One item was apparently not handled the way that the majority of the council wanted, due to the absence of two councilmembers – Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

Left to right: Ann Arbor city councilmembers Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). (Photos by the writer.)

That item was a $60,000 appropriation – the city’s portion of a $300,000 local match for continued study of the Plymouth/State corridor, from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, extending south to I-94. The local match is needed for a $1.2 million federal grant that has been awarded for the study. This alternatives analysis phase follows a basic feasibility study. The current study is supposed to result in a preferred choice of technology (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) as well as identifying stations and stops.

Because the $60,000 transfer from the general fund was a change to the city budget, it needed the votes of eight members on the 11-member city council. When Mike Anglin (Ward 5) led off the roll call by voting against it, it was clear that the council would have no more than seven votes in favor – because Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had already made plain during deliberations that she’d be voting against it. So some councilmembers voted against the resolution in order to be on the prevailing side. That gives them the right under parliamentary rules to bring back the item to the council’s next meeting for reconsideration. At that meeting it’s possible, but not certain, that supporters of the funding will have the necessary eight votes.

Several items on the agenda dealt with land use. The council gave final approval to a rezoning request for Knight’s Market, which will allow for expansion of the market at Spring and Miller streets. Winning initial approval was a rezoning requested by the developer of proposed townhouses on Catherine Street – from its current planned unit development (PUD) zoning to R4C (multi-family residential). Rezoning for part of a parcel in connection with a planned Speedway gas station at Maple and Miller also got the council’s initial approval. A related site plan for the station got its one and only required approval.

Also connected to land use was the council’s addition of two more properties to the greenbelt, using about $0.5 million in city funds from the open space and parkland preservation millage. The land from the two properties totals around 226 acres. Lumm cast a lone vote of dissent.

The council also authorized disbursements of community events funds to 13 organizations totaling $44,778, the bulk of which went to the Ann Arbor Summer Festival’s Top of the Park.

And the council set a public hearing for Oct. 1 on a tax abatement for Barracuda Networks. The firm is relocating to downtown Ann Arbor from its current location on Depot Street, in part to accommodate an additional 144 employees it expects to hire by July 1, 2014.

$60K for Transit Study

The council was asked to consider allocating $60,000 of general fund money for a study of a transportation corridor from the northeast of Ann Arbor to the city’s southern edge.

The measure needed eight votes to pass on the 11-member council – not a simple majority of six – because it was a change to the budget.

The contribution from the city of Ann Arbor is meant to help the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority move ahead with an alternatives analysis for the corridor. The corridor runs from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, continuing south to I-94. This alternatives analysis phase of the study would result in a preferred choice of technology (such as bus rapid transit or light rail, for example) and identification of station and stop locations.

The city’s $60,000 would be a portion of $300,000 in local funding that had been identified to provide the required match for a $1.2 million federal grant awarded last year to the AATA for the alternatives analysis phase. The breakdown of local support is intended to be: $60,000 from the city of Ann Arbor; $150,000 from the University of Michigan; and $90,000 from the AATA.

In November 2011, Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, had updated the AATA board on the possible timeline for the alternatives analysis. He said that phase, in which a preferred technology and route with stop locations would be identified, would take around 16 months.

The AATA board information packet for its June 21, 2012 meeting described the hoped-for $60,000 contribution from the city of Ann Arbor.

The resolution in front of the council highlighted the fact that the AATA had recently purchased from the city a six-foot-wide strip of land on the former Y lot, immediately to the south of the location for the planned new Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor. The strip of land was priced at $90,000, based on an independent appraisal. The AATA board approved its side of that deal this spring at its April 26, 2012 meeting. The city council had approved the land sale almost a year ago, at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting. The total parcel area was 792 square feet. A more general discussion of the city’s policy on the proceeds of city-owned land sales will unfold over the next few weeks.

A feasibility study for the corridor costing $640,000 has already been completed. That initial study concluded that some type of improved high-capacity transit system would be feasible – which could take the form of bus rapid transit, light rail transit or elevated automated guideway transit. That study had been funded through a partnership with the city of Ann Arbor, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, University of Michigan and the AATA. Chronicle coverage of that feasibility study includes: “Transit Connector Study: Initial Analysis“; “AATA: Transit Study, Planning Updates“; and “Washtenaw Transit Talks in Flux.”

$60K for Transit Study: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had sent several written questions to city staff about the connector study funding prior to the Sept. 4 council meeting. One of those was about the possible use of the city’s alternative transportation fund – instead of the city’s general fund – to pay for the study.

She led off the council’s deliberations essentially by questioning the accuracy of information she’d received about the use of the alternative transportation fund, which receives its revenue from Act 51 money. [Act 51 handles the distribution of revenue from fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees.]

She told city transportation program manager Eli Cooper that she didn’t see why the alternative transportation fund couldn’t be used to pay for an alternative transportation study. The written answer Lumm had received from Cooper was this: “Act 51, the source of the alternative transportation fund, does not allow for capital planning programs beyond street and non-motorized transportation.” Cooper noted that Act 51 has a provision in it called the “comprehensive transportation fund,” which covers a whole array of transportation. But the distribution of Act 51 money to local communities is more narrowly focused, Cooper explained. Local Act 51 money is for major streets and non-motorized transportation. Lumm ventured that major streets are involved in all the various alternatives – unless we’re looking at something out of the Jetsons, she quipped.

Lumm then pressed for an answer to a question she’d submitted about why the item had not been in the FY 2013 budget. The written answer she’d received was this: “It was included in the CIP [capital improvements plan] for FY 2014. The timing of the investment has been accelerated due to the interest of the stakeholders and availability of grant funding.”

Lumm told Cooper that as far as the item being in the CIP, to that she’d say: “So are lots of things.” She noted that the AATA was notified about the grant in December 2011 – well in advance of the development of the budget and the council’s adoption of it [in May 2012].

Cooper told Lumm that although the AATA was notified by Congressional offices in December that the grant would be coming, it wasn’t a certainty and the paperwork hadn’t been completed at that time. The AATA still had to go through the process of negotiating a fair local share amount from the local partners, he explained. The $60,000 request reflects a belief in the feasibility of a higher-capacity advanced technology transportation system in the corridor – and federal support was made available through the work of the Federal Transit Administration and the region’s Congressional delegation. Given the participation of other local stakeholders, this was the best timing staff could do to bring the request forward, Cooper said.

City administrator Steve Powers, who started on the job about one year ago, offered that he’d take responsibility for the timing. He’d been learning Ann Arbor’s budgeting process and was still learning the specific details of the project. The “missed timing” is ultimately his responsibility, Powers concluded.

Councilmembers Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked where Cooper saw the project going after this phase? What would the memorandum of understanding between the city, the University of Michigan and the AATA include? Cooper indicated that it’s an 18-month and $1.5 million project. The feasibility study had shown the city who will benefit – whether that’s the University of Michigan, the downtown, and the community at large. After the alternatives analysis, better information will be available about the type of transportation technology and the cost and the various beneficiaries. At that point, it would be brought back to the city council on a “more informed basis,” Cooper explained.

In the case of the alternatives analysis study, Cooper said, it’s a situation where the one of the local partners – the University of Michigan – had volunteered 50% of the local match. He didn’t have a set answer, but in a year and a half, he expected that he’d have better information about proportionate shares of building a system – assuming the council gave its authorization to the $60,000 request.

Anglin said he had objected to the countywide transportation plan because it had included a rail station at the Fuller Road location, and it looked like the connector study was dealing with that location as well. As the University of Michigan looks at its bus system and the frequency of service that’s needed in that corridor for the university’s needs, this might be a better system for them than they have now. This seems like a system that services the university, he said. On the southern end of the corridor, Briarwood Mall is served by traffic from the interstate. He didn’t see the need to bring a connector service that far south. The part that’s needed is the part that provides a connection between the university’s campuses. He called it unfortunate that this becomes wrapped up in claims of ridership by the AATA. He asked Cooper if UM ever thought the connector could be entirely the university’s project.

Cooper told Anglin that as he has been involved in the conversation, it’s not been a matter of trying to measure how much one party would benefit. Instead, he characterized it as a “bunch of stakeholders around a table.” With respect to the future ridership, an unanswered question currently is: Who would be the owner and operator of the system? Cooper pointed out that the university had convened an advanced transit technology forum, which the city had attended. Cooper said he looked at this as collaboration. Ridership on the system – whether it’s a bus rapid transit system or a light rail system – will benefit both the university and the city’s downtown.

Cooper observed that the city had recently completed construction of the underground parking garage in the downtown, and said the city needs to have transit to complement the investment in the parking structure. As a transportation planner with gray hair and many decades of experience, he said, he would recommend continuing to provide support for all types of mobility. The feasibility study had shown that there’s a substantial demand, Cooper said. He allowed that Anglin is correct – a large part of that demand comes from the university.

However, the benefits will accrue to the entire community, Cooper said. The people taking trips provided by a connector transit system will not be competing for space on the road system. We’re moving beyond the automobile and the bus – whether that’s bus rapid transit, light rail or commuter rail, he said. This will continue to require study to find the most efficient and effective way to use public resources. There’s no denying the fact that these are capital intensive programs, he allowed. It will require support from the federal, state and local governments – and private partners as well, he said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) supported many of Anglin’s questions about who benefits from the system. She also had some basic factual questions.

How many bus trips take place between the UM medical campus and north campus? Briere asked. Cooper gave a per-day passenger figure of 30,000. The frequency of buses is 60-70 per hour during peak periods, he said. That means there’s more than one bus a minute during peak hours, Briere ventured. Given that frequency and assuming 20 people on a bus, that would be a lot of car trips. Briere wondered, however, what that frequency of bus traffic might be doing to the road infrastructure. Cooper allowed that there’s clearly a relationship between gravel haulers and the impact on roads, but said that buses aren’t as heavy as those types of vehicles. He was not aware of any undue wear on Fuller Road as a result of the bus traffic.

Briere clarified that use of Act 51 money to make non-motorized improvements adjacent to Fuller Road is an appropriate use of Act 51 money. Cooper responded by saying that a minimum of 1% of Act 51 money must be allocated to non-motorized transportation improvements. Briere got confirmation from Cooper that it wouldn’t be appropriate to use Act 51 money to study the possibility of constructing a light rail system down Fuller Road.

Lumm followed up by getting clarification that light rail is one of the technologies that could be an alternative. Cooper clarified that this was the case and that each of the alternatives came with a specific associated cost.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) got confirmation that the DDA is not contributing to the local match for this particular study. He wanted to know why. Cooper’s understanding was that the DDA is not currently in a financial position to participate. However, the DDA would like to be involved in the ongoing discussion, with the possibility that the DDA could be financially involved in future phases of the project. Kunselman summarized that by saying, “So they don’t have the money.”

Kunselman asked if there’s an expectation that another round of federal grants might be available after the preferred local alternative is selected. Cooper told him, “Absolutely.” The recently enacted MAP 21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century) bill continues to support new starts and small starts capital programs. Even in the tight times that are being felt in Washington D.C., with a number of reductions in different categories in the transportation bill, Cooper said, the transit capital starts program is strong in the federal bill.

Kunselman noted that there are a lot of different planning efforts going on – like the WALLY north-south commuter rail, for example. Kunselman was worried that Ann Arbor was “in competition with ourselves,” because clearly not everything could be funded. Cooper responded by saying he wasn’t in a position to say when each one of those planning investments would mature. But in metropolitan areas like Ann Arbor, there’s an ongoing transportation planning process. And federal funding is available for a variety of modes. In any community that has a light rail system, a commuter rail system or a bus rapid transit system, the majority partner has been the federal government. Cooper expected that the federal government will continue to invest in mobility for communities.

Kunselman ventured that a lot of federal grants go to the University of Michigan, but he wasn’t aware of any federal transportation grants going to UM. The connector would predominantly benefit UM, so he wondered if that’s something new and different from the federal government.

Cooper responded with a parallel to his experience with the Fuller Road station. When he spoke to folks in Washington D.C. they had said, “That’s the Ann Arbor station; we don’t know Fuller Road from Main Street.” So in advancing projects of this sort, Cooper said, the feds will see it as an investment in the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor urbanized area. The feds know there’s a university here, but they’ll see it as making an investment in Ann Arbor, he said. The analysis will be blind to who gets the benefit. As the partnership is defined, it’ll be important to look at rider share, Cooper said. However, when the federal government looks at investments of this type, the feds look at the community, and they’ll measure the willingness of all parties to secure the investment that the feds are willing to make, Cooper concluded.

Kunselman expressed his displeasure that the resolution included a sentence about the portion of the YMCA site being sold to the AATA for $90,000, with the description that the $60,000 was thus available. That’s general fund money, and it’s not in its own bucket inside the general fund, Kunselman said. He found the inclusion of that sentence as “over the top,” saying, “We don’t need to hear that part.”

Anglin got clarification that the timeframe for the study would be a year and a half. It would be the same project team that did the feasibility study [URS Corporation], Cooper said, a project that had been finished on schedule.

Anglin stated that he was a little uncomfortable with the request, because there are so many competing distractions we have as a community. He wanted to know how long the study would be valid. He felt that the university would be asking students to relocate to places where they need to be most of the time. He ventured that it might not be clear how many people will be moving between the campuses as time goes on. It’s difficult to project the needs of a community as complex as Ann Arbor, he said.

Responding to the question about the validity of the study, Cooper indicated that the locally-preferred alternative would need to be valid as long as it takes to move to the next step. Comparing the draft environmental assessment (EA) report for the Fuller Road station project, once it’s outside of a three-year timeframe, Cooper said, “we ourselves would want to refresh the data.” Comparing whether the city gets more or less, Cooper pointed out that the entirety of the connector system would be located in the city. He recognized that UM’s configuration will be an important consideration in forecasting travel demand. For that reason, the city and the AATA have worked closely with UM’s planner to understand those needs as they’re seen today, Cooper explained. [Sue Gott, UM's top planner, was the most recent appointment to the board of the AATA. Cooper also serves on that board.]

