The Ann Arbor Chronicle » height limit

June 16, 2014: Council Live Updates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The June 16 council meeting will also feature the annual historic district commission awards and the introduction of one of the Ann Arbor police department’s K-9 units, who won highest honors at a recent national certification trials event. This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items.

More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Monday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

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

Physical Infrastructure

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

Physical Infrastructure: Fuller Road Bridges

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

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

Physical Infrastructure: Stadium Bridges Art

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Physical Infrastructure: Sewer Lining

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

Physical Infrastructure: Manholes

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

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

Physical Infrastructure: Water Main

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

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

Physical Infrastructure: Fire Station Restrooms

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

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

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater

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

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

Physical Infrastructure: Wastewater Study

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

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

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

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater Services

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

Informational Infrastructure: HR and Payroll Software

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

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

Sidewalk/Pedestrians

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

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk

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

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

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Stone School Sidewalk

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

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Barton Drive Sidewalk – Public Hearing

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

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Scio Church Sidewalk – Public Hearing

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

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Larchmont Traffic Calming

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

Larchmont traffic calming proposal: Three speed humps.

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

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

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

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pedestrian Task Force Consultant

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

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

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

Business Services

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

Business Services: Ann Arbor SPARK

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

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

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

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

Business Services: GCSI Lobbying

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

Downtown

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

Downtown: DDA Budget Amendment

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

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

Downtown: Affordable Housing Needs Assessment

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

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

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

(Not) Downtown: Streetlight LED Conversion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Downtown: Zoning, Character District

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Downtown: Hotel Site Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Downtown: Bank of Ann Arbor Site Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Downtown: Liberty Plaza

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

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

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

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

Courts Human Services

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

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

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

Recycling

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

Recycling: RAA Multifamily Pilot

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

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

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

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

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

Recycling: Baler Infeed Conveyor Repair

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

Recycling: RAA Student Move-out Services

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7:37 p.m. We’re back.

7:37 p.m. Public Commentary reserved time. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7:59 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first of two slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8:14 p.m. Public Hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. On tonight’s agenda are five hearings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8:26 p.m. Consent Agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

CA-1 Approve DTE LED Conversions ($69,555/$55,060 after rebates). [For additional background, see (Not) Downtown: Streetlight LED Conversion above.]
CA-2 Approve contract with Black & Veatch Ltd. ($62,800).
CA-3 Approve purchase of hydrofluorosilicic acid for water treatment from PVS Nolwood Chemicals (estimated $34,000/yr).
CA-4 Amend service purchase order for stormwater services with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner (increase of $30,000 for FY 2014 & FY 2015).
CA-5 Approve contract with Recycle Ann Arbor for solid waste student move-out services ($35,000/yr). [For additional background, see Recycling: RAA Student Move-out Services above.]
CA-6 Award contract for 8th Street sanitary sewer manhole replacement to Fonson Inc. ($47,193). [For additional background, see Physical Infrastructure: Manholes above.]
CA-7 Approve a contract with Ann Arbor SPARK for economic development services ($75,000). [For additional background, see Business Services: Ann Arbor SPARK above.]
CA-8 Approve amendment to contract with the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office to provide drug abuse screening and monitoring services for mental health court ($44,200).
CA-9 Approve amendment to contract with Washtenaw County Community Support & Treatment Services for mental health treatment services to sobriety court and mental health court participants ($76,242).
CA-10 Approve amendment to contract with Reiser and Frushour PLLC to provide legal representation as court appointed counsel to indigent defendants ($40,000).
CA-11 Street closings for the Firecracker 5K (Friday, July 4, 2014).
CA-12 Street closings for Sonic Lunch (Thursday, July 10, 2014 and Thursday, July 31, 2014).
CA-13 Street closing for the 2014 Washtenaw Indie Awards, Saturday (June 28, 2014).
CA-14 Approve contract with Governmental Consultant Services Inc. for Lobbying Services ($48,000). [For additional background, see Business Services: GCSI Lobbying above.]
CA-15 Approve May 22, 2014 recommendations of the Board of Insurance Administration ($66,142).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8:56 p.m. Recess. We’re in recess.

