seems like adding more shabbiness to the existing [U-Haul building]. Whatever is visible from the street should be made attractive especially in view of the fact that both Ann Arbor and Pittsfield Township are making admirable efforts to gentrify the South State Street corridor from I-94 to Michigan Avenue.

I believe that the highest and best use for the entire U-Haul parcel and adjacent parcels is upscale developments: attractive hotels, restaurants, office building, etc. We are seriously considering demolishing our 3776 South State Street building and have an upscale development on the four and half acres on the N.W. corner of South State and Airport Boulevard. The area is ready for upscale development.

City planner Matt Kowalski gave the staff report at the July 2 meeting. He noted that some issues raised by the planning staff have been addressed in revisions that the owner submitted on Friday, June 28, but there hadn’t been time to adequately review those changes.

The city’s planning staff recommended postponement so that the owner can address outstanding issues that had been raised by planning and engineering staff members. The site plan is also awaiting approval by the county’s water resources commissioner.

U-Haul Expansion: Public Hearing

The only speaker at a public hearing was Samantha Keating, principal planner in the construction department of Amerco Real Estate Co. of Phoenix, Arizona. She spoke briefly, saying that she was representing the owner, U-Haul International. They are interested in upgrading the site in order to offer more services to customers, she said, including more storage options and moving supplies. She felt all of the issues that had been identified by the planning staff had been worked through, and the company had come up with a plan to make everyone happy. She was on hand to answer any questions.

U-Haul Expansion: Commission Discussion

Commissioners had a wide range of questions, mostly focused on landscaping, lighting, site visibility, and how the site will look from South State Street after the changes are made. For this report, the discussion is organized thematically.

U-Haul Expansion: Commission Discussion – Lighting

Wendy Woods had questions about lighting and windows within the self-storage facility. If there are interior passageways, then she wanted to make sure that fire safety and egress issues had been addressed. City planner Matt Kowalski said the owners recently submitted a revised photometric plan, which shows exterior lighting on the site. The site plan meets the city’s standards for emergency egress, though he noted that those issues are dealt with in more detail at the building plan stage.

Samantha Keating, representing U-Haul, explained that for the interior, all hallways are lit overhead and the building meets code for lighting and egress. Many of the lights are on motion-activated timers for energy efficiency. Customers will have an access card to enter the building, which will activate the lights. Woods asked to see photos of similar U-Haul storage facilities, to give commissioners an idea about the width of the hallways.

U-Haul Expansion: Commission Discussion – Appearance

Noting that the commission had received an email from a nearby property owner, Woods expressed concern that the site doesn’t look like it’s been as well-maintained as the city would expect on one of its major entryways. She asked staff how they could encourage the owner to address this issue.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Kowalski replied that the planning staff had expressed some concern about temporary U-Haul signs that had been placed in the city right-of-way in front of the site, and he felt that those would be taken care of. The owners are investing a lot of money in the property, he noted, and will be doing a lot of landscaping in the front. After the upgrade is completed, it will be a matter of enforcement for the city, he said, adding that it’s a very visible site.

Right now there are only a couple of “scraggy” pines on the site, Kowalski said. A continuous line of shrubs will be planted as part of the city’s required right-of-way buffer, and about a half dozen trees will be added to the front of the site as well. There is also a berm along the front that will help mitigate the view of the buildings, he said.

Sabra Briere said she was trying to reconcile this project with the recommendations of the South State Street corridor study. According to the corridor study, that area should be zoned for office use, she noted. If this project moves forward, how will that vision for the corridor be realized?

Kowalski observed that the current master plan calls for research and light industrial uses in that area. The new corridor plan, which hasn’t yet been adopted by the city council as part of the master plan, does recommend office use if the ownership of the site turns over, he said. However, it wasn’t intended to push out existing businesses, he added. The value of the corridor plan for this property now is to guide pedestrian and facade improvements, for example.

Jeremy Peters requested a rendering of the site as viewed from South State Street, to help commissioners envision how it would look with the proposed landscaping. Briere expanded on that request, asking for the rendering to put the site in context with the rest of the area, as well as showing the contours of the land. “Sometimes two dimensions aren’t just enough for me,” she said.

Kirk Westphal wondered whether U-Haul would consider masonry on the retail building addition. Keating replied that it had been discussed, but her concern is that it would not seem cohesive with the existing metal building. She also noted that the company has a bottom line for this project that it’s trying to work within.

Ken Clein said that as an architect, he didn’t have an issue with using metal on the addition, given the existing building. “I don’t want to use the lipstick analogy that got President Obama in trouble,” he joked, referring to Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” comment in 2008. Using nicely finished metal and some detail on the front would make a better addition to the building, he said.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Ken Clein.

Responding to a query from Diane Giannola, Keating noted that there is an existing permanent U-Haul sign at the entrance. It will remain in place, and will be part of a landscaped island. Paras Parekh confirmed with Keating that U-Haul isn’t interested in changing its main sign. He said he’d driven by the site recently, and it was challenging to even see that it was a U-Haul operation. The site isn’t attractive in any way when you’re driving by it, he said.

Keating responded by saying that the landscaping improvements and retail addition will give the site more of an identity from the street.

Parekh also asked Keating how she would characterize the comments from Zakhour Youssef regarding the U-Haul property. She said she had talked to Youssef by phone, and most of the conversation consisted of his thoughts regarding the highest and best use of the site. “His suggestion was that we should sell the property so there could be something else developed there,” she reported. But U-Haul has been at that location for more than 30 years, she noted, and isn’t planning on moving.

Parekh clarified that he was primarily interested in Youssef’s concerns regarding the appearance of the property. Keating indicated that those concerns would be addressed with the landscaping and other site improvements.

Giannola wondered whether the new landscaping would hide the U-Haul sign and trucks, making it less clear that the business was located there. How will people know where to turn into the site? It’s not a place that people go to frequently, she noted. What does the city code require? Parekh added that the sign wasn’t lit when he drove by in the evening.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson said the city’s sign ordinance tries to address aesthetic issues. There are requirements for setback, height and size. The current sign, which is relatively old, looks like it complies with current code, she said, though it might be a little taller than what’s currently allowed. “But if they touch it, they have to bring it into compliance,” Rampson noted. “If they take it down, the new sign would need to meet code.”

A foundation-based sign might draw more attention to the business and would be a little more pedestrian-oriented, Rampson said. She added that sign design typically is addressed at the building permit stage.