If assumptions change, Cooper allowed, the project might take on a different character. But overall, the UM planner, the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS), the city staff and a consultant team were doing an analysis. Cooper said he was confident they have a grasp on the need, but agreed that it’s impossible to see all of the future. There could be other trip generators that emerge that had not been foreseen – but if the connector system is in place, that additional demand could be accommodated. If not, then a couple of different things could happen, he said. One of those things is that economic growth might not occur. Or the growth could occur without an investment like that of the connector, which would mean more vehicles on the roadway, Cooper cautioned.

Kunselman stated that he’d support the study, but agreed with Anglin that “We’re all over the place.” The idea that the city would make investments in mass transit, without knowing how to pay for operations, caused him a lot of concern, he said.

Kunselman complained that there are basic transportation services not being provided. Kunselman pointed out that if you go past US-23, there’s no bus to the UM medical center, which is a huge need for the community, he said. He then quoted something he’d written to an AATA board member after having lunch with that person. It included a portion of The Chronicle’s Aug. 16, 2012 AATA board meeting report:

AATA board member Charles Griffith, reporting from the performance monitoring and external relations committee, said that Routes #3 and #5, because of the increased ridership, have struggled a bit with staying on time and with overcrowding. So AATA is continuing to look at ways to address that. It’s not in the budget to increase the frequency of the service as the AATA had done for Route #4, he said – at least not at this time. Route #3 runs between Ann Arbor and Washtenaw Community College. Route #5 runs along Packard between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti.

Kunselman’s letter also complained that the AATA was providing commuter service to communities that didn’t support it with tax dollars [Chelsea and Canton].

Kunselman also wrote in his letter to the unnamed AATA board member that he wanted an opportunity to comment on the AATA’s budget as required under a 1974 agreement between Ann Arbor and the AATA. [.pdf of 1974 agreement] “We haven’t seen your budget,” Kunselman read aloud. He then noted the fact that Cooper is also a member of the AATA board, by saying, “Not you, … but you are an AATA board member, so I’m looking at you right there.”

The AATA budget is due to be adopted before the end of the month [September], Kunselman continued. It’s relevant to the $60,000 request, because as far as he was concerned, the city should not be spending that money, doing the business of the AATA, Kunselman said. He called the number of vehicles that are taken off the road through commuter services by the AATA a “drop in the bucket,” and suggested a better approach would be to get people to commute together through car sharing. [The AATA recently launched a service to promote group travel in the form of a vanpool program.]

Kunselman was skeptical of Cooper’s report that during peak periods the UM was running a bus a minute, calling it an “outrageous” claim. There’s no way there’s a bus each minute, he contended, and if there is, it’s for a very short period of time. He returned to his point about where the money for operations would come from. At that point, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) raised a point of order – that Kunselman had reached the end of his speaking time. He did not seem to have anything else that he wanted to add.

Lumm said she wouldn’t support the request for several reasons, including budget discipline and transparency. She described the approach as incrementally throwing money at transportation related initiatives, “without any clue” about how operating costs will be paid. Lumm pointed out that there are at least five planning initiatives: (1) Ann Arbor rail station; (2) countywide transportation; (3) east-west commuter rail; (4) north-south commuter rail; and (5) the connector study.

Lumm said there’s no idea of how to pay for any of these. The idea that these projects are of equal priority is simply not reasonable, she contended. She felt that very basic questions were not being answered. If it was a priority, then it should have been included in the budget for the year.

Briere got clarification from Cooper about how much the city had expended to date on the connector study – $80,000. That meant the total to that point would be $140,000, if the city authorized the $60,000.

Briere asked if this would be the last money the city would be spending on studies? Cooper’s response: Not at all. There are future phases, which would include detailed environmental assessment work. Responding to a question from Briere about costs, Cooper indicated that it would depend on the choice of outcome from the alternatives analysis study. If the preferred alternative is bus rapid transit, the cost would be an order of magnitude less than another fixed guideway system. “Got it!” Briere exclaimed.

Briere asked Cooper to explain why he felt that the $60,000 is an investment and not an expense. Cooper said it goes back to the city’s transportation plan update. The “do nothing” alternative – as compared to spending money on a transportation portfolio – would result in substantial congestion along almost every major corridor in Ann Arbor. Investments in transit alternatives would be able to diminish the pressure on the road system, Cooper said, so that more freely flowing conditions could be expected.

Briere asked what might happens if the city decided not to do the study, but then five years from now decided at that point to do it. What’s the chaos that the community would face? Cooper told Briere that “chaos” might be too strong a word. There would be an increasing discomfort created by increasing levels of travel demand – more cars on the road. Over the last decade or so, the city has seen a greater influx of workers – from the university – and now we’re seeing more into the downtown area, he said. The forecast for continued economic prosperity in Ann Arbor is a positive thing, but the side effects are that each new job filled by someone who doesn’t walk or bicycle to that job will put additional stress on the transportation system. That’s the reason for the investment – for the community to be able to move forward while preserving the quality of life, Cooper said.

Briere tried to clarify what she meant by “chaos.” Any construction of a connector system would cause a lot of disruption during the construction. So she was trying to get a sense of whether it would be more prudent to get a clearer sense of the demand before constructing something, or go ahead and try to anticipate demand: “That’s what I’m trying to drag out of you,” she said.

Cooper described the modeling as statistically derived, and said the majority of the future is already here. When the system is operating at 0-90% of capacity, it can still function. Going from 90% to 95% or 100% is a “pivot point” where there’s more demand than the system can sustain and the system breaks down. The timing recommendations are that the planning needs to begin now, so that the investments can begin to be made in the mid-term. In 2009, the mid-term was seen as 5-15 years, he said.

Briere asked what would happen if the council were not to provide the $60,000. Would there be an effect be on the federal dollars and on the UM and the AATA? Cooper responded by saying he was not aware of a specific deadline, but the federal grant processing is such that if the council acted that night, the AATA board can follow. And with the UM’s pledge, the project could begin almost instantaneously. If the council spends more time deliberating, then the project would progress on that adjusted timeline. If the council were to choose not to participate at all, the remaining stakeholders will need to reconsider, Cooper said – but he would not speak on behalf of UM, AATA, or the DDA.

Mayor John Hieftje.

Mayor John Hieftje said he saw the connector as part and parcel of a larger picture. He felt that the city could be sure of future job growth. Jobs would continue to come to the city even if the city did not seek them, because the UM continues to build its workforce, he said. But jobs bring traffic and congestion. The only way we can affect that – beyond carpooling and park-and-ride lots – is to expand transit. We won’t know the costs, and we don’t have a way of talking about the costs, he said. He cautioned against backing away from transit – offering as a sardonic possibility the idea that the council could also vote to say they did not want more jobs in the city.

Hieftje called it wise to invest $60,000 as part of a $1.5 million project. The city can continue to build parking structures, and accept more traffic in the city, or we can invest in transit, he said. He asked that councilmembers show a little bit of vision as the city looks to the future and tries to plan for that.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) sought confirmation from Cooper that UM is not a suitable federal grant recipient for a transportation system. Cooper said that UM is not categorized as a recipient of transportation dollars. But UM can help provide the local matching dollars for a federal grant. Taylor concluded that even though the UM can’t sign on the dotted line, a future city council could conclude: “We’re not going to move forward until we get X from the U.” And X could be operating expenses or the local match. Cooper confirmed Taylor’s understanding.

Taylor said he supported the $60,000 allocation, because he sees the council as a steward of the city – not just today, but also 5, 10 or 15 years from now. That requires an investment in planning, he said. And we can’t plan or invest without data.

Taylor said the objection that “we don’t know how we would fund it” doesn’t make sense to him, because this is not the time we’re planning to pay for it. The city councils in the future will have the ability to plan for that, he said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) indicated that transportation is a high priority right now. He said it’s good to study and plan.

Lumm came back to her concern that the city is going down a path with multiple plans. The city’s priority shouldn’t be whatever someone gives it money for, she said.

Outcome: Voting against the allocation were: Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), and Margie Teall (Ward 4). With the absences of Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), the measure got only four votes. Voting for the resolution were: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and mayor John Hieftje.

During the roll call vote, as it was apparent the measure would not reach the eight-vote requirement, Kunselman quipped that perhaps he’d change his mind – after indicating during deliberations that he’d support the resolution. Votes by Teall and Smith can be analyzed as strategic, because only a councilmember who is on the prevailing side – in this case, those who voted no – can bring an item back to be reconsidered. They’d ordinarily be expected to support a resolution like the $60,000 connector study.

If Hohnke and Higgins are at the table for a vote of the full council on Sept. 17, the resolution would at least have a chance at passing. Hohnke would almost certainly vote for it. But passage would depend on Kunselman not changing his mind, and either Higgins or Briere voting yes – neither of which would be a certainty.

Knight’s Market Expansion

In front of the council for final consideration was a plan to expand Knight’s Market, at the northeast northwest corner of Spring and Miller.

The market’s owner, Ray Knight, is well known for his family’s restaurant, Knight’s Steakhouse, located at 2324 Dexter Ave.  The grocery store has been on land zoned C1 (local business) and M1 (light industrial). Knight also owns two separate parcels adjacent to the market. One of those parcels – at 306-308 Spring St. – was zoned R2A (two-family dwelling) and M1, and contains two single-family homes and part of a parking lot. The third parcel at 310 Spring St. was zoned R2A and MI, and contains the other half of the store’s parking lot. All three parcels have been non-conforming in some way, according to a staff report, and are located in the 100-year Allen Creek floodplain.

The Knight’s expansion includes several components. What the council was asked to approve was a rezoning of 306, 308 and 310 Spring to C1. That rezoning will allow the building at 306 Spring to be converted into a bakery, although the intent is to leave the exterior of the house intact. The rezoning will also allow for approval of a site plan to build a 1,200-square-foot addition to the existing grocery store and to expand, reconfigure, and improve the existing parking lot. In addition, the council approved rezoning to C1 of 418 Miller Ave. – the site of the existing grocery. The council was also asked to approve the site plan.

The changes to the parking lot include providing three additional spaces (for a total of 17 parking spaces), a designated snow pile storage area, solid waste and recycling container storage enclosure, right-of-way screening, conflicting land use buffer, and rain gardens for storm water management. An unused curb cut on Miller Avenue would be removed and the curb and lawn extension would be restored there. A temporary storage building at 418 Miller would be removed. The house at 310 Spring will remain a single-family dwelling.

Because the request involved a rezoning – a change to the city’s set of ordinances – the council needed to vote on the item twice, at different meetings, and hold a public hearing. It had given the rezoning an initial vote of approval at its Aug. 9, 2012 meeting.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Public Hearing

Eric Cazepis spoke during the public hearing on the zoning change, introducing himself as the owner of the property directly across the street from the market.

Knight’s Market is the parcel highlighted in yellow. The flood plain is the green shaded area. The floodway is the blue shaded area.

He’s opposed to a change in the ordinance, citing his main concern as flooding. He observed that the property is in the flood plain, and it’s located at the bottom of a hill. He alluded to a mudslide that washed out the railroad tracks in May 2011 along Plymouth Road. He’s seen the street become like a river, as it became too much for the storm drain to handle. He grew up in the area, he said, and he’s seen flooding there. He wanted it to be on the record that he’s against the zoning change. He allowed that the Knights are a good family, but as a nearby property owner, he was opposed to the change.

The architect for the project, Dick Fry, also addressed the council. He told councilmembers that he’d studied the site with respect to the flooding issue. The city’s own department was also very thorough in checking calculations, he said. He said that all the stormwater would be kept on the site. It’s so low across the back of the site that it would flow to the north.

Fry showed the council some drawings, which he said the zoning board of appeals had suggested he do. The ZBA had some concern about the “blankness” of the market. He characterized the sketches as “nothing incredible” but he wanted to show the council some concepts for some awnings. And he noted that some nice improvements had already been done to the entrance of the market – for example, a 12-foot sliding door, he said.

The market will have “eyes on the street” from the butcher area. The building will look better with larger windows, Fry said. He mainly wanted the council to know that the water situation was addressed very thoroughly.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that she’d been able to attend the citizens participation meeting on the project. The big concern she’d heard expressed was about truck traffic. She felt the council needs to keep its mind open to ways to limit large truck traffic through the neighborhood. She allowed that supplies have to be delivered, but all the same, the traffic makes it difficult for neighbors, she said.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) stressed the importance of addressing what the zoning is currently – which is light industrial, or the kind of zoning that is appropriate to being adjacent to a railroad track. She noted that neighbors were concerned about what might go in if the Knights ever left. The rezoning would state that this is now “a commercial spot,” which she felt would protect the neighborhood from some of the other things that could be there.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) agreed with Smith’s point and with the planning commission’s recommendation. She noted the rain garden feature and the stormwater management on site. She was pleased to support Knight’s Market, which she called an “iconic Ann Arbor institution.”

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) described Knight’s as a business that has shown support for the community, saying the family has a lot of history and integrity. He felt that the expansion helps business and jobs for Ann Arbor. Anglin felt that concerns about flooding are addressed by the topography of the area – as there are areas where the water can disappear along the railroad tracks.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s representative to the planning commission, indicated he’d support it – because he felt that it legalizes what’s going on already. He acknowledged some of the reservations and concerns like truck traffic through the neighborhood, but said you can’t foresee every difficulty. He felt that it’s a solid project with solid people behind it.

Mayor John Hieftje said he understands the concern that Knight’s might not be there in the future, and that the zoning might allow a different owner to do something different. But as Smith had pointed out, he said, it’s a change for the better. He added that he hoped the Knight’s family would be there for a very long time.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved both the rezoning and the site plan for the Knight’s Market expansion.