9:05 p.m. We’re back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9:58 p.m. We’re back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1:05 a.m. We’re back.

1:05 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

June 16, 2014: City Council Meeting Preview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Physical Infrastructure

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

Physical Infrastructure: Fuller Road Bridges

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

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

Physical Infrastructure: Stadium Bridges Art

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Physical Infrastructure: Sewer Lining

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

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

Physical Infrastructure: Manholes

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

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

Physical Infrastructure: Water Main

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

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

Physical Infrastructure: Fire Station Restrooms

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

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater

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

Physical Infrastructure: Wastewater Study

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

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

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

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

Physical Infrastructure: Stormwater Services

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

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

Informational Infrastructure: HR and Payroll Software

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

Sidewalk/Pedestrians

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pontiac Trail Sidewalk

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

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

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Stone School Sidewalk

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

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Barton Drive Sidewalk – Public Hearing

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

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Scio Church Sidewalk – Public Hearing

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

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

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Larchmont Traffic Calming

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

Larchmont traffic calming proposal: Three speed humps.

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

Sidewalk/Pedestrians: Pedestrian Task Force Consultant

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

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

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

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

Business Services

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

Business Services: Ann Arbor SPARK

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

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

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

Business Services: GCSI Lobbying

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

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

Downtown

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

Downtown: DDA Budget Amendment

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

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

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

Downtown: Affordable Housing Needs Assessment

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

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

(Not) Downtown: Streetlight LED Conversion

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

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

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

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

Downtown: Zoning, Character District

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

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

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

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

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

Downtown: Hotel Site Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Construction is estimated to cost $13 million.

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

Downtown: Bank of Ann Arbor Site Plan

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

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

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

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

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

Downtown: Liberty Plaza

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

Courts Human Services

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

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

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

Recycling

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

Recycling: RAA Multifamily Pilot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recycling: Baler Infeed Conveyor Repair

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

Recycling: RAA Student Move-out Services

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

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

Council Begins Downtown Zoning Review

Dave Askins — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:24:12 +0000

At Monday night’s city council work session councilmember Leigh Greden said that he wanted to see growth. Growth is what he could see (even if not the kind he was looking for) by turning his gaze to his immediate left at the council table to look at his colleague, Christopher Taylor’s upper lip, which is sprouting a mustache for charity. That kind of growth is no longer visible on city administrator Roger Fraser’s chin. Before the work session began, Fraser joked with the Ward 3 council contingent that he’d shorn his whiskers in order to appear as youthful as Greden.

Illustration of the concept of a maximal diagonal. A maximum on this dimension is intended as a check on chunky buildings.

So what kind of growth was Greden talking about?

Greden meant more residents, businesses and buildings in downtown Ann Arbor. Management of that growth is the goal of the A2D2 zoning revisions and the revised downtown plan that planning commission approved last week (March 3), and which council was starting to work through on Monday night. Planning commission had previously approved a set of A2D2 zoning revisions back in late summer of 2008, but had been requested by city council to take another look at their proposed revisions.

That request resulted in a series of fall workshops led by city planner Wendy Rampson to solicit additional feedback on planning commission’s proposed revisions. Planning commission had undertaken that work based on recommendations approved by city council in November of 2007. And those recommendations had emerged over the course of a process that has now been at least four years in the making, dating back to the Calthorpe report.

Wendy Rampson led off Monday’s work session by tracing through the impetus behind the re-examination of Ann Arbor’s downtown zoning and planning, which came in the early 2000s in connection with the Ashley Mews construction and what she described as a residential building “boomlet.” The downtown plan, she said, was first adopted in 1988 and last updated in 1992, so it was due for an update, while the underlying zoning regulations had been in place since the 1960s, and were overdue for revision.