U-Haul Expansion: Commission Discussion – Parking, Pedestrian Access

In response to a question from Briere, Keating indicated that people who use the self-storage building tend to park as near to the door as possible, to unload or load their belongings. There typically aren’t a lot of people in the building at the same time, so U-Haul hadn’t planned to indicate formal parking spaces in that area, though Keating said it would be possible to do that.

Detail of U-Haul site plan, showing the entrance off of South State and a diagonal pedestrian crosswalk to the retail showroom.

Clein expressed concern with a proposed diagonal crosswalk between the South State sidewalk and the retail building, crossing the entrance driveway. He wondered if the new addition could be reconfigured so that there would be room for a walkway next to the building, rather than angling the crosswalk across the driveway. It would have the added benefit of creating more of a street presence for the building, he said.

Kowalski reported that the planning staff had struggled with the crosswalk location. He said he’s not a fan of the diagonal crosswalk, but it’s problematic unless the entire building or curbcut is shifted to provide more room, given the access needs. He indicated interest in exploring Clein’s suggestion regarding a reconfiguration of the front addition.

Bonnie Bona wondered how much of the existing front lawn will become parking. Keating replied that the front parking area is closer to the street than the existing lot, but there will still be about 20 feet of grass.

Bona agreed with Clein about the configuration of the retail addition, saying she didn’t think U-Haul would want the building to be so close to the driveway. The business deals with people who don’t typically drive trucks, she noted. She’d prefer that the public sidewalk would be used to cross the driveway, and not to use a diagonal crosswalk.

Woods referred to Youssef’s email and the concerns he raised about trucks parking on the front grass. How would that problem be addressed? Keating said either a concrete curb or a curb stop would be installed to prevent parking on the grass.

Woods also asked about the handicapped parking spaces, wondering why those spaces weren’t located next to the retail building. Keating replied that there’s a significant grade difference between the retail building entrance and the parking that’s directly next to the building. The handicapped parking needs to be on a level surface, she said.

U-Haul Expansion: Commission Discussion – History of Site

Clein pointed out that the site has a history, dating back to 1984, of plans that don’t come to fruition. He wondered why. Keating said she couldn’t speak for all previous site plans, but one of the challenges for that site is bringing it up to current code, which requires a significant investment. Perhaps that’s why the other site plans didn’t move forward, she said. The project is slated for U-Haul’s construction budget in the coming fiscal year, Keating said, “and we’re ready to start working.”

Clein hoped that U-Haul was sincere about moving forward with the plans this time.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone the U-Haul proposal.

Election of Officers, Proposed Revision to Bylaws

The city’s fiscal year begins on July 1. So at the first meeting of the new fiscal year, planning commissioners handle organizational matters, including the election of officers.

From left: Planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Kirk Westphal, and planning manager Wendy Rampson. Westphal was re-elected to a second one-year term as the commission’s chair at the July 2 meeting.

Kirk Westphal was unanimously re-elected to serve as the commission’s chair, and vice chair Wendy Woods was also re-elected to serve another year in that position. Ken Clein was elected as secretary, replacing Bonnie Bona. None of the officer elections were contested. These three positions comprise the commission’s executive committee.

This is also the time of year when the commission’s bylaws are reviewed. Planning manager Wendy Rampson introduced staff recommendations for changes to the bylaws.

One change would amend Article VII: Meetings, Section 16 – an item regarding the provision of special accommodations for the public, such as a sign language interpreter. The proposed amendment would change the advance notice required for special accommodations from 24 hours to 48 hours. This change is consistent with recent changes adopted by the city clerk’s office, according to Rampson.

Another change related to the order of business in the commission’s agenda, which Rampson characterized as not a substantive change. It’s being recommended to reflect the agenda template in a software program used by the city. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws, with proposed revisions highlighted in red]

Bona questioned the change regarding special accommodations. The additional time seemed to add a burden on the public, she said, and she wondered why it had been proposed. Rampson said it’s a change implemented by the clerk’s office, so she’d need to check with them about the logic behind it. As an example, she noted that there are very few sign language interpreters who are readily available. The clerk’s office has experienced some difficulty in securing interpreters for city council meetings within 24 hours. She indicated that it’s not a good idea to give people the impression that there will be an interpreter available, if that’s not possible.

Rampson noted that agendas and public hearing notices are generally published well in advance, so if someone is really interested in a topic, they would have plenty of time to make a request for special accommodations.

Bona wanted to get information from the clerk’s office about how many people have made requests too late to be accommodated. She couldn’t recall the planning commission ever using a sign language interpreter. [Bona was first appointed to the commission in January 2005.] Rampson said she’d do more research on the issue.

In addition, Rampson asked for feedback on the citizen input flyer that the planning commission uses. [.pdf of citizen input flyer] The staff would like to refresh this document, if commissioners had any suggestions.

Commissioners also were asked to complete a raft of paperwork related to the annual organizational meeting, including a disclosure form for their employers and other affiliations. Rampson said the commission hasn’t done this regularly in the past, but the bylaws state that these disclosure forms should be updated each year. The information is used to flag any potential conflict of interest on projects that come before the commission.

None of these proposed changes were a voting item on July 2. The process is to bring the recommendations forward on the first meeting in July, then vote on them at the next regular meeting on July 16.

New Members, Resolutions of Appreciation

Two new commissioners attended their first meeting on July 2: Jeremy Peters and Paras Parekh. They were appointed last month by the Ann Arbor city council for terms ending June 30, 2016.

From left: former Ann Arbor planning commissioners Tony Derezinski and Eric Mahler at the commission’s July 2, 2013 meeting.

At the start of the meeting, commission chair Kirk Westphal asked them to introduce themselves. Peters said he moved to this area in 1998, coming to attend the University of Michigan and deciding to stay. He works at the Ann Arbor firm Ghostly International and its affiliate Ghostly Songs, an American label music publishing company founded in 1999. “I essentially put songs in television shows and commercials, taking care of all the intellectual property rights,” he explained.

Parekh told commissioners that he grew up in and around the Ann Arbor area, and has moved back now with his family. He is the marketing director for the University of Michigan Alumni Association.

Peters was appointed to replace Tony Derezinski, while Parekh replaces Eric Mahler.

Both Derezinski and Mahler were on hand to accept resolutions of appreciation from the commission, which were presented by Westphal. [.pdf of resolution for Derezinski] [.pdf of resolution for Mahler] Commissioners had said farewell to the two attorneys at their last meeting on June 18.