Catherine Street Rezoning

The council was asked for initial approval of a rezoning request for a proposed three-story townhouse development with five housing units at 922-926 Catherine St. The rezoning request associated with the project had been recommended for approval at the July 17, 2012 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

The two vacant parcels are on the south side of Catherine between Ingalls and Glen, across from the University of Michigan School of Nursing building. The lots are located in the Old Fourth Ward historic district.

The development – which according to the owner, Tom Fitzsimmons, will be marketed to students, UM employees, young homebuyers, and empty nesters – entails rezoning the parcels from PUD (planned unit development) to R4C (multi-family residential). The PUD zoning is tied to a previous development that was approved but never built. The current site plan is contingent on approval from the city’s zoning board of appeals for variances from the conflicting land use buffer requirement. The two lots must also be combined as a condition before the city issues building permits.

Five garages would be part of the development, with nine parking spaces and bike storage located below the townhouses. A 24-foot-wide curb cut is proposed off Catherine Street for a driveway, which would run along the east side of the site leading to the garages.

The proposed building and site layout plans were approved by the Ann Arbor Historic District Commission on April 12, 2012. The planning commission also recommended approval of the variance from the city’s zoning board of appeals related to the conflicting land-use buffer requirement. That variance was later granted.

During public commentary at the planning commission’s meeting, several neighbors – including residents of the nearby Catherine Commons condominiums – spoke in support of the project. However, some of them raised concerns about backups in the stormwater system, which is already a problem along Catherine Street. Staff indicated that those issues are likely tied to design flaws on the site of Catherine Commons. Members of the development team told commissioners that an underground stormwater detention system on the site could improve the situation, and at the least would not make it worse.

Catherine Street Rezoning: Council Deliberations

At the council’s Sept. 4 meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off the discussion by asking why the city is only now rezoning the property back to R4C, if the PUD zoning approved in 1979 was not used to actually build the project.

City planning manager Wendy Rampson told Kunselman that the city has not historically gone back to rezone a property from PUD if the project was not built. Kunselman ventured that back in 1979, the economy had “kind of tanked.” Based on this experience, Kunselman wanted to know if Rampson though it would be a good idea get other PUD zoning “off the books” if the projects for which the zoning was established had not been built. As an example, he gave two North Main Street properties – the former St. Nicholas Church and the Near North project. To just let them sit doesn’t seem to make sense, he said.

Kunselman wanted to know who had initiated the rezoning of the Catherine Street property. Rampson described how the developer had been looking in the area for sites to build on, and identified the site. The developer felt it would be easier to develop under the R4C zoning. Rampson noted that until someone comes along and creates a site plan that fits the PUD zoning, nothing happens.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked if the project would be consistent with the R4C zoning that’s recommended in the report of a study committee that’s currently pending action by the planning commission. Rampson told Smith that it fit the current R4C zoning, except for a variance for a conflicting land-use buffer along the east side, which was granted by the zoning board of appeals. Smith pressed for an evaluation of the project against any recommended changes to the R4C zoning ordinance that are currently pending. Rampson responded by telling Smith that there’s not currently any new ordinance language, but rather just a report. City planning staff had not evaluated the project against that R4C study committee’s report, she said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the Catherine Street rezoning request.

Speedway Rezoning

The council was asked to give approval to a site plan and rezoning for a portion of a parcel at North Maple and Miller, which will allow for development of a Speedway gas station at that location. The site plan and the rezoning for the gas station had been recommended for approval by the Ann Arbor planning commission at its July 17, 2012 meeting.

The project is located at 1300 N. Maple on a 1.39-acre site. The rezoning request would change the zoning from PL (public land) to C3 (fringe commercial).

Speedway rezoning. The perimeter around the property’s east and north sides is zoned PL (public land) and is being rezoned to make clear that, although an easement exists, the responsibility for the property is the private owner’s.

The plan calls for demolishing an existing 1,500-square-foot vacant service station building, which was built in the 1950s, and constructing a new 3,968-square-foot, single-story gas station and convenience store with five pumps. The gasoline pumps will be covered by a 28-foot by 121-foot canopy. Fourteen parking spaces will be provided next to the convenience store, and six bicycle hoops will be located on the south side of the building, adjacent to a sidewalk leading to Miller.

According to a staff report, underground storage tanks have been removed and an environmental analysis of the site is underway. If any environmental contamination is found, the owner will be required to remediate the site to meet requirements of the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality.

The staff report states that the city’s traffic engineer has reviewed a revised landscaping plan and confirmed that traffic issues have been addressed and the site plan meets the requirements of Chapter 47 (Streets) of the city code.

The plan will preserve all existing trees within the 25 feet at the back of the property, an area that includes an existing 5-foot-wide pedestrian path. In addition, seven oak trees will be planted along the sides of the proposed building, and required landscaping within the site will be provided.

The portion of the parcel that’s subject to the rezoning request is a path that circles the property along the east and north sides.

Speedway Rezoning: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) began by saying he’d walked the easement often during his youth, so he was curious about the description in the staff report that said the city doesn’t own the easement. Who does own it? he wondered. City planning manager Wendy Rampson explained that the property is owned by Speedway. But there’s an easement that provides the public with the right to cross the property. That does not give the city the authority over the easement, she explained, and the private property owner has responsibility for maintenance. If the property owner set up a gate or bollards that prevented people from crossing the property, then the city could enforce the right of the public to have access.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Rampson to explain why the property had ever been zoned as PL (public land). Rampson indicated that by looking through the city’s files, planning staff had not been able to determine that. Every era has its own set of practices, however, and she felt that it’s possible that planning staff at the time thought that the PL zoning would send a message that the property was to be used by the public. Rampson said the city does things a bit differently now. She said if the council chose not to approve the rezoning, it wouldn’t change anything on a practical level. But she felt that it’s “cleaner” to make it clear that the land is owned by the private property owner and that maintenance is the responsibility of the owner.

When the council came to the item on the site plan for the Speedway station, Kunselman called it “exciting” and added that it’s the most development that the Miller and Maple area had seen in decades. The gas station was the center of the neighborhood at one time, he recalled. He hoped it would spur new additional development as well.

Outcome: The council approved the site plan on a unanimous vote. The council also gave initial approval to the rezoning request, which was initiated by city staff.

The rezoning issue will need to come back for a second and final approval, as all rezoning requests must. Rezoning of land is a change to the city’s ordinances, and because of that an initial vote of the council is required, followed by a public hearing and a second vote at a subsequent meeting.

Greenbelt Acquisitions

The city council had two items on its Sept. 4 agenda that had been previously recommended for approval by the greenbelt advisory commission. Both were for the purchase of development rights, and included grants from the federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP).

The council was asked to approve $394,417 for the Robbin Alexander Trust farm in Webster Township. Of that amount, the city’s portion totaled $226,837 with the remaining $167,580 coming from the FRPP grant as a reimbursement. The greenbelt advisory commission had recommended approval of this deal at its June 7, 2012 meeting.

The 90-acre farm is located along Northfield Church Road in Webster Township. According to a staff memo, “the farm is considered large enough to sustain agricultural production and is in a location that will encourage additional farmland preservation activities. The property is surrounded by additional farmland that has been protected by the Greenbelt Program and Webster Township.” [.pdf map showing location of Alexander property]

The second item for consideration by the council was the purchase of development rights for the 136-acre Robert H. Schultz property located along Harris Road and Geddes Road in Superior Township. That deal totaled $523,567, including $294,247 from the city and $229,320 to be reimbursed to the city by an FRPP grant. Like the Alexander property, this land is also considered to be large enough for agricultural production and is located in an area that would encourage other farmland preservation. According to a staff memo, the property is surrounded by additional farmland that’s been protected by the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy, Washtenaw County and the greenbelt program. [.pdf map showing location of Schultz property]

Eight votes are required to pass PDR deals.

Greenbelt Acquisitions: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated that she supported greenbelt acquisitions that included local participation other than the city of Ann Arbor. She contended that often the city is paying more than half of the cost, however, with no other local participation. The two PDRs on the agenda that night were examples of that, she said.

There are only two funding sources associated with the two acquisitions, Lumm complained – the city of Ann Arbor and the federal government. There’s no other local participation, she said, which she called a lost opportunity. Saying she has raised concerns about the city’s share of funding in the past, she said she wouldn’t support the acquisitions on the agenda. In the past, she said, she’d supported such acquisitions even when she’d been uncomfortable. But for the items on that night’s agenda, she wouldn’t support them. She encouraged the greenbelt advisory commission to come forward with proposals that leverage the greenbelt dollars better, and that come closer to the original objective of the city’s share not being more than one-third of the total cost.

Mayor John Hieftje allowed that the ideal situation would be for the city to pay one-third of the cost and that this had been the discussion at the time of the millage campaign. He said the state of Michigan previously participated in such purchases, but with its financial difficulties, that state support has disappeared.

But for the most part, Hieftje continued, the city has paid about 50% of the cost. For some of the properties, the greenbelt advisory commission just feels they need to make a move, even though the financial arrangement might not be ideal. He observed that the federal FRPP grant was helping out with the purchases on the agenda that night, but it wasn’t known how many more years that program would exist. He described the map of greenbelt properties as starting to create a green “mushroom” that’s forming over the top of the city. The program is doing a whole lot of what voters in 2003 asked to be done, he said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) ventured that when millage dollars are used within the city, the city pays 100% of the cost, which Hieftje confirmed. Lumm responded by saying in those situations, city residents who are paying the millage were also getting 100% of the benefit – so she felt that was fine, because it’s fair to the taxpayers.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated he’d support the greenbelt acquisitions, although he understands Lumm’s concerns. He pointed out that the people in the county who are not taxing themselves to support a greenbelt program still face a reduction in the taxes generated when development rights are acquired – so those communities are taking a hit, he concluded. He called it a “backdoor contribution” that those communities wind up making. He said it would be nice if there was a greater sharing of financial contribution. The whole point, he observed, is to acquire pieces together so there’s some semblance of a “belt,” and the properties on the agenda were adjacent to other properties.

Kunselman wondered, however, at what point the city has leveraged all the millage money. He noted that Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) would not be serving as the city council’s appointee to the greenbelt advisory commission past November. [Hohnke chose not to seek another term on the council. He has attended only one of the greenbelt advisory commission's monthly meetings this year – in April.] At some point, Kunselman felt there should be a status report, so that the council understood how many more acres the commission felt that it could acquire.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) felt that Lumm’s position is well taken and there are times when more cooperation from other local entities would be preferable. Ultimately, though, the deals that the commission decides on are those they feel are best for the city, he said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) appreciated the utility of guidelines, but also had faith in the work done by staff and volunteers on the greenbelt advisory commission. He was satisfied that the properties on the agenda meet the goals of the program.

Outcome: In separate votes on the properties, the council approved the purchase of development rights on the two properties. Jane Lumm (Ward 3) dissented on both votes, which meant that the requirement of an eight-vote majority was exactly met. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) were absent.

Community Events Fund Allocation

The council was asked to award a total of $44,778 from the city’s community events fund to a total of 13 organizations. The largest amount given to any one organization was $25,000 to the Ann Arbor Summer Festival for its Top of the Park series, followed by $6,000 to the Ann Arbor Jaycees for their summer carnival and Fourth of July parade. In many cases, the allocation from the community events fund was awarded to cover costs assessed by the city – for street closures, for example.

Here’s the complete breakdown of awards: Ann Arbor Jaycees ($6,000 for the Summer Carnival and the Fourth of July Parade); Main Street Area Association ($1,000 for the Rolling Sculpture Car Show); Ann Arbor Convention & Visitors Bureau ($1,500 for the NJATC and UA block parties); Ann Arbor Council for Traditional Music and Dance ($578 for the Dancing in the Streets); Kerrytown BookFest ($1,000 for the Kerrytown BookFest); Arbor Brewing ($1,000 for the Oktoberfest); Hikone-Ann Arbor Educational Exchange Program ($2,000 for the Hikone Exchange); Michigan Takes Back the Night ($1,700 for 2013 Take Back the Night); University of Michigan Alice Lloyd Scholars Program ($2,000 for FoolMoon and FestiFools); Champions for Charity ($1,000 for the Big House Big Heart run); Main Street Area Association ($1,000 for the Taste of Ann Arbor); Ann Arbor Summer Festival ($25,000 for Top of the Park); and The Center of Light Ann Arbor ($1,000 for the 3rd Annual Ann Arbor Inner Peace Festival).

Margie Teall (Ward 4) noted that this is an annual disbursement of funds and she felt it’s self-explanatory. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked Teall to explain how the community events money gets into that fund. Teall said it’s general fund money. Mayor John Hieftje added that it’s money set aside every year to make sure that events happen to make the city a fun place to live. Teall noted that the amount of money that’s awarded has gotten smaller over the years. Hieftje added that the allocation covers expenses for things like barricades.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to make the community event fund allocations.

Hearing Set on Barracuda Tax Abatement

The third of four steps associated with a tax abatement for Barracuda Networks was considered by the council – setting a hearing on the tax abatement for Oct. 1, 2012.

The council had previously set a hearing on the establishment of an industrial development district (Michigan’s Act 198 of 1974) at 317 Maynard St. in downtown Ann Arbor and voted to establish that district at its Aug. 9, 2012 meeting. That set up the opportunity for Barracuda Networks to apply for a tax abatement as it moves from its current location on Depot Street to the downtown site. [.jpg of parcel map showing 317 Maynard] [.jpg of aerial photo showing 317 Maynard]

Barracuda is a computer network security company. On its application for the abatement, expected to be worth $85,000, Barracuda indicates that it currently has 155 employees who will be retained due to the abatement. The firm expects to add 144 employees by July 1, 2014. The property on which Barracuda is requesting the abatement ranges from cubicles and desk chairs to telephone network equipment and wiring.

Outcome: The council voted without discussion to set the public hearing for Barracuda’s tax abatement.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Pedestrian Access

Kathy Griswold recognized that the council had a resolution on its agenda to accept an easement [at no cost to the city] on a parcel on the northeast corner of Liberty Street and Maple Road.