The recommendations to city council just approved by planning commission do not reflect an end to the public process. Rampson outlined the following timeline for opportunities to weigh in before council is expected to reach a final decision:

Monday, March 23: city council will hold a public comment session solely on the topic of the A2D2 zoning revisions and the downtown plan
Monday, April 6: city council regular meeting, first reading of zoning revisions
Monday, April 20: city council regular meeting, public hearing on the revised downtown plan with final vote
Monday May 4: city council regular meeting, second reading of zoning revisions with final vote

As reflected in the timeline, the downtown plan has a different status from the zoning revisions. The zoning revisions require a change to the city’s ordinances, and thus require a first and second reading at council. The downtown plan, in contrast, is a planning document, which is part of the city’s master plan, which the state of Michigan requires to be adopted by both planning commission and city council.

If city council amends the zoning recommendations from planning commission, the zoning as amended would become law. But if city council amends the planning commission recommendation for the downtown plan, the amended plan would then go back to planning commission for consideration by that body.

Rampson said that planning commission felt that the downtown plan was a sound document, even if it was a bit heavy on narrative. The amendments to it, she said, reflected a tightening up of the narrative, plus material on future land use and a zoning plan, which are elements required by the state. The draft of the downtown plan approved by planning commission and which council was examining during its Monday (March 9) work session can be downloaded here: Ann Arbor Downtown Plan [3MB .pdf]

The revisions to the zoning ordinances for downtown in the form council received them from planning commmission can be downloaded here: Ann Arbor Downtown Zoning [1MB .pdf] This is a red-lined document, with the indicated changes reflecting differences between (i) the version of proposed zoning approved by planning commission in September 2008, and (ii) the version of proposed zoning approved by planning commission on March 2, 2009.

An accompanying memo from planning commission helps navigate through the changes made since fall 2008, and provides insight into why some sections were not changed. Inasmuch as this memo provides response to the feedback heard through fall 2008 resulting from Rampson’s series of workshops, we include the better part of that memo at the bottom of this article.

The Basic Concept and Council’s Work Session Discussion

With Monday’s working session, city council has just begun its current round of work, but based on watching their discussion Monday night on CTN, planning commissioner Eppie Potts said she was encouraged that councilmembers were asking good questions. This, after she expressed her frustration at the conclusion of planning commission’s March 2 meeting, saying that the newly proposed zoning did not do the job of improving downtown and its surroundings. Her criticisms included the lack of an adequate buffer for residential areas, and what she sees as conflicts between character overlays and the new zoning, plus a lack of specific green space.

So what were some of the good questions that councilmembers were asking?

Basics: The basic concept for the rezoning strategy that was passed most recently by planning commission remains intact from September 2008. Under the strategy approved by planning commission, downtown zoning is simplified to one of two districts: D1 (core) and D2 (interface). The D1 area is a contiguous area in the center of downtown, while D2 areas provide a buffer between the single D1 districts and residential areas. On top of these D1 and D2 districts are overlaid eight “character” districts, which identify unique aspects of the following areas: South University, State Street, Liberty/Division, East Huron, Midtown, Main Street, Kerrytown, and First Street.

One key difference between D1 and D2 areas is that building height is controlled purely with floor area ratio (FAR), while in D2 areas, it’s controlled through a combination of FAR and an absolute building height limit (60 feet) that applies independently of FAR and any bonus premiums.

D1 – Core
• 400% FAR by right
• 700% FAR with premiums
• 900% FAR with on-site affordable housing
• No absolute height limit (except in South University character district)

D2 – Interface
• 200% FAR by right
• 400% FAR with premiums
• 60 ft. height limit
• 80% lot coverage limit

South University: The one important exception to D1′s lack of absolute height limits is the South University character district. For South University, which is proposed as a D1 district, an absolute height limit is proposed at 170 feet. In the September 2008 proposal that planning commission approved, the South University absolute height limit had been set at 120 feet. In recent planning commission deliberations, the 170 feet for South University reflected a compromise that included the addition of a 30-foot setback for new construction from residential areas, plus a maximal tower diagonal on the building of 150 feet.