Derezinski, a former city councilmember, served on the commission from November 2008 through June 2013. The resolution highlighted his work on regional planning and collaboration, and age-friendly communities. On July 2, he thanked commissioners, calling his work “a labor of love.” He stressed the need for collaboration, and commended the commission and planning staff for focusing on that approach. He said he was reminded of an old saying from law school: Whoever loves good laws and good sausage should observe neither in the making. “Well, we made a lot of great sausage here,” he said.

Derezinski said that trying to manage change was one of the most important things he did on the planning commission. When he originally ran for office, he said, his campaign motto was “Let’s make our great community even better.” That’s still a good goal to have, he said.

Mahler’s service on the commission spanned six years, from July 2007 through June 2013. He was chair for two years during that time. The resolution of appreciation cited his leadership in economic development, sustainability and regional collaboration, as well as legal and organizational expertise, calling his work on the commission “patient and pragmatic.”

Mahler joked that he wanted five minutes of public commentary time, as the official representative of the planning commission alumni association. [Public commentary is normally three minutes per speaker, but representatives of organizations get five minutes.] He noted the commission’s “staggering” work program, and thanked commissioners for moving it forward. Mahler said that even though he’ll now be on the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, he’ll be watching the commission closely. If he has a legal opinion, he said he’ll text it or email it to commissioners. [Mahler and Derezinski are both attorneys.]

Both men received a round of applause from commissioners.

Communications & Commentary

During the meeting there were several opportunities for communications from staff and commissioners, as well as two general public commentary times. Here are some highlights.

Sabra Briere, who serves as the Ann Arbor city council’s representative on the planning commission.

Communications & Commentary: City Council Update

As the city council’s representative on the planning commission, Sabra Briere updated commissioners about council actions that related to planning issues. There had been several items on the council’s July 1 agenda: (1) rejection of a rezoning request for 2271 S. State St., which the planning commission had recommended rejecting; (2) initial approval of rezoning for Kerrytown Place on North Main and North Fourth, which the commission had endorsed; (3) re-establishment of the R4C citizens advisory committee; and (4) postponement of adopting the South State Street corridor plan into the city’s master plan. The planning commission had voted to adopt the South State Street corridor plan at its May 21, 2013 meeting, but it also requires council approval.

Communications & Commentary: Upcoming Projects

Planning manager Wendy Rampson highlighted two back-to-back public input meetings for projects in downtown Ann Arbor, set for Wednesday, July 10 starting at 6 p.m. at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave.

The first citizen participation forum, from 6-7:10 p.m., is for a proposal by the owners of the Running Fit building at 121 & 123 E. Liberty. They hope to add two stories of apartments to the existing one-story building, as well as a rooftop patio and penthouse occupying a partial fourth floor.

The second forum, from 7:10-8:30 p.m., is for a project at the Towne Center – the former Montgomery Ward building at 210-216 S. Fourth Ave. The project would add up to three stories of apartments above portions of an existing two-story building. A new facade is planned for the building.

Both projects are in the D1 zoning district, and would conform to design guidelines for the Main Street Historic District.

In addition, public hearings will be held at the planning commission’s July 16 meeting for these projects:

• Glendale Condominiums site plan: A proposal to build eight two-family dwellings and 26 parking spaces on a 2.64-acre at 312 Glendale Drive. Two single-family homes would be demolished as part of this project, which is located in Ward 5.
• A revised PUD (planned unit development) zoning and site plan for the Shell station and Tim Horton’s at the corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway. Proposed changes to the supplemental regulations for this 1.44-acre site would allow for a drive-thru restaurant, including the construction of a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the existing building. The site is located in Ward 4.
• Glacier Hills parking addition: A proposal to put in 31 new parking spaces along the north driveway for this senior living community at 1200 Earhart Road. The property is located in Ward 2.

Communications & Commentary: North Main Huron River Task Force

Bonnie Bona, the planning commission’s representative on the North Main Huron River task force, reported that the group is working on its final report to present to the city council by the end of July. One more meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 17 from 5-7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall. The meeting is open to the public and includes opportunity for public commentary.

Communications & Commentary: Sustainable Building

Ken Clein encouraged commissioners and the public to take an online survey that the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is conducting, focused on the Ann Arbor municipal center – which includes city hall and the adjacent Justice Center building – as a model of sustainable landscape design. The intent is to help understand how new ways of landscape design could help improve the environmental quality of public spaces. The 10-question survey is open until July 19.

Clein said he was glad the project is being studied for its sustainable design. “As I had a little something to do with that,” he joked, “I’m pleased that it’s happening.” Clein, an architect and principal with Quinn Evans Architects, was project manager for the Justice Center construction and city hall renovations.

Communications & Commentary: Planning Intern

A new planning intern, Katy Ryan, introduced herself to commissioners at the start of the meeting. She recently completed her first year in the University of Michigan’s masters degree program in urban planning. She’s originally from Massachusetts.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola, Paras Parekh, Jeremy Peters, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, July 16, 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.

A June 28 letter from Andy Wakeland, the project’s civil engineer, outlined several changes that the design team made in response to commissioners’ concerns. [.pdf of Wakeland’s letter] The changes include building a wood chip path with a picnic table area along the front wooded area of the site, connecting to two previously proposed entrances from Jackson Avenue. The plan now also includes an alternate pedestrian route at the west entrance, crossing the front parking lot in a more direct route to the hotel’s front door. Several commissioners praised the changes and thanked the developer for being responsive.

The proposed four-story hotel, located on an 8.8-acre site north of Jackson and south of I-94, would include 100 bedrooms and 51,608 usable square feet. A 163-room Clarion Hotel is on the same site, east of the proposed new hotel.

A previous site plan for that location had been approved in 2008, and a Super 8 motel there was demolished. The foundation was laid for a new Hampton Inn, but the project was never completed and the building permits and site plan expired.

Commissioners recommended approval of the “planned project” site plan, amended development agreement and modifications to the city’s landscaping requirements. The project will next be considered by the city council for approval.

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

From left: Tony Derezinski and Eric Mahler attended their last meeting as planning commissioners on June 18. Mahler has been appointed to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Derezinski was not re-appointed to the commission, and is expected to be replaced by Jeremy Peters. Mahler’s replacement is Paras Parekh. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners had been asked to recommend approval of a “planned project” site plan, amended development agreement and modifications to the city’s landscaping requirements. This kind of project requires a public benefit, and commissioner Bonnie Bona argued strongly that the benefit should be a site that’s pedestrian- and bicycle-oriented. It’s especially important given Ann Arbor’s standing as one of the top 10 cities in the country for bicycle use, she said, and given that demand for pedestrian amenities will only increase. But as designed, sidewalks are an afterthought and their configuration within the site doesn’t make sense, Bona said. “There has got to be a better way.”

