Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) share a light moment before the Aug. 8 meeting started. They had both contested Democratic primaries two days earlier. Kunselman prevailed in a narrow race against Julie Grand. Jack Eaton won the Ward 4 race. (Photos by the writer.)

An hour of the meeting was taken up with a discussion of street closures around Michigan Stadium on football game days. The street closures are part of an effort to increase safety by creating a vehicle-free zone around the stadium. It involves a cooperative effort with the University of Michigan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the city of Ann Arbor police department.

Those deliberations ultimately resulted in a modification of the original plan, so that the southbound lane of Main Street would not be closed until an hour before the start of the game.

Other parts of the plan were approved as originally proposed, starting three hours before kickoff: E. Keech Street between S. Main and Greene streets will be closed, and access to Greene Street from E. Hoover to E. Keech streets will be limited to parking permit holders; the westbound lane on E. Stadium Blvd. turning right onto S. Main Street (just south of the Michigan Stadium) will be closed; and S. Main Street except for the southbound lanes will be closed from Stadium Boulevard to Pauline.

The council also amended the plan to require a report by its Oct. 7 meeting on how well the procedures are working. Even with the modification to the plan and the requirement to brief the council on Oct. 7, the proposal to close streets on football Saturdays was approved on just a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). That neighborhood is located in Ward 4.

Also during the meeting, the council denied a requested street closure for a non-university event on South University Avenue. The requested closing was for “Beats, Eats, and Cleats,” sponsored by The Landmark apartment building. It was planned for the evening before a football game between the University of Michigan and the University of Notre Dame. Councilmembers expressed concerns about the probability of alcohol consumption.

Another 40 minutes of the meeting was taken up with discussion of a bike share program, which did have a direct connection to the University of Michigan. The council was asked to contribute $150,000 from the city’s alternative transportation fund. That money provided a 20% local match on a $600,000 Federal Highway Administration Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant that the Clean Energy Coalition (CEC) has received. The CMAQ funds have to be spent on capital, such as bikes and stations. Operations will be supported in the first three years of the program by UM at a level of $200,000 annually for a total of $600,000. The program will be operated by the CEC using B-Cycle as a vendor. The council’s vote on the bike share program was 9-2, with dissent from Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Higgins also dissented on a council resolution that called upon the state legislature to repeal Michigan’s version of a “stand your ground” law, as well as to repeal legislation that prevents local municipalities from regulating the sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of firearms and ammunition. That resolution came after public commentary on the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case at the council’s previous meeting. Higgins agreed with the sentiments in the resolution, but said she thought it would have a greater impact if people spoke as individuals. Other councilmembers expressed some skepticism that the resolution would have much impact, but it received their support.

The Kerrytown Place project – an 18-unit townhouse development planned for the location of the former Orthodox Greek church on North Main Street – was subjected to only brief remarks. The council unanimously approved its requested rezoning and site plans.

In other business, the council approved a $10,000 design budget for a sidewalk on Waldenwood near King Elementary School. Construction of the sidewalk would allow a mid-block crosswalk to be moved to a four-way stop intersection.

The council also agreed to accept $202,370 from the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) to help the city purchase development rights on land in Lodi Township, southwest of the city.

Over dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), the council approved $18,500 to pay for public art administrator Aaron Seagraves’ contract through the end of 2013.

Among the nominations to boards and commissions announced at the meeting, two were significant: Rishi Narayan, founder and managing member of Underground Printing, to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; and Jack Bernard, chair of the University of Michigan’s council for disability concerns, to the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.

Street Closures

The council was asked to approve street closures for all University of Michigan home football games. The council was also asked to approve a street closure for a one-off, non-university sponsored event – but timed for the evening before a home football game.

Street Closures: 2013 UM Football Games

This is the first year that the council has been asked to approve street closings around Michigan Stadium on all football game days. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, it’s part of an effort to increase safety by creating a vehicle-free zone around the stadium, and involves a cooperative effort with the University of Michigan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the city of Ann Arbor police department.

Street Closures: UM Football Games – Council Deliberations

On hand to answer questions were AAPD police chief John Seto, UM Dept. of Public Safety deputy chief Melissa Overton, and an official from U.S. Homeland Security.

UM football game day street closures (pink) with detour route (purple).

Seto led off by providing background on the issue. He described the street closures as a request that came from the University of Michigan public safety department, working in conjunction with U.S. Homeland Security. Seto described how he had asked for some modifications before he was comfortable with the request. He described a community meeting on July 24, saying that many comments and suggestions had been received. One modification Seto described coming out of that meeting was that southbound lanes of Main Street would be open until one hour before the game start.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she hadn’t seen the modified proposal, pointing out that the resolution on the agenda did not include the modifications. Higgins noted that she attended the community meeting. On football Saturdays, she said, the city does a great job for people going south, but not west.

Higgins made clear that she would not support the street closing, saying that the security issue was brought up at the time that the university renovated the stadium. The university had decided to build out as close to the street as possible, Higgins said. She wasn’t opposed to closing the right-turn lane on Stadium Boulevard, she said, but for the rest of the closures, she’d respect her constituents. As an argument against the proposal, she noted that the exact game start times aren’t necessarily known months in advance. She thanked Seto for attending the neighborhood meeting. But she contended that there should have been a meeting held earlier than two weeks before the council needed to vote.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) had questions for UM representatives. Briere noted that Ann Arbor is not unique as a city in hosting football games. Do other cities close streets near their stadiums? Ohio State University and University of Wisconsin close streets, Overton explained. Seto then gave more detail on game-day operations in other cities. Briere confirmed with Seto that the street closures in other cities are due to security concerns.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked how closing the street helps to prevent terrorism. Seto explained it’s part of what can be done as a “reasonable” approach. A Homeland Security official was invited to the podium, and he described how blast modeling of a small truck laden with explosives showed that considerable damage could be done. The recommended street closures were based on that blast modeling, he explained. Kailasapathy ventured that the same truck could come at the end of the game. Why is there a higher threat before the game? she asked. Overton explained that just before the game is when the heaviest pedestrian traffic occurs and when the most people are inside the stadium.

Seto added that the idea is to open things up in order to dissipate the crowd as quickly as possible. For some games, he noted, the crowd starts to leave early.

Responding to the 2010 date given for the Homeland Security recommendations, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) wondered why it’s taken three years to implement those recommendations. Higgins pointed out that East Stadium bridges were closed at the time for reconstruction. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated that for her it was significant that few complaints were received – based on Seto’s report – when street closures were implemented for a nighttime Notre Dame game in 2011.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) ventured that the main threat that is supposed to be mitigated is a potential truck bomb. Seto indicated that it’s one part of the motivation. Taylor inquired about the possible one-hour/three-hour mix of lane closures. Seto explained the balance between asset protection and the interest in getting the crowd to dissipate. The representative from Homeland Security explained that the proposed street closure plan around Michigan Stadium meets the national standards for security for major sporting events.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked who would pay for the extra security measures. Overton explained that the UM athletic department would pay the costs. Anglin asked how much the city contributes to the provision of security for football games.

Higgins responded to Anglin’s question by explaining that signs and signals work required in connection with football games is now paid for by the university. Higgins then asked who owns the barricades. Overton explained that the university owns the portable vehicle barriers (PVBs), which were purchased with Homeland Security funds, and described how they could be moved by two people.

Seto recalled how difficult it was to determine the end of the 2011 Notre Dame game, which included overtime periods, he contended. That description was corrected later in the meeting, when Petersen reported that she’d received a communication from a family member during the meeting saying that there were not any overtime periods but that the game had been decided on a play late in the fourth quarter.

Higgins challenged Seto’s characterization of the 2011 UM-Notre Dame game day logistics, saying that there were many issues associated with the 2011 street closures that perhaps Seto wasn’t aware of. She stressed that after the first three games this year, the residents want a review of how well things are working. Seto assured Higgins that review would be done.

Higgins asked what will happen if it turns out that the logistics aren’t working out. She ventured that the resolution should be modified to reflect that possibility.

Briere asked public services area administrator Craig Hupy to come to the podium. She asked about increased traffic flow in neighborhood streets, citing the possibility of increased deterioration of streets due to added traffic. Hupy indicated that would be minimal compared to the amount of traffic volume over the entire life of the street. Hupy explained that the concern is actually about diminished traffic, which could have a negative impact on the lawn parking that residents enjoy.

Lumm then moved to amend the resolution to make the closure of the southbound lane on South Main restricted to just one hour before the game start.

Outcome on Lumm’s amendment: The amendment passed unanimously.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) explained that he was living in Washington D.C. on 9/11. Many people had mourned the increased “locked down” status of the city following that attack, and he’d shared that view. Now, however, he weighs the question of “What if I’m wrong?”

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) followed up on the issue of reimbursement by UM for the signs and signals work. Hupy reported that when the city has billed the UM recently, the invoices have been paid. Kunselman then said as everyone knows, he works at the university. [Kunselman is a Planet Blue energy conservation liaison.] He called the street closures a public safety issue. He recalled being able to sneak in through a hole in the fence as a youngster. But it’s a changing world and we have to accommodate the change, Kunselman said. So he’d support the resolution.

From left: Sally Petersen (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Briere wanted to make sure the street closing procedures were reviewed soon enough for the council to take action to revise them at the Oct. 7 council meeting. Higgins followed up by saying she wanted to add a resolved clause stipulating that following the first three football games, the AAPD would meet with the neighborhood and bring recommendations to the Oct. 7 city council meeting. Briere said she’d support such a resolved clause.

Lumm asked Seto to come back to the podium. Seto said what’s being asked in terms of reporting is doable. He could hear concerns and make suggestions, he continued, but there would probably be certain things he couldn’t fix.

Mayor John Hieftje asked Seto how easily things could be changed in the middle of the season. Seto expressed confidence that AAPD could be flexible. He gave the Ann Arbor marathon as an example of that. He described how AAPD often modifies its logistical operations on the fly. Hieftje expressed some concern that the plan called for taking down the barriers too soon – at the conclusion of the game. Seto described the balance that is to be struck on that issue.

Outcome: The amendment to include a report to the council by its Oct. 7 meeting was unanimously approved.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she still could not support the resolution, based on what she’d heard from the neighbors. She’d heard a lot of complaints about the 2011 Notre Dame game.

Petersen countered by calling the street closures “common sense,” saying it’s a public safety issue. She pointed out that the council had heard many voices calling on the council to ensure that public safety meets national standards – and she cited the Homeland Security official’s point that this street closure plan met national standards for football games in large stadiums. She could think of 114,000 good reasons to support this resolution [the population of the city], plus another 107,000 reasons [the capacity of the stadium], though she allowed there could be some overlap in those two figures.

Lumm said she appreciated the modification of the closure of southbound Main to be just one hour before the game started. Higgins responded to comments by Lumm and Petersen about meeting national standards for security, by saying UM needed to think about meeting those standards as it builds out its campus. Higgins somewhat wistfully said that in the future that will be the rest of the council’s problem – an apparent reference to her loss in Tuesday’s primary election.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the street closures around the Michigan football stadium on game days. Dissent came from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Street Closures: “Beats, Eats, and Cleats”

Appearing on the consent agenda was a resolution approving a street closure on South University Avenue between Washtenaw and Forest, for “Beats, Eats, and Cleats” – an event sponsored by The Landmark apartment building. The event was scheduled for Friday, Sept. 6, 2013, the evening before the football game between the University of Michigan and the University of Notre Dame.

Consent agenda items are voted on as a block, but councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for separate consideration of the Beats, Eats and Cleats street closure. Briere said that although the event is advertised as non-alcoholic, she was aware of how many bars are located in the vicinity. She was also concerned that the street closure would be taking place on the evening before a football game.

The event was described as follows in the staff memo accompanying the item:

This event is a welcome to new and returning students and will have a pep rally, live music, food trucks, inflatable boxing, and other entertainment. Alcohol will not be served.

Briere asked if a representative from The Landmark was present to answer questions – but no one was there.

Briere ventured that except in unusual circumstances, the city did not typically agree to close streets on the evening before a home football game. City administrator Steve Powers said he wasn’t aware of that as a general policy. Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he believed that former police chief Barnett Jones had been inclined to be cautious about allowing street closures on the night before football games, and indicated that he shared Briere’s concern.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) ventured that there’d been a precedent for a June event hosted by the Neutral Zone teen center, called “Live on Washington.” That event also catered to young people and there are a number of bars and restaurants in the vicinity, so she wanted to know if there were any incidents related to alcohol for that event. Police chief John Seto responded to Petersen by saying he wasn’t aware of any incidents that had occurred. Seto said he wasn’t aware of a general policy on when street closures are approved or not, saying that they’re considered on a case-by-case basis. He noted that it’s the night before the UM-Notre Dame football game. He allowed he had some concerns – after weighing the things he knows against the things that he doesn’t know.

Petersen wondered if World of Beer, located at 1300 S. University Ave., would be serving alcohol during the event. Seto didn’t know. Petersen allowed that even if there was no beer tent on the street, World of Beer would be serving. Hieftje said he didn’t see much difference between having a beer tent and serving alcohol at a bar where people could take a few steps to the street. Hieftje reiterated that he had some concerns.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if there’d be a difference in the police presence, if the event were to take place. Would there be an expectation that The Landmark building would provide security? Seto explained that the sponsor of the event intended to provide private security, but that the event could still require some additional police presence – because they’d be enforcing open intoxicants and minor-in-possession ordinances. Kunselman asked how this proposed event might compare to the Mud Bowl. Seto indicated that the Mud Bowl is a morning event and historically no street closures are associated with it. Kunselman said he couldn’t support the street closure for “Beats, Eats, and Cleats.”

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she appreciated everyone’s comments. She asked what “inflatable boxing” is. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith, who was filling in for community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl, fielded the question, saying he was not certain what inflatable boxing is.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) indicated that she also would not support the street closing. Teall argued against the street closure based on the liability it seemed to introduce. Hieftje ventured that a Tuesday night would be better for such an event. Teall agreed that a different time would be better.

Outcome: The street closing for “Beats, Eats, and Cleats” was unanimously denied by the council.

Bike Share Program

The council was asked to approve a $150,000 expenditure from the alternative transportation fund in support of a bike share initiative. The project, spearheaded by the University of Michigan and the Clean Energy Coalition (CEC), is to establish a bike share program on the university campus and an area west of campus in downtown Ann Arbor. The selected vendor is B-Cycle. In a bike share program, users get access to bicycles parked at a station by swiping their credit card or membership card. Users can then return the bicycle to another station near their destination.

Potential specific and general bike share station locations in Ann Arbor, redrawn by The Chronicle from the council’s information packet. The program would include 12-14 bike share stations with an anticipated total of 120-140 bicycles. The contract to provide the service was won by B-Cycle.

Map provided by CEC subsequent to the council’s meeting.

The city’s $150,000 would provide the necessary local match for a $600,000 Federal Highway Administration Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant that the CEC has received. The CMAQ funds have to be spent on capital, such as bikes and stations. Operations will be supported in the first three years of the program by UM at a level of $200,000 annually for a total of $600,000.

Bike Share Program: Public Commentary

Jeff Hayner introduced himself as a resident of Ward 1. He told councilmembers he was there to speak in support of the bike sharing program. He described his participation in the first attempt at a bike sharing program about 25 years ago, when a small group of cyclists and bike mechanics had provided the community at large a fleet of free bicycles, with what he called the “unreasonable expectation” that they be shared freely and left available for the next person. It didn’t work out so great, he said, but then he ventured that “you gotta try.” Bike sharing has come a long way since then, Hayner said, and the bikes are used in a way that’s secured with a credit card.

Jeff Hayner (standing) talked with city administrator Steve Powers (seated) before the meeting started.

The bike sharing program that the council was being asked to support was a “winner in many ways,” he contended. The cost to the taxpayers is relatively small, he said, compared to the grant money that it would leverage – citing the 20:80 ratio of local to federal support. The city’s non-motorized plan and the climate action plan both call for programs like the bike sharing system, he said, with goals of mitigating congestion, improving air quality, and encouraging alternative means of transportation. He described the program as providing 125 bikes in 14 locations.

Hayner allowed that the locations in the university campus area and downtown don’t really serve the outlying neighborhoods. But he argued that the University of Michigan is also bearing the lion’s share of the costs, the UM deserved to receive the most benefit. He calculated the city’s cost at about $300 per bike per year, and characterized that as fair in light of the societal benefits. He concluded by saying he hoped that if the bike sharing program were successful, it could be held out as an example of a new, cooperative spirit between the University of Michigan and the city of Ann Arbor.

Bike Share Program: Council Deliberations

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) led off by saying that she had mixed feelings about the plan. She said she’s disappointed that there’s not a communications plan for safety in the city’s parks – saying she’d like more signs on mixed-use paths. She didn’t feel like the city has the safety infrastructure and adequate bike lanes to support a bike share program. Her vote, she said, was “not yet.”

Responding to Petersen’s remarks about the adequacy of bicycling safety infrastructure, mayor John Hieftje said that the plan was never to put bike lanes on every downtown street, because the traffic moves slow enough in some places that bicycles can keep up with cars. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) agreed with Petersen about the need for more education. Briere said that signage is great, but she didn’t think that signage replaces “people paying attention.” Briere was encouraged that UM is a strong financial supporter. She noted that that bike share program is not about commuting, but rather about moving from places like State and Liberty to the corner of Huron and Main (the Washtenaw County building).

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) shared a laugh before the meeting started.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) recalled the bike share program that Jeff Hayner had described during public commentary. The bicycles were painted green and were made available, and they disappeared to the far reaches of the city, never to return to the downtown, Kunselman said. He described the number of abandoned bikes downtown and on the campus that clutter the streets. He ventured that the bike share program might help to “clean up our streets.”

Kunselman talked about the “carrying capacity” of the environment. He was concerned about the fact that the money is coming from the alternative transportation fund, and might be taking away from other needs. Transportation program manager Eli Cooper described the intended use of the fund as making improvements as well as maintaining non-motorized infrastructure. Kunselman asked for examples of maintenance activities. Cooper explained that if anything were to be deferred, then it would be a half-mile of bike lane, including signs. That project would be postponed for about a year, he said.

Kunselman clarified that this is “seed money.” That’s right, Cooper replied, saying that it’s for capital needs. The University of Michigan is contributing operating money and the CEC is working on sponsorship revenue and handling fare revenue, Cooper explained. Cooper sketched a vision of public/private cooperation.

Kunselman asked about the clutter on downtown sidewalks. He wanted to know if the specific locations for bike share stations will require council approval. Cooper indicated that the right-of-way permitting program is authorized by the council, but the individual locations wouldn’t need approval.

Cooper responded to Petersen’s concern about adequate signs in the park system, by indicating it’s on the work plan. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reported she’d heard about mishaps in the parks – pedestrians being “slammed into” by bicyclists. She felts that bicyclists are now more inclined to commute by bicycle on paths in the parks. She brought up the issue of bells. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, told Lumm he has a bell on his bike and he’s one of those people who commutes through parks.

Lumm observed that obviously a lot of effort has gone into the bike share initiative. She appreciated the responses she’d received to questions about its impact on the alternative transportation program. She said the bike share program is appropriate to Ann Arbor. But she also expressed skepticism, saying that the city doesn’t prioritize its transportation programs. She objected to the fact that there’s not a long-term plan for the operating expenses – saying that UM’s commitment ends after three years. Still, she said she’d support the resolution.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked Cooper about the CMAQ grant deadline. Cooper indicated that there’s a deadline at the end of the federal fiscal year – Sept. 30.

Briere ventured that the council will hear that some of the bicycle lanes are in bad shape and that the city should spend the money on maintenance of bike lanes and not a bike share program. What’s being done to maintain bike lanes? Cooper replied to Briere by explaining he conducts an annual visual inspection of the entire bike lane system. An inventory of the bike lane inspections is available online, he said – saying it’s part of the city’s Bicycling in A2 website. He described the citizens request system for repairing potholes.

Petersen asked how long it would take before signs will show up in the parks. City administrator Steve Powers indicated he can provide an answer the following day. Petersen asked how to obtain a specific piece of educational literature about what every motorist should know about bike lanes. Cooper listed off various locations where it’s available and ways it’s distributed.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she doesn’t think the city has done a good job of educating cyclists. She described bicyclists who go through red lights. But she also described encountering a cyclist who was using proper hand signals and discovered that it was her council colleague, Chuck Warpehoski. She oftentimes sees cyclists go up on the sidewalk and use the crosswalk, she said. Higgins expressed concern that the city would be suddenly adding a lot of additional cyclists. About the city’s readiness for a bike share system, “I don’t think we’re there, yet,” Higgins said. Cooper ventured that the bike share program is another point of contact for additional educational efforts.

Higgins responded to Cooper by saying that handing someone a pamphlet doesn’t educate them about what they need to do. She thought users of the bike share system should have to pass a test. Petersen indicated she’s not concerned about educating cyclists, because they know their risks. Instead, Petersen said she’s concerned about the education of motorists.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) stated that he thinks it’s a good program. Matt Sandstrom from the CEC fielded some questions. Anglin asked if helmets are required to use the bike share system. That’s a tricky question, Sandstrom replied. He pointed out that helmets are not required by law in Michigan. Education about helmets could be placed on the bike station kiosks, he suggested. CEC would be pro-helmet, Sandstrom said.

Anglin asked if most of the users are anticipated to be younger. Not necessarily, Sandstrom replied.

Kunselman picked up the idea of education, saying that education needs to be taking place in schools. He asked if anyone remembered the rule about bicycles needing to give an audible signal before overtaking a pedestrian. He also pointed out that pedestrians don’t follow the rules of the road, either. This isn’t about education, but rather about bike sharing, Kunselman said. It’ll be the first in the state, he said.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the $150,000 allocation over two years to support the bike sharing program. Dissenting were Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Repeal of “Stand Your Ground”

A resolution added to the agenda on Tuesday before the Thursday meeting called upon the state legislature to repeal Michigan’s version of a “stand your ground” law, as well as to repeal legislation that prevents local municipalities from regulating the sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of firearms and ammunition. [.pdf of Self Defense Act 309 of 2006] [Firearms and Ammunition Act 319 of 1990]

The resolution cited an “outpouring of local voices calling for the repeal of Michigan’s Stand Your Ground Law,” that were heard following the mid-July verdict in the Trayvon Martin case. That included public commentary at the council’s July 15, 2013 meeting as well as subsequent public demonstrations.

The Trayvon Martin case involved an African American youth, Martin, who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. Zimmerman was found not guilty of the crime, based on Florida’s “stand your ground” law.

Repeal of “Stand Your Ground”: Public Commentary

Lefiest Galimore led off public commentary at the start of the meeting with remarks on the topic of the resolution about the “stand your ground” legislation. He offered his greeting so the mayor, the council, and other Ann Arbor citizens. He mentioned that he’d addressed the council at its previous meeting on this issue, as something they should take seriously. He noted that the meeting had just begun with a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the phrase, “And justice for all.” Galimore contended that “stand your ground” laws allow individuals to interpret for themselves what justice means. As a citizen in the community, Galimore said, he felt he deserved the council’s support. He said he could be subjected to someone’s interpretation of what the “stand your ground” law means. He felt that if the council would support the resolution, it could be added to the support of other local units of government and be presented to state legislators. He urged councilmembers to support the resolution. Galimore’s remarks generated applause from the roughly two dozen people standing in support of his comments.