Current zoning in the South University area has no absolute height limits. Part of the South University area was rezoned in fall of 2006 by city council from a variety of different kinds of districts (campus business/residential, office, multiple-family dwelling) to a central business district and parking district.

It was that rezoning, together with an accumulation of parcels, that enabled the proposal for 601 S. Forest as a by-right development at a height of 164 feet. [Recent reporting by Dan Meisler, writing for the Ann Arbor Business Review, lays out recent legal wrangling among the developers on that project.]

While there is a prominent D2 area proposed on the west side of the city, and a smaller D2 area on the southern edge, it’s not the case that D2 areas buffer the D1 core on all sides – South University is one of those areas without a D2 buffer. During council discussion at its Monday night work session, councilmember Margie Teall asked why the South University area did not include a D2 interface buffer.

Rampson noted that the real focus of increased density was meant to be along South University Avenue itself, and that part of the rationale for including the rest of the area was based on its zoning history before the 2006 rezoning. Given that the zoning history was “a material impetus in driving the decision” to zone the area as D1, councilmember Christopher Taylor wanted to know if that was a paper history or if it was reflected in the buildings that had actually been built. In response to Taylor’s question, Rampson suggested the “Stegeman Building” [1113 Willard, constructed in 1999 as "Willard Street Apartments"] and the Forest Avenue parking structure as examples.

Taylor’s concerns about the South University area pre-dates his service on council. After he had won the August 2008 Democratic primary, but before he was seated on council, Taylor spoke during a public hearing on the 601 S. Forest project, expressing concerns about the scale of that development.

Teall seemed unconvinced by Rampson’s explanation that in the South University area a D2 buffer was not feasible given the small size of the resulting D2 district. Teall cited the small D2 areas along William Street, suggesting that similar small D2 areas might be possible in the South University area. Rampson noted that one difference between South University and the William Street area was that the D2 area along William Street was a historic area.

Absolute Height Limits: Councilmember Greden took the first leap into the discussion of absolute height limits, not just for the South University character district, but also for other D1 areas. He said he would be paying very close attention to the possibility of a reasonable height limit that still respected the need for growth. Greden at one point mooted the idea of using character districts throughout D1 as the basis for different absolute height limits.

Asked by Greden for comment, Rampson said that when asked, “If there were an absolute height limit, what would it be?” the planning commission was at pains to name a number. She noted that the number in the original recommendations considered by council in 2007 – which provided the basis for planning commission’s work on the actual zoning language – was 240 feet.

That 240-foot limit was struck from the recommendations during council deliberations on Oct. 15, 2007. Bob Johnson first introduced a motion for an amendment to reduce the maximum height in the core area from 240 feet to 190 feet. That motion failed on lack of a second. Lowenstein then introduced an amendment completely striking the height limit of 240 altogether. That amendment succeeded with two votes against it – from mayor John Hieftje and Johnson.

[Editorial aside: The Chronicle's came across this episode while looking for support for statements made by Hieftje during the 2008 campaign, and as recently as last Sunday's council caucus, to the effect that there'd been an occasion when he had been the only vote for height limits. The Chroncile could not find an episode in the archives of council minutes fitting the description. When asked if the Oct. 15, 2007 meeting was the occasion to which he'd been referring (it's very close to matching the description), Hieftje wrote that his memory of the various meetings had grown "foggy," that Johnson had introduced his motion because Hieftje had asked him to, and that since that time several councilmembers had come around to his own point of view on height limits.]

Council’s interest as a body in exploring the question of absolute height limits can be seen in a June 2008 resolution passed by council to extend a deadline for completing of the A2D2 work: “RESOLVED, that City Council ask that the A2D2 Steering Committee look closely at the D1 core zoning and return with a recommendation that will address appropriate height and massing and provide examples for 150 ft. and 180 ft.”