Easement at Maple and Liberty mentioned by Kathy Griswold during public commentary. Easement drawing superimposed on aerial photo by The Chronicle.

She noted that a sidewalk leading from a four-way stop to King Elementary School would not require an easement. [Construction of a sidewalk would allow moving the mid-block crosswalk to the four-way stop. It's a topic on which Griswold has addressed the city council many times in the past.] She also called for a review of the city’s crosswalk ordinance by an professional engineer. Included in the review, she said, should also be ordinances involving sight lines.

Comm/Comm: Public Art

Libby Hunter delivered her commentary in the form of a song, which has become her preferred way to address the council. She prefaced her performance by recalling “blue-light specials” at Kmart. That served as a play on the blue lights that are intended as an artistic feature of a fountain designed by German artist Herbert Dreiseitl. Dreiseitl’s fountain, located in front of city hall, was the first of the projects approved by Ann Arbor’s public art commission. The melody was taken from “Midnight Special,” which has been recorded by a number of artists. Hunter’s version featured lyrics derisive of mayor John Hieftje: “If you ever go to Portland, you see the Dreiseitl Park; mayor Hieftje had to have one, fix was in from the start.”

Hieftje didn’t comment on Hunter’s song during the council communication time following public commentary, but responded a couple of hours later at the end of the meeting. He said that people can say whatever they want at public commentary regardless of whether it’s true. He said he’d never visited Portland, and had never heard of Dreiseitl until his name was mentioned by the public art commission.

Comm/Comm: Sustainable Energy

Kermit Schlansker addressed the council on the topic of sustainable energy. He characterized GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s energy plan as “drill and burn,” while president Barack Obama’s plan was “too little too late.” He contended that Europe uses half the energy that the United States does. A first step would be to move poor people into low-energy-use apartment buildings on tillable land, he said.

Comm/Comm: Affordable Housing

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) alerted her council colleagues that for the Sept. 17 meeting, she’d be introducing a resolution to direct proceeds of city-owned land sales, to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. The final details are still being worked on, she said. Smith said she was “disheartened” by the city’s current ability to provide affordable housing, especially in light of the recent failure of the Near North project.

The policy has a long history dating back to 1996. The policy of directing proceeds of city-owned land sales to the affordable housing trust fund was rescinded by the council in 2007. More detailed background is provided in previous Chronicle coverage: “City Council to Focus on Land Sale Policy.”

Comm/Comm: Student Conduct

City administrator Steve Powers gave a brief report on activity over the weekend, with University of Michigan students moving back into the city. The Ann Arbor police department issued 112 citations from Thursday through Sunday – for minor in possession, noise, open intoxicants in public and other ordinance violations, he said. AAPD had staffed extra officers using overtime. That staffing pattern would continue for football Saturdays through the fall, Powers concluded.

Comm/Comm: Limousines or Taxis

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) serves as the council’s appointee to the taxicab board. He’d noticed two cases of companies operating in Ann Arbor recently that are known to be limousine companies but that are advertising themselves as taxis. This is not supposed to happen, he said – there’s an ordinance against it. He asked his colleagues to pass along their observations. He said he’d be taking up the issue with the city attorney’s office to look at enforcement against companies that are flouting the city’s taxicab ordinance.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor.

Absent: Carsten Hohnke, Marcia Higgins.

Next council meeting: Monday, Sept. 17, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor  city council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. 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!

The market’s owner, Ray Knight, also owns two separate, adjacent parcels. (Knight is perhaps best known for his family’s restaurant, Knight’s Steakhouse, located at 2324 Dexter Ave.) The grocery store has been on land zoned C1 (local business) and M1 (light industrial). Another parcel at 306-308 Spring St. was zoned R2A (two-family dwelling) and M1, and contains two single-family homes and part of a parking lot. The third parcel at 310 Spring St. was zoned R2A and MI, and contains the other half of the store’s parking lot. All three parcels have been non-conforming in some way, according to a staff report, and are located in the 100-year Allen Creek floodplain.

The Knight’s expansion includes several components. What the council approved was a rezoning of 306, 308 and 310 Spring to C1. That rezoning will allow the building at 306 Spring to be converted into a bakery, although the intent is to leave the exterior of the house intact. The rezoning will also allow for approval of a site plan to build a 1,200-square-foot addition to the existing grocery store and to expand, reconfigure, and improve the existing parking lot. In addition, the the council approved rezoning to C1 of 418 Miller Ave. – the site of the existing grocery.

The changes to the parking lot include providing three additional spaces (for a total of 17 parking spaces), a designated snow pile storage area, solid waste and recycling container storage enclosure, right-of-way screening, conflicting land use buffer, and rain gardens for storm water management. An unused curbcut on Miller Avenue would be removed and the curb and lawn extension would be restored there. A temporary storage building at 418 Miller would be removed. The house at 310 Spring will remain a single-family dwelling.

Because the request involved a rezoning – a change to the city’s set of ordinances – the council had given the rezoning an initial vote of approval at its Aug. 9, 2012 meeting. The council’s final vote followed a formal public hearing held on Sept. 4.

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

From left: Mayor John Hieftje and city administrator Steve Powers before the start of the Aug. 9, 2012 council meeting.

But the council transacted several other pieces of business as well, some of which could be grouped into the general thematic pattern of land and property use. Most obviously connected to land use was the council’s initial approval of a rezoning request in connection with an expansion proposal from Knight’s Market, at the corner of Miller and Spring streets. The rezoning would allow a house to be converted into a bakery. It would also allow for eventual approval of a site plan to build a 1,200-square-foot addition to the existing grocery store and to expand, reconfigure, and improve the existing parking lot.

The council also passed a resolution to deal with an issue stemming, in part, from land use decisions made decades ago that resulted in residential development in the area of the Malletts Creek drainage district. Recently, residents in the area have been faced with severe localized flooding. The council’s resolution directed staff to start negotiations with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner to identify “opportunities for stormwater conveyance and stormwater quality improvement in the area of the Malletts Creek drainage district.”

Related at least tangentially to land use at the level of a specific parcel was a resolution the council passed establishing the property at 317 Maynard in downtown Ann Arbor as an industrial development district. The move sets the stage for an expected application from the future tenant of the space, owned by First Martin Corp., for a tax abatement that would be worth around $85,000. The tenant is Barracuda Networks.

And the council took another step in implementing a strategy to eliminate blight. The city had previously set aside funds that could be used to demolish blighted buildings – if the city is unsuccessful in getting property owners to demolish them. The council’s action last Thursday authorized the city to sign contracts with four different companies to do such demolition work on an as-needed basis. It was announced at the meeting that the houses on North Main – at the site of the planned Near North affordable housing project – will likely be among the first to be demolished under the contracts authorized by the council.

To the extent that transportation systems have an impact on future land use, another item related to land use was a reapproval of the articles of incorporation for a possible new countywide transportation authority. The articles of incorporation are part of a four-party agreement to establish a framework for possibly expanding the governance and service area of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

The four-party agreement is between the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA. The Ann Arbor council changed the minimum threshold of votes required on the proposed new 15-member transit authority board, an action that brought the council in line with a version that the Washtenaw County board of commissioners had approved earlier this month. That threshold was increased from a 2/3 majority (10 votes) to a 4/5 majority (12 votes).

In other business, the council authorized the hiring of three additional firefighters for the next two years, using a federal grant. It also authorized the purchase of a new aerial fire truck.

Nominations to city boards and commissions made at the meeting included reappointment of Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt and Keith Orr to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. And Sally Petersen, who won the Ward 2 Democratic primary on Aug. 7, was nominated for the city’s commission on disability issues.

The council also heard public commentary on a range of topics, including smart meters and the idea of corporations as people. 

Knight’s Market Rezoning

The council was asked to consider a rezoning request that would allow for expansion of Knight’s Market.

Knight’s Market Rezoning: Background

The market is located at the northeast corner of Spring and Miller. The market’s owner, Ray Knight, also owns two separate, adjacent parcels. (Knight is perhaps best known for his family’s restaurant, Knight’s Steakhouse, located at 2324 Dexter Ave.) The grocery store is on land zoned C1 (local business) and M1 (light industrial). Another parcel at 306-308 Spring St. is zoned R2A (two-family dwelling) and M1, and contains two single-family homes and part of a parking lot. The third parcel at 310 Spring St. is zoned R2A and MI, and contains the other half of the store’s parking lot. All three parcels are currently non-conforming in some way, according to a staff report, and are located in the 100-year Allen Creek floodplain.

The proposal from Knight’s involves several steps. The request calls for 306, 308 and 310 Spring to be rezoned to C1. That rezoning would allow the building at 306 Spring to be converted into a bakery, although the intent is to leave the exterior of the house intact. The rezoning would also allow for approval of a site plan to build a 1,200-square-foot addition to the existing grocery store and to expand and reconfigure the existing parking lot. In addition, the plan requests that 418 Miller Ave. – the site of the existing grocery – also be rezoned to C1.

The proposed work to the parking lot includes providing three additional spaces (for a total of 17 parking spaces), a designated snow pile storage area, solid waste and recycling container storage enclosure, right-of-way screening, conflicting land use buffer, and rain gardens for storm water management. An unused curbcut on Miller Avenue would be removed and the curb and lawn extension would be restored there. A temporary storage building at 418 Miller would be removed. The house at 310 Spring would remain a single-family dwelling. The city planning commission recommended the rezoning on a 6-1 vote at its June 19, 2012 meeting.

Knight’s Market Rezoning: Council Deliberations

When the council came to the item, mayor John Hieftje looked first to Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) to move the item, but Sabra Briere (Ward 1) interjected, noting that the market was on the Ward 1 side of the street. So Hieftje gave Briere and her wardmate Sandi Smith the privilege of moving and seconding the motion.

Briere noted that both Ward 1 and Ward 5 residents shop at the market and ventured that there are also people who drive to the market as well. She had attended one public meeting about the proposal. She noted that neighbors were very supportive of Knight’s Market, but had questions about the potential impact on the neighborhood. Generally, their concern is about what happens if the property is rezoned and then changes hands, so that Knight’s Market is no longer the owner.

Left to right: During a break, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) joke about the smartphone app Smith uses to time speaking turns of other councilmembers. There have been occasions when Smith has not been joking when she has raised the point of order on Lumm’s speaking turns.

Smith said she’d had a number of conversations with people in the neighborhood – and they’re very supportive of having a local grocer right there and available. That fits well into the zoning, she said, and the idea of fringe commercial abutting the residential area. She heard strong support for it, she said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s representative to the planning commission, noted that the commission had had a thorough discussion of the issue. He called the characterizations by Briere and Smith as very accurate. It reminded him of the proposal that Zingerman’s Deli had made, when the neighbors had been carefully consulted. Neighbors had raised some issues – not in an attempt to stop the project – but there’d been an outpouring of approval, he said. Questions had been asked and answered, he said. He felt that “commercial crawl” could not occur because of the natural boundaries that would preclude it.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that the goal was to establish a bakery that would serve the restaurant and the retail store. He noted that it’s meant to strike a balance between land use goals. He said he lived in a neighborhood where he could, without a car, still walk to places and find places to buy enough to eat and drink. But there are neighborhoods where that’s not possible. He said that Knight’s Market is a place that makes that possible, and that Knight’s is a good neighbor.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) also indicated his support for the rezoning request. There used to be a store on Miner between Hiscock and Felch, he recalled, and he was not sure if the city’s zoning still allows for such mom-and-pop type stores. It’s important that the city have opportunities for a walkable, diverse and sustainable community. It’s not something the council would do frequently, he said, but in this case it’s important to do.

Hieftje noted that Knight’s Market has survived for a long time and is kind of a throwback to the past. If you look around Ann Arbor you can find buildings that were at one time a corner store in a neighborhood. As zoning changed, we’ve moved away from that concept, but in select areas, it might be possible to move back toward that approach, he said. Neighborhood stores like Washtenaw Dairy, Jefferson Market and Knight’s Market are a real asset, he said.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) added she was the “daughter of a grocery man” and called the market a wonderful amenity that everyone in Ann Arbor values. When she goes there, it’s a reminder of what her father did. She appreciated the discussions that had occurred and the support that people were showing for it.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the Knight’s Market rezoning request. Because the request involves a rezoning – a change to the city’s set of ordinances – the council will need to give a second, final approval at a subsequent meeting, following a formal public hearing.

Development District 317 Maynard

On the Aug. 9 agenda was a resolution to establish a new industrial development district for the downtown Ann Arbor property at 317 Maynard St., which sets up the opportunity for Barracuda Networks to apply for a tax abatement as it moves from its current location on Depot Street to the downtown site.

Under Michigan’s Act 198 of 1974, the next step for that abatement, on application from Barracuda, will be for the city council to set a public hearing on the abatement. After the public hearing, the council could then grant the abatement, which is estimated to be valued at around $85,000.

At its July 2 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council had voted to set the Aug. 9 public hearing on the industrial development district. A letter dated June 1, 2012 from First Martin to the Ann Arbor city clerk requested the establishment of the district. First Martin is the owner of the property at 317 Maynard.

From Act 198, it’s the property owner – in this case, First Martin – that files for the establishment of the IDD.

207.554 Plant rehabilitation district or industrial development district; establishment; number of parcels; filing; notice; hearing; finding and determination; district established by township; industrial property as part of industrial development district or plant rehabilitation district also part of tax increment district; termination; notice.
Sec. 4. (1) A local governmental unit, by resolution of its legislative body, may establish plant rehabilitation districts and industrial development districts that consist of 1 or more parcels or tracts of land or a portion of a parcel or tract of land. (2) The legislative body of a local governmental unit may establish a plant rehabilitation district or an industrial development district on its own initiative or upon a written request filed by the owner or owners of 75% of the state equalized value of the industrial property located within a proposed plant rehabilitation district or industrial development district. This request shall be filed with the clerk of the local governmental unit.