Blaine Coleman characterized “stand your ground” laws as licenses to hunt black men and black boys. It’s a sad thing, he said, that in 2013 black people have to come to a city council and ask: “Please don’t shoot us.” That’s an elementary demand that should have been fulfilled several hundred years ago, he said. Speaking only for himself, he said, he felt that the city council should go further, by passing a resolution urging $1 trillion to be spent on Detroit and every inner city. It’s easy for the U.S. Congress to cut a check for $1 trillion for a war in Iraq or Afghanistan, he said. And it’s easy to cut a check to bail out “Wall Street gamblers.” It should be equally easy to cut a check to rebuild Detroit and every inner city. It’s an elementary thing that should not require hand-wringing or complex decision making. Detroit was robbed over a period of a half century, he said, along with other inner cities. So they need to be rebuilt, Coleman concluded.

Mozhgan Savabieasfahani offered her perspective on racism in America – as someone from the Middle East, who had watched that area of the world be “plundered” with U.S. invasion and occupation. She characterized Trayvon Martin’s death as a lynching on the streets of America. The laws of this country don’t protect people of color, she said. That tells everyone in the world that racism is alive and well in the United States, and that racists will not see justice, she said. She described a protest during the Ann Arbor art fairs by some African American University of Michigan students. They had chanted, “Racism killed Trayvon,” and people of color had responded with cheers, but many white observers responded, “No, it didn’t.” She said that we’d do well do look inside ourselves and see how our laws promote racism, and then to change those laws.

Lucia Heinold also spoke in favor of the resolution on repealing “stand your ground” in Michigan. She introduced herself as a voter in Ward 5, so she thanked Chuck Warpehoski and Mike Anglin for sponsoring the resolution. She was impressed by the hard work that went into writing the resolution. It’s so easy to possess a gun that when you stand your ground, it’s quite possible that the person standing their ground will have a gun, she said. She said that Michigan’s law threw out centuries of common law that held that if people could not agree, then they should retreat. Heinold also contended that the evidence is that these types of laws are enforced in a disparate way, with people of color convicted disproportionately. She called Michigan’s “stand your ground” law the latest version of Jim Crow laws.

Repeal of “Stand Your Ground”: Council Deliberations

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) led off deliberations by thanking Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) for his hard work getting the resolution ready. She referred to the public commentary at the previous council meeting. She said she was aware that the council would face criticism for bringing a national issue to the city council agenda. So she wanted to make sure residents understood why the resolution is relevant. Part of her remarks included the statement that we don’t live in a post-racial society. There are groups that are still profiled, stalked and killed because they belong to a stigmatized minority group, she said. The 911 call transcripts, she said, clearly showed that the police did not want George Zimmerman to follow Trayvon Martin. But people like Zimmerman felt that the “stand your ground” law empowers them to take the law into their own hands, she noted.

A so-called self-defense law, Kailasapathy continued, turns into a “license to kill” in the hands of vigilantes. The reason the Trayvon Martin case had drawn national attention, Kailasapathy said, is that it showed the consequence of racial profiling and stereotyping and the inability of the courts to provide justice. Michigan’s version of the “stand your ground” law is flawed in a similar way to Florida’s law, she said – in that it condones the use of deadly violence, even when there’s an opportunity to retreat. By nullifying the common law duty to retreat, she said, it effectively removes any reasonable constraint on self-defense. Kailasapathy concluded: “Historically, African Americans have been oppressed – economically, culturally, socially, legally. We need to put a stop to this history of oppression now, and we as a city council should pass this resolution.”

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) thanked Kailasapathy and Warpehoski for the work they’d done to produce the language of the resolution. She described herself as someone who’s “not big on guns.” The idea that guns could be used in the way that Michigan’s “stand your ground” law allows had not occurred to her and was “news to her.” She said that someone who’s in fear for their life has a right to defend themselves, but someone who simply feels intimidated in a public place still has the ability to walk away. And that ability to walk away is something that should be encouraged, Briere said.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). In the background is Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Warpehoski thanked Kailasapathy and Briere. The more he’d looked into “stand your ground” laws, the more disturbed he’d become, he said. Such laws do not reduce property crime rates, but rather increase murder rates, he said. The application of the laws has a disparate impact. He characterized the burden on prosecutors in connection with such laws as unreasonably high. He hoped the resolution would be heard by legislators in Lansing as more than just an editorial comment.

Mayor John Hieftje thanked the sponsors of the resolution for their work. He allowed that it might not sway a lot of people in the state capitol. He supported especially the second resolved clause on gun laws.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) told her colleagues that she’d be consistent as she has been for 14 years in opposing this kind of resolution. She contended that it’s a much more powerful message for individuals to send the message, instead of the city council. The legislature isn’t really listening to the Ann Arbor city council, she said. So individuals would have the potential to have a stronger impact. While she shared the sentiments in the resolution, she did not know that everyone in the city feels the same way about the resolution.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) would support the resolution, but cautioned that there’s a lot more going on in the world than we realize. He’d visited the Washtenaw County clerk’s office a few times in the last few months, he said, [submitting campaign finance reports, for example] and remarked on the lines of people coming in to get concealed weapons permits, saying it was “breathtaking.”

Continuing on that theme, Kunselman said: “It’s disturbing. It makes me wonder: Why don’t we all just get them? … I’m sure we all know somebody who has a concealed weapons permit. I think we should be talking to them: Why do they have them? I know that I’ve thought about getting one, just for sitting here, because of the concerns that I have – but I haven’t.” Some kidding from other councilmembers ensued, as they told him that now he would need one. He responded by saying, “I’ll walk away.”

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) acknowledged Higgins’ point of view, but said the resolved clause about gun laws moved her. She called it a public safety issue, and noted that public safety was a priority that the council had adopted as a budget priority. Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she appreciated everyone’s work on the resolution and said it’s the kind of issue that had prompted her to get involved in politics 13 years ago. She expressed some skepticism, however, that it would have any effect.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) appreciated Higgins’ point of view. She said the council needs to be cautious about venturing down this path – sending messages on issues that the council was not elected to address. However, she felt differently about this one. She agreed with Petersen that the resolution speaks to the issue of public safety. She said that local control over firearms is a good thing. So she was comfortable sending this message to the state legislature.

Outcome: The council voted to pass the resolution calling on the repeal of Michigan’s “stand your ground” law, with dissent from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Kerrytown Place: Rezoning, Site Plans

The council was asked to give final approval for two rezoning requests in connection with Kerrytown Place development. The council had given initial approval to the requests at its July 1, 2013 meeting. The two parts of the project – one fronting Main Street and the other Fourth Avenue – were treated separately for the purposes of the rezoning request. In both cases, the requested rezoning is from PUD (planned unit development district) to D2 (downtown interface base district).

3D rendering from site plan submitted for Kerrytown Place – the view from Main Street.

The 18-unit townhouse project that developer Tom Fitzsimmons is planning to build is much smaller than The Gallery, for which the PUD zoning had originally been approved at the request of a different owner. The city planning commission gave Kerrytown Place a unanimous recommendation of approval at its May 21, 2013 meeting. On the North Main Street side, the project would include a 16-unit townhouse building with an underground parking garage, 12 carport parking spaces and 24 surface parking spaces. On the North Fourth site – now a surface parking lot – the plan calls for constructing a duplex with a 2-car garage for each unit and a 21-space parking lot. Each unit of the duplex would face North Fourth Avenue.

The corresponding site plans for each part of the project had corresponding agenda items. As part of the development agreement, the project must achieve the disconnection of five footing drains from the sanitary sewer system elsewhere in the city. The city has temporarily suspended part of footing drain disconnection program, but the developer mitigation offset portion of that program remains in place.

No one spoke at any of the four public hearings related to this project.

Kerrytown Place: Council Deliberations

The agenda was altered to group the rezoning items with their corresponding site plan approvals. Deliberations were scant. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) called the development an appropriate scale for the neighborhood.

Tom Fitzsimmons, developer of the Kerrytown Place project.

She encouraged support for the “downzoning.” Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked planning manager Wendy Rampson how much it’s costing the petitioner to go through the process of rezoning.

The background to Kunselman’s question was that he’d put forward a resolution for a council-initiated rezoning of the parcel, which was voted down by other councilmembers a year earlier on Aug. 20, 2012. At that time, the parcel was in the hands of the Washtenaw County treasurer, as a result of a foreclosure proceeding.

Rampson responded to Kunselman’s question by venturing that it might be costing developer Tom Fitzsimmons around $20,000.

About the site plans, Briere characterized it as an opportunity for the council to approve a site plan that’s completely supported by the people who live in the area.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the rezoning for the Kerrytown Place project, as well as the site plans – on four separate votes.

Waldenwood Sidewalk Design Budget

The council was asked to approve a $10,000 design budget for a sidewalk to fill in a gap from the northeast corner of Penberton Ct. and Waldenwood northward to connect to the path leading the rest of the way to the King Elementary School.

In its form, the resolution was similar to other sidewalk design budgets the council has been asked to approve in recent months. [For example, the council has approved similar design budgets for a sidewalk on Barton Drive at its July 15, 2013, a sidewalk on Newport Road at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting, and for a sidewalk on Scio Church Road at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting.]

Waldenwood sidewalk gap. Green indicates existing sidewalks. Red indicates a sidewalk gap. Blue stars indicate signers of a petition in support of the sidewalk.

However, the sidewalk gap near King Elementary School includes a history of advocacy by nearby resident and former Ann Arbor Public Schools board member Kathy Griswold dating back to 2009.

For students crossing Waldenwood from the west to attend school, the segment of sidewalk would allow them to make the crossing at the intersection, where there is a four-way stop – instead of crossing the street using a mid-block crosswalk. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, “The Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) Transportation Safety Committee has agreed the use of a new crosswalk at this stop controlled location would be preferable over the existing mid-block crossing at the school entrance.”

From the fall of 2009 through the spring of 2010, Griswold addressed the council on at least nine occasions on the topic of the King school crosswalk and the related sidewalk gap. The construction of a sidewalk had been met with opposition by the immediately adjoining property owners. The funding of new sidewalks – as contrasted with repair of existing sidewalks – is typically achieved at least partly through a special assessment on adjoining property owners. Sidewalk repair – but not new construction – can be paid for with the city’s sidewalk repair millage.

Waldenwood Sidewalk: Council Deliberations

The proposed sidewalk location is in Ward 2. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) led off deliberations by saying she was happy to see this come to the council in a formal process, noting that it has been debated since 2009. Petersen stated that the AAPS safety committee minutes from that era don’t indicate clearly that the group endorsed moving the crosswalk from mid-block to the four-way stop. City traffic engineer Pat Cawley stepped to the podium to offer his recollection of the meeting.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium. She asked if the project would come to a halt if the property owners objected. Hupy indicated that if the council approves the resolution on its agenda, then the city staff would meet with the community and then come back for the second resolution in the special assessment process. Kailasapathy confirmed with Hupy that it’s a council decision, not one made by the adjoining property owners. Hupy indicated there are three chances to kill the project along the way in the special assessment process. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) got additional confirmation that the property owner can’t kill the project.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanked staff for their work. She asked how residents would be notified for the next step. Hupy explained that they’d be mailed a meeting notice. He ventured that there could be more than one meeting. Lumm noted that it would have made sense to undertake the sidewalk construction when Waldenwood was recently repaved. She indicated that she was glad that this is going through a formal process.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for the approximate timeline for the project. Hupy couldn’t speak to exact details, but characterized it as a relatively simple project from an engineering and design perspective. The time-consuming part for this project would be the public engagement portion of the project, Hupy said. He thought it might come back to the council by late winter or spring of 2014.

Briere ventured that the sidewalk could be constructed by the start of school in the fall of 2014. Hupy allowed that might be possible.

Petersen said she thought the property owners wouldn’t be special-assessed because it’s on their rear lot lines. Hupy indicated that Petersen had picked up on the fact that there’s likely not anything that will be special-assessable in the project.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the design budget for the Waldenwood sidewalk.

Greenbelt

Two items appeared on the council’s agenda in connection with the city’s greenbelt: acceptance of a federal grant, and the appointment of a new member to the greenbelt advisory commission.

Greenbelt: $202,370 from FRPP

At its Feb. 19, 2013 meeting, the council had approved an application to the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) for the purchase of development rights on two properties in Lodi Township – the 78-acre Donald Drake Farm on Waters Road in Lodi Township, and for a 90-acre property owned by Carol Schumacher on Pleasant Lake Road in Lodi Township.

Properties currently protected through the Ann Arbor greenbelt program (smaller green areas) in the context of the greenbelt boundary (larger squarish region). (Data from the city of Ann Arbor mapped by The Chronicle on Aug. 3, 2013 with geocommons.com)

The city of Ann Arbor was notified recently that for the two properties, a total of $202,370 in matching dollars had been approved to fund the purchase of development rights – $50,960 for the Drake property and $151,410 for the Schumacher land. The council was asked to authorize the receipt of the federal matching funds.

The award of FRPP money comes in the context of the city’s greenbelt program, supported by a 0.5 mill tax approved by voters to acquire development rights on land to preserve open space.

Lodi Township covers the southwest corner of the greenbelt boundary area.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) got confirmation that the issue would come back before the council for approval of the actual purchase of development rights, when all the funding sources are identified. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, responded to Lumm’s questions by saying that in the past, Lodi Township has contributed to the acquisition of development rights. Smith was filling in for community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl. Lumm said she looked forward to possible participation from Lodi.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to authorize the receipt of the federal farmland protection money.

Greenbelt: Appointment to GAC

The appointment of John Ramsburgh to the greenbelt advisory commission had been postponed from the council’s July 15 meeting, which is customary for appointments to GAC. It’s one of the few boards or commissions whose members are nominated by the city council, not the mayor. The usual two-step process associated with appointments – nomination at one council meeting followed by confirmation at the subsequent meeting – is mirrored for GAC appointments by postponing action on a resolution appointing a representative until the following meeting.

Ramsburgh is a development officer with the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science & the Arts. He also is the son of Ellen Ramsburgh, a long-time member of the Ann Arbor historic district commission, and its former chair. He is filling a position previously held by Dan Ezekiel, who was term limited.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously, without discussion, to appoint John Ramsburgh to GAC. Appointments to GAC are for three years.

Public Art Administrator Contract

The council was asked to appropriate funds to pay for public art administrator Aaron Seagraves’ contract through the end of 2013. The amendment brings his total compensation for the period from June 11, 2011 through Dec. 31, 2013 to $48,900. The specific projects mentioned in the resolution, which require administrative work, are artwork in the Kingsley rain garden, Argo Cascades, and the East Stadium Blvd. bridges.

From left: Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Sally Petersen (Ward 2), and Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by saying she could imagine people asking why the city has a public art administrator, if the city doesn’t have a Percent for Art program any longer. She explained the need for a public art administrator by pointing out there’s old and new business to address. There’s the old business of artwork at the Kingsley rain garden, Argo Cascades, and East Stadium bridges. There’s also a need to address the new business of integrating the new public art program – which is not based on a 1% allocation from every capital improvement project – into the capital improvements program.

Public services area administrator Craig Hupy, who supervises Seagraves, explained to Briere that the reason that the contract extension goes through the end of the year is to allow for a bridge between the old Percent for Art program and the new program.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) noted that an issue had come up when she and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had attempted an amendment to the new public art ordinance that would have allowed money set aside for public art in previous years to be returned to its funds of origin. Kailasapathy said she really had a problem with the resolution, so she wouldn’t support it.

Lumm also said she had a problem with the resolution. She said she’d tried at every point to discontinue the Percent for Art program. Instead of returning the $800,000 in unspent funds, the council had decided to maintain a public art “slush fund,” she contended. She didn’t think that the council should continue to “throw good money after bad.” She would not support the continued spending on Percent for Art projects.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) asked why $18,500 was being appropriated for the public art administrator’s compensation, but $20,500 is the amount in the resolution. Hupy described miscellaneous supplies as accounting for the $2,000. Hupy pointed out that the information was provided in answers to the council’s caucus questions.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) indicated she’d support the resolution – because she wants the area around the Dreiseitl sculpture outside city hall to become ADA compliant. Kailasapathy asked why a public art administrator would be handling ADA compliance. City administrator Steve Powers responded by saying that hasn’t been decided yet.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) calculated that the public art administrator is being paid only $20/hour. He called that a bargain. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he’d support the allocation, because it’s a small amount. But he cautioned that he might not vote to support spending the money on the remaining Percent for Art projects in the pipeline. He said the pressure is on the public art commission to bring forward a high quality piece of art. Kunselman could say right then that he’s not going to vote to spend money on “anything that’s hanging from a light pole.” That was a reference to the recommended project for the East Stadium bridges location, proposed by artist Catherine Widgery and recommended by a task force.

Briere asked what would happen if the council voted not to spend the money on the East Stadium bridges location. Would the money revert to the public art fund? Powers responded to Briere’s question by saying that’s for the council to decide. The council could say to the public art commission, “Try again,” Powers said. Briere pointed out that the council would still need to amend the city’s public art ordinance in order to return public art funds to their funds of origin.

Mayor John Hieftje supported the resolution, saying that it’s necessary to have administrative support for the art program. Margie Teall (Ward 4) reiterated that point – that a successful art program requires an administrator. Teall said that residents do see the value of public art, and having an administrator is vital.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) stated that there was a common understanding, if not a unanimous one, that a transition from the old program to the new program would need to be funded. He called for honoring the effort that had gone into this.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the contract extension for the public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, over dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Appointments, Nominations

Pending a possible council rule change that would slot mayoral appointments and nominations to boards and commissions earlier in the meeting, those items still come near the end of the meeting. The council will vote on the rule change at its Sept. 3, 2013 meeting.

Appointments

The council was asked to confirm mayoral nominations made at the previous council meeting on July 15: Sue Perry to the Elizabeth Dean Fund committee; and Evan Nichols to the zoning board of appeals.

Outcome: The council voted to confirm Perry and Nichols.

Nominations

Highlights from nominations for boards and commissions added on Aug. 6 include Rishi Narayan to replace Leah Gunn on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Narayan is founder and managing member of Underground Printing, which offers screenprinting of apparel in more than a dozen cities nationwide. Narayan made the Crain’s Detroit Business “Twenty in their 20s” list in 2010 as a 28-year-old.

Mayor John Hieftje before the start of the Aug. 8 meeting. Nominations are printed out on pink sheets for councilmembers.

Jack Bernard is being nominated to the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. When the AAATA articles of incorporation were changed recently to add the city of Ypsilanti as a member, the board was expanded from seven to nine members. One of the two additional seats is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. Gillian Ream was appointed to that spot. Bernard’s appointment would fill the additional slot appointed by the city of Ann Arbor.

Bernard is a lecturer in the University of Michigan law school and an attorney with UM’s office of the vice president and general counsel. He is also currently chair of the university’s council for disability concerns. Given the nature of wrangling over Eric Mahler’s recent appointment to the AAATA board, Bernard’s chairship of that group could be a key qualification. Some councilmembers objected to Mahler’s appointment, arguing that someone who could represent the disability community should be appointed instead.

Mayor John Hieftje did not offer explanations for any of the nominations he put forward at the Aug. 8 meeting.

Originally slated on the agenda to replace Newcombe Clark on the board of the Ann Arbor DDA was Al McWilliams. However, the final version of the agenda did not include his name. Al McWilliams is founder of Quack!Media, an ad agency located in downtown Ann Arbor. Quack!Media lists the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority on its website as one of its clients. McWilliams has written advocacy pieces for bicycling on his blog.

Originally slated for nomination to serve on the public art commission was Jeff Hayner. But the final version of the nomination list did not include his name. He has filed petitions to run for the Ward 1 city council seat. The Ward 1 city council ballot for November will include incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere, and independents Hayner and Jaclyn Vresics.

The nominations put forward on Aug. 8 will be put before the council for a confirmation vote on Aug. 19.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Video Privacy, Surveillance

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Meghan Clark introduced herself as a resident of Ward 1. She’s also a PhD student in computer science at the University of Michigan, she said. She addressed the video privacy ordinance, which the council had voted down at a recent meeting. She characterized the rejected law as requiring a democratic process to be followed before long-term video surveillance cameras could be installed. Technology is advancing faster than the law, she said. She held up a small device in her hand, explaining that it was a camera capable of high resolution, equivalent to HD video.

Clark also held up a Raspberry Pi, which is a computer capable of running advanced computer vision libraries. And the whole system could be powered with a cell phone charger. The components she had described, she continued, could be purchased online for about $60. A friend of hers in Washington D.C. runs a user group on drones, which has 471 active members. Police departments in 13 states have applied for, and in some cases received, FAA licenses to use drones for police work.

“Surveillance technology is here,” Clark said, but the legal predisposition to protect privacy is not. Privacy means having input into what happens to your personal information, Clark said. She was disappointed that the council rejected the video privacy ordinance. As a computer scientist and a citizen, she said, she was frightened. So she encouraged the council to pursue the suggestion that Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had made at the July 1 meeting, to at least develop policy guidelines for the future.

Comm/Comm: North Main Huron River Task Force

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported on the North Main Huron River task force. The due date of July 31 for a final report hadn’t been met, she said. She conveyed an apology from the task force. She expected the report will be completed by the end of August.

Comm/Comm: Planning Commission Update

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who represents the city council on the planning commission, announced a meeting of the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC) the following Tuesday, Aug. 13. A planning commission work session to start at 7 p.m. would be followed by an ORC meeting – to discuss the review of D1 (downtown core) zoning – at 8 p.m. The ORC meeting would run concurrently with a planning commission committee meeting on the non-motorized plan revision.

Comm/Comm: Disabilities Survey

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) called attention to a survey on disabilities being conducted by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR).

Comm/Comm: Housing Commission Update

Margie Teall (Ward 4), who serves as liaison from the council to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, gave an update on the AAHC. The weatherization at Hikone is done, she reported, and the window replacements for tenants are done at Baker Commons. A non-smoking policy will be implemented at all the housing commission properties, she said.

Comm/Comm: Argo Cascades

City administrator Steve Powers reported that usage at Argo Cascades is up over 50% for July compared to July last year.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, Aug. 19, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

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

3D rendering from site plan submitted for Kerrytown Place – the view from Main Street.

The council had given initial approval to the rezoning requests at its July 1, 2013 meeting. The two parts of the project – one fronting Main Street and the other Fourth Avenue – are treated separately for the purposes of the rezoning requests. In both cases, the requested rezoning is from PUD (planned unit development district) to D2 (downtown interface base district). The 18-unit townhouse development that Fitzsimmons is planning to build is much smaller than The Gallery, for which the PUD zoning had originally been approved at the request of a different owner. The city planning commission gave a unanimous recommendation of approval at its May 21, 2013 meeting.