At the working session on Monday, councilmember Tony Derezinski, who is city council’s representative on the planning commission, reported that the single largest discussion in connection with A2D2 zoning was absolute height limits on South University. He said that “not a nuance was left unturned” during the discussion. What he emphasized was that there was a trade-off between the higher absolute height limits, the setback, and the maximum tower diagonals.

The complex interplay between various standards was a theme vistited by many councilmembers. On the subject of absolute height limits, councilmember Carsten Hohnke noted that “FARs alone aren’t enough to keep us from being surprised” – an allusion to FAR requirements being in place but still allowing the 601 S. Forest project. So Hohnke raised the issue of the interplay between FAR and massing standards.

Massing standards have to do with the streetwall height, the size of the offset at the top of the streetwall, maximum tower diagonals, and setbacks. This is one of the ways the character districts are more than just colored regions drawn on a map: There are different massing standards for each character district.

Design Guidelines: Character districts, with their different massing standards, reflect some of the work of the design guideline review committee. What has been incorporated into the current zoning revisions are the quantifiable aspects of that committee.

It’s a frequent point of criticism (from Ray Detter, chair of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council) that the aesthetic parts of the design guidelines have been separated out from the revisions to the zoning currently being considered. At Monday’s working session, Hieftje led off all comments with a question for councilmember Marcia Higgins (who serves on the A2D2 oversight committee along with Evan Pratt of the planning commission, and Roger Hewitt of the DDA board) about when the design guidelines could be expected. Higgins said they’d been put on the back burner, but that late summer or early fall would be reasonable.

Hieftje then elicited from Higgins an assurance that as far as she knew there were no conflicts involved in proceeding with the zoning ordinance revisions without the design guidelines in place.

Other Concerns: This report of council’s discussion of South University, absolute building heights and design guidelines is not meant to be exhaustive of all topics addressed by councilmembers at their work session. Some of their additional questions overlap with issues raised in the feedback to Rampson’s fall workshop tour. And planning commission’s memo to council provides some explanations about why certain elements of the September 2008 draft were left in place and why certain elements were changed. For this reason, we publish the largest chunk of that memo here.

PC Memo: What Was Left Intact After Studying Feedback

The memo from planning commission begins with a section on aspects of the proposed zoning that it left intact from its September 2008 draft.

1) Height Limits & Diagonals: The intent behind the proposed Diagonal requirements in most of the downtown core is to balance building “bulk.” Since the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is fixed once applicable premiums are identified, new projects can either 1) cover most of the site with a lower height or 2) cover less of the site with a higher height. The Calthorpe Report recommends that buildings be allowed to exceed a height limit if certain community goals are provided. Diagonal limits were a recommendation of the Design Guidelines Advisory Committee as the most effective means of allowing a variety of building shapes without resulting in massing that is viewed negatively. Diagonal limits are most effective when there is no height limit, encouraging towers to be more slender with more light and air between buildings. A height limit without any Diagonal requirement will encourage the assembly of parcels and will result in a less desirable continuous building mass covering several sites or entire blocks. Any height limit coupled with Diagonal requirements needs to be considered very carefully because they work counter to each other and could result in requirements that are too restrictive.

Many sites in the proposed interface area (D2) currently have no height limit but would now be limited to a maximum of 60 feet in height. CPC continues to support “no height limit” in most of the D1 district coupled with Diagonal requirements, except for the South University Character Area. (Height in the South University Character Area is addressed further below.) CPC continues to support a 60 foot height limit in the D2 district.