Bona said she couldn’t support this project unless the site plan addressed that design deficit. She proposed postponing it so that modifications could be explored, and other commissioners agreed – despite urging from the design team to recommend approval.

The meeting’s other main agenda item entailed adopting a master plan resolution and list of resource documents used to support the master plan. This is part of an annual evaluation of the master plan that’s required by the commission’s bylaws. Commissioners had held a public hearing on suggestions related to the master plan at their May 21, 2013.

Bona again brought forward a pedestrian-oriented issue, proposing to amend the list of resource documents to include the Allen Creek Greenway task force report from 2007. Commissioners unanimously approved that addition, along with two others: (1) the Downtown Vision and Policy Framework (known as the Calthorpe study), adopted in 2006; and (2) the Huron River Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP), as adopted in 2009. [.pdf of resource document list]

In other action, commissioners approved a work plan for the fiscal year starting July 1, identifying short-term as well as long-range projects. [.pdf of FY 2013-14 work plan] One high-priority project is the review of A2D2 zoning as directed by the city council, with a deadline of Oct. 1 to deliver recommendations to the council. The primary focus of that directive is the downtown D1-D2 zoning – especially in light of the controversial 413 E. Huron development, which the council recently approved. The plan is to bring in a consultant to manage that zoning review.

June 18 was the last meeting for planning commissioners Tony Derezinski and Eric Mahler. Mahler has been appointed to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, and attended his first board meeting for that group on June 20, 2013. Commissioners praised the two attorneys, citing their combination of practicality and forward thinking. “I feel like our ballast is leaving,” Bona said.

Mahler will be replaced by Paras Parekh, who was confirmed by the city council at its May 20, 2013 meeting. Parekh attended the planning commission’s June 18 meeting as an observer, and will be joining the group after July 1. Jeremy Peters has been nominated to replace Derezinski, and is expected to be confirmed by the council on July 1. Peters works in creative licensing and business affairs with Ghostly Songs.

Hampton Inn Proposal

The June 18 agenda included a proposal for a new Hampton Inn at 2910 Jackson Ave. Commissioners were asked to recommend approval of a “planned project” site plan, amended development agreement and modifications to the city’s landscaping requirements.

Aerial view of the proposed Hampton Inn site (outlined in black) on Jackson Avenue, adjacent to the eastbound I-94 entrance ramp. Weber’s Inn is located nearby, just west of the Jackson Avenue split. To the east is the former Michigan Inn site.

The proposed four-story hotel, located on an 8.8-acre site north of Jackson and south of I-94, would include 100 bedrooms and 51,608 usable square feet. A 163-room Clarion Hotel is locaded on the same site, east of the proposed new hotel. The entire site would include 337 parking spaces for both hotels, as well as 10 new bicycle parking spots for the Hampton Inn and 8 at the Clarion. A driveway into the Hampton Inn would be across Jackson from the entrance to Weber’s Inn, which is located to the west.

A previous site plan for that location had been approved in 2008, and a Super 8 motel there was demolished. The foundation was laid for a new Hampton Inn, but the project was never completed and the building permits and site plan expired in 2011. The site is zoned R5 (hotel district).

The developer is seeking planned project status so that the existing foundation can be used. In 2008, no maximum front setback had been required. Now, however, a maximum front setback of 50 feet is required on at least one of the site’s three front property lines. A planned project status would allow that requirement to be waived. The existing foundation is set back 72.4 feet from the north property line.

A public benefit is required in order to secure the planned project status. The developer cited the benefit as using the existing infrastructure.

According to a staff report, a pedestrian crossing on Jackson Avenue is proposed from the Hampton Inn site to Hilltop Drive, which runs parallel to and south of Jackson and is separated by a landscaping island. The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority plans to relocate a bus stop on eastbound Jackson Avenue to be near this crosswalk, which would be just west of Mason Avenue.

Because Jackson Avenue is under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, MDOT must review the plans for this development. The planning staff memo also states that footing drains of 10 homes must be disconnected to offset the project’s increased sanitary sewer flow.

In giving the staff briefing on June 18, city planner Jill Thacher noted that a large berm runs the length of Jackson along the site, creating a steep hill with nine landmark trees and other landscaping. Over 200 trees stand on the site, she said. Stormwater management is handled through a series of three ponds, with a spillway onto the MDOT right-of-way along I-94.

Thacher also noted that the draft development agreement will need to include language related to the new crosswalk and sidewalks, indicating the responsibilities of the Hampton Inn for snow removal and maintenance.

Also requested was a modification to requirements of Chapter 62 – the city’s landscape and screening ordinance. That ordinance requires that at least 50% of the site’s interior landscape area be depressed bioretention and used for stormwater management. This site plan proposes 39% bioretention in one large area in front of the Hampton Inn.

The city’s planning staff recommended approval of the project.

Hampton Inn Proposal: Public Hearing

Andy Wakeland – the project’s civil engineer with Giffels-Webster Engineers of Washington Township, Mich. – introduced himself and others involved with the project, including Jeff Ryntz of Victor Saroki & Associates Architects of Birmington, Mich.

Akram Namou of A&M Hospitality is owner of the Hampton Inn project on Jackson Avenue.

Wakeland reviewed the project’s history, noting that the foundation had been put in place just as the “economy tanked” in 2008, leading to a suspension of construction. The intent was always to continue when the financing became available, “and now is that time,” he said. Wakeland reviewed other aspects of the project, including parking and bioretention.

Ryntz brought a rendering of the hotel and a sample board of masonry and other materials that they plan to use. He described the design and explained how the project goes beyond the standards that are required by the Hampton Inn franchise.

Akram Namou of A&M Hospitality and Executive Hospitality introduced himself as the owner. The project shows his firm commitment to the city of Ann Arbor, he told commissioners. Several years ago because of the recession, there was no financing available. Even so, with his own personal funds and personal loans, he started the project, hoping he would be able to continue it with other financing. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen “and I had to take a break,” Namou said. Now, however, he has secured financing to pursue the project. The Hampton Inn, which is owned by Hilton, is an upscale brand, he said, and it will make a nice addition to the area.

The final speaker was Steve Beisheim, an Ann Arbor resident. It sounds like a good project, he said, but he had some concerns about walkability. He urged commissioners to think about who uses the sidewalk, and about the impact of the parking lot in terms of pedestrians and the quality of life for everyone who lives in that area. He understood that parking needs to be located somewhere, but would it be better to have it out in front or out of the way? It might sound trite, he said, but those kinds of things add up. The planning commission needs to put these things into their rules, he said, because people won’t come up with it themselves unless there’s some kind of guide.