And according to Act 198, the tenant – in this case, Barracuda Networks – can file an application for the tax abatement.

207.555 Application for industrial exemption certificate; filing; contents; notice to assessing and taxing units; hearing; application fee.
Sec. 5. (1) After the establishment of a district, the owner or lessee of a facility may file an application for an industrial facilities exemption certificate with the clerk of the local governmental unit that established the plant rehabilitation district or industrial development district.

Development District 317 Maynard: Public Hearing

Only one person spoke at the public hearing on the establishment of the IDD – Thomas Partridge. He lamented the loss of vitally-needed tax money through abatements, and contended that because of this, schools are becoming challenged to maintain standards of education and retain adequate numbers of teachers, especially special education teachers. Partridge asked recipients of tax abatements to voluntarily curtail the period of the tax rebates or forgo them. He allowed that the community needs jobs, but also needs to support our most vulnerable residents.

Development District 317 Maynard: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), chair of the council’s budget committee, reported that the committee had met to consider the issue, but several committee members had not been able to attend. [Higgins participated in the committee meeting by speaker phone. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) attended in person, and was joined by city administrator Steve Powers, chief financial officer Tom Crawford, and Luke Bonner, an economic development specialist with Ann Arbor SPARK.]

317 Maynard is highlighted in yellow.

Aerial photo of 317 Maynard. The office space is located under the Maynard Street parking garage.

Higgins reviewed the distinction between the establishment of the district and the granting of the tax abatement: The parcel’s owner had applied for the establishment of the district, while the tenant, Barracuda, would be applying for the abatement.

The council was only authorizing the establishment of the district, she stressed. Only when the district is established, she said, would Barracuda be able to apply for the abatement. At that point, the city council’s budget committee would meet and review the application for an abatement.

Briere noted that some members of the community had been confused about who gets the benefit of the tax abatement, so she appreciated the explanation Higgins had offered. She noted that in the past, some districts had been established where no tenant had taken up the opportunity to apply for an abatement.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said he was sorry that he couldn’t attend the budget committee, but wondered if there were some preliminary figures. Higgins told him that some preliminary figures had been submitted, but she didn’t have them with her – but they looked promising, she said. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) expressed her support for the district, saying that the new jobs that Barracuda would be bringing is a positive development for the downtown.

Lumm agreed that the incentives being offered to Barracuda are warranted. Ann Arbor is an attractive location for businesses, she ventured, and it was not necessary to constantly offer tax incentives to attract businesses. Ann Arbor only does that on an infrequent and selective basis. She thinks this proposal is worthy of the support. She also pointed to a $1.2 million expansion grant from the Michigan Economic Development Corp. to Barracuda, and how the MEDC generally expected a local match.

Lumm had some remaining questions about the parking commitment. Higgins cautioned against diving into the details of the possible Barracuda proposal, until the application was final.

Mayor John Hieftje also said he didn’t think parking spaces would be presented to the council – because Barracuda would simply be taking advantage of a “special” being offered by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which manages the city’s public parking system. [The DDA has offered incentives generally, not just to Barracuda, in the form of reduced rates on monthly passes for the new underground parking structure on South Fifth Avenue, which opened in July.]

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to establish the industrial development district at 317 Maynard.

Water Resources Commissioner: Flooding Solutions

The council considered a resolution directing city staff to start negotiations with the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner to identify “opportunities for stormwater conveyance and stormwater quality improvement in the area of the Malletts Creek drainage district bounded by Ann Arbor-Saline Road upstream to I-94 and Scio Church Road.”

Partial map of the area of study for the Malletts Creek drainage district.

The city council had heard complaints from residents in that area during public commentary earlier this spring about localized flooding.

The Aug. 7 primary election results from that precinct in Ward 4 were nearly decisive enough in favor of challenger Jack Eaton to win the Democratic nomination over incumbent Margie Teall – but his total fell short of Teall’s by 18 votes across the ward. [On Aug. 16, Eaton filed for a recount, which will likely occur later this month.]

The resolution considered by the council on Aug. 9 directs staff to bring an agreement to the city council with the water resources commissioner by Oct. 1, 2012.

Flooding Solutions: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he was intrigued by the proposal and asked Cresson Slotten to answer some questions. Slotten is a senior project manager with the city. He told Kunselman that there’d been similar studies done in other areas of the city. The area described in the resolution, he said, is part of an existing drainage district, Malletts Creek, that’s within the county’s jurisdiction.

Kunselman ventured that outside the city limits, drain improvements get assessed to property owners, but inside the city, the cost is paid for out of the city’s stormwater utility fund. Slotten explained that one of the benefits of working with the water resources commissioner’s office is the ability to work within the state’s “drain code,” which is the statute that establishes the water resources commissioner’s office. [.pdf of Act 40 of 1956]

Malletts Creek is a Chapter 20 drain under that code, Slotten said. A key point is that costs are assessed to the governmental entity, the city of Ann Arbor, based on how much of the area is in the city. Some of it would be in an area owned by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation near I-94, he said, so MDOT would also contribute a small share. The city could choose to assess property owners as well, but typically has chosen to treat it as a “system cost,” especially if it’s a broad project area. And by working through the county, it’s also possible to arrange financing over time, so that there’s not a large up-front cost, Slotten said.

Kunselman noted that the city owns most of the stormwater conveyance – streets, gutters, storm sewers – and at some point there’s an outfall into Malletts Creek. So he wondered how much is really under the county’s jurisdiction. Slotten described the portion of Malletts Creek that’s under the county’s jurisdiction – the open creek visible down by Briarwood Mall and Ann Arbor-Saline Road, where there is “open creek.” In addition, if you continue past Ann Arbor-Saline Road, you see some ponds, and upstream of that is a large pipe that’s a part of the drain. That drain continues up to Scio Church Road and then even up to Maple Road.

That’s the reason the partnership between the county and the city that has evolved over the years – given the intermingling nature of the physical systems – is so beneficial, Slotten said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wanted to know how many dollars in damage Ward 4 had experienced during the localized flooding. Slotten was not certain, but ventured that those claims would have been made through the city’s insurance board. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) pointed out that the insurance board report had been included in the consent agenda.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reported that this project had been discussed as part of the Malletts Creek coordinating committee meeting the previous day. She clarified that the agreement would come back to the council on Oct. 1 for approval.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution giving direction to start negotiations with the county water resources commissioner.

Demolition Contracts

The council was asked to approve two-year contracts with four different companies, to perform demolition services on an as-needed basis. The four companies are Bierlein, DMC Consultants, Beal, and Van Assche.

At its Feb. 21, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council had approved a $250,000 allocation for demolishing buildings that the city deems dangerous under Chapter 101 of the city code. The city would like to target buildings that are diminishing the quality of neighborhoods, dragging down property values and attracting nuisances. The city expects to be able to reimburse the general fund for that allocation, from the proceeds of a lawsuit settlement related to the old Michigan Inn property on Jackson Avenue.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) described the resolution as giving the city some flexibility by having predetermined contractors that the city can call on, to demolish some blighted properties and allow the city to move quicker when the city gets to that stage. As an example, she gave the house on First and Kingsley. It’s located on property that the city purchased earlier this year – the vacant house is expected to be demolished later this month.

Mayor John Hieftje then asked Sumedh Bahl, community services area administrator, to talks about Avalon Housing‘s Near North affordable housing project, located on North Main. Houses on the site of the expected development have long stood vacant.

Bahl explained that if Avalon doesn’t move to demolish the buildings, then the city will. He explained that the city might start the process soon. It might take up to two weeks to finalize the contracts with the demolition companies and to make sure all the right types of insurance are in place, he said. In the meantime, the city will look disconnecting at the water utilities. There has to be a 10-day notice of any demolition, he said. So even if the city starts the next day with the process, you won’t see a bulldozer then. But in 45-60 days, the city will have the buildings down, he said.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that in the last year or so, she’d heard concerns from several councilmembers about houses that aren’t being maintained in the community. Being able to move forward as quickly as possible is a catch-phrase they’ve talked about, but she noted that it’s hard actually to move quickly. The contract approvals, which are not tied to any particular building, mean the city won’t have to jump through that extra hoop. It’s a tool that won’t be used lightly, she said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said, “This is great.” He noted that the fund had been set up but he recalled that the amount of the fund was less than the $600,000 that you get when you multiple four contractors times $150,000 apiece. [The fund was set at $250,000.] So he wanted an explanation. Bahl explained that he would not be spending more than $250,000, but that the multiple contracts give him flexibility.

Bahl picked up on remarks by Smith and Briere that these demolitions would not be undertaken lightly. He described the due process that had to be used to demolish derelict houses.

Kunselman noted that the follow-up on the demolitions involves liens on the property and the proper paperwork so that the city can get reimbursed.

Kunselman also wanted to address the issue of the former St. Nicholas Church on North Main Street, which is currently under county tax foreclosure. Given that it’s in “the public hand,” Kunselman felt the city should be able to move quickly on that and take it down, because it’s no longer a private property. He noted that there’d been a house on Sharon Street when the county had cooperated with the city in that way.

City administrator Steve Powers observed that up to now, the city’s fund for demolition has been used as an incentive to property owners to do the work themselves – it’s a way to get a property owner’s attention. Regarding the St. Nicholas Church, Powers said that county treasurer Catherine McClary is well aware of the situation. She’d indicated that the county would be proceeding with demolition on the “county dime” but would be putting a lien on the property against that cost.

Smith asked Mike Appel, senior developer with the nonprofit Avalon Housing, to speak to the question of the Near North development. Appel told the council he appreciates the city’s patience and the whole community’s patience with the situation that he described as taking “too many months.” They’ve been working very hard to move the project forward, he said. They thought they could get the buildings taken down earlier, but now have been cooperating with city staff – by providing them with the asbestos surveys and the electric and gas utilities shutoffs. He said Avalon is doing everything in its power to get the houses down.

1992 FEMA floodway in light crosshatched blue, with the green lines indicating the boundaries of the floodplain. The intersection shown is Main and Summit. Red parcels are those that are now in the floodplain but previously were not. Green parcels were previously in the floodplain and now are not.

2012 FEMA floodway in dark blue, with the green lines indicating the boundaries of the floodplain. The intersection shown is Main and Summit. Red parcels are those that are now in the floodplain but previously were not. Green parcels were previously in the floodplain and now are not.

At this point, it appears that having the city do the demolition is quicker than doing it themselves, Appel said. The most recent event that’s slowed down the project is that in April of this year, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had issued new floodway and floodplain maps. The floodway had expanded considerably, he reported. The proposed building is not in the floodway, but some of the activities associated with the building are – like parking. The state would allow the project to be built, but the federal funds they’d been planning to use won’t be available. So now Avalon is trying to find a way to substitute non-federal funds for federal funds.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the contracts with demolition companies.

Transit Articles of Incorporation

In front of the council for the third time were the articles of incorporation for a possible new countywide transit authority. The council had approved them twice before.

The articles of incorporation are part of a four-party agreement to establish a framework for possibly expanding the governance and service area of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The four-party agreement is between the city of Ann Arbor, the city of Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County and the AATA.

This most recent iteration on the Aug. 9 agenda came in response to an amendment made by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners at its Aug. 1, 2012 meeting.

The county board’s amendment changed the minimum threshold of votes required on the proposed new 15-member transit authority board to change the authority’s articles of incorporation. That threshold was increased from a 2/3 majority (10 votes) to a 4/5 majority (12 votes). With a 7-4 vote, the Ann Arbor city council adopted the county’s change. Dissenting were Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

The council had already reapproved the transit documents once before, at its June 4, 2012 meeting, in response to a change to the four-party agreement that had been made by the Ypsilanti city council. The Ann Arbor city council had initially given its approval to the four-party agreement on March 5, 2012.

Transit Articles of Incorporation: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) reviewed the history of the document approvals and the nature of the change that was being requested.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) offered a possible explanation for wanting one super majority (4/5) compared to another (2/3). A concern she’d heard was urban versus rural. The cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, along with Pittsfield Township, would together have 10 members of the board. They could “conspire” to reduce the impact of the other members by changing the articles of incorporation. By asking for 12 instead of 10, it’s necessary to have a mix of urban and rural in order to change the articles of incorporation. The proposal of a 4/5 majority is a compromise between requiring unanimous approval and the original 2/3 majority, she said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) asked Michael Ford, the AATA’s CEO, if the 4/5 majority were acceptable to the AATA. Ford said it was.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated she had no issue with the specific change. Her concern remains with the agreement itself. She suspected no one had changed their fundamental position on that question. She then reviewed her standard objections to the proposal.

Left to right: Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) and Ann Arbor Transportation Authority CEO Michael Ford.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) felt that the “countywide” initiative would not be countywide at all and would end up being a regional Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor system. He felt there are better ways of accomplishing that. Kunselman then accused Ford of knowing the answers to some questions that Kunselman asked the last time Ford appeared in front of the city council. Kunselman said Ford had chosen not to share those answers. [Kunselman may have been alluding to the lack of specificity Ford provided when asked by Kunselman about the AATA's plans in case Ypsilanti was not able to meet the terms of its purchase-of-service agreement.]

Kunselman felt like the AATA has not been working in good faith and has been dropping the ball. He said it was not a countywide proposal, so he asked people to stop calling it that.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) indicated that he’d vote against it because of the inclusion of Fuller Road Station as part of the plan. Having watched the county board of commissioners vote just 6-4 in favor of the agreement, he was not sure of the strength of the buy-in.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) wanted to know what would happen if the council did not approve the change. Assistant city attorney Mary Fales explained that the document was binding only if all parties agreed to it. Hohnke indicated he was not interested in “belaboring the debate.”

Taylor indicated he’d support it for all the reasons previously discussed.

Outcome: The council voted to reapprove the articles of incorporation for the new countywide transit authority, with dissent from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Firefighters, Fire Truck

The council considered two agenda items directly related to fire protection: hiring three additional firefighters and authorizing the purchase of a new aerial truck.