2) Design Guidelines: Any of the recommendations of the Design Advisory Committee that could be stated in ordinance language (numerically quantifiable) are included in the proposed Massing Standards. The remaining recommendations are in the proposed Design Guidelines and will not be referenced in the new ordinance until Council approves them. At the request of the Steering Committee, the approval of the Design Guidelines was set aside to allow the new Zoning Ordinance and Downtown Plan to move toward enactment more quickly. The Design Guidelines were the product of a collaborative and far-reaching effort among the public, staff, and design professionals in response to repeated feedback to promote higher design quality in our built environment. These are recommended in the Calthorpe Report and Council has passed two (2) resolutions supporting the design review process for downtown projects – one asking the Design Advisory Committee to develop Design Guidelines and the other to move them forward with the drafting of ordinance language.

CPC believes the Design Guidelines give more definition to the community’s vision for downtown than is possible in our Zoning Ordinance or our Downtown Plan while allowing design flexibility and creativity. The Design Guidelines are on the CPC Work Plan for recommended approval in June 2009, followed by Council approval. This schedule was preliminary and may need to be adjusted to allow adequate time for its review. CPC requests direction and a desired schedule to assist in meeting Council’s expectations.

3) Flood plain: Construction on many properties within our flood plains throughout the City is currently regulated by the State. The City is in the process of drafting a local Flood Plain Ordinance as an overlay district for all flood plains (not just the Allen Creek) within the city, to be approved along with the new FEMA flood maps. Only a small percentage of our floodplains are within the downtown zoning districts. The concerns raised in this process regarding the Allen Creek flood plain are important but should be addressed in the new Flood Plain Ordinance. However, the Premiums (increased floor area percentage) in the new downtown zoning are not applicable to properties in flood plains.

CPC recommends that all flood plain regulations be incorporated in the new Flood Plain Ordinance and not in the downtown zoning. CPC will be seeking Council input on the proposed flood plain policies before the ordinance is finalized. This is on the CPC’s Work Plan for recommended approval in July 2009, followed by Council approval.

4) Density: The FAR in the downtown core area (D1) as proposed will be increased from 660% to 700% if premium amenities are provided – an increase of about 6%. An additional 200% super-premium is proposed to encourage on-site affordable housing – a community goal that has been difficult to achieve. In the downtown interface area (D2), the FAR as proposed will be 400% maximum if premium amenities are provided – a reduction for many properties. Premium floor area is not applicable to properties within historic districts or flood plains.

CPC continues to support the FAR recommendations. These levels meet the broad goals identified in the Calthorpe Report and the recommendations of the Zoning Advisory Committee.

5) Green space/open space: The Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan recommends that a method be identified to quantify urban open space, green or hard-scaped, to assist the City in evaluating the real need within downtown. The Calthorpe Report addresses Public Space and recommends the careful consideration of edge uses for vitality and safety. The Zoning Advisory Committee was not comfortable encouraging arbitrary locations for open space through the use of a Premium. The proposed ordinance does provide a Premium for Inner Arcades (connecting streets and adjacent sites) and Plazas (open to the sky) on private property, both of which are in our current ordinance. Currently, the new Police/Courts project, the Library Lane underground parking project and the requirement for the 415 W. Washington proposals all include public open space. In concept, CPC believes that large green spaces in the downtown core are counter to numerous goals and that pocket parks are more effective. CPC does not recommend green space or open space requirements as a part of private development in the downtown districts beyond the front open space required on Front Yard Streets at this time. This should be re-evaluated once the Parks Advisory Commission identifies a method of quantifying urban open space.

The concept for the Allen Creek Greenway is supported in the current PROS Plan, the current Non-Motorized Transportation Plan and the new Downtown Plan. Because the majority of the Allen Creek flood plain extends beyond the downtown, CPC does not support using the downtown district zoning to direct its planning.

6) Active Use: The new zoning requirements identify what we would like rather than what exists. Because of this, some non-conforming uses will exist but in time we will make progress toward our goals. The Calthorpe Report recommended that first floor retail not be required everywhere, but maintained in strong areas and encouraged in existing weak retail areas, such as Liberty and Washington between Main and State. The Zoning Advisory Committee recommended requiring first floor retail on certain streets, but did not feel qualified to decide on the streets.