On the North Main Street side, the project would include a 16-unit townhouse building with an underground parking garage, 12 carport parking spaces and 24 surface parking spaces. On the North Fourth site – now a surface parking lot – the plan calls for constructing a duplex with a 2-car garage for each unit and a 21-space parking lot. Each unit of the duplex would face North Fourth Avenue. The corresponding site plans for each part of the project were also on the Aug. 8 agenda.

To receive a certificate of occupancy, the project will need to complete five footing drain disconnections elsewhere in the city – as part of the city’s ongoing footing drain disconnection (FDD) program, which was partially suspended in city council action taken on Sept. 17, 2012. The developer offset mitigation portion of the program continues, however. Recent projects like 413 E. Huron (now approved) and the Glendale condominium project (currently pending with the city planning commission) include required footing drain disconnections by developers.

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

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

The council’s agenda for Thursday includes a relatively uncontroversial downtown development project. It’s also dominated by several items that relate to the way people move around inside the city. Some other agenda items relate to land outside the city.

Four different items appear on the council’s agenda related to developer Tom Fitzsimmons’ Kerrytown Place project – an 18-unit townhouse development proposed for the site of the former Greek Orthodox church on North Main Street. Nestled between Main Street on the west and Fourth Avenue on the east, the project is divided into two pieces – the Main Street frontage and Fourth Avenue frontage. Each piece of the project includes a rezoning request and a site plan proposal – and each of those constitutes an agenda item unto itself. The rezoning requested is from PUD (planned unit development) to D2 (downtown interface).

Three items relate to a piece of infrastructure closely associated with people walking as a way to get around town – sidewalks. Two resolutions involve the acceptance by the city of easements for sidewalks – one as part of a mid-block cut-through for The Varsity, a residential high-rise downtown, and the other in connection with a Safe Routes to School project near Clague Middle School on the city’s northwest side. Another sidewalk on the agenda with a school-related theme is a request for the council to approve a $10,000 design budget for about 160 feet of new sidewalk near King Elementary School, which would allow for a mid-block crosswalk to be moved to a four-way stop intersection.

More people might be able to get around the downtown and University of Michigan campus area by bicycle – if the council approves the use of $150,000 from the alternative transportation fund as requested on Thursday’s agenda. The money would provide the local match on a $600,000 federal grant obtained by the Clean Energy Coalition to establish a bike-sharing program through B-Cycle.

Getting around inside the city this fall will include the annual wrinkles due to University of Michigan move-in – and those traffic control measures are included in the council’s consent agenda. New this year will be additional traffic controls around Michigan Stadium on football game days – including the closure of Main Street between Pauline and Stadium Blvd. for a period starting three hours before kickoff until the end of the game. At its Thursday meeting, the council will be asked to give approval of the football game day traffic controls.

In matters outside the city, the council will be asked to authorize the receipt of $202,370 from the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) to help the city purchase of development rights on land in Lodi Township, southwest of the city. That federal grant comes in connection with the city’s greenbelt program. The council will also be asked to confirm the nomination of John Ramsburgh to the greenbelt advisory commission.

Also on the council’s agenda is the extension of a contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator through the end of the year – to handle projects in the works at locations the Kingsley rain garden, East Stadium bridges, and Argo Cascades.

Added to the agenda late, on Tuesday, is a resolution that calls upon the state legislature to repeal Michigan’s version of a “stand your ground” law as well as to repeal legislation that prevents local municipalities from regulating the sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of firearms and ammunition. The agenda item comes in response to public commentary after the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case was handed down in mid-July.

Details of other meeting agenda items are available on the city’s Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article “below the fold.” The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

6:54 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. Councilmembers who’ve arrived in council chambers so far are Stephen Kunselman, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, and Marcia Higgins.

7:08 p.m. Pledge of allegiance, moment of silence and the roll call of council. All councilmembers are present.

7:08 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Six people are signed up tonight for public commentary reserved time. Of those, three are described on the agenda as speaking on the bike share agenda item – which asks the council to approve a $150,000 expenditure from the city’s alternative transportation fund in support of a bike share initiative in downtown and the University of Michigan campus area. Speakers signed up to speak on the bike share item are listed on the agenda as Lucia Heinold, Jeff Hayner, and Lefiest Galimore. Heinold and Galimore, however, will be speaking on the resolution calling for a repeal of Michigan’s “stand your ground” law. Others who are signed up to speak on the “stand your ground” item include Mozhgan Savabieasfahni and Blaine Coleman. The sixth person signed up to speak is Meghan Clark – on the topic of surveillance and privacy.

7:12 p.m. Lefiest Galimore is now holding forth. He quotes the pledge of allegiance: “And justice for all.” He asks the council to support the repeal of “stand your ground” law. His remarks get applause from the roughly two dozen people standing in support of his remarks.

7:15 p.m. Jeff Hayner is speaking in support of the bike sharing program. He describes his participation in the first attempt at a bike sharing program several years ago, where bikes were simply provided for free, which he describes as “not turning out so well.” He argues for the bike share funding support based on the amount of grant funds that it will leverage. He allows that it doesn’t serve the outlying neighborhoods, but argues that the University of Michigan is also bearing the lion’s share of the costs. He calculates the city’s cost at about $300 per bike per year.

7:21 p.m. Blaine Coleman characterizes “stand your ground” laws as hunting licenses for black people. They should not have to appear before a city council and ask: “Please don’t shoot us,” Coleman says. He calls for the council in the future to pass a resolution calling for $1 trillion of support for the city of Detroit.

Savabieasfahni offers her perspective on racism in America. She characterizes Trayvon Martin’s death as a lynching on the streets of America. The laws of this country don’t protect people of color, she says. She describes a protest during the art fairs by University of Michigan students during which they chanted, “Racism killed Trayvon,” and many white observers responded, “No, it didn’t.” She says we’d do well do look inside ourselves and see how our laws promote racism and to change those laws.

7:24 p.m. Meghan Clark describes how a sophisticated surveillance system can be constructed for about $60. Surveillance technology is here, she says. Privacy means having input into what happens to your personal information. She’s disappointed that the council rejected the video privacy ordinance. She encourages the council to pursue the suggestion that Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had made to at least develop policy guidelines.

7:26 p.m. Lucia Heinold is now speaking in favor of the resolution on “stand your ground.” The evidence is that these laws are enforced in a disparate way, she said, with people of color convicted disproportionately.

7:27 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three 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.

7:28 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reports on the North Main Huron River task force. The due date of July 31 won’t be met for the final report she says. She conveys an apology from the task force. She expects it will be completed by the end of August. Briere announces a meeting of the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee next Tuesday.

7:32 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) calls attention to a survey on disabilities. Margie Teall (Ward 4) gives an update from the Ann Arbor housing commission. The weatherization at Hikone is done. The window replacements for tenants are done at Baker Commons, Teall reports. A non-smoking policy will be implemented at all the housing commission properties. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) announces an effort by a church to make the city aware of some of their concerns. City administrator Steve Powers had attended, Anglin says.

7:33 p.m. Powers reminds the public of the groundbreaking for the skatepark at noon tomorrow, at Veterans Memorial Park. Argo Cascades usage is dramatically up in July compared to July last year, Powers reports.

7:33 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. Four of the five hearings tonight relate to the Kerrytown Place project being proposed by developer Tom Fitzsimmons for the location on North Main Street where the former Greek Orthodox church stood. The project is divided into two parts – the Main Street frontage and the Fourth Avenue frontage. Each part includes a request for rezoning – from PUD (planned unit development) to D2 (downtown interface) – and a separate site plan. For each rezoning request and for each site plan, a separate public hearing is held. The council gave initial approval to the requests at its July 1, 2013 meeting.

The other public hearing is on a change to the ordinance governing the employee retirement system – to reflect some recently negotiated changes to the contracts with two of the police unions.

7:34 p.m. No one speaks at the public hearing on the retirement ordinance. Thomas Partridge is not in attendance tonight.

7:35 p.m. No one speaks at any of the Kerrytown Place public hearings.

7:35 p.m. Minutes and 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. Tonight’s consent agenda includes five items, three of which relate to street closings:

• A purchase order not to exceed $85,000 with SEHI Computers for replacement of computers. The amount is to cover 60 desktops and 20 laptops for a proposed cost of $75,648. The $85,000 figure includes a contingency of 12% ($9,351).
• A $32,977 professional services agreement for testing of the road materials for the Packard Street resurfacing project (from Anderson to Kimberly). Construction is scheduled for fall 2013, from August through October.
• Resolution approving a street closure on South University Avenue between Washtenaw and Forest, for “Beats, Eats, and Cleats” – an event sponsored by The Landmark Building. The event is Friday, Sept. 6, 2013.
• Resolution approving changes to traffic patterns and parking in connection with University of Michigan student move-in – from Aug. 28-30. This is an annual approval.
• Resolution approving closure of South Main Street between Huron and Liberty, and Washington Street between South Ashley and the alley on East Washington toward South Fourth Avenue – for “Dancing in the Streets.” The closure lasts from noon to 7:30 p.m. on Sunday, Sept. 1, 2013.

7:45 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Briere asks for separate consideration of the Beats, Eats and Cleats street closures and the Dancing in the Streets items. Briere says that she’s concerned that this street closure will be taking place on the evening before a football game. Mayor John Hieftje shares her concern.

Police chief John Seto said he wasn’t aware of a general policy, saying that they’re considered on a case-by-case basis. He noted that it’s the night before the UM-Notre Dame football game. He allowed he had some concerns, after weighing the things he knows against the things that he doesn’t know. Petersen wonders if World of Beer will be serving beer. Hieftje says he doesn’t see much difference between having a beer tent and serving alcohol at a bar. He reiterates that he has some concerns.

Kunselman asks if there’d be a difference in the police presence, if the event takes place. Seto says the sponsor of the event intends to provide private security. Kunselman asks about a comparison to Mud Bowl. Seto indicates that’s a morning event and there’s historically no street closures associated with that event. Kunselman inquires about a “pep rally.” He said that he can’t support it.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) says she appreciates everyone’s comments. She asks what “inflatable boxing” is. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith is fielding questions. He’s not certain what inflatable boxing is. Teall says she also won’t support this street closing.

7:47 p.m. Teall is continuing to argue against the street closure based on the liability it seems to introduce. Hieftje ventures that a Tuesday night would be better. Teall allows that a different time would be better.

7:47 p.m. Outcome: The street closing for Beats, Eats, and Cleats is unanimously denied by the council.

7:49 p.m. Outcome: The Dancing in the Streets street closure is approved. The consent agenda is now dispatched.

7:49 p.m. Retirement ordinance. The council is being asked to give final approval of a change to the ordinance governing the city employees retirement system to reflect changes negotiated with two of the police unions – the police service specialists and the command officers. The staff memo accompanying the ordinance change characterizes the changes as related to “new hires, rehires and transfers between City service units before, on or after July 1, 2013 as well as grammatical corrections where appropriate.” The council gave initial approval to the ordinance change at its July 15 meeting.

7:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to give final approval of the changes to the ordinance on the city employee retirement system.

7:49 p.m. Kerrytown Place rezoning. Final approval for two rezoning requests in connection with Kerrytown Place appear on the council’s agenda. The council gave initial approval to the requests at its July 1, 2013 meeting. The two parts of the project – one fronting Main Street and the other Fourth Avenue – are treated separately for the purposes of the rezoning request. In both cases, the requested rezoning is from PUD (planned unit development district) to D2 (downtown interface base district). The 18-unit townhouse development that developer Tom Fitzsimmons is planning to build is much smaller than The Gallery, for which the PUD zoning had originally been approved at the request of a different owner. The city planning commission gave a unanimous recommendation of approval at its May 21, 2013 meeting.

3D rendering from site plan submitted for Kerrytown Place – the view from Main Street.

On the North Main Street side, the project would include a 16-unit townhouse building with an underground parking garage, 12 carport parking spaces and 24 surface parking spaces. On the North Fourth site – now a surface parking lot – the plan calls for constructing a duplex with a 2-car garage for each unit and a 21-space parking lot. Each unit of the duplex would face North Fourth Avenue. The corresponding site plans for each part of the project have corresponding items later on the agenda.

7:50 p.m. Briere calls it an appropriate scale for the neighborhood. She encourages support for the downzoning.

7:53 p.m. Briere reiterates that it’s considered a “downzoning.” Kunselman says he’ll support it. He asks planning manager Wendy Rampson how much it’s costing the petitioner to go through the process. She looks at Tom Fitzsimmons and ventures that it might be $20,000. She’s going to look it up for him.

7:54 p.m. Briere says it’s another opportunity to approve a site plan that’s completely supported by the people who live in the area.

7:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the rezoning for the Kerrytown Place project as well as the site plans.

7:55 p.m. Appointment to the greenbelt advisory commission (GAC): John Ramsburgh. This item was postponed from the council’s July 15 meeting, which is customary for appointments to GAC. It’s one of the few boards or commissions whose members are nominated by the city council not the mayor. The usual two-step process associated with appointments – nomination at one council meeting followed by confirmation at the subsequent meeting – is mirrored for GAC appointments by postponing action on a resolution appointing a representative until the following meeting.

Ramsburgh is a development officer with the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science & the Arts. He also is the son of Ellen Ramsburgh, a long-time member of the Ann Arbor historic district commission, and its former chair. He is filling a position previously held by Dan Ezekiel, who was term limited.

7:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously without discussion to appoint John Ramsburgh to GAC. Appointments to GAC are for three years.

7:55 p.m. Resolution on Michigan’s “stand your ground” law. This is a resolution added to the agenda on Tuesday, which calls upon the state legislature to repeal Michigan’s version of a “stand your ground” law as well to repeal legislation that prevents local municipalities from regulating sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of firearms and ammunition. [.pdf of Self Defense Act 309 of 2006] [Firearms and Ammunition Act 319 of 1990]

The resolution cites an “outpouring of local voices calling for the repeal of Michigan’s Stand Your Ground Law,” that were heard following the mid-July verdict in the Trayvon Martin case. That included public commentary at the council’s July 15, 2013 meeting as well as subsequent public demonstrations.

8:00 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) thanks Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) for his hard work getting the resolution ready. She references the public commentary at the previous council meeting. She says she knows what criticism people face when a national issue is brought to the city council. She reads aloud written remarks. Part of her remarks includes the statement that we don’t live in a post-racial society. She characterizes “stand your ground laws” as being used as a license to kill.

Briere thanks Kailasapathy and Warpehoski. She describes herself as someone who’s “not big on guns.” The idea that guns could be used in the way that a “stand your ground” law allows had not occurred to her.

8:06 p.m. Warpehoski thanks Kailasapathy and Briere. The more he’d looked into “stand your ground” laws, the more disturbed he was. Such laws do not reduce property crime rates, he says. He characterizes the burden on prosecutors in connection with such laws as unreasonably high.

Hieftje thanks the sponsors of the resolution for their work. He supports the second resolved clause on gun laws. Higgins says she’ll be consistent as she has been for 14 years in opposing this kind of resolution. She says it’s a much more powerful message for individuals to send the message. She doesn’t know that everyone in the city feels the same way about the resolution.

Kunselman will support it, but says that there’s a lot more going on in the world than we realize. He talks about the number of concealed weapons permits that are being processed by the county clerk’s office. He’s thought about getting a concealed weapons permit just sitting at the council table, but stresses that he has not done so.

8:10 p.m. Petersen acknowledges Higgins point of view, but says the resolved clause about gun laws moved her. She calls it a public safety issue. Teall says she appreciates everyone’s work on the resolution and says it’s the kind of issue that had prompted her to get involved in politics 13 years ago. She expresses skepticism that it would have any effect.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) appreciates Higgins’ point of view. She says the council needs to be cautious about venturing down this path – sending messages on issues that the council was not elected to address. However, she felt differently about this one. She agrees with Petersen that it speaks to the issue of public safety. She says that local control over firearms is a good thing. So she was comfortable sending this message to the state legislature.

8:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to pass the resolution calling on the “stand your ground” law, with dissent from Higgins.

8:11 p.m. Acceptance of $202,370 from the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP). The award of FRPP money is in the context of the city’s greenbelt program, supported by a 0.5 mill tax approved by voters to acquire development rights on land to preserve open space.

At its Feb. 19, 2013 meeting, the council had approved an application to the FRPP for the purchase of development rights on two properties in Lodi Township – the 78-acre Donald Drake Farm on Waters Road in Lodi Township, and for a 90-acre property owned by Carol Schumacher on Pleasant Lake Road in Lodi Township. The city of Ann Arbor was notified recently that for the two properties, a total of $202,370 in matching dollars had been approved to fund the purchase of development rights – $50,960 for the Drake property and $151,410 for the Schumacher land.

The council is being asked tonight to authorize the receipt of the federal matching funds. Here’s a map of the properties currently protected through the greenbelt program (smaller green areas) in the context of the greenbelt boundary (larger squarish region). Lodi Township covers the southwest corner of the greenbelt boundary area.

Ann Arbor greenbelt properties. Data from the city of Ann Arbor mapped by The Chronicle on Aug. 3, 2013 with geocommons.com

8:14 p.m. Lumm confirms that the issue will come back before the council when all the funding sources are identified. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, notes that in the past, Lodi Township has contributed to the acquisition of development rights. Lumm says she looks forward to possible participation from Lodi.

8:14 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to authorize the receipt of the federal farmland protection money.

8:14 p.m. Recess. The council is now in recess.

8:23 p.m. The council has returned from recess.

8:23 p.m. Road closures for 2013 UM football games. Unlike the university student move-in traffic changes, which the council approved as part of its consent agenda, this is the first year that the council has been asked to approve street closings around the football stadium on game days.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, it’s part of an effort to increase safety by creating a vehicle-free zone around the stadium, and involves a cooperative effort with the University of Michigan, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the city of Ann Arbor police department. The traffic controls would be in place for the period starting three hours before a game until the end of the game.

Traffic controls include the following: E. Keech Street between S. Main and Greene streets would be closed. Access to Greene Street from E. Hoover to E. Keech streets would be limited to parking permit holders. The westbound lane on E. Stadium Blvd. turning right onto S. Main Street (just south of the Michigan Stadium) would be closed. And S. Main Street would be closed from Stadium Blvd. to Pauline.

UM football game day street closures with detour route (purple).

8:28 p.m. Police chief John Seto gives the background on the issue. He describes it as a request that came from the University of Michigan public safety department. Seto describes how he had requested some modifications before he was comfortable with the request. He describes a community meeting on July 24 and says that many comments and suggestions had been received. Modifications had been proposed. One modification he describes proposing was that southbound lanes of Main Street would be open until one hour before the game start.

8:32 p.m. Higgins says she hasn’t seen the modified proposal. The resolution doesn’t include the modifications. Higgins says she attended the community meeting. She says the city does a great job getting people going south, but not west. Higgins won’t support the street closing. This was brought up at the time that the university renovated the stadium, and UM had decided to build out as close to the street as possible, Higgins said. She wasn’t opposed to closing the right-turn lane on Stadium Blvd. She says she’ll respect her constituents. As an argument against the proposal, she notes that the exact game start times aren’t necessarily known months in advance. She thanks Seto for coming to the meeting. But she says that there should have been a meeting held earlier than two weeks before the council needed to vote.

8:38 p.m. Briere has questions for UM representatives. Ann Arbor is not unique in hosting football games. Do other cities do that? Ohio State University and University of Wisconsin close streets, the UM DPS officer explains. Seto gives more details on game day operations in other cities. Briere confirms that those street closures are due to security concerns.

Kailasapathy asks how closing the street helps to prevent terrorism. Seto says it’s part of what can be done as a “reasonable” approach. A Homeland Security official describes how blast modeling of a small truck laden with explosives could do considerable damage. The recommended street closures were based on that blast modeling, he explains. Kailasapathy ventures that the same truck could come at the end of the game. Why is there a higher threat before the game? she asks. DPS officer explains that just before the game is when the heaviest pedestrian traffic occurs and when the most people are inside the stadium.

8:45 p.m. Seto explains that the idea is to open things up in order to dissipate the crowd as quickly as possible. For some games, he says, the crowd starts to leave early. Petersen wonders why it’s taken three years to implement the recommendations. Higgins points out that East Stadium bridges were closed at the time. Lumm says it’s significant that few complaints were received when street closures were implemented for a nighttime Notre Dame game in 2011.

8:54 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) ventures that the main threat that is supposed to be mitigated is a potential truck bomb. Seto indicates that that is part of the motivation. Taylor inquires about the possible one-hour/three-hour mix of lane closures. Seto explains the balance between asset protection and the interest in getting the crowd to dissipate. The representative from Homeland Security explains that this plan meets the national standards for security for major sporting events.

Anglin asks who pays for the extra measures. The DPS officer explains that the UM athletic department pays. Anglin asks how much the city contributes to the provision of security for football games.

8:57 p.m. Higgins is responding to Anglin’s question by explaining that signs and signals are now paid for by the university. Higgins asks who owns the barricades. The DPS officer explains that the university owns the barricades. They can be moved by two people.

9:07 p.m. Seto recalls how difficult it was to determine the end of the 2011 Notre Dame game, which included overtime periods. He describes the logistical tactics that were used. Higgins has more questions. She says there were many issues associated with the 2011 street closures, that perhaps Seto wasn’t aware of. She stresses that after the first three games the residents want a review of how well things are working. Seto assures Higgins that will be done.

Higgins asks what will happen if it turns out that the logistics aren’t working out. She ventures that the resolution should be modified to reflect that.

Briere asks public services area administrator Craig Hupy to come to the podium. She asks about increased traffic flow in neighborhood streets, citing the possibility of increased deterioration of streets due to added traffic. Hupy indicates that would be minimal compared to the amount of traffic volume over the entire life of the street. Hupy says that the concern is about diminished traffic, which could have a negative impact on the lawn parking that residents enjoy.

9:07 p.m. Lumm now wants to move to amend the resolution to make the closure of the SB lane on South Main restricted to just one hour before the game start.

Outcome on Lumm’s amendment: The amendment passes unanimously.

9:14 p.m. Warpehoski says he lived in Washington D.C. on 9/11. Many people had mourned the increased “locked down” status. Now, however, he weighs the question of “What if I’m wrong?”

Kunselman follows up on the issue of reimbursement by UM for the signs and signals work. Hupy says that when the city has billed the UM, they have been paid. Kunselman says as everyone knows, he works at the university. [Kunselman is a Planet Blue energy conservation liaison.] He calls it a public safety issue. He recalls being able to sneak in through a hole in the fence. It’s a changing world and we have to accommodate the change, Kunselman says. He’ll support the resolution.

9:14 p.m. Briere wants to review the procedures soon enough to take action at the Oct. 7 council meeting. Higgins says that she wants to add a resolved clause that following the first three football games, the AAPD will meet with the neighborhood and bring recommendations to the Oct. 7 meeting. Briere says she’ll support that.