Hampton Inn Proposal: Commission Discussion

Diane Giannola started by raising a concern about the driveway into the Hampton Inn, noting that it was directly across the street from the entrance to Weber’s Inn. She asked if it was considered better planning to align the driveways this way, or to have them offset slightly. Jill Thacher replied that it’s better to align driveways, to create fewer conflict points for freeflowing traffic. Giannola worried that drivers would try to go straight across Jackson Avenue from Hampton Inn to Weber’s, and that the configuration would encourage them to do that. Thacher noted that the Hampton Inn exit onto Jackson would be right-turn only, but she could envision people trying to cross over into Weber’s.

Sabra Briere asked several questions about the sidewalks. She first asked what kind of sidewalk maintenance would be required in the development agreement. Thacher said it would entail keeping the snow shoveled in the winter, and keeping it open to pedestrians year-round. She noted that a section of sidewalk is on the MDOT right-of-way, so the development agreement would need to clarify “who’s responsible for what, and where.”

Thacher also clarified that the sidewalk doesn’t connect to other sidewalks. On the site’s east side it stops at the eastbound I-94 ramp, and on the west side it stops at the property line, adjacent to a vacant parcel. Briere asked whether a sidewalk would be required on the vacant parcel when it’s developed. Yes, Thacher replied, if the property is in the city.

Responding to remarks made during public commentary, Ken Clein noted that the sidewalk is close to the road, between the road and the parking lot. Because of the landscaping there, he didn’t think the parking lot would have a big visual impact on people who used the sidewalk. Clein, an architect, also asked some clarificational questions about the building materials that would be used, as well as the building’s design.

Wendy Woods asked how the two hotels would work together. The owner, Akram Namou, noted that he’s been in this business for many years. Based on his experience, these two hotels will complement each other perfectly. The Clarion is a full-service hotel, with meeting rooms, banquet rooms and a restaurant, he explained, while Hampton Inn is a limited-service hotel for strictly transient and corporate business. There are economies of scale for management, staff and marketing, he said.

Woods also noted that there are bicycle parking spaces planned for the site plan. Would bikes be made available for guests? she asked. Andy Wakeland replied that the bike spaces are required by city code. Normally, he said, there would unlikely be many pedestrians or bicyclists coming to the site. Planning manager Wendy Rampson added that it’s likely those bike parking spaces would be used by the hotel staff.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Woods also asked about the AATA bus stop that would be located on the south side of Jackson. How would traffic be handled, so that people could cross the street between the bus stop and Hampton Inn? She wondered if MDOT would put in a crosswalk signal there – like the high intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK) traffic signal at the intersection of Chapin and Huron. Thacher indicated that MDOT isn’t planning to do anything like that, other than installing pedestrian crossing signs.

Woods said her concern is that this is one of the worst places she could imagine a pedestrian trying to cross, given the entrance ramp to I-94, which she felt would cause people to increase their speed. Other factors include people coming off of I-94 onto eastbound Jackson, and people trying to turn into Weber’s. She indicated that it might be one of the first issues that Eric Mahler will take up as he moves from the planning commission to the AATA board. Wakeland responded, saying the location of the proposed crosswalk was the best possible place for it, because it goes to a center island between westbound and eastbound Jackson – rather than going across all lanes at once. He ventured that people might actually slow down to turn onto the I-94 ramp.

Bonnie Bona clarified with Thacher that only one public benefit is listed in the staff report because that’s the only public benefit claimed for the project. That category of benefit is: “An arrangement of buildings which provides a public benefit, such as transit access, pedestrian orientation, or a reduced need for infrastructure or impervious surface.” Bona wanted to know what the other possible benefits might be, in order to qualify for a planned project.

As outlined in Chapter 55 (Zoning) of the city code, in the section regarding planned projects:

(b) The proposed modifications of zoning requirements must provide one or more of the following:

1. Usable open space in excess of the minimum requirement for the zoning district. Where no minimum usable open space standard is required by the zoning district, a minimum usable open space standard shall be established by the approval of the planned project.

2. Building or parking setback(s) in excess of the minimum requirement for the zoning district. Where no minimum building or parking setback is required by the zoning district, a minimum setback standard shall be established by approval of the planned project.

3. Preservation of natural features that exceeds ordinance requirements, especially for those existing features prioritized in the land development regulations as being of highest and mid-level concern.

4. Preservation of historical or architectural features.

5. Solar orientation or energy conserving design.

6. An arrangement of buildings which provides a public benefit, such as transit access, pedestrian orientation, or a reduced need for infrastructure or impervious surface.

7. Affordable housing for lower income households.

8. A recorded conservation easement or similar binding instrument providing for permanent open space of 20 percent or more of the planned project, in any residential zoning district allowing 3 or fewer dwelling units per acre.

Bona voiced concern about pedestrian and bicycle access to the site. The site plan looks like a lot of emphasis was put on vehicular circulation, “and the sidewalk is an afterthought,” she said. Bona accepted that it makes sense to put the building on the existing footings – it was a benefit to the property owner. But when the list of public benefits provided by a planned project mentions infrastructure, it’s referring to the city’s infrastructure, not the infrastructure of private landowners. “So I’m not going to take this as a benefit. I’m going to try to get something else instead,” she said – transit access and pedestrian orientation. “There has got to be a better way.”

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

Ann Arbor is one of the top 10 cities in the country for bicycle use, as a percentage of the population, Bona noted. So she didn’t want to hear excuses about how no one would use the sidewalk along Jackson. It might take a while for the rest of the sidewalk connection to be built, but there are a lot of cyclists, she said. Ann Arbor also has a growing retiree population too, and the need to use the bus services will only increase. Bona said she was setting the stage for putting more emphasis on the sidewalks. She clarified with the owner that the building is expected to last more than 20 years, and noted that pedestrian and bicycle use will only increase during the hotel’s lifespan.

Bona suggested that the site plan could be designed first by looking at the best ways to incorporate pedestrian walkways, then looking at how to work in parking around that – rather than the reverse. For example, how would a pedestrian get from the Clarion to the Hampton, or from the bus stop to the main entrance of the hotels? She expressed skepticism that pedestrians would actually use the proposed sidewalks, indicating that they’d likely just cut across the parking lot since that’s a more straightforward route to the hotel.