Firefighters

The council was asked to authorize a revision to its FY 2013 budget that will allow for staffing of three additional firefighters for the next two years, bringing the budgeted staffing level for firefighters from 82 to 85. The positions will be funded with a $642,294 federal grant through the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER), which was announced earlier this year on May 30, 2012.

According to fire chief Chuck Hubbard, the city currently has three vacancies – which means 79 firefighters on staff.

The $321,000 from the SAFER grant for each of the next two years will be allocated for three firefighter positions, which the city estimates will cost $255,000 (at $85,000 per position). The remaining $66,000 per year will be spent on other unspecified fire services needs, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution – including overtime and fleet expenses. Hiring a fourth firefighter would require using $19,000 of the city’s fund balance, according to the memo.

The budget amendment was anticipated based on the city council’s budget deliberations and final FY 2013 budget resolution earlier this year, on May 22, 2012, which directed the city administrator to submit a proposal to amend the budget and hire additional firefighters if the SAFER grant were to be awarded.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asks to be recognized to speak during the council’s Aug. 9 meeting. On the left is Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wanted to know what the $66,000 would be spent on. City administrator Steve Powers indicated that part of it would go toward overages already incurred. It would also be used to help pay for overtime, fleet expenses, and other fire service operations. The city is projecting a tight budget for FY 2013, Powers said.

Lumm wanted to know if the department was fully staffed at the budgeted level of 82. Hubbard indicated to Lumm that the approved budgeted level was 82. Powers clarified the question, which was essentially: Are we fully staffed? Hubbard indicated that right now the fire department has 79 firefighters – due to a retirements and recalled firefighters who did not return.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) expressed concern about funding for firefighters in future years after the grant expires: What happens in two years? Hubbard indicated that in 2014 the city has the option to apply for another grant. Powers indicated that part of the rationale for hiring three firefighters instead of four is that the city’s projections are that it can sustain the staffing level of 85 when the two-year grant program is over. He allowed that one possibility is to reapply for the SAFER grant, but the city would prefer to fund the positions on its own.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the budget change to allow the hiring of three additional firefighters.

Fire Truck

The council was also asked to authorize $1,043,685 from its fleet fund to purchase a new 2013 Sutphen model SPH100 mid-mount aerial platform – a “tower truck.” The department currently has two aerial trucks. The new purchase replaces a 1999 Emergency One brand 100-foot ladder truck – but it will be kept as a “reserve” aerial truck in the department. The department also has a 1996 Emergency One brand 100-foot aerial truck, which will be kept as a secondary aerial truck. Whichever Emergency One aerial truck first starts to have maintenance and repair costs that exceed its value will be retired from service – and the other truck will remain as a reserve.

The new truck is expected to arrive in 10-12 months.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that some constituents of hers who live in tall buildings were concerned about the city’s current tower truck functioning well. She wanted to know the difference between a ladder truck and a mid-mount truck.

Fire chief Chuck Hubbard explained that “mid-mount” is related to the way it’s built – on a mid-mount vehicle, the aerial component of the truck is mounted to the area just behind the cab. Responding to a question from Briere, Hubbard indicated that it’s not mid-mount versus rear-mount that determines how high the aerial platform can go, but rather the angle of inclination.

Briere said she’d heard that the city’s existing ladder truck had a weak piece that broke and couldn’t easily be fixed. Hubbard indicated that the new truck is very well built, made by a 100-year-old company. He felt that the issues with the existing truck had been well addressed in the purchase of the new truck – and indicated that replacement parts would be easy to acquire.

Mayor John Hieftje was keen to stress that the city’s ladder truck and tower truck were both currently back in service. And during the period when they were not in service, the “box-alarm” could have been used to get a tower truck from a neighboring jurisdiction. He ventured that long-term, it would make sense to think about a regional approach to those types of vehicles, saying that in many departments they are rarely used.

Responding to a question from Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Hubbard said there are more than 100 buildings in the city that are considered “high rises.” Smith asked if it wasn’t the case that they were likely fully-sprinkled – equipped with sprinkler systems under city code. Hubbard allowed that the codes are fairly strict. Hieftje asked city administrator Steve Powers to track down the percentage of high rise buildings that have sprinkler systems.

Responding to a question from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Hubbard said that the preference for a platform instead of a ladder was based on ease of rescue. A ladder would require that a firefighter assist someone all the way down the ladder.

Kunselman got confirmation from Hubbard that the fire truck purchase is not connected at all to the possibility that the city will adopt a new station plan – operating out of three stations instead of the current five.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wondered if the number of firefighters required for operation of the truck was related to the “sway” of the truck. Hubbard said it has nothing to do with that, but rather with the number of tasks that have to be performed in connection with an aerial truck.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the purchase of the aerial fire truck.

Nominations

The usual pattern for appointments to various boards and commissions is that their nominations are made at a council meeting and a vote is taken at a subsequent meeting.

Disabilities Commission: Petersen

Among the nominations for boards and commissions made by mayor John Hieftje at the city council’s Aug. 9 meeting was Sally Petersen to fill a vacancy on the commission on disability issues. Petersen will likely be joining the Ann Arbor city council itself in November, having received more votes than incumbent Tony Derezinski in the Aug. 7 Ward 2 Democratic primary. No other candidate will be on the ballot for Ward 2 on Nov. 6.

In announcing Petersen’s nomination, Hieftje said there was no reason to delay it. Petersen had also applied for appointment to the park advisory commission at the same time she’d applied for a spot on the commission on disability issues.

The commission on disability issues dates back to 1969, but has undergone several name changes since that time, including various forms of the word “handicap.” The commission was established to “promote and advocate for equal opportunities for all individuals with physical, mental and/or emotional disabilities.”

The city council will vote on confirmation of Petersen’s appointment at its Aug. 20 meeting.

DDA Nominations: Smith, Hewitt, Orr

Nominated for reappointment to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority are Sandi Smith, Roger Hewitt and Keith Orr. Those nominations were placed before the city council by mayor John Hieftje at the council’s Aug. 9 meeting.

This year’s DDA board officer elections, held  two months ago at the DDA’s July 2, 2012 annual meeting, again featured abstention on some votes by board member Newcombe Clark – because the future composition of the board was not yet clear. Hieftje’s custom for many reappointments to city boards and commissions has been to provide no public indication of his intentions on those nominations.

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 council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Community Center

Orian Zakai addressed the council as an organizer for the Imagine Community – a nonprofit that promotes solidarity between homed and homeless people, she said, through skill-sharing and creativity. In the last four months, she said, they’ve been cooperating with an educational program at the local homeless shelter, the Delonis Center. Their goal for this year is to open a community center in Ann Arbor, where homed and homeless people can create social lives, learn from each other and stay out of the cold together. They’re waiting for someone to address what they see in the streets – growing desperation, more people out on the streets, insufficient social services, public health care and metal health assistance. They’ve proposed to the city to lease the empty 721 N. Main city-owned building and to take over responsibility for the maintenance of the building in order to make it a hospitable space for a community. She claimed that the city is more interested in costly business plans that would serve business owners and corporate interests than about creating community.

Addressing the contracts with companies that would perform demolition, she wondered what would be built in place of the houses to be demolished – parking lots, high rises and business centers? She said that mayor John Hieftje had been quoted as saying that we’re going to hand the city off to the younger generation and that he thinks young people want to live in a city center with a lot of activity. Contrasting with that sentiment was one expressed by Rose, a Groundcover News vendor, who said that community and not consumption is the next big thing. Zakai said that as a young-ish person, she wanted to live in a community – where people care about each other and no one is left out in the cold to fend for themselves – not a city center. If she had wanted that, she would have chosen to live in Chicago, Tel Aviv, or New York.

Comm/Comm: Democratic Progressive Agenda

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as resident of Ann Arbor and the 53rd District of the Michigan house of representatives. He called on the council and the public to stand up for democratic progress, and build a new Michigan by building affordable housing and re-electing Barack Obama. We need to take courage and stand up and call on our leaders to adopt significant agendas that will benefit the majority of residents. He called on the council to turn away from special interests and the charter amendment protecting city parks, and to focus instead on providing adequate funding to end homelessness, access to affordable housing and to city, countywide and regionwide affordable transportation.

Comm/Comm: Sustainable Practices

Kermit Schlansker recalled his time as a soldier in Germany during 1945-47 after World War II. What he saw was extreme poverty and food shortages, he said. People would trade cameras, radios and jewelry and other items for food. The German farmer was king, he said. His German wife told of going to cut a designated tree for fire wood and having to transport it a long distance in a pull-wagon.

Schlansker indicated that could happen in this country as natural resources get scarcer, and poverty will grow. Before it becomes a national catastrophe, many people will be suffering. We need a place where desperate people can go and trade a little work for food and a place to sleep, he said. We need a place where parolees and drug addicts can go and survive without stealing, he said. Sooner or later, poverty will be ubiquitous. The best remedy is to establish work farms located near cities – for growing food and energy, designing new products and starting new businesses.

Comm/Comm: Smart Meters

Darren Schmidt again addressed the council on the topic of smart meters – which are being installed by DTE Energy to allow for remote measurement of electric usage and for measurements in finer increments. He brought a device that he told the council could measure the effects of such smart meters. The device indicates with colored lights the amount of electromagnetic radiation, he said. He contended that DTE is controlling the Michigan Public Service Commission. Even though there’s an opt-out program, he said, what’s at issue is public airspace. He offered to show people the measuring device and reported that Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator, had taken him up on the offer.

Comm/Comm: Citizens United

Stuart Dowty told the council that he was there to recruit them as a group to do something about the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Ultimately, it’s about money, he said. CU means that we’re dealing with a fundamental change in the nature of our democracy – and something should be done about it. The Ann Arbor council should join the effort toward education about CU, he said. Bob Davidow told the council he’s a member of the group – the Washtenaw Coalition For Democracy. It’s important to understand, he said, that CU didn’t create a problem, but rather exacerbated a pre-existing problem.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Next council meeting: Monday, Aug. 20, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle events listing 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. 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!

The market is located at the northeast corner of Spring and Miller. The market’s owner, Ray Knight, also owns two separate, adjacent parcels. (Knight is perhaps best known for his family’s restaurant, Knight’s Steakhouse, located at 2324 Dexter Ave.) The grocery store is on land zoned C1 (local business) and M1 (light industrial). Another parcel at 306-308 Spring St. is zoned R2A (two-family dwelling) and M1, and contains two single-family homes and part of a parking lot. The third parcel at 310 Spring St. is zoned R2A and MI, and contains the other half of the store’s parking lot. All three parcels are currently non-conforming in some way, according to a staff report, and are located in the 100-year Allen Creek floodplain.

The proposal from Knight’s involves several steps. The request calls for 306, 308 and 310 Spring to be rezoned to C1. That rezoning would allow the building at 306 Spring to be converted into a bakery, although the intent is to leave the exterior of the house intact. The rezoning would also allow for approval of a site plan to build a 1,200-square-foot addition to the existing grocery store and to expand, reconfigure, and improve the existing parking lot. In addition, the plan requests that 418 Miller Ave. – the site of the existing grocery – also be rezoned to C1.

The proposed work to the parking lot includes providing three additional spaces (for a total of 17 parking spaces), a designated snow pile storage area, solid waste and recycling container storage enclosure, right-of-way screening, conflicting land use buffer, and rain gardens for storm water management. An unused curbcut on Miller Avenue would be removed and the curb and lawn extension would be restored there. A temporary storage building at 418 Miller would be removed. The house at 310 Spring would remain a single-family dwelling.

Because the request involves a rezoning – a change to the city’s set of ordinances – the council will need to give a second, final approval at a subsequent meeting, following a formal public hearing.

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]

Claudia Myszke, managing agent of the Forest Hills Cooperative, spoke on behalf of residents there who have concerns about a proposed townhome project on Ellsworth. (Photos by the writer.)

The annexation request for the site of the Summit Townhomes project was recommended for city council approval by the planning commission. However the planning commission postponed action on a related zoning and area plan proposal.

The 2.95-acre site at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road, east of Stone School Road, is currently located in Pittsfield Township. The developer wants to remove an existing single-family home and detached garage, and build 24 townhomes in four, two-story buildings, with attached single-car garages for each unit. The plan calls for R3 (townhouse dwelling district) zoning.

Several residents from the nearby Forest Hills Cooperative townhouse complex came to the June 19 meeting to speak in opposition to the project. They argued that this area is already densely developed, with several major housing developments and a lack of services, like places for children to play. Traffic along Ellsworth was also a concern, especially in light of the soon-to-open Costco on that road, west of South State Street.

In part based on that feedback, commissioners unanimously voted to postpone the zoning and area plan proposals, and asked city planning staff a range of questions that they’d like to have answered before considering those requests. The concerns related to zoning options, traffic volume, the location and amount of parkland in that area, and the capacity of utilities to handle increased density. However, the annexation request will move forward to be considered by the Ann Arbor city council. It was recommended for approval on a 6-1 vote, with Erica Briggs dissenting. Eric Mahler and Wendy Woods were absent.

Briggs also dissented on another request considered by the the planning commission at its meeting – to approve the rezoning and site plan for an expansion of Knight’s Market, and Spring and Miller. The proposal – which had been originally discussed, but ultimately postponed, at the planning commission’s May 15, 2012 meeting – won approval from the other six commissioners, and will be forwarded to the city council for their consideration. Several commissioners expressed concerns, but felt comfortable enough to approve the rezoning and site plan. Briggs said the potential for future commercial expansion and other issues made it impossible for her to support the project.

In other action, the commission unanimously approved their annual work plan, as well as a resolution affirming the city’s master plan. Both actions are required annually under the planning commission’s bylaws.