9:22 p.m. Lumm asks Seto to come to the podium. Seto says what’s being asked is doable. He can hear concerns and make suggestions, he said, but there will be certain things he can’t fix. Hieftje asks Seto how easily things could be changed in the middle of the season. Seto expresses confidence that AAPD could be flexible. He gives the Ann Arbor marathon as an example of that. He describes how AAPD often modifies its logistical operations on the fly. Hieftje expressed some concern that the barriers might be taken down too soon. Seto describes the balance that is to be struck.

9:22 p.m. Petersen says that according to her at-home fact checker, three overtimes were not required in the Notre Dame game in 2011 as Seto had said. Instead, it was a play late in the fourth quarter.

The council is “running out the clock” while Higgins crafts amendment language that would require a report to the council at its Oct. 7 meeting.

Outcome: The amendment to include an Oct. 7 report is unanimously approved.

9:25 p.m. Teall says she can’t support the resolution. Petersen calls it common sense. She can think of 114,000 good reasons to support this resolution. She sees it as a public safety issue. The council has now been discussing this for an hour.

9:28 p.m. Lumm is now holding forth. She appreciates the modification of the closure of SB Main to be just one hour before the game start. Higgins responds to comments by Lumm and Petersen about meeting national standards for security. She says that UM needs to think about meeting those standards as it builds out its campus. She somewhat wistfully says that in the future that will be the rest of the council’s problem – an apparent reference to her loss in Tuesday’s primary election.

9:30 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the street closures around the Michigan football stadium on game days. Dissent came from Briere, Teall, Higgins, and Kailasapathy.

9:30 p.m. Bike share program: $150,000. The council is being asked to approve a $150,000 expenditure from the alternative transportation fund in support of an initiative spearheaded by the University of Michigan and the Clean Energy Coalition (CEC) to establish a bike share program on the university campus and in an area west of campus in downtown Ann Arbor. The selected vendor is B-Cycle.

In a bike share program, users get access to bicycles parked at a station by swiping their credit card or membership card. Users can then return the bicycle to another station location near their destination.

Potential specific and general bike share station locations in Ann Arbor. The program would include 12-14 bike share stations with an anticipated total of 120-140 bicycles. The contract to provide the service was won by B-Cycle.

The city’s $150,000 would provide the necessary local match for a $600,000 Federal Highway Administration Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant that the CEC has received. The CMAQ funds have to be spent on capital (bikes and stations). Operations will be supported in the first three years of the program by UM at a level of $200,000 annually for a total of $600,000.

9:34 p.m. Petersen leads off by saying that she has mixed feelings. She says she’s disappointed that there’s not a communications plan for safety in the city’s parks – she’d like more signs on mixed-use paths. She doesn’t feel like the city has the safety infrastructure to support a bike share program. Her vote, she says, will be “not yet.”

Hieftje says that the plan was never to put bike lanes on every downtown street, because the traffic moves slow enough in some places that bicycles can keep up with cars. Briere agrees with Petersen. Signage is great, but she doesn’t think that signage replaces “people paying attention.” Briere is encouraged that UM is a strong financial supporter. She says it’s not about commuting but rather about moving from State and Liberty to the corner of Huron and Main (the Washtenaw County building).

9:41 p.m. Kunselman recalls the bike share program that Jeff Hayner had described during public commentary. They were painted green and were made available, and they disappeared to the far reaches of the city, never to return to the downtown, Kunselman said. He describes the number of abandoned bikes downtown and on the campus that clutter the streets. He says that the bike share program might help to “clean up our streets.”

Kunselman talks about the carrying capacity of the environment. He’s concerned about the fact that the money is coming from the alternative transportation fund, and might be taking away from other needs. Transportation program manager Eli Cooper describes the intended use of the fund as making improvements as well as maintaining non-motorized infrastructures. Kunselman asks for examples of maintenance activities. Cooper says that if anything were to be deferred, then it would be a half-mile of bike lane including signs. That would be postponed for about a year, he said.

Kunselman clarifies that this is “seed money.” That’s right, Cooper said. It’s for capital needs. The UM is contributing operating money. CEC is working on sponsorship revenue and handling fare revenue. Cooper sketches a vision of private cooperation.

Kunselman asks about clutter on downtown sidewalks. He wants to know if the specific locations will require council approval. Cooper indicates that the right-of-way permitting program is authorized by the council, but the individual locations wouldn’t need approval.

9:48 p.m. Cooper responds to Petersen’s concern about adequate signs in the park system. Lumm reports about mishaps in the parks – pedestrians being “slammed into” by bicyclists. She feels that bicyclists are more inclined to commute by bicycle paths. She brings up bells. Hupy says he has a bell on his bike and he’s one of those people who commutes through parks.

Lumm says that obviously a lot of effort has gone into the bike share initiative. She appreciates the responses about the impact of the program on the alternative transportation program. She says it’s appropriate to Ann Arbor. But she’s now expressing skepticism, saying that the city doesn’t prioritize its transportation programs. She objects to the fact that there’s not a long-term plan for the operating expenses – saying that UM’s commitment ends after three years. Still, she says she’ll support the resolution.

9:53 p.m. Warpehoski asks Cooper about the CMAQ grant deadline. Cooper says that there’s a deadline at the end of the federal fiscal year – Sept. 30.

Briere ventures that the council will hear that some of the bicycle lanes are in bad shape. What’s being done to maintain bike lanes? Cooper says he annually does a visual inspection of the entire system. An inventory of the bike lane inspections is available online, he says – it’s part of the city’s Bicycling in A2 website. He describes the citizens request system for repairing potholes.

9:57 p.m. Petersen asks how long it will take before signs will show up in the parks. City administrator Steve Powers indicates he can provide an answer tomorrow. Petersen asks how to get a specific piece of educational literature about what every motorist should know about bike lanes. Cooper lists off various locations where it’s available and ways it’s distributed.

Higgins says she doesn’t think the city has done a good job of educating cyclists. She describes bicyclists who go through red lights. She described encountering a cyclist who was using proper hand signals and discovered that it was Chuck Warpehoski. She oftentimes sees cyclists go up on the sidewalk and use the crosswalk. She expresses concern that the city would be suddenly adding a lot of additional cyclists. “I don’t think we’re there, yet,” Higgins says. Cooper says that the bike share program is another point of contact for additional education.

10:06 p.m. Higgins says that handing someone a pamphlet doesn’t educate them about what they need to do. She thinks users of the bike share system should have to pass a test. Petersen says she’s not concerned about educating cyclists, because they know their risks. Petersen says she’s concerned about education of motorists.

Anglin says he thinks it’s a good program. Matt Sandstrom from the CEC is fielding questions. Anglin asks if helmets are required. That’s a tricky question, Sandstrom says. He points out that helmets are not the law in Michigan. Education about helmets can be placed on kiosks, he said. CEC would be pro-helmet, Sandstrom says.

Anglin asks if most of the users are anticipated to be younger. Not necessarily, Sandstrom says. Kunselman picks up the idea of education. He says that education needs to be taking place in school. He asks if anyone remembers the rule about bicycles needing to give an audible signal before overtaking a pedestrian. This isn’t about education, but rather about bike sharing, he says. It’ll be the first in the state, he says. He points out that pedestrians don’t follow the rules of the road, either.

10:09 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the $150,000 allocation over two years to support the bike sharing program. Dissent came from Petersen and Higgins.

10:09 p.m. Waldenwood sidewalk design budget: $10,000 The council is being asked to approve a design budget for a sidewalk to fill in a gap from the northeast corner of Penberton Court and Waldenwood northward to connect to the path leading the rest of the way to the King Elementary School.

In its form, the resolution is similar to other sidewalk design budgets the council has been asked to approve in recent months. [For example, the council has approved similar design budgets for a sidewalk on Barton Drive at its July 15, 2013 meeting, a sidewalk on Newport Road at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting and for a sidewalk on Scio Church Road at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting.]

However, the sidewalk gap near King School includes a history of advocacy by nearby resident and former Ann Arbor Public Schools board member Kathy Griswold dating back to 2009. For students crossing Waldenwood from the west to attend school, the segment of sidewalk would allow them to make the crossing at the intersection, where there is a four-way stop – instead of crossing the street using a mid-block crosswalk. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, “The Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) Transportation Safety Committee has agreed the use of a new crosswalk at this stop controlled location would be preferable over the existing mid-block crossing at the school entrance.”

Waldenwood sidewalk gap. Green indicates existing sidewalks. Red indicates a sidewalk gap. Blue stars indicate signers of a petition in support of the sidewalk.

From the fall of 2009 through the spring of 2010, Griswold addressed the council on at least nine occasions on the topic of the King School crosswalk and the related sidewalk gap. The construction of a sidewalk had been met with opposition by the immediately adjoining property owners. The funding of new sidewalks – as contrasted with repair of existing sidewalks – is typically achieved at least partly through a special assessment on adjoining property owners. Sidewalk repair – but not new construction – can be paid for with the city’s sidewalk repair millage. In the case of the Waldenwood sidewalk, it’s located to the rear of the residential properties – and the city does not typically special assess properties to finance sidewalks to the rear of a property.

10:17 p.m. Petersen says she’s happy to see this come to the council. It has been debated since 2009, she says. Petersen says that the AAPS safety committee minutes from that era don’t indicate clearly that the group endorsed moving the crosswalk from mid-block to the four-way stop. City traffic engineer Pat Cawley is recalling the specific meeting for Petersen.

Kailasapathy asks public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium. She asks if the project comes to a halt if the property owners object. Hupy says that if the council approves the resolution, then the city staff would meet with the community and then come back for the second resolution in the special assessment process. Kailasapathy confirms that it’s a council decision, not one determined by the adjoining property owners. Hupy indicates there are three chances to kill the project along the way. Kunselman confirms that the property owner can’t kill the project.

10:20 p.m. Lumm thanks staff for their work. She asks how residents will be notified for the next step. Hupy says that they’d be mailed a meeting notice. He ventures that there could be more than one meeting. Lumm noted that it would have made sense to undertake the sidewalk construction when Waldenwood was recently repaved. She indicated that she was glad that this is going through a formal process.

10:26 p.m. Briere asks for the approximate timeline for the project. Hupy says he can’t speak to exact details. It’s a relatively simple project from an engineering and design perspective. The time-consuming part for this project would be the public engagement portion of the project. He ventures that it could come back to the council in late winter or spring of 2014.

Briere ventures that the sidewalk could be constructed by the start of school in the fall of 2014. Hupy allows that might be possible. Petersen said she thought that the property owners wouldn’t be special assessed because it’s on their rear lot lines. Hupy says that Petersen has picked up on the fact that there’s likely not anything that will be assess-able in the project.

10:26 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the design budget for the Waldenwood sidewalk. It needed an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council, because the council’s action altered the city’s budget.

10:27 p.m. Public art administrator contract extension: $18,500. The council is being asked to appropriate funds to pay for public art administrator Aaron Seagraves’ contract through the end of 2013. The amendment brings his total compensation for the period from June 11, 2011 through Dec. 31, 2013 to $48,900. The specific projects mentioned in the resolution, which require administrative work, are the Kingsley rain garden, Argo Cascades, and the East Stadium Blvd. bridges.

10:29 p.m. Briere says she can imagine people asking why the city has a public art administrator, if the city doesn’t have a Percent for Art program. There’s the old business of Kingsley rain garden, Argo Cascades, and Stadium bridges. There’s also a need to address the new business of integrating the new public art program into the capital improvements program.

10:32 p.m. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy explains to Briere that the reason that the contract extension goes through the end of the year is to allow for a bridge between the old Percent for Art program and the new program.

Kailasapathy notes that an issue had come up when she and Lumm had attempted a budget amendment to refund the money for public art to the funds of origin. She says she really has a problem with the resolution, so she won’t support it.

10:35 p.m. Lumm also says she has a problem with the resolution. She says that she’s tried at every point to discontinue the public art program. Instead of returning the $800,000 in unspent funds, the council had decided to maintain a public art “slush fund,” she says. She doesn’t think that the council should continue to “throw good money after bad.” She won’t support the continued spending on Percent for Art projects.

10:42 p.m. Higgins asks why $18,500 is being appropriated for compensation, but $20,500 is the amount in the resolution. Hupy describes miscellaneous supplies as accounting for the $2,000. Hupy points out that the information was provided in answers to the council’s caucus questions.

Petersen says she’ll support the resolution – because she wants the area around the Dreiseitl sculpture to become ADA compliant. Kailasapathy asks why a public art administrator would be handling ADA compliance. City administrator Steve Powers says that hasn’t been decided yet.

Anglin calculates that the public art administrator is being paid only $20/hour. He calls that a bargain. Kunselman says he’ll support it, because it’s a small amount. But he cautions that he might not vote to support spending the money on the remaining Percent for Art projects in the pipeline. He says the pressure is on the public art commission to bring forward a high quality piece of art. He said he could say right now that he’s not going to vote to spend money on “anything that’s hanging from a light pole.” That’s a reference to the recommended project for the East Stadium bridges location, proposed by artist Catherine Widgery and recommended by a task force.

10:47 p.m. Briere asks what would happen if the council voted not to spend the money on the East Stadium bridges location. Would the money revert to the public art fund? City administrator Steve Powers says that’s for the council to decide. The council could say, “Try again,” he says. Briere points out that the council would still need to amend the city’s public art ordinance in order to return public art funds to their funds of origin.

Hieftje supports the resolution, saying that it’s necessary to have administrative support for the art program. Teall reiterates that point, that a successful art program requires an administrator. Teall says that residents do see the value of public art, and having an administrator is vital.

10:48 p.m. Taylor says that there was a common understanding, if not unanimous, that a transition would need to be funded. He calls for honoring the effort that’s gone into this.

10:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract extension for the public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, over dissent from Lumm and Kailasapathy.

10:48 p.m. Easement: AATA water main. The council is being asked to accept an easement from the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority for a water main – related to the bus garage expansion at the AAATA’s headquarters at 2700 S. Industrial Hwy.

10:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the easement for the water main.

10:49 p.m. Easement: sidewalk at 2760 Nixon. The council is being asked to accept an easement from property owners Byron Bunker and Amy Bunker for construction of a sidewalk related to the Safe Routes to School initiative for Clague Middle School.

10:49 p.m. Lumm offers a brief statement of support, noting that it’s a part of the Safe Routes to School program for Clague Middle School.

10:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to accept the sidewalk easement from the Bunkers.

10:50 p.m. Easement: sidewalk at 425 E. Washington (The Varsity). The council is being asked to accept a sidewalk easement on the east side of The Varsity building, which will connect Huron Street with Washington Street. It’s part of the development agreement.

10:50 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the sidewalk easement from The Varsity.

10:51 p.m. Appointments. The council was asked to confirm mayoral nominations made at the previous council meeting on July 15: Sue Perry to the Elizabeth Dean Fund committee; and Evan Nichols to the zoning board of appeals.

10:51 p.m. Nominations. Highlights from nominations for boards and commissions added on Aug. 6 include Rishi Narayan to replace Leah Gunn on the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Narayan is founder and managing member of Underground Printing, which offers screenprinting of apparel in more than a dozen cities nationwide. Narayan made the Crain’s Detroit Business “Twenty in their 20s” list in 2010 as a 28-year-old.

Jack Bernard is being nominated to the board of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. When the AAATA articles of incorporation were changed recently to add the city of Ypsilanti as a member, the board was expanded from seven to nine members. One of the two additional seats is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. Gillian Ream was appointed to that spot. Bernard’s appointment would fill the additional slot appointed by the city of Ann Arbor. Bernard is a lecturer in the University of Michigan law school and an attorney with UM’s office of the vice president and general counsel. He is also currently chair of the university’s council for disability concerns. Given the nature of wrangling over Eric Mahler’s recent appointment to the AAATA board, Bernard’s chairship of that group could be a key qualification. Some councilmembers objected to Mahler’s appointment, arguing that someone who could represent the disability community should be appointed instead.

10:51 p.m. Originally slated on the agenda to replace Newcombe Clark on the board of the Ann Arbor DDA was Al McWilliams. However, the most-recently updated version of the agenda does not include his name. Al McWilliams is founder of Quack!Media, an ad agency located in downtown Ann Arbor. Quack!Media lists the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority on its website as one of its clients. McWilliams has written advocacy pieces for bicycling on his blog.

Originally slated for nomination to serve on the public art commission was Jeff Hayner. But the most-recently updated version of the nomination list did not include his name. He has filed petitions to run for the Ward 1 city council seat. The Ward 1 city council ballot for November will include incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere, and independents Hayner and Jaclyn Vresics.

10:51 p.m. Public Commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:52 p.m. No one speaks.

10:52 p.m. Closed session. The council has voted to go into closed session under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act to discuss pending litigation.

11:08 p.m. The council has emerged from its closed session.

11:08 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Kerrytown Place is a project that Tom Fitzsimmons is planning to build on the site of the former Greek Orthodox church on Main Street. The rezoning would be from PUD (planned unit development district) to D2 (downtown interface base district). The 18-unit townhouse development that Fitzsimmons is planning to build is much smaller than The Gallery, for which the PUD zoning had originally been approved at the request of a different owner.

The city planning commission gave a unanimous recommendation of approval at its May 21, 2013 meeting. On the North Main Street side, the project would include a 16-unit townhouse building with an underground parking garage, 12 carport parking spaces and 24 surface parking spaces. On the North Fourth site – now a surface parking lot – the plan calls for constructing a duplex with a 2-car garage for each unit and a 21-space parking lot. Each unit of the duplex would face North Fourth.

Rezoning requests require a second and final vote – at a meeting when the site plan is likely to be presented as well.

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

Door to the Ann Arbor city council chamber.

The council will be giving final consideration to an ordinance change that expands the definition of “sidewalk” – to include any sidewalks the city has formally accepted for public use. The change has implications for owners of property adjacent to several “cross-lot paths” in the city – which are on the meeting agenda for acceptance for public use.

One consequence of the definition change is that those property owners will not be responsible for the repair of those paths – because the paths will be eligible for sidewalk millage repair funds. But the adjacent property owners would become responsible for clearing snow from the paths.

Also related to land use on the meeting agenda are rezoning requests associated with two proposed developments. Up for an initial vote is the rezoning from PUD (planned unit development) to D2 (downtown interface) for the parcels on North Main and Fourth Avenue where Kerrytown Place is planned. The 18-unit townhouse development is much smaller than The Gallery, for which the PUD zoning had originally been approved.

Also up for initial consideration is a rezoning request for 2271 S. State St., where the owner would like to be able to sell automobiles. The planning commission recommended denial of that request, in part because that land use was not felt to be consistent with the draft South State Street corridor plan. At its July 1 meeting, the council will also be asked to adopt that corridor plan.

The re-establishment of a citizens advisory committee on changes to R4C zoning in the city also appears on the meeting agenda. The origins of that committee date back to 2009. The reconstitution of the 12-member committee comes as the planning commission has recommended changes to R4C zoning that the council will be weighing – to decide if ordinance language should be drafted to reflect those changes.

Another committee with its origins in 2009 is set to be reconstituted at the council’s July 1 meeting, but it’s not related to land use. The council will be asked to re-establish a “mutually beneficial” committee to work through recommendations to changes in the city ordinance that regulates the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture. The council has already given initial approval to some ordinance changes. Committee members will be working with their DDA counterparts with a two-month window of time – because the council has postponed final action on DDA ordinance changes until Sept. 3.

The council will also be asked to take an initial vote on a video privacy ordinance, having postponed that initial vote several times previously.

And finally, Ward 2 will not have a city council primary election a month from now, but it appears on the agenda in connection with polling places. The Precinct 2-8 polling location will be changed for all future elections to the First United Methodist Church on Green Road.

Details of other meeting agenda items are available on the city’s Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article “below the fold.” The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

6:55 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. Currently in chambers are mayor John Hieftje, city administrator Steve Powers, city attorney Stephen Postema. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) has just arrived. Audience is a bit sparse so far. Less than a dozen people are here.

7:06 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2) are the only councilmembers not yet here. Petersen will definitely not be here. Advocates for the video privacy ordinance have arrived. About a dozen or so. They barely outnumber the large box of Washtenaw Dairy donuts they’ve brought to share. “This is not going to be good for my beach body this summer, but it’s delightful for my tastebuds.”

7:07 p.m. Pledge of allegiance, moment of silence and the roll call of council. Petersen and Teall are absent. We’re under way.

7:07 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

A pending rule change to be considered at tonight’s meeting would limit speaking time to two minutes. Another pending rule change would address “frequent flyers,” by only allowing people to reserve time at the start of the meeting, if they did not speak during reserved time at the previous council meeting. Only six of the 10 slots have been reserved tonight.

Three people are signed up to talk about the council rules changes on the agenda tonight: James D’Amour, Michael Benson and Thomas Partridge. Partridge is also signed up to talk about the video privacy ordinance, as are three other people: Will Leaf, Leslie Stambaugh and Kent Weichmann. Stambaugh is chair of the city’s human rights commission. The video privacy ordinance is up for its initial consideration after having been postponed several times. The ordinance would restrict the ability of local law enforcement officials set up un-staffed cameras for public surveillance.

7:11 p.m. James D’Amour is up first. [As former city planning commissioner, D'Amour has some experience with public commentary from the other side of the microphone.] Some of the changes, he says, are pretty good. The addition of a public commentary period during work sessions is a good step, he says. But the time reductions are a step backward, he says. If hundreds of people show up to speak, then the council has done something wrong. The game they need to play is to be more accessible, not less accessible, he says. There’s been a change in the dynamic of local politics, and it’s less collegial, he says.

7:14 p.m. Thomas Partridge reminds the council that he has run for election to the state legislature in the past. He accuses Hieftje of seeking to suppress public access to the council. Instead of diminishing public participation time, it should be increased, he says.

7:17 p.m. Will Leaf is now addressing the council on the video privacy ordinance. [His involvement with the topic dates back several years. He led Students Against Surveillance at the University of Michigan.] He rejects the idea that the ordinance would tie the hands of the police. Leaf is citing news media articles on the topic. They include a June 19, 2013 LA Times article about Muslims suing the New York City Police Department over surveillance of congregants at mosques that has included video surveillance.

Leaf is also citing a Oct. 25, 2010 article in The Guardian about the dismantling of video surveillance cameras in Birmingham, England, and a Jan. 13, 2006 BBC News article about CCTV camera operators who pointed cameras into a woman’s apartment and observed her in a state of undress. Leaf says that if public surveillance cameras are installed, then they should be regulated. He points out that the ordinance wouldn’t affect any cameras currently in place. He gets a round of applause from the now roughly two dozen people who are here in support of the ordinance.

7:20 p.m. Leslie Stambaugh agrees with Leaf. She points out that the ordinance originated with a citizens group. Why can’t we just trust the police to adopt this practice when they need it? she asks. It seems modern and effective. But video surveillance hasn’t been shown to reduce or solve crime, she contends. For nuisance crimes, she allows it might have some benefit. Lansing installed 11 cameras, which wound up costing $2.3 million. The human rights commission didn’t like the ordinance surveillance she said, and the ACLU doesn’t like it. If the city wants to use video cameras for surveillance, it needs to be regulated, she says.