With all this input, the CPC continues to support the 60% minimum frontage of first floor retail on identified “active use” streets to reinforce independent local retailers that depend on pedestrian traffic between adjacent uses for their survival. This includes the main retail sections of Main Street, State Street, Liberty Street, Washington Street and South University. Existing non-conforming uses can continue (see Chapter 55, 5:86).

7) North side of East Huron (Division to State): This block has been a challenge due to the fact that these properties abut residential districts to the north and are in a section of Huron where height was identified in the Calthorpe Report. In an effort to create new zoning that defines our goals, rather than perpetuating what has already been built, the Zoning Advisory Committee struggled, but ultimately recommended that this block be zoned D2 – one major reason was the shading potential of the FAR allowed in the D1 district.

CPC continues to support the compromise of maintaining the D1 district on this block with the additional tower setback from the adjacent residential districts.

8) Downtown Plan: CPC adopted The Downtown Plan on February 19th and has recommended Council adoption.

9) Massing Standards, Character Areas: The eight (8) Downtown Character Areas were identified by the Design Guidelines Advisory Committee with substantial public input. They are based on the unique building and site characteristics within each area.

CPC continues to support the eight (8) Character Areas and the inclusion in the zoning ordinance of the design Massing Standards.

10) Simplify the code: Most downtown projects in the last several years have been reviewed as Planned Unit Developments (PUD) or Planned Projects because of the inappropriateness of our current downtown zoning. The City has encouraged this in order to get projects that more closely align with our Downtown Plan. The uncertainty inherent in both PUDs and Planned Projects have added great expense and additional review time beyond that of a project designed to meet its underlying zoning district. Our current ordinance is actually too simple because it does not adequately define our goals and vision and the current downtown zoning district boundaries are random and without planning logic. The proposed ordinance also includes a vast majority of the recommendations in the new Downtown Plan.

CPC believes that the proposed zoning district boundaries are far more consistent and logical. CPC also believes the proposed ordinance amendments are clear and the new technology tools will make navigation much easier for developers and citizens.

PC Memo: Changes To Proposal After Studying Feedback

The memo continues by addressing aspects of the zoning recommendation that have changed since September 2008.

11) Premiums: The proposed Premiums generally align with the recommendations of the Calthorpe Report and the more detailed conclusions of the Zoning Advisory Committee. The intent with the Premiums is to get identified public benefits in exchange for allowing additional floor area (up to a maximum). The Residential Premium was reduced from the current ordinance based on a desire to balance the use of all the premiums. With the recent popularity of residential projects it is important to make sure the community also gets the benefits of the other premiums. The use of the Premiums will ultimately be decided through a developer’s financial analysis considering the economic climate at that time.

As this is a moving target, the incentives (increase in floor area percentage) will need to be evaluated on a regular basis to access how they are being used and if the percentages need to be adjusted to encourage benefits that are not otherwise provided.

A Premium for transfer-of-development-rights has not been included. CPC recommends that this be reconsidered for inclusion in the future (currently under more detailed review) as a tool that could be used to protect some historic buildings or could encourage dedicated open space, such as in the Allen Creek floodplain.

CPC has changed the Plaza premium to no longer require these to be located on a street corner. Successful plazas are difficult to design and CPC hopes the added flexibility will provide opportunities where there are adjacent vibrant uses. This was an allowable premium in our current ordinance that was never used but was retained with minor changes to encourage open space on private property.

12) Buffers & Setbacks adjacent to residential districts: Throughout the City, all non-residential districts must currently provide an additional building setback along property lines immediately adjacent to residential districts and matching the setbacks required in that residential district. The proposed downtown zoning also includes additional building setbacks along property lines adjacent to residential districts. These setbacks are part of the Massing Standards for each of the eight (8) Character Areas. They respond directly to the nature of that area and its adjacent residential districts. By their very nature, zoning districts are defined by boundaries and there will always be some level of tension at the dividing line. Neighborhoods’ use and character are protected when they are appropriately zoned and when their boundaries are respected and predictable.