It was the final meeting for Briggs, who is ending her term this month. She did not request reappointment. Her colleagues on the commission praised her work, with Bonnie Bona saying: ”You may not realize it, but you’ve had a strong influence on all of us.” Ken Clein – a principal with Quinn Evans Architects – has been nominated to replace her and will likely receive city council confirmation at the council’s July 2 meeting.

Summit Townhomes

An annexation request for the site of the Summit Townhomes project was on the planning commission agenda, as was a related zoning and area plan proposal.

City planner Matt Kowalski gave the staff report. The 2.95-acre site at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road, east of Stone School Road, is currently located in Pittsfield Township. The developer – Shawn Barrow of Orlando, Fla. – wants to remove an existing single-family home and detached garage, and build 24 townhomes in four, two-story buildings, with attached single-car garages for each unit. The plan calls for R3 (townhouse dwelling district) zoning.

Aerial photo of property for Summit Townhomes, outlined in black. The property fronts Ellsworth Road. The north/south road to the left is Stone School. The north/south road to the right is Shadowwood Drive, leading into the Forest Hills Cooperative townhome development. The structure in the top center of this image is Bryant Elementary School.

The development calls for extensive grading on the site, which includes steep slopes. Staff had expressed concerns about the grading and had requested revisions to the plans, which are currently under review.

There are 12 landmark trees on the site that would be removed, because they are in poor health.

According to a staff report, the site is adjacent to land owned by the Ann Arbor Public Schools, abutting Bryant Elementary School. Planning staff have suggested that the developer include pedestrian access for future connection with the school. Planning staff also asked the developer to consider the city master plan’s community-oriented design guidelines when developing the project’s site plan. Those guidelines for townhome developments include rear-accessed garages, front porches, clustered design to preserve natural features, an on-site playground, open space, and pedestrian links with adjacent developments.

Annexation of the site is required because it is located within the city’s utility service boundary, and can’t tap into the city’s water and sewer system until it is annexed.

Summit Townhomes: Public Hearing

About 10 residents of Forest Hills Cooperative attended the meeting, and four of them spoke during the project’s public hearing.

Claudia Myszke, managing agent for Forest Hills Cooperative, told commissioners that there’s a huge human element that’s not addressed by the city’s master plan or ordinances. Forest Hills Cooperative is a townhome development built in the 1970s with federal subsidies. It has 306 units, Myszke said, and is near other large townhome developments: University Townhomes (630 units) and Colonial Square Cooperative (470 units). Including these and other multi-family housing, she said, there are already 2,557 units within a five-mile radius of Forest Hills.

There are insufficient city services to handle the current density, she said. There’s no place for children to play except a city park that’s a former dump, with no pool or other amenities. [The reference is to Southeast Area Park, at the corner of Platt and Ellsworth.] Residents asked for a water feature at the park, she said, but were told that there wasn’t funding for it. Myszke praised the work of the Community Action Network (CAN), which runs the Bryant Community Center under contract with the city. But she noted that most of the programs and services there are restricted to residents of the Bryant neighborhood.

Myszke also cited heavy traffic on Ellsworth as a major issue. She said her questions weren’t for the developer, but for city officials. If the 2,557 housing units average three people per unit, that’s 7,671 people living in a five-mile radius, without adequate services. This isn’t about NIMBYism, she said, and it’s just the beginning of potentially even more development. There are concerns that the another property on the west side of Forest Hills will also be developed, adding even more density. The residents of Forest Hills oppose the Summit Townhomes project, she said. She told commissioners that she doubted whether any of them lived in such a dense area with inadequate services.

Aiji Pipho told commissioners that residents of Forest Hills Cooperative are already experiencing brownouts and power surges – her computer was destroyed because of that. Water and sewer capacity is also insufficient to support more development in that part of town, she said. Where else in Ann Arbor is there this kind of density? she asked. Maybe on the University of Michigan campus, but there, students have amenities. Pipho said that foot traffic from people cutting through her property is increasing, and this project will potentially bring even more. With increased foot traffic comes the increased potential for people to “appropriate” items out of the yards, she said.

Pipho also noted that new developments typically don’t have places for children to play. She again cited concerns about density, and said that the vacant parcel next to the Summit Townhomes project could also be developed, which would add even more to the problem.

Ghada Hussein introduced herself as president of the board for the Forest Hills Cooperative, and said she was also opposed to the development. She encouraged others from Forest Hills who were attending the meeting to speak up. [When asked by another resident to indicate who was there from Forest Hills, about 10 people stood up.] Hussein said she’s a mother of three and already the traffic is too heavy for children. It’s difficult now to exit onto Ellsworth, she said, and that would get worse.

Makan Lajevardi, another Forest Hills resident, spoke briefly about traffic concerns. It will increase even more when the new Costco opens, he said. [Costco is opening later this summer, north of Ellsworth just west of South State.]

The last speaker was Leonard Michaels of CIW Engineering in Rossford, Ohio – he represented the developer. He noted that only two people had attended a citizen participation meeting in March. The developer originally wanted zoning for higher density – R4B (multi-family dwelling) – but after talking with planning staff, agreed to seek the lower density zoning of R3 (townhouse dwelling). Even with R3 zoning, their plans aren’t maximizing the number of housing units allowed, he said. Michaels said the plan also will have some kind of recreational area, which would address some of the residents’ concerns.

Michaels told commissioners that several options for the site, to minimize impact, had been submitted to planning staff. It’s difficult, he said, because of the steep grading on the land. They’ve tried to accommodate suggestions. For example, staff requested that there be only one drive onto Ellsworth instead of two, and the developer agreed. Michaels observed that at some point, the city made a decision to limit sprawl. That means there needs to be more density, he said.

Summit Townhomes: Commission Discussion – Annexation

Tony Derezinski asked how interrelated the annexation is with the zoning and area plan. What happens if the city annexes the site, but later doesn’t approve the zoning and area plan?

From left: City planner Alexis DiLeo and planning commissioner Bonnie Bona. At the start of the June 19 meeting, Bona gave a short report on a recent International Living Future Institute conference that she attended in Portland, Oregon.

Matt Kowalski said the developer hoped to move the annexation process forward, because it also needs approval from the state, which could take a couple of months. The zoning and area plan – or a more detailed site plan – can’t move forward until the property is annexed, he said. If annexation occurs but the developer walks away from the project, the city could initiate a process to zone the site, Kowalski explained.

Bonnie Bona noted that the property in question is obviously a township island and needs to be annexed. She said she didn’t think that decision would impact what zoning is ultimately decided. But the vacant parcel to the north – that’s also in the township, she observed. What’s the status there?

Kowalski said the property is owned by the Ann Arbor Public Schools. Planning manager Wendy Rampson added that the city council has directed staff to annex publicly owned land, and the parcel to the north is on the list.

Erica Briggs said it had seemed obvious to annex the property. She said she hadn’t had a problem with the project until hearing comments during the public hearing. Annexation moves the city down the path of zoning the property quickly, she said, but residents have raised substantive concerns. Briggs said she wasn’t familiar with city services in that area, but residents have indicated that services are inadequate for the amount of density there. She worried about bringing in another residential project if current residents aren’t being adequately served.

Briggs said she’d like more information, including what the sewer system constraints are, and whether there should be more multi-family dwellings added to the area. She also wondered how the project fits into the city’s sustainability goals – which the commission has recommended for approval – and with the climate action plan that’s being developed. It sounded like the developer was being accommodating and that’s great, she added, but questions remain.

Outcome on annexation: On a 6-1 vote, commissioners recommended annexing the property into the city. Erica Briggs dissented. Eric Mahler and Wendy Woods were absent.

Summit Townhomes: Commission Discussion – Zoning, Area Plan

Evan Pratt clarified with city planner Matt Kowalski that R3 zoning fits with the type of zoning called for in the city’s master plan. R3 does fit, Kowalski said. The plan calls for single family homes in that area, which could be detached or attached, like townhomes. He noted that the adjacent Cloverly Village development to the west is also R3.

In response to another question from Pratt about the water detention issues, Leonard Michaels – the developer’s representative – noted that water currently runs off the site and into the property to the west. The Summit Townhomes development would flatten the site, he said, capture the stormwater runoff and reroute it into the city’s stormwater system. So flooding won’t be as much of an issue for that property to the west, he said.

Pratt also asked if there are bus stops along that stretch of Ellsworth. Kowalski wasn’t sure, but noted that when a site plan is submitted, it would be sent to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority staff for review. Diane Giannola reported that Route #6 goes down Ellsworth, and there are several stops along the way.

Pratt next asked about the comments in the staff report about the need for noise buffering in that area, due to the proximity of the Ann Arbor airport. This was part of the language in the master plan, Kowalski explained. He said he’d like to do more research on that issue, noting that the master plan is about 20 years old. Perhaps back then, more air traffic had been anticipated, Kowalski ventured.

Tony Derezinski asked whether the questions raised at the meeting would be addressed before proposals for the zoning and area plan are acted on. Yes and no, Kowalski replied. Some of the issues won’t be addressed because the area plan is more conceptual than a site plan, and certain details won’t be known until a site plan is submitted.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson suggested that the commission might want to have a more robust discussion about zoning when the project comes back for consideration. If there are questions that commissioners want the staff to research, she said, those can be addressed.

Giannola said she travels in that area frequently, and the traffic isn’t necessarily heavier than downtown Ann Arbor, but it’s faster moving. She was also curious about whether a commercial development on the site would bring more or less traffic than a residential development.

Pratt brought up the issue of infrastructure, which had been criticized during public commentary. He noted that the staff report had indicated that utilities are adequate for this development, but he asked for more details to be provided. Pratt also suggested that the city’s Parks and Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan could be a resource for identifying whether there are sufficient parks and recreational amenities in the area.

Kirk Westphal, vice chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission, led the June 19 meeting in the absence of chair Eric Mahler.

Bonnie Bona was concerned that decisions are being based on a master plan that’s more than 20 years old. The city is looking at things quite differently now, she noted, with an eye toward issues of sustainability, for example. She also noted that if the plan calls for single-family homes, then R1A zoning would also be possible – that would allow only six units on the site. Bona echoed Pratt’s request for more details about what’s meant by “adequate” utilities in the staff report. She also wanted more information about what impact this development might have on traffic.

Bona felt it was unfortunate that only two residents attended a neighborhood meeting held by the developer. She hoped that the developer would communicate with the people who came to the planning commission meeting, and find out what kind of amenities they’d like to see.

Kirk Westphal asked for clarification about what it means to approve the area plan. Kowalski replied that the intent is to show a conceptual plan for what might be developed, but it can change quite a bit from what’s ultimately submitted as a more detailed site plan. The zoning of the property will have more of an impact on what can actually be built, he noted.

Rampson added that by submitting an area plan, developers get three years to submit a site plan based on the regulations that are in place when the area plan is first submitted.

Westphal said he echoed concerns that other commissioners had raised. He also said it would be nice if some of the trees could be preserved. Like others, he was in favor of postponement.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on the Summit Townhomes zoning and area plan.

Knight’s Market Expansion

An expansion plan for Knight’s Market – which includes converting a single-family home into a bakery – had first been discussed, but ultimately postponed, at the planning commission’s May 15, 2012 meeting. The market is located at the northeast corner of Spring and Miller. The market’s owner, Ray Knight, also owns two separate, adjacent parcels. (Knight is perhaps best known for his family’s restaurant, Knight’s Steakhouse, located at 2324 Dexter Ave.)

City planner Alexis DiLeo gave the staff report. The store is on land zoned zoned C1 (local business) and M1 (light industrial). Another parcel at 306-308 Spring St. is zoned R2A (two-family dwelling) and M1, and contains two single-family homes and part of a parking lot. The third parcel at 310 Spring St. is zoned R2A and MI, and contains the other half of the store’s parking lot. All three parcels are currently non-conforming in some way, according to a staff report, and are located in the 100-year Allen Creek floodplain.

Aerial view of the Knight's property – the three parcels that are part of the project are outlined in black. Spring Street is the north-south street on the west side of the property. Miller Avenue runs east-west along the market's southern edge.

The proposal from Knight’s involves several steps. The request calls for 306, 308 and 310 Spring to be rezoned to C1. That rezoning would allow the building at 306 Spring to be converted into a bakery, although the intent is to leave the exterior of the house intact. The rezoning would also allow for approval of a site plan to build a 1,200-square-foot addition to the existing grocery store and to expand, reconfigure, and improve the existing parking lot. In addition, the plan requests that 418 Miller Ave. – the site of the existing grocery – also be rezoned to C1.

The proposed work to the parking lot includes providing three additional spaces (for a total of 17 parking spaces), a designated snow pile storage area, solid waste and recycling container storage enclosure, right-of-way screening, conflicting land use buffer, and rain gardens for storm water management. An unused curbcut on Miller Avenue would be removed and the curb and lawn extension would be restored there. A temporary storage building at 418 Miller would be removed. The house at 310 Spring would remain a single-family dwelling.

The staff report notes that a neighborhood meeting in September 2011 drew about 10 people, who raised concerns about the proposed bakery at 306 Spring, as well as possible future uses for adjacent land also owned by Knight at 314 and 422 Spring, which are not part of the current proposal. A public hearing held at the May 15 meeting drew 10 speakers, including several neighbors who praised the Knight family and their business, but expressed concerns about “commercial creep” and increased traffic. Commissioners echoed those concerns on May 15, including fears about what might happen if the ownership of the property changes hands – if it were bought by a national retailer, for example, that might want to put a convenience store or fast food restaurant there.

During her June 19 report, DiLeo noted that C1 zoning would allow for a building up to 17,812 square feet, but would limit tenant spaces in the building to a maximum of 8,000 square feet each. That amount of retail space would also require between 58 and 63 off-street parking spaces – given the site, that would mean that almost all off-street parking would need to be located below ground or in a multi-level structure. This scenario would likely make it financially impractical to develop the property to that extent, she said, especially in a floodplain.