7:24 p.m. Michael Benson is now addressing the council on the topic of council rules. He points out that if he had a handout for the clerk, that would be attached to the minutes. He encourages the council to advertise that fact. He suggests that the council pay attention to their own question time as well. He suggests a way of addressing the problem of an agenda item clogging up the reserved commentary time.

7:25 p.m. Kent Weichmann weighs in for the video privacy ordinance. Benson had weighed in against it at the conclusion of his remarks.

7:25 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three 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.

7:31 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) says he wants the dialogue on safe streets to continue. People who live on all kinds of streets should be listened to, he says. He wants traffic directed away from residential streets that are not designed for that kind of traffic.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) reminds the public about the July 2 public art forum on the East Stadium bridges project.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicates that the D1 zoning review will begin tomorrow. There will be two larger public meetings as well as smaller meetings. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asks if a schedule has been established for the review and how it will be implemented. The executive committee of the planning commission will be interviewing potential consultants, Briere explains. Staff and commission members are felt to be too close to the process to lead a public meeting. So someone with an outside view will be used, Briere says. There’ll be A2 Open City Hall surveys or perhaps also Survey Monkey surveys. The consultant will look at those issues and move to have a public meeting in August. Briere notes that the timeline requires the work to be done at the end of September. How it relates to the Y lot, she says, she’s not sure – in response to a question from Lumm.

7:33 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers asks CFO Tom Crawford to explain what happened with the city’s website. Crawford says it was a software/hardware failure. He believes all the data is there, and will be back up by 8 a.m. on July 2. Powers gives the usual updates associated with national holidays with respect to trash pickup and the like.

7:34 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. Three public hearings are on the agenda. The first hearing is on an ordinance change that will change the definition of sidewalk in the city. The second would adopt the 2009 International Fire Code as part of the city’s ordinances. And the third public hearing is on the South State Street corridor plan, which is proposed to be adopted into the city’s master plan.

7:39 p.m. PH: Sidewalks. A resident who lives next to one of the cross-lot paths addresses the council. He says they’re used by a limited number of people. He doesn’t think it’s fair to assign the responsibility for winter maintenance to those who live next to the paths. He urges the council to postpone the resolution accepting the cross-lot paths for public use.

A resident who uses a wheelchair is the next speaker. He wants to talk about a letter from the city that says he’s responsible for maintenance of a path. He says he doesn’t own that property. Every year for 47 years the city has cut the grass and maintained it. His property has a timber wall on the edge of it. The sidewalk is not for a general good, but for the entrance to a park. What the city is trying to do is shift the liability to him by calling it a sidewalk when it’s not a sidewalk. The city can’t impose an insurance liability on him for property he doesn’t own, he says. He doesn’t want to make his responsibility dependent on the passage of a millage every five years.

7:44 p.m. A resident who lives next to the walkway near Scarlett-Mitchell public schools objects to the idea that she’ll be made liable for maintenance. There’s no reason for her and her husband to take over maintenance, given that the school district is currently maintaining it. The ordinance is the easy way to go. She suggests that where there is someone already maintaining and snowplowing the path, that person or entity should be made responsible. She would not be able to shovel all the snow, she says.

A fourth resident wonders how a request for a sidewalk ordinance change comes about. There are another 28 paths beyond the 33 cross-lot paths, described in the staff memo, he points out. So the council would only be acting on half of the paths.

7:47 p.m. Thomas Partridge advocates for fairness and rejects the use of Republican Tea Party tactics in determining fees. Many residents of the county and the state are being driven out of their homes due to the unfairness of flat-rate taxes and fees, he contends, including sidewalk repair assessments.

7:51 p.m. PH: Fire Code. Thomas Partridge rises to speak to this issue. He says that councilmembers and the mayor are out of touch. He says that the councilmembers who sponsored the ordinance change should explain it in their own words. He contends that the city looks for ways to impose costs on those who can least afford it. No one else speaks at this public hearing.

7:54 p.m. PH: State Street Corridor. Local attorney Scott Munzel addresses the council on the topic of the hearing. He’s representing the property owner of 2271 S. State St., which is seeking a rezoning of the parcel to allow for automobile sales. [At its May 21, 2013 meeting, the city's planning commission had voted against a recommendation of rezoning.] Munzel points out that the proposed rezoning was consistent with the master plan, before the South State Street corridor plan was put forward. He asks the council to remember this when the council hears the rezoning request.

7:55 p.m. Council communications. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) clarifies where Pilar’s Tamales is located – in Ward 5. [The business is located at 2261 W. Liberty St.] Munzel had mentioned Pilar’s in the context of the 2271 S. State St. property. Pilar’s was formerly located there.

7:59 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) says she’s going to say something nice about everyone, without there being any reason. Mike Anglin is praised for his ability to mobilize people. Jane Lumm, Christopher Taylor, and Stephen Kunselman are praised in turn. Chuck Warpehoski listens to people in a way that improves council discussion, Briere says. Marcia Higgins is described as deceptively quiet. Mayor John Hieftje is also deceptive, she says – in the way that leaders can be. His knowledge provides balance. Sally Petersen is practical and pragmatic. Margie Teall’s commitment to social justice affects everything she does, Briere says.

8:00 p.m. Lumm is thanking Briere for her remarks.

8:02 p.m. Police chief John Seto is explaining how a July 16 meeting for property owners on fire inspections will work.

8:02 p.m. Minutes and 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 a contract with Tanner Industries Inc. for purchase of anhydrous ammonia, which is used in the city’s drinking water treatment process. About 25 tons of anhydrous ammonia is used per year and Tanner will provide it at $1,540 per ton for a total cost next year of $38,500.

The consent agenda also includes an item to amend the payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) exemption for the proposed Burton Commons affordable housing development. Instead of taxes, the developer would pay the city $1. The number of units would stay the same at 80. But the council’s action would approve a new development partner, Highridge Costa Housing Partners (HCHP), and change the mix of units. Previously some units had been set aside for supportive housing services, but now they will all be targeted for people with incomes at 30-60% of the area median income (AMI).

8:02 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Kunselman pulls out the PILOT for Burton Commons for separate discussion.

8:06 p.m. Kunselman wonders what the status of the project is. Brett Lenart comes to the podium. He’s with the Washtenaw County office of community and economic development development. He describes how the project was originally conceived as a 120-unit project with permanent supportive housing. But it was reconceived at a smaller scale – 80 units. And now there is no supportive housing component. Planning manager Wendy Rampson clarifies that building permits need to be pulled before the end of the extension of a site plan, at the end of the year. But there’s no limit to the number of administrative extensions that can be granted, Rampson explains.

8:07 p.m. Outcome: The council has now approved the consent agenda.

8:07 p.m. Ordinance: Sidewalk definition. The council gave initial approval to this definition change at its June 3, 2013 meeting. The new definition of “sidewalk” would expand the existing definition to include non-motorized paths that are [emphasis added] “designed particularly for pedestrian, bicycle, or other nonmotorized travel and that is constructed (1) in the public right of way or (2) within or upon an easement or strip of land taken or accepted by the city or dedicated to and accepted by the city for public use by pedestrians, bicycles, or other nonmotorized travel, …”

A resolution later on the agenda would accept 33 cross-lot pathways for public use. The impact of the definition change would make the paths eligible to be repaired by the city using sidewalk millage funds. However, adjoining property owners would be responsible for winter snow clearing. Here’s some examples of cross-lot sidewalks near Dicken Elementary School:

Example of cross-lot sidewalk in Ann Arbor.

[.pdf of maps for all 33 cross-lot sidewalks]

8:13 p.m. Kunselman leads off by saying that he’ll vote against it. It’s not a fair way to approach the topic. If the city has been maintaining a path for 47 years, he wondered why it would stop. If a school is currently maintaining a path, then arrangements should be made to continue that. He’s voting against it.

8:14 p.m. Briere, who sponsored the ordinance change, asks assistant city attorney Abigail Elias and public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium. Briere says that in her own research she’d learned it wasn’t clear who owns the property. Elias says the language is different in each of the plats. Responding to Briere, Elias doesn’t answer the question of whether the ordinance change would give the city an easement or title to the land. Elias says the ordinance would give “access.” Elias hasn’t looked at the issue of who the property belongs to.

Responding to Briere, Hupy says that if the ordinance doesn’t go forward, then the city doesn’t believe it can use sidewalk millage money to repair these cross-lot paths.

8:17 p.m. Briere asks Hupy if the city thinks it’s appropriate to place the burden for winter maintenance on adjacent property owners. Hupy says the schools were not interested in making the capital improvements. Some of the winter maintenance that the schools are doing, he says, is actually done out of convenience to the school – to find a good place to turn around, for example. The burden of winter maintenance, Hupy says, is the collateral damage associated with the city’s use of sidewalk millage funds for the capital repairs. Briere says her problem is with the redefinition of who’s responsible for the winter maintenance.

8:21 p.m. Higgins ventures that these paths could be defined as a subset of “sidewalks.” She floats the idea of postponing the ordinance. Warpehoski notes that many councilmembers have a desire to use the sidewalk millage to repair the paths. But he says there’s another problem in that non-motorized connections have been lost because there’s not a mechanism for accepting them for public use. He’s inclined to support the ordinance change, because it puts a mechanism in place to accept a path into public use. But that doesn’t mean that the council has to accept all 33 of the paths for public use. It might be a much smaller set, he says.

8:24 p.m. Lumm notes that not all 33 paths were found to be in current need of repair. Hupy indicates that last year there were four paths in dire need of repair that were not done, because they were not accepted for public use. Lumm doesn’t like the “no-man’s land” aspect of the situation. She sees it as a positive that the millage funds could be used. But the winter maintenance is a problem.

8:32 p.m. Lumm says that she agrees with one of the public hearing speakers, who said that if there’s to be a transfer of responsibility for the maintenance, then the land transfer should be done in a way that is “favorable” to the property owner. Lumm elicits from Elias the fact that under some circumstances, an owner of property adjoining a path could be required to mow grass in the summer, as well as clear snow in the winter.

Anglin says that the 33 paths should be looked at individually and judged on an individual basis. Hupy ventures that schools might be reluctant to participate – because they’re barred by state law from making investments in property off of land that they own.

8:41 p.m. Taylor summarizes the situation. He follows up on a possibility raised by Higgins: Can we find a way to use the sidewalk millage without causing the burden of day-to-day upkeep to shift? Elias traces the issue to the definition of “sidewalk.” Taylor floats the idea of tabling or delaying in some other way.

Lumm moves to postpone until the first meeting in October. Warpehoski asks how a postponement would affect the sidewalks that are in dire need of repair. Hupy says they wouldn’t get repaired this year. Hieftje ventures that if the city has muddled along all this time, three months wouldn’t hurt. Kunselman moots the idea of not using sidewalk millage funds to do the repair. He gives an example of a path that was repaired with park maintenance millage funds. He says if the city asked for the public paths in the first place, then the city should maintain them. Kunselman ventures that it might be necessary to research the history of the platting.

8:42 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to postpone the change in the definition of sidewalks until its first meeting in October.

8:42 p.m. Ordinance: International Fire Code Adoption. The council gave this ordinance change initial approval at its June 17, 2013 meeting. While the change is essentially administrative – changing the version of the International Fire Code adopted in the ordinance from 2003 to a more recent 2009 – some councilmembers on June 17 indicated an interest in exploring the question of frequency of fire inspections. They’ve heard complaints that fire inspections are being conducted too frequently – as a way to generate revenue.

On June 17, fire chief Chuck Hubbard indicated that some of the confusion could be attributed to re-inspections, which are done when a deficiency is found. Hubbard indicated on June 17 that fire inspections have increased. He’s increased the number of personnel assigned to fire inspections from three to seven.

Ann Arbor fire inspections: 2006-2012. (Data is from city financial records. Chart by The Chronicle.)

8:42 p.m. Lumm thanks staff for their work in responding to questions.

8:42 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to adopt the 2009 International Fire Code.

8:43 p.m. Recess. The council is now in recess.

8:55 p.m. The council is back from recess.

8:56 p.m. Ordinance: Video Privacy. This ordinance still hasn’t received an initial approval, as the council has delayed voting several times. It sets forth various conditions for the placement of public surveillance cameras. The most recent postponement came at the council’s June 17, 2013 meeting. The council seemed willing to postpone a vote on that occasion based on the fact that police chief John Seto was not available to answer questions about the impact on law enforcement activities. Some councilmembers indicated at that meeting a reluctance even to give the ordinance an initial approval.

9:01 p.m. Police chief John Seto is addressing the council from the podium. He’s reviewed many versions of the ordinance. He thanks everyone for their work. As chief, his responsibility is to provide service and protection for all. He says he wouldn’t apply technology that has negative implications for communications. He can’t predict the security concerns and policing needs of the future. Large crowds themselves create an added risk. He can’t support an ordinance that would limit his ability to monitor large crowds like those associated with the Ann Arbor marathon. To be able to use live monitoring only when there’s an imminent risk would be limiting, he says. Because he can’t know the policing needs of the future, there could be unintended consequences.

9:08 p.m. Anglin asks Seto if he sees the ordinance as limiting what’s been done in the past. Seto said that he can’t recall a case where that’s been done. Kunselman asks if Seto is familiar with the West Willow neighborhood. Seto wasn’t able to provide definitive information.

Warpehoski ventured that former police chief Barnett Jones felt that video surveillance would never be accepted in this community. He asks if Seto felt that the ordinance would give him the regulatory framework that would allow the community concerns to be addressed. Briere says one of her concerns about crowd surveillance was that almost all of the footage that was useful in the Boston marathon bombing was from private cameras. She appreciated that the human rights commission, Warpehoski and Anglin had tried to find a balance. But she wondered if the balance had actually been found. Seto said he’s not advocating the use of cameras, but felt that if the need does arise, he wants to make sure that there’s flexibility.

9:11 p.m. Kunselman refers to the comments made during the public commentary about the possibilty of police misconduct in the use of cameras. Seto says that the in-car video cameras already used by officers are subject to departmental policies. Hieftje cites a memo written by Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, about the use of cameras in parking structures. Hieftje cites the issue of the perception of safety – saying that some people say they’d feel more comfortable in an underground parking garage if there was video surveillance.

9:19 p.m. Hieftje said that back in 2001-02 there were problems in Liberty Plaza, and the city had filmed from the building overlooking the park. Those cameras were hand-held, Hieftje said. Hieftje wanted to know if Seto felt that the ordinance would inhibit his ability to undertake necessary operations.

Kailasapathy wondered if the required sign stating the presence of a camera would undermine the point of the surveillance. For short-term use, Seto said, the sign would have an impact. Lumm discusses with Seto the requirements for installation of cameras. Lumm recounts how all the windows of her car were smashed in the Fourth & Washington parking structure, but there were no cameras in place to capture any footage.

Taylor says that this ordinance might be “a regulation too far.” But he notes that the chief’s job description was similar to the council’s job: Law enforcement should be consistent with community values. So he felt it should be voted forward to a second reading, which would provide an opportunity for a public hearing.

9:24 p.m. Kailasapathy ventures that the FBI would not have to adhere to the local ordinance, if the FBI wanted to conduct surveillance. Higgins brings up University of Michigan football games. She says that crowds are monitored for football games. Seto says that on a liberal interpretation, it might have an impact on his ability to use cameras for football crowd monitoring. But UM would be able to continue to do that, Seto says.

Kunselman inquires what the law is when a camera catches someone doing something illegal on their own property – if they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. City attorney Stephen Postema says he has not researched the issue. Higgins ventures that if the city has been working on the ordinance for a long time, then surely the city has an understanding of what privacy in a home means.

9:28 p.m. Kailasapathy asks if it’s OK for a camera to be trained on a front door to monitor who is entering and leaving a residence. Postema says it depends on what is done with the footage. Briere brings up Google Street View cameras and how it blurs images of people’s faces. Briere agrees with Taylor that there should be a discussion in the community. Passive surveillance can be used well or not well, Briere says, adding that she wished it weren’t used at all.

9:36 p.m. Warpehoski says that placing a camera on a pole and pointing it into a neighborhood is an affront to privacy and the ordinance would prevent that affront. The ordinance tries to find a balance between privacy, property owner rights and law enforcement needs. He doesn’t want cameras to be put in over neighborhood opposition. Warpehoski says he put forward the best ordinance he knew how to put forward, but allowed that there were still things that could be worked on. He asks for support at first reading, but tells his colleagues not to vote for it on first reading just to please him – if they were definitely not going to vote for it on second reading.

Anglin says the ordinance is preemptive, and that the ordinance allows cameras to be installed as useful tools. He gives destruction of property in parks as a use case for the cameras. He doesn’t think it’s a solution looking for a problem, he says – a response to remarks from Kunselman at an earlier meeting.

Kunselman responds to the idea of a “regulatory framework” and wonders why the council is not providing guidance on policy to the administration. Ordinances are passed to regulate behavior, and there are punishments for violating them. He wondered if Seto violated the ordinance, would he be fired? Kunselman said he would support giving policy direction. In any case, the city can do what it needs to do, he says. If Seto needs to use a camera to catch a suspect, Kunselman says, then, “By golly, let him do it!”

9:47 p.m. Kunselman describes how the relationship between the police and young people has changed from the time when he was young. He returns to his idea of giving guidance through policy. Lumm says that it’s overly regulatory. The balanced approach that Seto would take would not result in the application of technology that would harm the community, Lumm says. She says she wouldn’t support such an ordinance unless it had Seto’s unequivocal support. So Lumm won’t support it at first reading.

Briere said generally she’s inclined to advance an ordinance to a second reading. She doesn’t like the ordinance, because she sees it as giving permission for surveillance. She distinguishes between speculative surveillance versus a situation where there’s a targeted deployment. But she’s still inclined to hear from the public. That will help the council make better decisions.

Hieftje says he likes the idea of a policy – alluding to Kunselman’s proposal that policy guidance would be better than an ordinance. Hieftje noted that Ann Arbor is host to events that have the spotlight of the nation on the city. He couldn’t say he’d support it at second reading, but he was willing to support it at first reading.

9:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 5-4 to give the video privacy ordinance initial approval, so it failed. Voting against it were Kailasapathy, Kunselman, Lumm and Higgins.

9:49 p.m. Ordinance: Rezoning for car dealership. The council is being asked to give initial approval to a rezoning of 2271 South State Street from M1 (limited industrial district) to M1A (limited light industrial district). The owner would like to be able to sell automobiles on the site. The city planning commission’s vote on the recommendation was taken at its May 21, 2013 meeting. The vote was 1-8, with only Eric Mahler supporting it. So the planning commission’s recommendation was for denial.

9:58 p.m. Briere points out that the council in the past has put off rezoning decisions based on the pending work on the South State Street corridor plan. Planning manager Wendy Rampson responds to Higgins by giving the example of the Biercamp property, which was not approved because the South State Street corrdidor study was just getting started at that time. There was also a request across the street from Biercamp, so that a property could be used as a medical marijuana dispensary.

Higgins ventures that the city council has the final say on the South State Street corridor plan – to which Rampson says, “kinda sorta.” The planning commission and the city council have to concur, Rampson says. Higgins felt like the property owner had been in the pipeline for a while before the South State Street corridor study was under way. Rampson and Higgins engage in back-and-forth on timing of the citizen participation meetings for the corridor plan and the proposed project requiring rezoning.

Kunselman draws out a letter of support from McKinley for the corridor plan. Kunselman notes that the adjoining bus parking lot might no longer be a factor – as the school district may not continue to offer transportation.

10:01 p.m. Kunselman wonders if it’s good policy to get rid of manufacturing zoning. Rampson explains that the planning commission had also grappled with that. She points to Areas 1C in the plan that recommends maintaining the current uses, which include manufacturing. The area around the parcel that’s requested to be rezoned, Rampson says, has already seen some transition to office use.

10:01 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to deny initial approval to the rezoning of 2271 S. State Street.

10:01 p.m. Ordinance: Kerrytown Place rezoning. There are two items on the agenda related to the zoning that would be necessary for Kerrytown Place – the project that Tom Fitzsimmons is planning to build instead of The Gallery, on the site of the former Greek Orthodox church on Main Street. The rezoning would be from PUD (planned unit development district) to D2 (downtown interface base district).

The first rezoning item affects the parcels with Main Street frontage. The second rezoning item affects the parcels on Fourth Avenue. The city planning commission gave a unanimous recommendation of approval at its May 21, 2013 meeting. On the North Main Street side, the project would include a 16-unit townhouse building with an underground parking garage, 12 carport parking spaces and 24 surface parking spaces. On the North Fourth site – now a surface parking lot – the plan calls for constructing a duplex with a 2-car garage for each unit and a 21-space parking lot. Each unit of the duplex would face North Fourth. The council is just being asked to consider an initial vote on the rezoning tonight, not the site plan. Rezoning requires a second and final vote – at a meeting when the site plan is likely to be presented as well.

10:03 p.m. Briere introduces the items and briefly recites the history of the previously proposed project by a different owner. Kunselman says he’s pleased to support it. He reminds his colleagues that when the property was in the hands of the Washtenaw County treasurer, he’d proposed doing something similar – rezoning the property on the council’s initiation.

10:03 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to give initial approval to the rezoning changes necessary for the Kerrytown Place project.

10:03 p.m. Bond Re-Funding: Sewage. This item refinances $21,500,000 worth of sewage disposal system revenue bonds, which were issued in 2004. The expected savings, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, is more than $2 million over an 11-year term.

10:04 p.m. Lumm commends staff for staying on top of these issues. She notes the savings of $2 million.

10:04 p.m. The council has voted to approve the sewage disposal bond re-funding.

10:04 p.m. 2013 City Council Rules. For Chronicle coverage on these changes, see “Council Mulls Speaking Rule Changes.” Highlights include adding public commentary to council work sessions, but reducing public speaking time to two-minute turns. A “frequent flyer” rule would prevent people from signing up for reserved time at the start of a meeting two meetings in a row. The total time that each councilmember could speak on an item of debate would be reduced from eight minutes to five minutes. The council postponed a vote from its previous meeting on these changes.

10:05 p.m. Higgins says she wants to postpone the issue, in light of the absence of Petersen and Teall, who wanted to be a part of the conversation.

10:06 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to postpone the rule amendments until the July 15 meeting.

10:06 p.m. Resolution: Re-establish the mutually beneficial committee. The phrase “mutually beneficial” in connection with the sorting out of issues between the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority was first mooted in a Jan. 20, 2009 resolution. The main issue at that time was the contract under which the DDA administers the city’s public parking system. Subsequently, committees for both organizations were appointed, but they did not achieve any results. The following year, new committees were appointed and those committees met over the course of several months, culminating in a new parking agreement ratified in May 2011. The council formally disbanded its “mutually beneficial” committee at the end of 2011.