Wakeland noted that Hampton Inn officials would be reviewing the site plans too, and would want to reduce liability by making the pedestrian walkways as safe as possible. Bona argued that constructing sidewalks along routes that people would actually use is a safer approach. “If [pedestrians] are going to cut across anyhow, you’ve created an unsafe situation, because you have not provided a [sidewalk] where they’re going to walk,” she said.

Bona said she didn’t see a benefit in the site plan, so she wouldn’t be able to vote in favor of the project. She suggested postponing the item, with direction for the project team to design sidewalks “that make more sense” for everyone, including employees.

Bona also wondered why the proposed sidewalk along Jackson Avenue did not run next to the parking lot. When Wakeland indicated that they were trying not to impact landmark trees, Bona replied: “I don’t know when someone decided that you can’t put a sidewalk somewhere because of a landmark tree, but you can take landmark trees down for a building … or parking lot.”

Briere noted that it was a good thing to be talking about sidewalks, because it showed that commissioners were concerned about future access to the site. Sidewalks aren’t decorative, she noted – they’re useful. And if they’re going to be useful, they need to actually lead people somewhere.

Responding to queries from Briere, Namou indicated that the Clarion has about 5,000-6,000 square feet of conference space, and a conference might draw 200-300 people. It’s important to make traveling between the two hotels as attractive as possible, Briere said. She urged Namou to consider making the sidewalks attractive as an amenity – for exercise, or to take a break during a conference. As designed now, the sidewalks don’t lead anywhere, she noted. In order to be an amenity for the city, the sidewalks need to serve a purpose.

Wakeland made a suggestion for changing the sidewalk configuration to include a sidewalk that would lead to the Clarion entrance. He hoped the commission would give approval contingent on working with planning staff to make those changes.

Mahler wondered how the sidewalks would be lit, especially from Jackson Avenue. Wakeland noted that the lighting will be on the hotel site – and the city code prohibits light from spilling off site.

Mahler said Bona had posed an interesting challenge, to make the site pedestrian-oriented rather than car-oriented. He’d support seeing some alternative designs. He joked that he wouldn’t mind postponing, especially since he wouldn’t be here to deal with it later. [It was Mahler's last meeting as a planning commissioner.]

Giannola and Clein also weighed in to support postponement to address pedestrian issues. However, Clein urged commissioners to keep in mind the site’s location – between an MDOT business route [Jackson Avenue] and I-94. Although it might be different in a future world that doesn’t have cars, he said, the site now doesn’t connect well with other things. Most people don’t walk to a hotel, he said. “It’s not a downtown site. It’s a car-oriented site.”

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Kirk Westphal said he was struck that the proposed sidewalks don’t acknowledge that people might want to walk from the Clarion or Hampton Inn over to Weber’s. People will probably want to do that, he said. Wakeland noted that a sidewalk such as one that Westphal proposed would need MDOT approval, since it would be partly in the MDOT right of way.

Wakeland reported that the site plan design had gone through several iterations, in part to make the sidewalks as amenable as possible. “I’m a walking fan myself, and a biking fan as well,” Wakeland said. “So I get what you’re going for.” He noted that this area is for a hotel use, and again hoped commissioners wouldn’t postpone the project. He offered to work with city staff on alternatives, and hoped that the commission would recommend approval contingent on that.

Responding to a question from Westphal, Rampson reported that the city has no standards for parking lot layout other than the aisle width and parking space size. Nor are there standards for pedestrian configuration within a parking lot. So the planning staff tends to look for the safest pedestrian crossings, with factors like visibility, the least amount of traffic and turns, and logical connections. Regarding sidewalk access to the Weber’s site, Rampson noted that the entrance into Weber’s off Jackson is not a clean turn – it’s a slip ramp. It’s something that the staff can continue to look at, she said, regardless of the commission’s decision on postponement.

Bona said she appreciated Briere’s perspective. Bona stays at hotels often when she travels – driving to the hotel, then going for a walk or a run after she’s there. She could imagine someone going for a run in the residential neighborhood south of Jackson. The idea of making a pleasant pathway through the hotel site was appealing to her, and she suggested that it could be made of asphalt, which would be cheaper than concrete. She stated that if the owner wasn’t interested in changing the site plan, she’d just vote against it.

Woods suggested looping the sidewalk through the landscaped area, so that it could be a kind of nature path – that might count as a public amenity. Wakeland cited issues with the steep grade and landmark trees.

When no commissioners put forward a motion to vote on the project, Wakeland said if the project was postponed, he hoped it could be put on the agenda for the commission’s next meeting, which falls on July 2. When Woods expressed concern that the project still needs MDOT approval, Bona pointed out that the only thing requiring MDOT approval related to the crossing on Jackson. Clein added that anything in the MDOT right of way – including landscaping or sidewalks – would also need approval.

Wakeland reported that MDOT has already reviewed the plan and has indicated that the plan is “approvable,” although the agency won’t officially sign off until it sees the final civil engineering plans.

Bona made a motion to postpone.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on this proposal.

Master Plan Review

Planning commissioners were asked to adopt a master plan resolution and list of resource documents used to support the master plan. This is part of an annual evaluation of the master plan that’s required by the commission’s bylaws.

Commissioners had held a public hearing on suggestions related to the master plan at their May 21, 2013. That hearing drew six speakers on a range of topics, including development in Lowertown, a park in downtown Ann Arbor, and adequate sidewalks, cleared of vegetation, so that kids can walk to school safely. On May 21 commissioners also had discussed possible revisions, primarily related to supporting documents. However, on the advice of planning staff, commissioners postponed action until their June 18 meeting.

From left: Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson and planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

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

In briefing commissioners on June 18, planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that changes to the master plan include updating the date for the land use element from 2009 to 2013, to reflect this year’s addition of the South State corridor plan.

In addition, the June 18 resolution stated that in the coming fiscal year, the planning commission will: (1) complete the non-motorized transportation plan update; (2) continue to develop a corridor plan for Washtenaw Avenue and begin to develop a corridor plan for North Main Street to address land use, transportation and economic development in these areas; and (3) assist in developing a sustainability action plan, in coordination with the energy commission, the environmental commission, the park advisory commission, the housing commission, and the housing and human services advisory board.

There is also a list of resource documents that are used to support the master plan. [.pdf of resource document list]

The June 18 recommendation from staff, based on feedback from the May 21 meeting, was to adopt a revised list of resource documents, with two new additions: (1) the Downtown Vision and Policy Framework (known as the Calthorpe study), adopted in 2006; and (2) the Huron River Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP), as adopted in 2009.

Earlier this year, on March 5, 2013, the planning commission had voted to add the Connecting William Street study to the list of resource documents – a move that generated some controversy.