CPC continues to support the proposed building setbacks along adjacent residential districts in all the Character Areas except for South University. The depth of these setbacks is reasonable for the traditional and typical small size of downtown sites. Larger setbacks would encourage the assembly of lots and could make some sites very difficult to build on.

After extensive discussion, CPC has changed the building setback requirement in the South University Character Area to a total of 30 feet along property lines adjacent to residential districts regardless of building height, instead of a 15 foot setback for the first 30 feet in building height and a 30 foot setback for the rest of the building above 30 feet in height. In this area, CPC feels the setback of the lower floors has just as much impact on the neighboring residents as the upper floors.

13) South University character area: CPC support for the 2003 rezoning of this area to C2A was based on its immediate adjacency to the Central Campus. About 50% of the perimeter of this area is bounded by University property, primarily to the north and east, where floor area and height are not regulated by the City. The residents of this zoning district are considered to be primarily students with some University staff – who are the most likely to use walking or biking as their primary transportation thus adding minimally to the motorized traffic and parking in the area. It was also considered a benefit to students and University staff to have the opportunity to live close to their classes or work. The retail in this district, primarily small independent businesses, have been struggling for many years. Some reasons include 1) the distance non-students are willing to walk to shop and dine has diminished as regional opportunities for these have increased, and 2) the student population moving through the district fluctuates dramatically. Finally, the area merchants believe strongly that the captive audience provided by a significant increase in residential density will greatly increase their chances of success. The Calthorpe Report, written just prior to this rezoning, supports this view and states that “local-serving retail districts should first and foremost be located near residential concentrations.”

After extensive discussion, CPC recommends that the South University character area have a height limit of 170 feet to give added design flexibility and increase the opportunity for more light and air between buildings. The recent compromise on the project proposed at 601 Forest would meet this requirement. At this height, CPC also recommends a maximum diagonal requirement of 200 feet [Editor's note: We believe this is a typographical error, and should read "150 feet," which is consistent with the accompanying zoning code revisions forwarded to council as well as with The Chronicle's previous reporting.] The height limit would not allow an upper tower, so only one diagonal is needed. (The building setback adjacent to residential districts was also modified as described above.)

14) Downtown district boundaries: In order to focus this effort on the zoning requirements rather than district boundaries, the Calthorpe Report included only the non-residential districts directly contiguous to the downtown area, excluding any residential districts. The DDA boundaries are similar but somewhat arbitrary due to the complex political process with other public entities required to change them.

After looking closely at these boundaries, CPC has excluded non-residential properties in the Old Fourth Ward and the Old Westside historic districts from rezoning due to the residential character (and primarily residential use) of these historic districts and the fact that they were created after, and in reaction to, their current zoning designations.

After the new zoning requirements and the design guidelines are in place, and in conjunction with a review of the Central Area Plan, would be an optimal time to re-evaluate the outer boundaries (with possible expansion or contraction) of the downtown districts, including the non-residential and R4C districts.

15) Parking: It is a recommendation of the Nelson/Nygaard downtown parking study that shared public parking be encouraged on appropriate private sites. Any above grade parking that is required parking or public parking on private property up to 200% in not included in a project’s FAR.

CPC has added that any premium for public parking on private property meet DDA standards. Additionally, CPC has clarified that required residential bike parking must be enclosed and lockable.

16) Non-Conformities: The desire to change our current downtown zoning is a reaction to projects that have already been built and a desire to encourage particular types of development. At the same time, it should not be the intent of this ordinance to put an additional burden on buildings that were built under an earlier code – either to require unreasonable changes to existing buildings or to require variances for existing buildings to remain.

CPC has changed the new massing standards to only apply to new buildings or additions.