10:06 p.m. The current source of friction between the DDA and the city concerns the interpretation of Chapter 7 of the city code, which regulates the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture. The DDA has chosen to interpret the Chapter 7 language in a way that does not recognize the cap on TIF revenues that is set forth in Chapter 7. That led to a proposal by some councilmembers earlier this year to revise the ordinance so that the DDA’s alternate interpretation is clearly ruled out. The council gave the ordinance change initial approval on April 1, 2013. But later, on May 6, 2013, the council chose to postpone the vote until Sept. 3, the council’s first meeting that month.

In this resolution, the mutual beneficial committee is tasked with coming up with a recommendation for Chapter 7 revised language with a deadline of Sept. 2. The council will be represented by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). The DDA’s July 3 meeting agenda also includes its appointments to a mutually beneficial committee.

10:10 p.m. Briere introduces the item by saying that back in May, several people had said that the staff should be working on the issue. Whatever changes might come to Chapter 7, she felt councilmembers should have a voice. The mechanism for that was proposed to be to “reinvigorate” the mutual beneficial committee. Kunselman says that when the council approved the ordinance at first reading, he and Petersen had begun having conversations with DDA board members and staff. He sees the resolution tonight as solidifying a process that’s already underway.

However, Kunselman doesn’t like the label “mutually beneficial.” It’s now changed to the “joint DDA-council committee.” Higgins wants to add a member – for a total of four councilmembers. Higgins wants Lumm to be on the committee, saying that Lumm has put a lot of work into the issue. That proposal is accepted as friendly.

10:11 p.m. Kailsaspathy brings up the existing DDA partnership committee.

10:12 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to appoint a joint DDA-council committee.

10:12 p.m. R4C Committee. The planning commission had voted at its April 16, 2013 meeting to send recommendations to the city council for revisions to the R4C zoning areas – but without the actual wording of the ordinance changes. Any affirmative action by the council at this point would be to direct the planning commission to develop ordinance language that would reflect the recommendations. At that point, the planning commission would need to approve the proposed ordinance language, with final action still required by the council.

The zoning change recommendations resulted from work done by a citizens advisory committee that was established in the summer of 2009. Due to dissatisfaction about how the recommendations were handled, the council is reconstituting the citizens advisory committee. On the committee, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) will represent the planning commission. Chuck Carver will represent rental property owners. From the wards: Ilene Tyler and Ray Detter (Ward 1); Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2); Ellen Rambo and Michelle Derr (Ward 3); Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4); Eppie Potts and Anya Dale (Ward 5). Weatherbee will chair the group.

10:14 p.m. Higgins introduces the resolution, alluding to a neighborhood meeting that had taken place the previous week. Lumm thanks Higgins for her work. She wonders when the council might be asked to act on the recommendations. Higgins said that the committee would meet only two or three times. She said that before the council acts on the planning commission recommendations, the committee should be able to weigh in.

10:14 p.m. The council has voted to re-establish the R4C citizens advisory committee.

10:16 p.m. Appointment of Jean Cares to the greenbelt advisory commission as the agriculture landowner representative. Taylor, who also serves on GAC, introduces the resolution. He mentions that Cares owns the Dexter Mill. Hieftje says that it’s a difficult slot to fill.

10:16 p.m. The council has voted to postpone the appointment. This is a standard procedure, as this initial consideration is considered the nomination by the council. GAC is one of the few boards and commissions for which the council, not the mayor, makes the nominations.

10:16 p.m. South State Street Corridor Plan. This resolution would adopt the South State Street corridor plan into the city’s master plan. The city planning commission voted unanimously to adopt the plan at its May 21, 2013 meeting.

10:19 p.m. Higgins says she has concerns about adding the corridor plan to the city’s master plan. She asks for postponement.

10:20 p.m. The council has voted to postpone the South State Street corridor plan for two weeks.

10:21 p.m. The council has voted to go into a closed session to discuss pending litigation, which is one of the reasons allowed by the Michigan Open Meetings Act.

10:40 p.m. The council has emerged from closed session.

10:41 p.m. Box hangar bonds for airport. This is a notice of intent to issue up to $900,000 of bonds to fund construction of a new box hangar at the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

10:41 p.m. The council has voted to give notice of intent to issue the bonds for the box hangar construction.

10:41 p.m. Miller Avenue assessment for sidewalk curb and gutter. The special assessment would apply to 18 private property owners, who would pay an average of $365 apiece. The total construction cost of the project is stated in the table of assessment as $42,860 – with about 75% of that to be paid for with federal funds. This resolution is the fourth and final one in the process. A public hearing was held at the council’s previous meeting.

10:41 p.m. The council has voted to approve the special assessment for Miller Avenue improvements.

10:41 p.m. Arbor Oaks Rain Gardens. This item would award a $149,925 contract to Erie Construction LLC for construction of rain gardens.

10:41 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to award the rain garden construction contract.

10:41 p.m. Accept 33 sidewalks for public use. Under the city charter, a land transaction requires an eight-vote majority, and this qualifies as a land transaction. The item relates to the ordinance change that was postponed earlier in the meeting, which would have changed the definition of “sidewalk” in the city code. The staff summary of the result of a meeting with adjoining property owners includes this: “There was a general consensus amongst attendees at the public meeting that City Council should postpone voting on these items until further discussion can be had and more details can be worked out.” For many of the specific paths, there was a reluctance to accept the responsibility of snow removal during the winter.

10:42 p.m. The council has voted to postpone the acceptance of the sidewalks for public use until its first meeting in October.

10:42 p.m. Fair Food Network grant to Ann Arbor farmers market. This item accepts $36,000 in funding from the Fair Food Network to administer the Double Up Food Bucks program at the Ann Arbor farmers market. The program provides a match of up to $20 per person per day to people using BSNAP (Bridge Cards/EBT/Food Stamps) to purchase produce at Michigan farmers markets.

10:42 p.m. The council has voted to accept the $36,000 grant.

10:43 p.m. Precinct 2-8 polling place relocation. This would change the polling place for Precinct 2-8 from St. Paul Lutheran School, 495 Earhart Road, to First United Methodist Church, 1001 Green Road. According to a letter sent earlier this year by school principal Brad Massey to the city, the decision to stop offering St. Paul Lutheran Church and School as a polling place to the city was based on “recent events affecting the safety of school children.” [.pdf of April 16, 2013 letter]

10:43 p.m. Lumm thanks St. Paul for allowing the city to use the facility as a polling location for many years.

10:43 p.m. The council has voted unanimously to change the Precinct 2-8 polling location to the First United Methodist Church.

10:44 p.m. Appointments. The council is being asked to confirm tonight the nominations put forward at the council’s June 17, 2013 meeting. Among them is Jeremy Peters to the planning commission. Also on the agenda for confirmation are Eric Jacobson to the local development finance authority (LDFA) board and Jan Davies McDermott to the economic development corporation board.

10:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to confirm all the appointments.

10:46 p.m. Nominations. Russ Collins was nominated for a re-appointment to the board of the DDA. The nomination actually came chronologically before the confirmation votes.

10:47 p.m. Council communications. Taylor updates the council on the park advisory commission’s action at its June 18, 2013 meeting to recommend a waiver of fees for Liberty Plaza – in response to a request from Camp Take Notice to make sure that Pizza in the Park can continue at that location.

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

10:54 p.m. Seth Best addresses the council, beginning by thanking everyone. He’s speaking on behalf of Camp Take Notice’s advocacy for humanitarian aid generally, not just for Liberty Plaza. He was concerned that humanitarian aid was being excluded because of concern for music, bands and art. He tells his story of becoming homeless in Texas, eventually making his way to Ann Arbor. Pizza in the Park had allowed him to be human again, he said – at least for an hour.

10:57 p.m. An EMU faculty member and MISSION board member is now addressing the council in support of the Camp Take Notice advocacy for Pizza in the Park. Caleb Poirer speaks next, and quips that this is too early to end a council meeting. He characterizes the PAC resolution as an attempt to address the concerns that Camp Take Notice had raised, but says that it doesn’t actually address their concerns. That’s why they’re continuing to push for a more general ordinance. He allows that the homeless are not natural constituents of any politician. So he was grateful that the council had been willing to give them “the time of day.”

10:57 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

A reserved parking spot on the site of the future Kerrytown Place development. The view is looking north toward an empty lot where the St. Nicholas Church was formerly located. Cars along Main Street are seen on the left. (Photos by the writer.)

The development covers four parcels – at 402, 408 and 414 N. Main and 401 N. Fourth, with the Main Street parcels separated from the North Fourth site by a public alley, which runs north-south. The vacant St. Nicholas Church had been located on the North Main property, but was demolished last year.

McKinley Inc.’s headquarters is south of the site on North Main, and the firm holds a permanent easement for 57 parking spaces on the Kerrytown Place land. Those spaces will be provided on the development’s surface parking lots. Developer Tom Fitzsimmons told commissioners that finding a way to accommodate those parking requirements into the design had been “challenging.”

The North Main site will include 16 townhouse units in a building with a central courtyard. A 3-story structure with 8 units will front Main Street, and a 4-story structure on the east side of the parcel will have 8 additional units facing the courtyard. There will be an underground garage, and additional parking in 12 carport spots and 24 surface spaces.

On the North Fourth site – now a surface parking lot, with an entrance across from the Ann Arbor farmers market – the plan calls for constructing a duplex with a 2-car garage for each unit and a 21-space parking lot behind the building, accessed from the alley. Each unit of the duplex would face North Fourth.

The project includes a rezoning request and modifications to the city’s landscaping and setback requirements. Commissioners praised the development, but Bonnie Bona in particular was critical of the surface parking. She was reluctant to compromise on the developer’s request to decrease a 15-foot minimum setback, saying that “when I’m giving up front yard for more asphalt, I’m just not as happy.”

City planning staff pointed out that the parking easement “runs with the land,” meaning that any development would need to accommodate those parking spaces. Ultimately, commissioners unanimously approved all requests related to the project, which will now be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

In other action at the May 21 meeting, commissioners held a public hearing on suggestions related to the city’s master plan, but postponed action until their June 18 meeting. A review is required by the planning commission’s bylaws to be done annually. The hearing drew six speakers on a range of topics, including development in Lowertown, a park in downtown Ann Arbor, and adequate sidewalks, cleared of vegetation, so that kids can walk to school safely.

There is also a list of resource documents that are used to support the master plan. [.pdf of resource document list] Commissioners spent a fair amount of time discussing why the Calthorpe report isn’t included on the list. The commission appeared to reach consensus that it would be worth reviewing the entire list of resource documents.

Also on May 21, the commission held a public hearing to get input on the South State Street corridor plan, as a possible addition to the city’s master plan. Commissioners and staff have been working on this project for more than two years. No one spoke at the hearing, and commissioners voted to add the South State Street corridor plan to the city’s master plan, as an amendment to the plan’s land use element. The city council will also need to vote on this item.

One request that commissioners rejected was rezoning for 2271 S. State St., where owners would like to sell cars. The vote was 1-8, drawing support only from Eric Mahler. Some commissioners had leaned toward approval, saying it would be good to have some kind of use on the long-vacant site, where Pilar’s restaurant had once been located. But others expressed concern that it didn’t fit with the goals of the South State corridor, and that it could set a precedent for other rezoning requests. It would be possible for the owner, Capital Investments, to bring the rezoning request to the city council, even though it did not receive a recommendation of approval by the planning commission.

During public commentary, commissioners heard from three people expressing concerns about development and city services in southeast Ann Arbor, along the Ellsworth corridor. They asked for a moratorium on any zoning changes or high-density housing there, until the area can be further studied. Residents have formed a task force to pursue the issue.

Kerrytown Place

A proposed residential development spanning North Main to North Fourth – on the site of the former St. Nicholas Church – was on the planning commission’s May 21 agenda.

Aerial view showing location of Kerrytown Place development, located between North Main and North Fourth Avenue.

Commissioners were asked to recommend approval of several items for the Kerrytown Place project: (1) rezoning the sites at 414, 408 and 402 N. Main and 401 N. Fourth Ave. to D2 (downtown interface), with a “secondary street” building frontage designation; (2) modifying the city’s landscape ordinance to allow interior landscape islands outside of the perimeter of the “vehicular use” area; and (3) approving site plans and development agreements for both sites. Staff had recommended approval for all items.

The Main Street parcels are separated from the North Fourth site by a public alley, which runs north-south. All parcels are currently zoned for The Gallery planned unit development (PUD), a type of customized zoning – for a residential project that was never built. The county treasurer had foreclosed on the property due to unpaid delinquent taxes, and it was sold at auction to the current developer. The long-vacant church was demolished last year.

For the North Main section, developer Tom Fitzsimmons plans to build 16 townhouse units with an underground parking garage, 12 carport parking spaces and 24 surface parking spaces. The townhouse building is designed with two short towers on a base of underground garages. A 3-story structure on the west side, fronting Main Street, will have 8 dwelling units. A 4-story structure on the east side will have 8 additional dwelling units, which will face a central courtyard. An east/west pedestrian walkway will run between North Main and North Fourth, on the north side of a surface parking lot that’s located on the south side of the development.

On the North Fourth site – now a surface parking lot, with an entrance across from the Ann Arbor farmers market – the plan calls for building a duplex with a 2-car garage for each unit and a 21-space parking lot. Each unit of the duplex would face North Fourth, with the parking lot accessed via the public alley.

One major wrinkle of this project is that McKinley Inc. – which owns the property adjacent to the North Main site – holds a permanent easement for 57 parking spaces on the Kerrytown Place site. Those spaces will be provided on the development’s surface parking lots.

The total project is estimated to cost about $11.8 million. According to a planning staff memo, the site layout and architectural design were influenced by the Johnson Street Townhomes in Portland, Oregon and the Wickliffe Place condo development in Ann Arbor’s Kerrytown neighborhood.

The city’s design review board evaluated the project at a Feb. 20, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of design review board report] City planner Alexis DiLeo described the board’s response as “fairly complimentary,” with three points for the developer to consider. Those suggestions were:

Minimize, or eliminate if possible, the street-level garage doors on North Fourth Avenue. Even if the space within the building is used for parking, and not a traditional active space, the streetlevel experience would be better if the doors were minimized and replaced with landscaping.

The buildings, particularly the “Main Street” and “Alley” buildings, are not tall enough to warrant a complete change of materials at the top. The metal-covered penthouses read as if they are screens hiding mechanical units. At minimum, a different (more vibrant, more complimentary to the other materials and colors, less neutral) color of the proposed metal material should be considered.

Emphasize the main entry doors to each dwelling unit on North Fourth Avenue. These doors now take a distant second place to the prominent garage doors on this façade.

DiLeo said the developer responded to each point in some way. In addition, a citizens participation meeting was held on March 13, DiLeo said, with a focus on clarifying questions. [.pdf of citizen participation meeting report]

The city is asking for a $9,920 contribution to the parks system. According to a staff memo, options for spending that money might include “improvements to the basketball courts at Wheeler Park, improving space for vendors along North Fourth Avenue at the Farmers Market, replacing the trash containers at Sculpture Plaza to match the existing furniture, moveable tables and chairs at the Farmers Market and/or Sculpture Plaza.”

DiLeo reviewed several other aspects of the proposal, and concluded by noting that the planning staff has recommended approval.

Kerrytown Place: Public Hearing

The only speaker during the public hearing was the project’s developer, Tom Fitzsimmons.

Tom Fitzsimmons, developer of Kerrytown Place.

He told commissioners that he’s a lifelong resident of Ann Arbor, and has been building homes for 24 years. He introduced the project engineer and landscape architect – Chet Hill of the Johnson Hill Land Ethics Studio – as well as the project’s architect, Chris Allen, who were on hand to help answer questions. As a team, Fitzsimmons said, they were very excited to build a project at this location. At the same time, it’s been extremely challenging, he noted, because of the easement requirement to provide 57 parking spaces for an off-site entity.

The team spent a lot of time designing around that parking requirement, to figure out how to fit it with the housing on the site, he said. They came up with several approaches, and met with city planning staff along the way. “We finally narrowed it down to something we feel fits very well in this site within the context of the D2 zoning,” he said.

Fitzsimmons said he personally met with every single neighbor adjacent to the site, as well as business owners and residents in the surrounding neighborhood to get their feedback. “As far as I know, it’s been universally positive,” he said. Comments were incorporated into the design process, as was feedback from the city’s design review board.

He concluded by saying he hoped the project would gain the planning commission’s support.

Kerrytown Place: Commission Discussion

Tony Derezinski began the discussion by saying it was great to see a project like this on the North Main site. He noted that the planning commission recently co-sponsored a symposium on aging. Ann Arbor is a very attractive place for senior citizens and empty nesters, he said, and this project really fits a need for a growing demographic.

Derezinski wondered if the easement with McKinley for parking was permanent. “Yes, it is,” Fitzsimmons replied. His attorneys had looked at the easement language before he bought the site, so he knew he’d have to comply with that. It’s an easement that “runs with the land,” he said.

Eric Mahler wondered where the nearest bus stop was located. [Mahler was recently appointed to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board.] City planner Alexis DiLeo reported that there’s a bus stop at the corner of Fourth and Catherine, but she wasn’t sure it was the closest. Mahler said it’s a great project and he’d be giving it his support.

Eleanore Adenekan also voiced support, but said she was concerned about parking on market days. Fitzsimmons replied that he wasn’t exactly sure what would happen on market days. McKinley will still hold the easement to its parking, and the firm has allowed Huron High School to lease out the parking on market days, as a fundraiser. Fitzsimmons didn’t know if that would continue or not. He highlighted the public walkway that’s planned for the site, calling it a public benefit to allow people to walk to the market more easily from Main Street. The parking lot would be less visible from Fourth, which isn’t a bad thing, he noted.

Sabra Briere said she’s heard concern from people about whether the public alley will be blocked during construction. It allows people to access parking at Braun Court. Fitzsimmons said they haven’t started the construction document phase, let alone construction planning, but he isn’t aware that they would have the ability to close off a public alley. Conceptually, the development team has been looking at how to build on this tight site, he said. This is not a skyscraper, he said. It’s stick-frame construction that’s a little more dense than their typical projects, but similar to what he usually builds. He anticipates building it without blocking or inconveniencing anyone.

An image of the proposed Kerrytown Place development, included in the planning staff report. This is the building facing North Fourth.

Ken Clein also commended the project, citing its scale, fit within the community, connection to the farmers market, and landscaping. His one concern is the angle of exit from the garage onto Fourth Avenue. His own home’s driveway has a less acute angle, and even then it’s hard to keep an eye out for people when pulling into the street. Chet Hill replied that the design team looked at the turning radius into the garage, and that the dimensions are configured relative to a parking lot.

Clein also wondered where the waste bins and recycling would be located. Hill said that the Fourth Avenue residents will wheel their trash and recycling out of their garage. On Main Street, a dumpster and recycling bins will be located in the northeast corner of the site, off the alley.

Clein’s final question was about the pricing of the units. Were they all market rate? Yes, Fitzsimmons replied. The units will range in size from 1,400 to 2,400 square feet, and would be priced in the mid- to mid-high-end range, he said. Referencing Derezinski’s remarks about the aging demographic, Fitzsimmons said they tried to design a lot of “single-floor living.” He indicated that they’re already getting a lot of interest from potential residents.

Bonnie Bona asked about the request for a “secondary street frontage” designation.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson explained that the D2 front yard setback requirement for the site is a 15 feet minimum, but the developer is requesting a “secondary street” setback, which is between zero to 10 feet. The project’s proposed setback on the Main Street side is 7 feet. There is no setback requirement for the alley, but the proposed design has a setback of 5 feet along the alley. On Fourth Avenue, the building has a setback of 4 feet 2 inches, between the property line and the face of the front door.

Bona also asked for an explanation of the difference between the required landscaping and the modifications that the developer is requesting.

The developer is asking to put in one continuous landscape bed along the entire north side of the surface parking lot, rather than the required interior “landscape islands” that would butt out into the parking lot. DiLeo said the developer isn’t asking for a reduction in the number of trees or in the square footage of required landscaping, “just the shape of it.”

Bona said that considering pedestrians will be walking along that path, the landscaping modification is probably beneficial. It’s nice to have something developed on this site, she said, but “the surface parking lot is really unfortunate.” She would hope that in the downtown, there would be structured parking so that land wouldn’t be used for surface parking.

From left: Planning commissioners Diane Giannola, Ken Clein and Sabra Briere.

She asked the developer why the city should grant a modification on the street frontage, allowing for shorter setbacks. It’s one of the city’s first projects in the D2 zone, and “I’m not convinced that we should be compromising on a zoning ordinance that we just wrote.”

Fitzsimmons noted that on the Fourth Avenue side, the buildings on either side are closer to the street than the proposed development. “I know,” Bona replied. “But we just zoned this. We zoned it to be 15 feet, because it’s getting closer to the neighborhood.” The 0-10 foot setback is in a different part of the neighborhood, she noted. A lot of work went into the downtown zoning process, Bona added. For a building that’s accommodating a lot more parking than she’d like to see, “I need a better explanation for why we should compromise on a brand new zoning,” she said.

Hill pointed out that if the project is designated with secondary street frontage, the 0-10 foot setbacks are allowed in D2 districts. Like Fitzsimmons, Hill also mentioned that the setbacks on Fourth Avenue would be identical to the neighboring buildings. On Main Street, there’s only a slight deviation from the setback of adjacent buildings, he noted.

Hill told Bona that “we fully, fully agree with your concerns about surface parking.” But given the easement requirements, there was no other way to accommodate the parking. That has severely restricted what can be done on the site, he said, and necessitated their request regarding setbacks. He noted that the project will be providing more trees and square footage of landscaping than the city requires.

Noting that she too was involved in establishing these frontage requirements, Rampson said the idea was to set the requirements so that a new development wouldn’t alter the street frontage substantially. Now, the site’s parking lot goes up almost to the sidewalk on Fourth Avenue and Main Street. The former Greek Orthodox church had been set back further from the street and had a more residential character, Rampson said, but the residential buildings to the north of this site are set back less than 15 feet. The McKinley building on the south side has zero setback.

A street pattern is established, Rampson said, and she’s not sure why the setbacks call for 15 feet along this stretch. The intent might have been to mirror the west side of Main Street. Given the setbacks of neighboring buildings, a 15-foot setback “is not necessarily going to provide that continuity that you would hope for,” Rampson noted. That’s why the planning staff felt it was appropriate to recommend the secondary street frontage, she said.

Bona replied that because there will be a parking lot between the McKinley building and the new development, it does seem like a separate residential area is being created by Kerrytown Place. “I’m trying to get my arms around that, because I know there was a lot of discussion about scale and appropriateness,” Bona said. She has a harder time accepting compromises with a large surface parking lot there. “When I’m giving up front yard for more asphalt, I’m just not as happy,” Bona said. “So that’s my struggle.”

Wendy Woods said that if the buildings end up looking like the renderings, it will really enhance Main Street. She thanked the developer for not requesting D1 zoning, noting the commission has been whipped about that recently. [Woods' comment – a reference to the controversial 413 E. Huron development, in a D1 zoning district – elicited laughs from other commissioners. D1 zoning allows for the highest amount of density. On Feb. 6, 2013, the commission had voted 5-3 to recommend that city council approve the 413 E. Huron project, which did not meet the six-vote threshold to win a recommendation. Council approval, on a 6-5 vote, came at its May 13, 2013 meeting.]