Master Plan Review: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona noted that at the May 21 meeting, she had indicated interest in adding the 2007 Allen Creek Greenway task force report to the list of resource documents. She proposed to amend the resolution updating the list of resource documents. Her rationale was that work is being done that affects the greenway, including proposals for the city-owned site at 721 N. Main, which will have a pathway through it.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson explained that the greenway task force report covered three city-owned properties, including 721 N. Main. Bona noted that the other two sites – 415 W. Washington and property at First & William – are still undeveloped. “The major piece is the concept of connectivity along that path,” she said. That concept is also incorporated into the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, Bona noted.

Bona thought the greenway report would be useful for discussions about how property that’s adjacent to the greenway gets developed – especially related to the floodway. The report included a lot of public input, she noted.

Wendy Woods and Sabra Briere both indicated support for adding the greenway report. Briere cited the usefulness of the report, primarily to inform zoning and planning of the areas adjacent to the greenway as it begins to form. Right now, much of that area is zoned for a certain type of residential development, she noted. But some people are looking at the area of a future greenway for commercial or higher-density housing, she said. It would be valuable to incorporate the greenway report along with the Calthorpe report, which also touched on the idea of a greenway. “How the city interacts with a proposed greenway will be a very valuable thing for us to think about as we keep our master plans refreshed,” Briere concluded.

Responding to a query from Kirk Westphal, Rampson described the greenway report’s recommendations as a starting point for discussions about modifying the master plan. She noted that the master plan is the official planning document, which can be informed by these supporting resource documents.

Outcome on amendment: Commissioner unanimously approved the amendment adding the Allen Creek greenway task force report as a resource document.

The remainder of the discussion was brief. Woods asked whether the resource documents were available online. Rampson replied that the documents can be downloaded from the master plan’s website, and that she would update that site with the added documents.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the master plan resolution and master plan resource document list, as amended.

Planning Commission Work Plan

At their June 4, 2013 working session, planning commissioners had discussed a work plan for both staff and the commission in the coming fiscal year, which begins July 1. Commissioners had identified projects and issues to tackle, as well as longer-range goals. [.pdf of FY 2013-14 work plan]

The most pressing of those short-term projects is the review of A2D2 zoning as directed by the city council, with a deadline of Oct. 1 to deliver recommendations to council. The primary focus of that is the downtown D1-D2 zoning, especially in light of the controversial 413 E. Huron development, which the council recently approved. The plan is to bring in a consultant to manage that zoning review, because the planning staff right now doesn’t have the capacity to take it on.

In addition to the A2D2 zoning review, other short-term efforts in the work plan related to master planning and ordinance revisions are:

• An action plan for the city’s sustainability framework. Completion target: September 2013.
• Implementation of sustainability action plan. Completion target: To be determined.
• Evaluation of the citizen participation ordinance. Completion target: October 2013.
• The non-motorized plan update. Completion target: October 2013.
• Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO). Completion target: December 2013.
• Capital improvements plan (CIP) – second year update. Completion target: December 2013.
• Amendments to R4C/R2A zoning. Completion target: March 2014.
• Floodplain ordinance/flood insurance impacts. Completion target: March 2014.
• “Redevelopment Ready Communities” certification. Completion target: March 2014.
• Amendments to the land use element of the city’s master plan for two corridors plans – Washtenaw Avenue and North Main/Huron River. Completion target: June 2014.
• ZORO Phase 2. Completion target: June 2014.
• Sign ordinance amendments. Completion target: June 2014.

Several longer-term efforts are on the commission’s work plan too, including amendments to the city’s accessory dwelling unit ordinance and neighborhood outreach.

Bonnie Bona asked if the planning staff could support this schedule, and wondered what the challenges might be. Planning manager Wendy Rampson said the major challenge is the unknown of development reviews and permit reviews – it’s difficult to know what projects might be coming forward. For example, a project on a 54-acre parcel on Nixon Road will be coming in August, she said. That will be a fairly substantial review. And the staff has already started a Traverwood Apartments review, which is another substantial project.

“If we only have one of those a month, that’s fine,” Rampson said. But if three or four major projects are submitted each month like in “the old days,” she said, then that will limit the staff’s time that can be spent on items in the work plan. It’s possible to use consultants when appropriate, she said, although someone on staff would still have to manage the project. For example, the city staff doesn’t have the expertise to handle the sign ordinance amendments, so that’s probably a project that will require a consultant.

Rampson noted that when city planner Alexis DiLeo goes on maternity leave, the city will hire a temporary planner during that period. Even though there will be a learning curve for that person, she said, at least the staff will have the same number of people.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the FY 2013-14 work plan.

Appointments, Farewells

June 18 was the last meeting for planning commissioners Tony Derezinski and Eric Mahler. Mahler has been appointed to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, and attended his first board meeting for that group on June 20, 2013.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola talks with Paras Parekh, who has been appointed to the commission to replace Eric Mahler. Parekh attended the June 18 meeting as an observer, and will join the group after July 1.

He’ll be replaced by Paras Parekh, who was confirmed by the city council at its May 20, 2013 meeting. Parekh attended the planning commission’s June 18 meeting as an observer, and will be joining the group after July 1. He is director of marketing and membership for the University of Michigan alumni association, and received his undergrad degree in economics from UM. He has worked in marketing for about a decade, and spent two years as a legislative aide in the U.S. House of Representatives working for Congresswoman Lynn Rivers.

Derezinski, a former city councilmember, had been expected to be reappointed. His name had appeared on the list distributed to the council at its June 3 meeting as a nomination to the planning commission, but mayor John Hieftje did not read Derezinski’s name aloud that evening as a nomination. Instead, at the June 17, 2013 council meeting, Hieftje nominated Jeremy Peters to replace Derezinski, whose term ends June 30. Peters works in creative licensing and business affairs with Ghostly Songs. A council vote to confirm his appointment will take place on July 1.

On June 17, the council did vote to reappoint planning commissioner Bonnie Bona. Also reappointed was councilmember Sabra Briere, who serves as the council’s representative on the commission, for a term through Nov. 7, 2013. At that point the membership on the new, post-election city council will be settled. Briere is running for re-election and is unopposed in the Aug. 6 Democratic primary, but might face opposition in November from independent candidate Jaclyn Vresics. Vresics has taken out petitions for the Ward 1 seat but has not yet filed them with the city clerk’s office. The deadline for independent candidates to submit petitions is Aug. 7.

Near the start of the June 18 meeting, planning commissioners and staff said farewell to Mahler and Derezinski. Kirk Westphal, the commission’s chair, said the commission was honored by their service and saddened by their departure.