Woods appreciated that the design takes into account the Kerrytown area, the farmers market and the surrounding neighborhood. It’s a great project, she said.

Kirk Westphal asked for clarification about the pedestrian walkway. DiLeo reported that it won’t become public property, but there will be some sort of formal agreement – possibly an easement – that will allow public use. She likened it to the arrangement at Ashley Mews, but said that the city attorney’s office hasn’t completed the agreement yet. Responsibility for maintenance would remain with the property owner.

Entrance off of Fourth Avenue into the proposed Kerrytown Place site, facing west. A duplex will be built on this site, eliminating the entrance to the parking lot.

Responding to another query from Westphal, DiLeo said that the parking easement runs with the land and will remain in perpetuity, unless the easement holder – McKinley Inc. – decides to vacate it. Hill noted that stormwater detention for the proposed buildings is located under the parking lot.

Rampson noted that the project is proposed at 127% FAR. [FAR – floor area ratio – is a measure of density. It's the ratio of the square footage of a building divided by the size of the lot. A one-story structure built lot-line-to-lot-line with no setbacks corresponds to a FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in a FAR of 200%.]

Rampson explained that 200% would be allowed on that site, or up to 400% if premiums are provided. In a theoretical situation, if the easement holder vacated its rights and the parking area became available, it could still be developed, she noted. So in terms of opportunity costs, it would still be possible to develop that surface parking lot.

Sabra Briere reported that over a year ago, some members of city council sat down with the Washtenaw County treasurer [Catherine McClary] to talk about this parcel. The city was concerned about what might happen to the property. If a property doesn’t sell at auction, it can be offered to the municipality, she said. Learning about the parking easement “was really daunting,” she added.

Briere said she was surprised, in a pleasant way, that a solution was found to develop a project on the site.

Westphal also asked about the garage doors facing Fourth Avenue. Fitzsimmons replied that the design team felt they needed to provide two parking spaces for each unit on Fourth Avenue. The initial design was to have two-door garages facing the street. After feedback from the design review board and city staff, the current design has just one garage door on Fourth Avenue, and another entry into the garage from the parking lot in the back.

Outcome: In one unanimous vote, commissioners recommended approval of all three resolutions related to the Kerrytown Place project. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Master Plan Review

A public hearing was held on May 21 seeking input on any changes that residents might want to see in the city’s master plan. A review of the master plan is required by the planning commission’s bylaws to be done each May.

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

There is also a list of resource documents that are used to support the master plan. [.pdf of resource document list] The most recent addition to this list was made by the planning commission at its March 5, 2013 meeting, when commissioners added the Connecting William Street report, which had been developed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

Planning staff recommended postponing action on the master plan review, pending discussion of work plan priorities for staff and the commission, as well as to give the commission additional time to consider comments heard during the public hearing. Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the resolution on the May 21 agenda regarding this review mentions several items that are in the works related to the master plan, including an update of the city’s non-motorized transportation plan, the Washtenaw Avenue and North Main corridor projects, and the sustainability framework’s action plan.

Rampson recommended that commissioners listen to input from the public hearing, but not to take action on the resolution until their second meeting in June.

Master Plan Review: Public Hearing

The public hearing drew six speakers on a range of topics, including development in Lowertown, a park in downtown Ann Arbor, and adequate sidewalks cleared of vegetation so that kids can walk to school safely.

Jeff Haynor Hayner said he has lived in the Lowertown area since the early 1980s, and that he’s worked in the area since the mid-1990s – first at a now-defunct Internet company at the base of Broadway, as well as across the Huron River along North Main, for the business owned by Wap John. He said he’s familiar with what’s going on in the area. Hayner referenced Chapter 6 of the master plan’s land use element, which focuses on Lowertown. [.pdf of Chapter 6] Some of the information in that document “didn’t seem to fit with what my expectations and my living in Lowertown has been like,” he said.

Hayner noted that some of the developments planned for that area “haven’t worked out so well.” He cited the Nielson Square infill project on Wall Street, saying it seemed to open the door for the University of Michigan to come in and buy up properties along Wall Street. Now, UM is building a large seven-story parking structure there, he said. It’s bad enough to have the 11-story Riverside Condominiums there, he added.

Ethel “Eppie” Potts reviewed documents prior to the May 21, 2013 planning commission meeting.

Hayner didn’t agree with the master plan’s description of Lowertown or of the problems the area faces. But his biggest concern was the mention of appropriate development being low-rise (2-4 stories) to mid-rise (5-8 stories). “Just because the U of M is doing it doesn’t mean the city should allow it,” he said. He’d prefer to see the plan for development in that area – as well as all areas of the city – be brought down in height. He thought developers should be required to petition the city for larger projects. It’s a neighborhood, and even though the field that’s now at the site of the former Kroger isn’t the greatest thing, he said, “at least it’s a field, and not derelict buildings.” He urged planning commissioners to change the master plan to make low-rise buildings the maximum allowed. It will be disappointing if it gets built out more than the area already is, he concluded.

Ethel “Eppie” Potts, a former planning commissioner, was very interested in the commission’s list of resource documents. Recently, she noted, the commission added the Connecting William Street report to that list. However, the Calthorpe report is missing – why? she asked. “That’s a report that gets quoted and made use of quite regularly.” It was developed through a major public process, Potts said, and while she doesn’t like everything in it, it’s useful in many ways. She’d like to hear a discussion about the standards that commissioners use to select their resource documents.

Potts noted that the commission has been asked by the city council to take another look at the city’s D1 zoning. She presumed that meant mapping possibilities as well as rewriting city code. What the community has learned in recent weeks is that only parts of the D1 zoning are enforceable, Potts contended. [Her comment alluded to the city council's approval of the 413 E. Huron project.] If the city code is rewritten, she urged that important aspects be included in the portion of the zoning that’s enforceable, and “not just be fluffy words put to the side, as what’s happening in some recent cases.” The overlay district, for example, isn’t enforceable, she said, nor is the descriptive material in the city code.

Public engagement was another topic raised by Potts. If the public doesn’t know the location or time of a meeting, “it’s not an open meeting,” she said. She presumed that the public would be notified of meetings when D1 zoning would be discussed, including subcommittee meetings.

Kathy Griswold focused on the non-motorized transportation plan. She read the plan’s vision statement:

The purpose of the plan is to identify the means to establish a physical and cultural environment that supports and encourages safe, comfortable and convenient ways for pedestrians and bicyclists to travel throughout the City and into the surrounding communities.

Noting that she’s said this in the past, Griswold told commissioners that “we need sidewalks for our children to walk to school.” In many cases, children walk to school in the streets, and there’s a wall of vegetation growing right to the edge of the street so it’s not even possible to walk on the side of the road.

She advocated for enforcing Chapter 40 of the city code, which deals with visibility and vegetation trimming. Chapter 40 also needs to be revised so that it’s similar to the code in the country’s four platinum-level bike-friendly cities, she said. [The designation is awarded by the League of American Bicyclists. The platinum level has been awarded to Portland, Oregon; Fort Collins and Boulder, Colorado; and Davis, California.] Those cities have specific site-distance requirements, she noted, and in most cases, their height limit for vegetation is 30 inches, lower than the 36 inches allowed in Ann Arbor. Acknowledging that it takes time to install sidewalks, she’d like immediate action taken to trim vegetation so that it’s trimmed back at least three feet from the curb.

Alan Haber advocated for a central park or central civic area atop the Library Lane underground parking structure. More broadly, the downtown should not have density everywhere, he said. It should have a civic center – “a place where energy gathers, more than simply the commercial, gourmet expressions along Main Street.” A park is an important element of that, he said. But other civic amenities might include an auditorium, a museum, or an outdoor place to aggregate public art. It could be a place to create a culture of peace and nonviolence for the children of the world, he said – a place that embodies the city’s culture and values. That would be the kind of vision he’d like to see incorporated into the master plan.

Kathy Boris directed her comments to the zoning of a specific lot on the west side of Ann Arbor – the site of the former Barnard Plating factory, on the south side of Jackson Avenue, between Glendale and Burwood. She and other residents would like to see it zoned for single family. Right now, it’s zoned for multi-family use, she said. It’s part of a neighborhood that’s about half single family and half multi-family residences. There’s no reason to tip the scale toward multi-family in their neighborhood, Boris concluded.

Barbara Lucas began by saying she’s not often asked for her opinion about what should happen in Ann Arbor. She didn’t have the chance to read the master plan, but she had a few thoughts. A few years ago, she and her family moved to Ann Arbor to be where they didn’t need to have a car. They live near the Argo canoe livery. It’s not safe to walk around the neighborhood at night, she reported, noting that there have been multiple armed robberies at the party store on Broadway. The more people that live in the area, the safer it will be, so she encouraged commissioners to do anything that will increase residential development there.

Getting groceries is another challenge without a car, Lucas said. It’s difficult to ride a bike up the hill going to Kroger on Plymouth, so she’d like to bring more residents to the neighborhood in order to support a grocery. The owner of the party store told her that he couldn’t sell fresh food there, because not enough customers would buy it. It’s difficult to have affordable housing, “because it’s hard to afford the taxes in Ann Arbor,” she said. It’s important to have more affordable housing, so people who work at the UM hospital can live in the neighborhood and walk to work, rather than needing a place to park.

Lucas also cited the need to slow traffic down in that area. When she rides her bike over the Broadway bridge going into town, nobody stops for pedestrians at the crosswalk because they can’t see it when they come over the hill. She’s afraid to encourage vehicles to stop for her at the crosswalk, because they almost get rear-ended when they do. Any kind of warnings or signs would be helpful, she said.

Master Plan Review: Commission Discussion – Lowertown

Bonnie Bona began the discussion by responding to Jeff Hayner and Alan Haber, who spoke during the public hearing. One of the things she finds fascinating about planning is the interconnectedness of the planning work, she said. Bona encouraged the two men to attend the public meetings of the city’s North Main-Huron River Vision task force, because the DTE site near the Huron River and Broadway bridge is part of that project, in the Lowertown area. The site has the potential for combining public space with private development, she said, and the ideas that Hayner and Haber proposed would be helpful in shaping the future of that area. [Bona serves on the task force, which held its first public forum the following night, on May 22. Another forum is set for May 29 at city hall, 301 E. Huron, from 5-7 p.m.]

Sabra Briere noted that a neighborhood email list had alerted residents to the fact that the master plan item was on the commission’s agenda, and she observed that some people attended the public hearing who hadn’t previously spoken to the commission. She also said she’d received several emails from people who live in the Lowertown area, who felt very strongly that the city should reconsider the planning for the area adjacent to Wall Street/Maiden Lane. There was concern about the appropriate type of encouragement for business and residential development, she noted, as well as concern about the master plan’s recommended height of buildings there. It’s probably time to review that, Briere said.

Following up on Briere’s comments, Ken Clein suggested that it might be a good time for the review since the area isn’t under speculation for a specific development. He also thanked the residents to spoke during the public hearing, saying it was helpful to see the connection between their lives and the things that the planning commission does, which sometimes seem arcane. The end result of zoning regulations and legal concerns is the connection to the community, and the fact that residents get involved is a part of that, he said.

Master Plan Review: Commission Discussion – Resource Document List

Most of the commission’s discussion focused on the issue raised by Eppie Potts during the public hearing, regarding the list of resource documents. Wendy Woods said it hadn’t occurred to her that the Calthorpe report wasn’t included, so she asked if staff or one of the other commissioners could explain why it’s not on the list. She noted that the commission refers to the report frequently.

Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Bonnie Bona, who noted that she “lived through” the process of developing the Calthorpe report, said it’s probably not on the list because it led to the downtown plan, which is part of the master plan. [.pdf of downtown plan] The downtown design guidelines, which are part of the resource list, also resulted from the Calthorpe process, she explained.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson agreed. The Calthorpe report is woven into the downtown plan, but predates it, she said. The other resource documents are intended to help explain elements of the master plan. Rampson said commissioners could add Calthorpe to the list, if they felt it would be a useful background document.

Woods felt it should be added.

Sabra Briere clarified that the official name of the Calthorpe report is the Downtown Development Strategies Project report. She noted that there are a lot of documents on the resource list that no one she knows ever refers to. However, Calthorpe is in still very much in people’s lexicon, she said. Briere thought that having the report as a resource document for background would be useful, and she wondered whether the entire list should be re-evaluated.

Diane Giannola liked the sense of history that the resource documents provided. She didn’t feel it was a bad thing potentially to duplicate information by adding the Calthorpe report. However, she hoped people would understand that it was a report that led to the downtown plan. There might have been things that were compromised on or changed in the final document.

Ken Clein suggested reviewing the Calthorpe report before deciding whether to include it on the resource list, since there are likely places where it’s in conflict with the master plan. Eric Mahler noted that Calthorpe isn’t an official city document – noting that it was produced by a consultant. It likely conflicts in some ways with the downtown plan, he said. If they only pay attention to parts of the Calthorpe report that simply agree with the downtown plan, there’s no point in including it. Mahler wouldn’t want to add a resource document that would give anyone an excuse to exploit something they don’t like in the master plan. He felt there was a reason why the Calthorpe report hadn’t been included up to now.

Woods acknowledged that she’s not an attorney. [That was likely a reference to Mahler, who is an attorney.] She referred to a description of resource documents that was included in the city’s sustainability framework report. She cited this description:

Council-Approved Plans. Plans designated as “council-approved” refer to plans other than master plan elements that have formal approval by Ann Arbor City Council. These plans may also have approvals from other City of Ann Arbor commissions. These plans are often resource documents that supplement the City Master Plan by providing additional detail for interpretation and implementation of the recommendations. Council-approved plans are typically created through an existing commission or special committee that develops the plan and recommends it to City Council for their approval adoption.

[It's worth noting that some of the plans on the resource document list – such as the Connecting William Street report – are not approved by the council. That category of plan is also described in the sustainability framework report: "Plans categorized as 'commission-approved' do not have formal approval from Ann Arbor city council, but do have approval from one or more of Ann Arbor’s city commissions. Commission-approved plans are typically created through an existing commission or special committee that develops the plan but the plan is either (1) not brought to City Council for further approvals or (2) has been brought to City Council but has not been adopted." The Connecting William Street report was adopted by the planning commission as a resource document, but did not receive any action by the council.]

Woods noted that she served on the council when the Calthorpe report was developed. When people talk about these plans, they talk about the fact that these documents are used to guide decisions, but aren’t etched in stone, she said. Unless the city attorney’s office indicates that it would be a problem, Woods said she’d rather have the Calthorpe report on the resource list so that future planning commissions and city councils can have historical documentation.

Planning commissioner Eric Mahler.

Bona said she didn’t have a strong opinion about the Calthorpe report. What’s really important about all of these documents is that most of them are the culmination of public input. Many of them relate to gaps in the master plan, like North Main Street. That area really isn’t covered in the master plan, she said. The flood mitigation plan is another example. Calthorpe might be worth adding because it went through such an extensive public input process, she said.

Another plan that keeps getting mentioned is the Allen Creek Greenway report, Bona said. It had been produced by a task force that the council appointed. She wasn’t sure if it was actually approved by the council or simply accepted, but it might be worth considering whether to add it as a resource.

Responding to Mahler’s concerns, Giannola said she saw it from another angle. Having the Calthorpe report as a resource shows people what wasn’t adopted into the downtown plan. It doesn’t mean that Calthorpe trumps everything, she said. It just provides historical context.

Briere also voiced support for “evolution of thought,” saying that “it helps us understand where we are today.” She didn’t think the fact that a plan was council-approved should be a factor in deciding whether to include it as a resource document. For example, the council approved parts of the Huron River Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP), but that plan isn’t in the master plan or on the resource list – even though it guides, to some extent, decisions made about the river.

Rampson confirmed that not all documents on the resource list are council-approved. Some of them – like the North Main Street/Huron River Corridor Summary Land Use Policy from 1988 – were previously a part of the master plan, but were removed at some point. All of them are city plans, however – not the work of an outside consultant or nonprofit.

Kirk Westphal said he’d rather be more inclusive than exclusive for documents on the resource list.

Tony Derezinski expressed some concern about adding Calthorpe, saying that the city has perhaps moved “beyond Calthorpe.” It tends to be like scripture, he said – everyone quotes it for their own reasons. Does it assist in understanding the evolution of thought, he asked, or does it bring people back to where they started? That’s important, particularly when there’s a contested issue, he noted. Some people might think that if the planning commission adds Calthorpe now as a resource document, it’s a more powerful statement because it was not initially included. “I’m just conjuring up the possibility of horribles,” he said.

Derezinski wanted to get an opinion from the city attorney’s office.

At that, Rampson shook her head. “I don’t think it’s necessary,” she said. “I think we might be overthinking it a bit.” She noted that the resource documents have been used to understand what’s happened in the past, and the commission has never used the documents to try to contradict anything in the master plan. The master plan is clearly what’s been adopted by the planning commission and by the city council, Rampson added, as required by state law. “My suggestion is that we not ask the attorney’s office for an opinion on that – if that’s OK.”

Giannola felt it was OK, as long as it’s made clear that there’s a difference between the master plan and the resource document list.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone action on the master plan review until their June 18 meeting.

Master Plan: South State Corridor

Also on May 21, the commission held a public hearing to get input on the South State Street corridor plan, as a possible addition to the city’s master plan. [.pdf of South State Street corridor plan] Commissioners and staff have been working on this project for more than two years. [For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: "State Street Corridor Study Planned," “Sustainability Goals Shape Corridor Study,” “Ideas Floated for South State Corridor.” and “South State Corridor Gets Closer Look.”]

Biercamp at 1643 S. State St., near the north end of the South State Street corridor studied by the planning commission and planning staff.

Recommendations are organized into categories of the city’s recently adopted sustainability framework: Land use and access, community, climate and energy, and resource management. Among the recommendations are: (1) Evaluate use of vacant parcels for alternative energy generation; (2) Evaluate integrating public art along the corridor; (3) Evaluate use of open land for community gardens; (4) Assess and improve high crash areas along the corridor; (5) create boulevard on State Street between Eisenhower and I‐94 to enable safer automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian movement; (6) Consider utilizing vacant parcels for athletic fields and recreation facilities; (7) Develop a pedestrian and bicycle path along the Ann Arbor railroad that will connect the planned Allen Creek bikeway to Pittsfield Township through the corridor; and (8) Resurface roads in the corridor.

Each recommendation includes several related action items. The report also provides a section that organizes the recommendations into each of three distinct sections of the corridor: (1) from Stimson on the north to Eisenhower Parkway; (2) from Eisenhower south to the I-94 interchange; and (3) from I-94 to Ellsworth. In addition, there are nine site-specific recommendations for areas including Briarwood Mall, the complex of hotels near Victors Way and Broadway, and the research park development near the corridor’s south end.

At the planning commission’s May 21 meeting, two resolutions were on the agenda: (1) a vote to add the South State Street corridor plan to the city’s master plan, as an amendment to the plan’s land use element; and (2) a recommendation that the city council also adopt the plan into the master plan’s land use element. By state law, elements of the master plan must be approved by both the planning commission and the city council.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item. Joe Upton – a former city councilmember who is vice president of sales and marketing at Edwards Brothers Malloy, a book manufacturer based on South State – attended the meeting but did not address the commission.

Master Plan: South State Corridor – Commission Discussion

Discussion was brief. Bonnie Bona said she was very proud to have participated in developing this plan. “It’s a beautiful document, and I think it thoroughly captures what’s unique and challenging about South State Street.”

Bona said she assumed that when the transit connector study is finished, the commission might need to revisit the South State Street corridor plan. [The connector study, being done by the consultant URS Corp., is focused on the possibility of developing a transportation connector – for the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street and south along State Street to I-94.]

Bona asked city planner Jeff Kahan for an update on the connector study. Kahan noted that the South State corridor plan includes a section on transportation-related issues, including the connector study. Here’s the relevant paragraph:

Connector Feasibility Study (2012) – This study explores multiple scenarios for high capacity transportation service along major activity centers in the Plymouth Road and State Street corridors identified in the Transportation Plan Update. The study area included the Plymouth Road corridor in northeastern Ann Arbor, downtown, and major activity centers on the south side. It included the University of Michigan’s north campus, medical center campus, central campus, and athletic campus, as well as downtown Ann Arbor and employment centers near I-94. The State Street Corridor was identified as one of three possible routes for the south end of the study area (the other two: S. Main/Ann Arbor Saline and the Ann Arbor Railroad).

Kahan noted that if the South State Street corridor is chosen as the southern leg of the transit connector, then the city would need to revisit the land use recommendations for that corridor, to better dovetail with the transit system.

Ken Clein thanked the city staff for its work developing the corridor plan. He noted that it’s the first city plan that incorporates the new sustainability framework. He hoped people would look at it. “Even though planning documents can be a little bit dry, I think there are a lot of interesting things in here.” The plan had also received a lot of input and support from businesses and others along the corridor, he said.

Tony Derezinski said he had noted “with a bit of glee” that a picture of his favorite sausage shop was posted prominently in the report. [A photo of Biercamp, located at 1643 S. State, is included on page 19 of the plan.]

Sabra Briere reported that she sometimes hears from people who say that public input doesn’t matter, and that those involved in local government only listen to insiders. She pointed out that eight people responded to the survey on A2 Open City Hall about the corridor plan, but 86 people read the topic. That’s pretty good, she said, given that A2 Open City Hall is still novel. Briere highlighted A2 Open City Hall as a tool for feedback, saying it’s something that city staff and others who are interested in the topic read. She’s grateful to the staff for coming up with this approach, and she hopes to see it used constantly.

Kirk Westphal said that A2 Open City Hall is a new tool, but the city also got input from public forums and interviews with the business community and others along South State.

Outcome: In two separate unanimous votes, commissioners added the corridor plan to the master plan, and recommended that the city council do the same.

Rezoning for 2271 S. State

In another item related to South State Street, the commission considered a rezoning request for 2271 S. State St., where owners would like to sell cars. Also on the agenda was a resolution to waive an area plan requirement for the site. An area plan is more conceptual than a site plan, and indicates generally how a site will be developed.

The project had previously been on the commission’s Dec. 18, 2012 agenda, when action was postponed.

Aerial view showing 2271 South State Street. Most recently, Pilar’s Tamales had been located in a building at the front of the site. The large lot on the right side of this image is a parking lot for Ann Arbor Public Schools buses. The property on the left of the image is the University of Michigan tennis facility. On the bottom left is a portion of the Edwards Brothers Malloy book manufacturing business.

The 2.24-acre site is located on the east side of South State, across the street from a University of Michigan tennis facility. Most recently, Pilar’s Tamales restaurant was located there, though that building is now vacant. The owner, Capital Investment Co., requested rezoning from M1 (limited industrial) to M1A (limited light industrial) so that an auto dealership could be located there. The plan calls for renovating an existing 1,868-square-foot building that fronts South State, to use as a sales office, while using the rear warehouse as an auto repair shop. Repaired cars would be stored and sold in the front parking lot.

The city’s master plan discourages commercial uses along South State, except for the sites adjacent to the Stimson and South Industrial commercial area. The master plan calls for research and industrial uses, and a new corridor plan for South State recommends a mix of office and residential uses for that area. Earlier in the May 21 meeting, commissioners had voted to recommend adding the South State Street corridor plan to the city’s master plan, as an amendment to the plan’s land use element. The city council must also approve adding the plan, before it official becomes part of the master plan.

In giving the staff report, city planner Jeff Kahan also noted that an auto dealership is not the type of use that would support improved public transit along the South State Street corridor, and the parking lot lighting would not be consistent with existing and future mixed-use development. City staff did not support rezoning the site, but did support approval of the area plan waiver.

According to a staff memo, regardless of the outcome of the rezoning request, the owner still needs to resolve several compliance issues related to the existing site plan, including lack of required landscaping, an unfinished building foundation, deteriorated driveways, and stormwater drainage problems. Owners also need to submit a re-occupancy permit that would require approval by the city’s building department, and the site would need to be brought into compliance before a new business could open there. The property is located in Ward 4.

Not mentioned at the meeting is the fact that the property is apparently for sale, with an asking price of $1.6 million.

Rezoning for 2271 S. State: Public Hearing

The only speaker at the public hearing was local attorney Scott Munzel, representing the owner. Capital Investments wants to renovate the existing warehouse in the middle of the site. Their business is to buy vehicles at auctions, repair them, then ship the vehicles overseas. They’d like to renovate the roughly 3,500-square-foot warehouse, and sell some of the repaired autos on the State Street frontage.

Scott Munzel, an attorney representing the owner of 2271 S. State.

Munzel said the site is fairly narrow, with significant grade drop-off to the east. This affects the type of uses that could be developed on the site, he said. The maximum number of cars that could be parked on the site near State Street would be about 16. It would not be like the Honda dealership further south on State Street, he said.

To the immediate east is the Ann Arbor Public Schools bus storage facility, with dozens of buses parked there. Immediately to the west – across State Street – is the UM tennis facility, and commercial-type office uses are located on the north and south of the site. There are no residential uses on the near vicinity of the site, he said.

Munzel noted that the proposal is consistent with the existing master plan, which calls for industrial uses. There are a variety of M1A sites already in the area, he noted. The planning staff is concerned about auto sales on that site, but Munzel said there’s no way the topography would allow for the site to be turned into a conventional dealership. “It’s a theoretical concern, but in reality it’s not a practical issue,” he said.

Other elements of the master plan include economic development, employment opportunities, activating State Street frontage – all of these things could be done with the proposed rezoning, he said. Munzel also felt the lighting issue wouldn’t be a problem.

Regarding the South State Street corridor plan, Munzel thought it was unfair to evaluate the rezoning request against that plan, given that the city council hasn’t yet adopted it into the master plan. He said the city needs to strive to create plans that optimize the outcomes that the city seeks, “but it doesn’t happen in a vacuum.” There are financial and market demand issues, as well as logistical issues for the site, that also should factor into the commission’s decision. “That site is just not going to be developed according to the draft [corridor] plan, at least for some time,” he said.

Munzel said his clients don’t object to the corridor plan, because in the long run, they’d like to use the site for its “highest and best use.” They view their current proposal as a limited investment, and when demand develops, they’re planning to develop it in a way that’s more consistent with what the city desires, Munzel said. They want to use the site better now, in a way that preserves the ability to use it better in the future, too, he concluded.

Rezoning for 2271 S. State: Commission Discussion – Rezoning

Bonnie Bona said the project is simple from a site plan perspective, but not from a policy perspective. She appreciated the staff explanation related to the appropriateness of the proposal. She also appreciated Scott Munzel’s comments about the reality that the South State corridor goals will take some time to achieve. The parcel has been highly underutilized for a long time, she noted, and she was strongly leaning toward approval so that there would be some activity on the site. If the owners were making a major investment, she’d feel differently. But she was sure that when the transit connector comes in or when other corridor improvements are made, the property will become valuable enough for a higher use.

A vacant building at the entrance to 2271 S. State St.

Eric Mahler also was leaning toward support. Having some activity on the site is better than nothing. Also, moving from M1 to M1A isn’t significant, he said, and there’s only a slim chance of the site becoming a full-fledged auto dealership. The owner is looking for a fairly reasonable step up to put a business, Mahler said. He didn’t think it was an unreasonable request. “I don’t have any misgivings about it, even though the master plan tells me I should,” he said.

Ken Clein had some concerns. The proposal is not what the city is trying to achieve for that area, he noted, and it might set a precedent for other rezoning requests from South State property owners. In the case of 2271 S. State, there’s no guarantee that the property won’t be sold after it’s rezoned, he said.

City planner Jeff Kahan confirmed that the zoning stays with the property if it’s sold. That’s a staff concern too, Kahan said. Zoning to allow for an auto dealership has considerable value, he added, and it has the risk of becoming a long-term use. This is a corridor that’s been identified as having potential for active uses, to encourage more pedestrians, residents and jobs. Dealerships tend not to have a lot of jobs, he noted.

The staff uses the city’s master plan for guidance, Kahan said, and the master plan doesn’t support this kind of zoning or use on that site.

Clein clarified with Kahan that the owners would need to bring forward a site plan, before significant changes would be made to the site. Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that a site plan is already in place – approved prior to Capital Investments buying the property. That site plan was started, but never completed. “We’re going to have to unravel that at some point,” she said. The parking lot off of South State was paved, but the landscaping and other improvements that are required by the site plan were never completed. A building was started but never finished, she said. That’s an enforcement issue that needs to be handled.

Rampson noted that if the rezoning doesn’t get approved, the property can still be used for office space and auto repair. But if rezoning is approved to allow a new use, she added, pressure will be removed to develop the site in a way that’s more consistent with the South State Street corridor plan that the commission adopted earlier in the meeting.

Responding to a question from Diane Giannola, Kahan said that the main difference between M1 and M1A is that M1A allows for auto sales. It doesn’t differentiate between indoor and outdoor sales, he said.

Tony Derezinski said one of the concerns is that the site has been vacant for a long time, and needs a lot of work. There are substantial compliance issues too. The owners “tantalize” the city with the possibility of changing the site’s use in the future, he noted, but he wondered if the site could be put to a better use now, other than auto sales and repair. “I’m really torn on this one,” he said.

Clein agreed that activating the site and strengthening the tax base are important, but he didn’t sense a commitment from the owners to fix up the site. He felt there’s a desire to do as little as possible on their part, while they’re asking for a rezoning that goes in a direction counter to the city’s goal.

Wendy Woods described the site as looking a little “unloved.” The owners are saying they’ll make further improvements if they get this rezoning, she noted, but that’s asking the city to trust them, and she wasn’t sure about that. She also highlighted the citizens participation meeting, which only drew two people – who owned adjoining property. Those people are in favor of the project, but they raised the concern about drainage. Woods had a concern about trusting the property owner, especially when environmental issues are at stake.

Exposed rebar in an unfinished foundation for a building at the lower level of 2271 S. State, toward the middle of the property.

Kirk Westphal said rezoning would be contrary to the master plan as well as to all the public feedback that had been given in developing the South State corridor plan. He also was concerned about setting a precedent in rezoning.

Bona noted that she agreed with other commissioners, and that the timing of the owners might just be bad regarding the new corridor plan.

Munzel asked if he could respond, and though it’s not the commission’s usual habit or protocol to do that, Westphal allowed it, after checking with other commissioners. Munzel called it a difficult site to develop, and said the owner “is not like the guy who bought 413 E. Huron.” [That reference is to a controversial residential project that was approved by the city council on May 13, 2013.]

The owner of 2271 S. State is very nervous about dealing with the city, Munzel said, and has been reluctant to spend much money because it’s unclear what the city would allow on that property. Some of the improvements that the owner would need to do now will benefit the site for a future use, he said – like putting in a new stormwater drainage facility. If the owner is allowed to pursue this temporary use through rezoning, Munzel said, then the owner might be able to carry the site and wait for a much better use, like residential. But if the rezoning doesn’t occur, there might be a less desirable longer-term use there, Munzel said.

Woods asked Kahan to show a slide from the staff report that displayed a portion of the site overgrown with weeds, with a partially-built structure and exposed rebar. She called it “close to an eyesore,” and wondered when the current owner bought the property. Munzel replied that Capital Investments bought the site in 2010. He noted that the picture showed the foundation and rebar from the existing site plan started by the previous owner, and it would be removed.

Outcome on rezoning: Commissioners denied the recommendation for rezoning on a 1-8 vote, with support only from Eric Mahler. It would be possible for the owner to bring the rezoning request to the city council, even though it did not receive a recommendation of approval by the planning commission.

Rezoning for 2271 S. State: Commission Discussion – Area Plan Waiver

Wendy Rampson explained that even without a recommendation of approval from the planning commission, the owner could decide to take the rezoning request directly to city council for consideration. If the council decides to approve the rezoning, the owner would need to submit an area plan – or the area plan would need to be waived by the planning commission. The planning staff felt there’s no benefit to having an area plan at this point, because there’s a previously approved site plan that can be used for enforcement purposes, she said.

If the commission waives the area plan requirement and the council approves the rezoning, then the owner could proceed directly to seeking building permits, Rampson explained. If the council denies the rezoning, nothing new happens on the site.

If the commission does not waive the area plan and the council does approve the rezoning, then the owner would need to develop an area plan that would also require approval.

Rampson said it’s tricky, because the existing site plan was never completed. The current owner has a continuing obligation to comply with that site plan. At some point, the city needs to determine what aspects of that site plan have been completed – like the upper lot – then make sure that other elements of the site plan are finished, too, she said. The other possibility is to make an administrative amendment to tailor the site plan for the current situation. “A new site plan is not required to occupy these buildings,” Rampson explained. But this is separate from the area plan issue, she noted.

Ann Arbor city planner Jeff Kahan.

Kirk Westphal said he wasn’t inclined to approve the waiver. Ken Clein had the opposite view, citing staff’s recommendation. He didn’t have a problem with the waiver, as long as he knew the site plan would be completed.

Sabra Briere said “I think this comes down to do we ask the petitioner to spend more money.” If the commission requires that an area plan is created before asking city council for the rezoning, then that means the petitioner must spend the time, energy and expense on it, before gambling on what the council will do, she said. That almost makes it too onerous for the petitioner to bring the request to the council, so Briere wanted to waive the requirement.

Bonnie Bona asked when the South State corridor plan would go to the council. City plan Jeff Kahan noted that the staff hadn’t known what action the planning commission would take regarding the corridor plan, so it hasn’t been put on the council’s agenda yet. Kahan guessed it would go before the council within the next month or so.

Bona said it would be unfortunate if the 2271 S. State project went before council prior to the South State corridor plan. She wondered why the site plan wasn’t required to be updated. Rampson replied that the updates are required if the site plan hasn’t been implemented. In this case, the problem is that work on the site plan is already underway, and the current owner isn’t proposing to do anything differently, she said – and the plan is to leave the existing buildings in the same location.

Bona thought it would be worth looking at the city’s requirements, and possibly changing them so that regular progress is required on implementing site plans. “The thought of completing a plan today that doesn’t meet our current requirements seems a little odd – and unfortunate,” she said.

Rampson clarified that if the rezoning request moves on to the city council, it would potentially be on the same council agenda as the South State corridor plan.

Westphal felt that waiving the area plan sent a message that the rezoning request should move forward to the council, even though it didn’t receive a recommendation of approval from the commission.

Outcome on area plan waiver: Commissioners voted 7-2 to waive an area plan requirement for the site, with dissent from Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

Communications & Commentary

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

Communications & Commentary: Southeast Ann Arbor

During the time for general public commentary, people associated with the Forest Hills Cooperative – located on the north side of Ellsworth, east of Stone School Road – spoke to commissioners. Some of these residents have previously addressed the commission, expressing concerns about the Summit Townhomes development at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road, which the city council approved on May 6, 2013. Concerns had related to increased density in the area, and a lack of city services.

Aiji Pipho said she represented Forest Hills Cooperative. In that general area, which she described as very densely populated, the services are inadequate, she said. There’s only a very small community center, she noted – Bryant Community Center. It does a fantastic job of distributing food, she said, but it really doesn’t have the capacity to serve more than the 200 or so homes in the Bryant neighborhood. None of the existing large townhome developments – Forest Hills, University Townhouses, and Colonial Square – have a community center. That’s something that residents are interested in, she said, to serve the area from Stone School along the Ellsworth corridor.

From left: Claudia Myszke and Aiji Pipho of the Forest Hills Cooperative spoke during public commentary at the planning commission’s May 21 meeting.

Pipho said that some of the residents are designing a survey to ascertain needs. They hope to return with strong information about what that side of town needs. In the meantime, she added, they were asking for a moratorium on any zoning changes or high-density housing in that area.

Claudia Myszke, managing agent of Forest Hills Cooperative, said people who live in the area have formed a task force – with the tentative name of Southeast Area Task Force – to address these types of issues, including the master plan. From Platt Road to Stone School along Ellsworth, there are about 1,300 units of multi-family housing, she noted. The density is extreme. In a five-mile radius of Forest Hills, there are over 4,000 units of multi-family housing, she added. Continuing west on Ellsworth to State Street, you’ll see light industrial areas with very large open spaces and setbacks. However, only the businesses can take advantage of that open space. For residents, the main open space in that area is a toxic former landfill, she said. The task force is asking the commission to consider giving some attention to the Ellsworth Road corridor – much like the city has done for other corridors. [Ongoing efforts for corridor improvements in Ann Arbor are focused on North Main, South State and Washtenaw Avenue.]

Myszke concluded by saying that for a long time, the southeast area of Ann Arbor has been designated as an area for low- to moderate-income residents with no services from the city.

Another resident from the southeast area emphasized the same points that Pipho and Myszke had made about density. She noted that there are new businesses along Ellsworth, like Costco, in addition to new housing, and traffic is bad on that road. She hoped the city would consider widening Ellsworth, as well as a moratorium on development until a plan can be developed for that area.

Communications & Commentary: Downtown Housing

During general public commentary at the start of the meeting, Barbara Tucker said she wanted to reinforce something that city councilmember Sabra Briere was quoted as saying in the media recently. [Briere, who represents Ward 1 on council, also serves on the planning commission.] Briere had said that there seems to be consideration for affordable housing and high-end housing, Tucker reported, but there also might be people in their 50s and 60s who’d like to move closer to downtown. Tucker said she’s heard that because of the economics of new construction, it’s not feasible to create housing that’s affordable for middle-class people – housing between $250,000 and $300,000. She wanted to reinforce Briere’s observation, and hoped that the planning commission would give some consideration to that.

Communications & Commentary: North Main-Huron River Task Force

Bonnie Bona reported that the city’s North Main-Huron River Vision task force would be hosting public forums on May 22 and May 29, to present some initial ideas and get feedback from residents about possible changes along that corridor.

The May 29 public forum will be held at city hall, 301 E. Huron, from 5-7 p.m. The task force then will incorporate the feedback into recommendations that will be presented to the community on Wednesday, June 12, from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor Community Center, 625 N. Main. After that, the task force will meet again to finalize their recommendations – on Wednesday, June 19 from 5-7 p.m. at the NEW Center, 1100 N. Main. The final recommendations will be sent to the city council for consideration.

Bona suggested getting more information online at the task force website. A survey on A2 Open City Hall is also posted, where residents can provide feedback by responding to open-ended questions.

Communications & Commentary: Planning Manager Updates

Wendy Rampson highlighted four upcoming meetings of the Washtenaw Avenue corridor project, known as Reimagine Washtenaw. The format will be identical for each meeting, held on different days at different locations along the corridor:

• Tuesday, May 28 from 6-8 p.m. at the Washtenaw County Learning Resource Center (near the county jail complex), 4135 Washtenaw Ave.
• Wednesday, May 29 from 8-10 p.m. at the Washtenaw County Learning Resource Center (near the county jail complex), 4135 Washtenaw Ave.
• Thursday, May 30 from 7-9 p.m. at Carpenter Elementary’s multi-purpose room, 4250 Central Blvd., Ann Arbor.
• Friday, May 31 from 2-4 p.m. at Eastern Michigan University’s McKenny Union Room 330.

Input is being solicited for a corridor right-of-way study that’s funded by the federal Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD). Forums will include a 30-minute presentation on the concept of Complete Streets, followed by time to give feedback on pedestrian crossings, adding bike lanes, transit stops, and sidewalks to the corridor, and providing input on a vision for the future of mass transit along the corridor.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the planning commission.

Rampson also highlighted a public meeting regarding proposed sign ordinance amendments for digital signs and billboards. That meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 29 at 7 p.m. in the basement conference room of city hall, 301 E. Huron.

In other updates, Rampson noted that the city council had appointed Paras Parekh to replace Eric Mahler on the planning commission. The council confirmed Parekh at its May 20, 2013 meeting, and he will be joining the commission after July 1, she said. [Parekh is currently director of marketing and membership for the University of Michigan alumni association. His undergrad degree in economics is from UM. He has worked in marketing for a bit more than a decade, and spent two years as a legislative aide in the U.S. House of Representatives working for Congresswoman Lynn Rivers. Mahler has served two terms on the planning commission, and was recently appointed by the council to serve on the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board.]

Communications & Commentary: Environmental Commission

Kirk Westphal, who serves as the planning commission’s representative on the city’s environmental commission, reported on work that’s being done in several areas. Issues that the environmental commission is looking at include (1) tree planting on private land, (2) energy efficiency and private businesses, (3) strengthening ties with neighborhood groups, (4) turf grass, (5) “green streets,” (6) the city’s Huron River Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP), and (7) an “interactive widget” that helps consumers make decisions about buying a car or home based on commutes, transit access and heating/cooling costs.

Westphal suggested that commissioners contact him or Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator, for more details on any of these topics.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Ken Clein, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

At the same Feb. 19 meeting, the council also postponed a resolution that called for reconvening the downtown design guidelines task force to review and make recommendations to city council regarding improvements to the design review process. Currently, developers must follow a mandatory process of review for downtown projects, but are not required to comply with the board’s recommendations. The resolution was added to the agenda about an hour before the meeting started. Members of the task force mentioned in the resolution are: Marcia Higgins (Ward 4 city council), Tamara Burns (architect), Dick Mitchell (architect), Bill Kinley (construction contractor), Norm Tyler (architect), Kirk Westphal (planning commission chair), and Doug Kelbaugh (University of Michigan professor of architecture and urban planning).

But it’s the possible moratorium that has drawn the most interest, because of developments that are already in the approval process – including a controversial project at 413 E. Huron. Under the proposed moratorium, that project would not be allowed to move forward, because its site plan did not receive a recommendation of approval from the city’s planning commission. However, the wording of the resolution provides for exemptions for site plans that have already received the planning commission’s recommendation of approval.

Specifically, the wording in the resolution means that the moratorium would not apply to the 624 Church St. project, which received a recommendation of approval from the city planning commission on Jan. 15, 2013. That project is expected to be considered by the city council at its March 4 meeting. The 14-story 624 Church St. project would offer 75 apartments with a total of about 175 bedrooms. Local attorney Scott Munzel, who represents the developer on the project, attended the council’s Sunday night caucus to get clarification on that point.

The moratorium also would not impact Kerrytown Place, a proposed development on North Main – the site of the former Greek Orthodox church – that’s zoned D2. Kerrytown Place consists of three 3-4 story buildings with a total of 19 units. The project is scheduled for consideration by the city’s design review board on Feb. 20.

Based on the wording in the resolution, the moratorium would apply to the 413 E. Huron project, which recently failed to gain a recommendation of approval from the city planning commission, and could be on a city council agenda as early as mid-March. That project is located on a site zoned D1, the highest density allowed in the city.

The council’s Feb. 19 meeting featured public commentary from several people in support of the moratorium. Attorneys for the developer of 413 E. Huron also addressed the council, saying that if the moratorium were to be imposed, their client would look to exercise his legal rights.

The council’s resolution also would direct the planning commission to use part of the period of the moratorium to review recently approved and recommended site plans in the D1-zoned areas. The point of the review would be to determine if zoning standards provide appropriate guidance on form and use, and if the zoning conforms to the city’s master plan, downtown plan and character district overlays. The resolution states that the planning commission is to complete its work by June 4 (its first meeting in June) and the council is supposed to take any action by Aug. 19 (its second meeting in August).

The memo accompanying the resolution notes that an initial review of the relatively new A2D2 zoning, enacted in 2009, was supposed to take place after one year. But in that first year no projects had been proposed – because of the economic downturn. Since then, however, the memo points to four projects that have been proposed in D1 areas: Zaragon West (built), The Varsity (under construction), 624 Church Street (proposed) and 413 E. Huron (proposed).

The moratorium was considered at the first council meeting after the city planning commission took action on a site plan for 413 E. Huron – a proposed 14-story, 271,855-square-foot apartment building with 533 bedrooms, marketed primarily to university students. The determination of the planning staff was that the project met the D1 zoning requirements, which in that part of the city include a height limit of 150 feet.

However, the outcome of the planning commission’s vote on Feb. 4, 2013 was not a recommendation for approval, because the 5-3 tally in favor did not give the project the required six-vote majority.

The planning commission vote came after long and harsh criticism during the public hearing on the 413 E. Huron site plan – at the two meetings when the planning commission deliberated on the proposal. Some residents called for a rezoning of the parcel, saying it was inappropriate for that area. The D1 zoning had been part of the A2D2 rezoning package for the downtown, which the council approved at its Nov. 16, 2009 meeting.

But even without a planning commission recommendation, a developer has the option of bringing a site plan proposal for consideration by the city council, which the 413 E. Huron developer intends to do.

The resolution to establish a moratorium was brought forward by Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere and was co-sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Briere sits on the city planning commission as the council’s representative, and voted as a planning commissioner against the 413 E. Huron project. Joining her in that three-vote dissent were Wendy Woods and Ken Clein.

The council’s dilemma with respect to 413 E. Huron relates to the parcel’s zoning, which many residents contend was inappropriately zoned as D1. Opponents of the project argue that the site should have been zoned D2 (interface), in order to provide a buffer between densely developed areas and neighboring residential areas.

Last year, on April 16, 2012, the city council was asked to contemplate the reverse scenario, when a developer asked for conditional rezoning of a parcel at 1320 S. University – to change its 2009 designation of D2 to D1. The requested D1 zoning would have allowed for a much denser project, which would have exceeded the 60-foot D2 height limit by 85 feet. The council rejected that request. On that occasion, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) argued that the community conversation about the South University area – which had led to the D2 designation – had been significant and warranted the council’s respect.

Taylor did not attend the Feb. 19, 2013 meeting as he was on a family vacation. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was not at the council meeting because she had to attend an offsite training conference for her employer. The rationale for postponement offered by Briere was that Higgins had wanted to be part of the deliberations. Before postponement, the council held a closed session on the topic lasting about an hour.

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