“I feel like our ballast is leaving,” Bonnie Bona said.

There are a lot of idealists on the commission trying to get things done, Bona noted, and the two attorneys have provided a lot of common sense practicality that’s useful – especially when some commissioners “wander off into areas that are more of our personal desire than something we can actually do,” Bona said. She’d miss that quality, and said their absence would likely make her become more practical.

Diane Giannola appreciated their “forward thinking,” especially regarding the Washtenaw Avenue and South State Street corridor studies. They’ve been more future-driven, she said, rather than “trying to just have the city stay the same. Even though sometimes that’s unpopular, I for one as a resident have always appreciated that.” She also said their legal orientation will be missed.

Wendy Woods agreed that the commission would miss the “wise comments that you gave to us, even if we didn’t always agree with you.” She thanked them for their service, and looked forward to seeing them in their future endeavors.

Sabra Briere acknowledged that she never really got to know Mahler, although she got to observe him across the table. She hoped to get to know him better as he continues his service to the city on the AATA board. However, she did get to know Derezinski, she said, because she sat next to him for four years on city council. The fact that there are different voices and viewpoints at the table, all trying to do the best for the community, “is what makes this board so rich, this community so wealthy,” she said.

Westphal highlighted Derezinski’s emphasis on collaboration. It seems to be getting more difficult to do these days, he said, but Derezinski has always “stayed the course.” Westphal appreciated Derezinski’s “quiet work” outside of the commission, citing the Reimagine Washtenaw project and issues related to aging. Those efforts bear great fruit in the long run, Westphal noted, but it takes a lot of work to get there. He cited Mahler’s service as planning commission chair as helping Westphal’s current tenure in that position. Westphal also appreciated Mahler’s ability to keep the commission on task and ensure that projects moved forward, as well as his legal expertise.

Sabra Briere, an Ann Arbor city councilmember who also serves on the city’s planning commission.

Westphal said commissioners would miss both Mahler and Derezinski, “both faithful co-pilots of the Blue Tractor as well” – a reference to the fact that some commissioners go to that local bar after meetings adjourn.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson told Mahler and Derezinski that she had valued their leadership on the commission. It’s a citizen body that demands a lot of its members, she noted, meeting almost weekly. She knew that sometimes Mahler wanted things to move forward more quickly, “but you are eminently patient.” It will be great to see his service continue on the AATA as that agency grows and becomes more important to the region, she said.

Rampson noted that Derezinski is “always good for a new idea.” Sometimes, that would cause her to brace herself when she saw him approaching, Rampson joked, but he brought enthusiasm and commitment to all his work. His emphasis on regional planning was a great vision. Both of them will be “sorely missed,” she said.

Derezinski told commissioners that he had to leave the meeting early for a family responsibility, “so I’m leaving not with a bang but with a whimper.” He thanked commissioners for the pleasure of their company. The commission is unique, he said, in that it works on tough decisions and respects each other. Strong feelings never escalate to personal, ad hominem attacks – it’s always been collegial and civil, he said, which is important. He recalled the ritual that he and Briere had on council, when they would bring each other coffee. Little things like that helped bridge the gap when they disagreed on issues, he said. It’s the kind of thing that makes government work well.

Derezinski also praised the city’s planning staff, saying that they were incredibly smart and hard-working. That’s not an accident, he said – it’s the result of leadership, goodwill and friendship. He thanked everyone for the wonderful time he’s had on the commission over the last four and a half years.

Regarding their gatherings at the Blue Tractor, Derezinski said they should remember the words of a poet whose name he couldn’t recall [A. E. Housman]: “And malt does more than Milton can. To justify God’s ways to man.”

Mahler thanked everyone, saying he enjoyed every minute on the commission. It’s mind blowing how much has been accomplished over the last six years, he said. He’s proud of that work, which was done respectfully and collegially. His work takes him around southeast Michigan and the state, and people envy Ann Arbor, he said. That envy in large part reflects the results of work by the planning staff and commission, he said.

Other commissioners gave the two outgoing members a round of applause.

Communications & Commentary

During the meeting there were several opportunities for communications from staff and commissioners, as well as two general public commentary times. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

Steve Beisheim spoke during the first opportunity for public commentary. He’d been reading a book called “Suburban Nation,” and watching a lot of videos by the authors. It’s mind-blowing, he said. The way that cities have been built out, the tax base doesn’t cover cost of the infrastructure. Even if federal funding is available to build infrastructure, local governments can’t afford to maintain it. From what he’s read, all the cities are doing things the same way, with regard to zoning, he said. That’s why every gas station is the same across the country, he said. There are other options, even though people tend to go against their best interests. He told commissioners that he’s trying to educate himself and see how they work, and hopefully he can be a positive influence in the future.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Ken Clein (arrived at 8 p.m.), Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, July 2, 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 the proposed Hampton Inn site (outlined in black) on Jackson Avenue, adjacent to the eastbound I-94 entrance ramp.

The proposed four-story hotel, located on an 8.8-acre site north of Jackson and south of I-94, would include 100 bedrooms and 51,608 usable square feet. A 163-room Clarion Hotel is on the same site, east of the proposed new hotel. A driveway into the Hampton Inn would be across Jackson Road from the entrance to Weber’s Inn, which is located to the west. The Hampton Inn construction cost is estimated at $800,000.

A previous site plan for that location had been approved in 2008, and a Super 8 motel there was demolished. The foundation was laid for a new Hampton Inn, but the project was never completed and the building permits and site plan expired.

The development is seeking planned project status so that it can use the existing foundation. In 2008, no maximum front setback had been required. Now, however, a maximum front setback is required on at least one of the site’s three front property lines. A planned project status would allow that requirement to be waived.

According to a staff memo, a pedestrian crossing on Jackson Avenue is proposed from the Hampton Inn site to Hilltop Drive, which runs parallel to and south of Jackson and is separated by a landscaping island. The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority plans to relocate a bus stop on eastbound Jackson Avenue to be near this crossing.

Because Jackson Avenue is under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, MDOT must review the plans for this development. The planning staff memo also states that footing drains of 10 homes must be disconnected to offset the project’s increased sanitary sewer flow.

The commission’s discussion primarily focused on sidewalk issues, with Bonnie Bona in particular criticizing the plan for not providing pedestrian access that made sense. Bona suggested that demand for pedestrian amenities will only increase in the future, and she couldn’t support this project unless the site plan addressed that design deficit. She proposed postponing the project so that modifications could be explored. The vote to postpone was unanimous.

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