Concerns about “commercial creep” were also addressed in the planning staff’s written memo:

Commercial creep is not a desirable situation, but when it has occurred, it can be hard to argue that improvements should be taken out and everything should be undone. The parking lot for the market that is in the rear yards of two residentially-zoned lots (306-308 and 310 Spring Street) has been in place for almost 30 years. In 1979, the Knights received site plan approval for an addition to their building, and the site plan clearly showed the parking currently in place. City officials have been successful in keeping the uses on this site from expanding further, but the fact is that the decision to functionally expand the commercial nature of this site was made long ago when the parking lot was originally installed.

In sum, for the past 30 years, 306-308 and 310 Spring Street have been operating as a single mixed use site containing both residential uses and local commercial. Staff considers the proposed rezoning to be improving the site conditions of an existing situation, supporting the continued success of an established neighborhood, and striking a balance between varied land use goals. Further, any future expansion of commercial in this area would require the type of debate that characterizes this request.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Public Hearing

Although more than a dozen residents and members of the Knight family turned out for the previous public hearing, only two speakers attended the June 19 hearing. Both had spoken at the May 15 hearing, too.

Tim Athan, who lives on Spring Street, told commissioners that the city is seeing pushback from residents because it’s really rare to have this kind of residential neighborhood so close to the downtown, and they want to protect it. He described how large trucks already use the street, and traffic has increased. That might make it more attractive for additional commercial development. He noted that just two blocks away, on Ashley Street, the feel is quite different from Spring Street – it’s more commercial. He also felt that the floodplain was being considered as a factor in rezoning the site for commercial uses, and that’s scary. The floodplain covers several other properties up the street – it seems as though those could also be eligible for rezoning, he said.

Richard Fry, the project’s architect, had introduced himself earlier in the meeting during the time for general public commentary. He spoke during the public hearing only to respond to Athan’s comments, saying that at a neighborhood meeting the Knights had held, about 10-12 people showed up but only one person had pushed back against the project.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Commission Discussion – Zoning

Tony Derezinski began the discussion by noting that at the May 15 meeting, commissioners and staff had discussed natural barriers on the site that might prevent “commercial creep.” He asked for staff to review those barriers.

Alexis DiLeo said that on the east side, the adjacent railroad track and embankment provide a natural barrier. To the north, there is no other quasi-commercial development – it’s clearly residential. She noted that the parking on the site has been there for about 30 years.

Richard Fry, the architect for the Knight's Market expansion.

Derezinski picked up on that comment, suggesting that the city would simply be approving the zoning for a use that’s been going on at that site for decades. In all that time, there had not been any commercial expansion to the north, he noted. If someone wanted to expand a commercial operation to the north, then that would require a separate rezoning request.

Derezinski asked how the configuration of the site and other constraints would preclude someone building a strip mall there in the future. DiLeo said it would allow for only a small strip mall, with perhaps two tenants. The amount of required parking would be a significant limiting factor, she said.

Derezinski noted that the Knight family had previously stated their intent. Neighbors had told commissioners at the previous meeting about how they shopped at the market, and in some cases worked there. It’s part of the neighborhood’s charm, he said – even to the point of the Knights lending money to some residents to cover a grocery tab. As he’d noted at the May 15 meeting, Derezinski said it reminded him about the debate over the Zingerman’s Deli expansion on Detroit Street. [The planning commission recommended approval of the Zingerman's expansion at its May 18, 2010 meeting. The project was later approved by the city council and construction is well underway.] A number of neighbors raised concerns, but not enough to stop the project, he said.

Erica Briggs said she’d struggled with this project. Knight’s is a great market and a wonderful addition to the neighborhood, she said. There’s a lot of desire to facilitate that. But she had concerns about the precedent that would be set. The parking lot expansion might set the tone for a long time. If the parcels are rezoned, there will be a small expansion but the potential for more commercial creep up the street.

The floodplain partially covers those lots to the north, and Briggs wondered if a future planning commission might ask: What’s the harm in rezoning those, too? There have been recent unintended consequences from rezoning, she noted, when neighbors don’t get what they expect. [This was likely an allusion to the Maple Cove project on North Maple Road, which received planning commission approval at its June 5, 2012 meeting. The property had been rezoned years ago for an office building that was never constructed. Neighbors there hadn't opposed the rezoning at the time, but said they hadn't realized that it would allow for a residential development like the one that was ultimately proposed.]

Briggs said she wished she could support the project, because the market is an asset. But unless those concerns are addressed, she couldn’t vote for it.

Bonnie Bona thanked DiLeo for the clear and thorough explanation in her staff report of the challenges that this project presents. Bona agreed with the description that there’s one situation for rezoning the current sites, and a different type of review that would be needed for residential sites to the north. She didn’t think there would be commercial expansion up the street. That wouldn’t be an easy decision for a future planning commission to make.

Diane Giannola said she was also torn about this project, and agreed with other commissioners. Her main concern is what might happen in the future. It would make her feel better to see the Knights make an investment in the market, to make it more attractive – because it would make her believe they weren’t intending to sell it.

The property to the north remains residential, she noted, and anyone who wanted to put a business there would need to return to the city to seek rezoning. The corner where the market is located is just a small bit of commercial creep, she said, and not enough to turn down the project.

Kirk Westphal said it was good to understand the scope of potential development that is possible with the rezoning. He confirmed with DiLeo that area, height and placement (AHP) standards would reflect changes that had been made as part of the city’s A2D2 zoning project. DiLeo describe generally how a development would be constrained on the site by those standards.

Westphal said he was comforted by the scenarios that DiLeo described. And given the limited nature of the current project, it was a benefit, he said.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Commission Discussion – Floodplain

Bona highlighted the floodplain issue, and said there needs to be a community conversation about residences located in the floodplain. It puts people in greater danger, she said, and people who are economically challenged tend to live in those floodplain areas. She didn’t think every home in the floodplain would disappear, but the city needs to be thoughtful about the issue.

Westphal described the floodplain issue as an interesting one. He wondered if the city had known about the real location of the floodplain when the area was initially zoned, would the city  have put split zoning on the site – part of it M1 and part of it C1 or R2A? DiLeo said she thought the split zoning was related to the railroad track. She said it was difficult to play “zoning detective,” but her guess was that the split zoning had more to do with poor cartography and the railroad.

Wendy Rampson noted that the FEMA floodplain maps were developed in the 1980s, while the zoning dated back to the 1960s. The floodplain maps were originally more figurative – in that they were supposed to reflect elevations, but good elevation data wasn’t available at the time. That’s why the floodplain maps have changed more recently.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Commission Discussion – Traffic

Regarding traffic, Bona said there’s only so much that the community can do to regulate it. As long as residents and businesses talk to each other – as reasonable and bright human beings – they can work through it, she said. It shouldn’t require an ordinance to regulate.

Giannola said that Zingerman’s Deli had offered to ask their vendors if smaller trucks could be used to make deliveries. Perhaps that’s something Knight’s Market could do as well, she suggested.

In response to a later question from Eleanore Adenekan, Knight’s market manager Vernon Bedolla said they don’t expect the number of trucks to increase after the expansion. More likely, they’ll just get larger orders with the same number of deliveries, he said.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Commission Discussion – Design

Bona made a plea to the architect and owners to design a more pedestrian-friendly storefront, with more windows and “eyes on the street,” making it easier to tell if the store is even open. ”That would really be a huge asset to the neighborhood,” she said. Richard Fry, the project’s architect, indicated that was the owners’ intent.

Outcome: Commissioners voted 6-1 to recommend approval, with Erica Briggs dissenting. Commissioners Eric Mahler and Wendy Woods were absent. The rezoning and site plan requests will be considered next by city council.

Master Plan Reviewed

The planning commission’s June 19 agenda included an item to approve the city’s master plan resolution. The planning commission’s bylaws require that the group review the city’s master plan each May. At its May 1 meeting, the commission held a public hearing on the item – though no one attended – and postponed action until after it held a  planning retreat on May 29.

The resolution affirmed the existing master plan, which consists of (1) Land Use Element (2009); (2) Downtown Plan (2009); (3) Transportation Plan Update (2009); (4) Non-motorized Transportation Plan (2007); (5) Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan (2011); and (6) Natural Features Master Plan (2004). These documents can be downloaded from the city’s master plan website.

The resolution stated that the commission will continue to develop comprehensive plans for the Washtenaw Avenue and South State Street corridors. The State Street Corridor was the focus of the May 29 retreat – see Chronicle coverage: “South State Corridor Gets Closer Look.”

In addition, three minor changes were incorporated: (1) Adding the city’s park advisory commission, housing commission, and housing & human services board to the list of groups that are developing a sustainability framework for the city. Initially, only the planning, energy and environmental commissions had been involved. (2) Stating that the planning commission will assist in updating the Non-motorized Transportation Plan, which was adopted in 2007. (3) Stating that the planning commission will update the land use element of the city’s master plan to include land use recommendations from the Huron River and Impoundments Management Plan (HRIMP). This had been discussed at a March 2012 meeting of the commission’s master plan revisions committee.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the master plan resolution.

Annual Work Plan

A work plan for a wide range of city planning commission and staff projects in fiscal 2013 was on the June 19 agenda. [.pdf of work plan]

The plan, covering the fiscal year that begins July 1, 2012, had been reviewed at a June 12 working session. Items include  development of (1) corridor plans for Washtenaw Avenue and South State Street, (2) a sustainability framework action plan, (3) Zoning Ordinance Re-Organization (ZORO) amendments, and (4) R4C/R2A amendments. Among other things, the plan also includes evaluation of the city’s citizen participation ordinance and A2D2 zoning.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the annual work plan.

Farewell to Briggs

The June 19 meeting was the last one for commissioner Erica Briggs, whose three-year term ends this month. She did not seek reappointment. At the city council’s June 18 session, Ken Clein – a principal with Quinn Evans Architects – was nominated to replace her.

From left: Planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Erica Briggs.

At the end of Tuesday’s meeting, Briggs thanked her colleagues on the commission and joked that she knew she could be cantankerous at times. She said she had learned a lot while on the commission – from staff, other commissioners and the public – and she had been honored to serve.

Several commissioners praised Briggs for her work. Tony Derezinski said that although commissioners don’t always agree, they disagree with respect and still like each other.

Bonnie Bona thanked Briggs for adding to the comprehensiveness of the group’s discussions. She said Briggs might find that her legacy lives on – often, when a commissioner steps down, other commissioners bring up points that the former commissioner would have made. ”You may not realize it,” Bona said, “but you’ve had a strong influence on all of us.”

Other commissioners expressed similar sentiments, with Kirk Westphal noting that he especially appreciated how welcoming Briggs was of commentary from the public. Planning manager Wendy Rampson said that one of her biggest disappointments is that the staff wasn’t able to fully develop the type of public engagement process that Briggs had advocated. Time constraints made that difficult, Rampson said, but she pledged to continue to improve communication and transparency. She appreciated that Briggs had pushed the envelope in that area.

The exchange ended with commissioners and staff giving Briggs a round of applause.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Erica Briggs, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal.

Absent: Eric Mahler, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, July 3, 2012 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 relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to plan on doing the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The project had first been discussed, but ultimately postponed, at the commission’s May 15, 2012 meeting. The market is located at the northeast corner of Spring and Miller. The market’s owner, Ray Knight, also owns two separate, adjacent parcels. (Knight is perhaps best known for his family’s restaurant, Knight’s Steakhouse, located at 2324 Dexter Ave.) The grocery store is on land zoned C1 (local business) and M1 (light industrial). Another parcel at 306-308 Spring St. is zoned R2A (two-family dwelling) and M1, and contains two single-family homes and part of a parking lot. The third parcel at 310 Spring St. is zoned R2A and MI, and contains the other half of the store’s parking lot. All three parcels are currently non-conforming in some way, according to a staff report, and are located in the 100-year Allen Creek floodplain.

The proposal from Knight’s involves several steps. The request calls for 306, 308 and 310 Spring to be rezoned to C1. That rezoning would allow the building at 306 Spring to be converted into a bakery, although the intent is to leave the exterior of the house intact. The rezoning would also allow for approval of a site plan to build a 1,200-square-foot addition to the existing grocery store and to expand, reconfigure, and improve the existing parking lot. In addition, the plan requests that 418 Miller Ave. – the site of the existing grocery – also be rezoned to C1.

The proposed work to the parking lot includes providing three additional spaces (for a total of 17 parking spaces), a designated snow pile storage area, solid waste and recycling container storage enclosure, right-of-way screening, conflicting land use buffer, and rain gardens for storm water management. An unused curbcut on Miller Avenue would be removed and the curb and lawn extension would be restored there. A temporary storage building at 418 Miller would be removed. The house at 310 Spring would remain a single-family dwelling.

The staff report notes that a neighborhood meeting in September 2011 drew about 10 people, who raised concerns about the proposed bakery at 306 Spring, as well as possible future uses for adjacent land also owned by Knight at 314 and 422 Spring, which are not part of the current proposal. A public hearing held at the May 15 meeting drew 10 speakers, including several neighbors who praised the Knight family and their business, but expressed concerns about “commercial creep” and increased traffic. Commissioners echoed those concerns, including fears about what might happen if the ownership of the property changes hands.

Responding to those concerns, a planning staff memo states: “Commercial creep is not a desirable situation, but when it has occurred, it can be hard to argue that improvements should be taken out and everything should be undone … for the past 30 years, 306-308 and 310 Spring Street have been operating as a single mixed use site containing both residential uses and local commercial. Staff considers the proposed rezoning to be improving the site conditions of an existing situation, supporting the continued success of an established neighborhood, and striking a balance between varied land use goals. Further, any future expansion of commercial in this area would require the type of debate that characterizes this request.”

Several commissioners still expressed concerns, but felt comfortable enough to approve the rezoning and site plan. Only Briggs said the potential for future commercial expansion and other issues made it impossible for her to support the project.

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

Sherry Knight Bedolla speaks to the Ann Arbor planning commission at its May 15, 2012 meeting. Her father, Ray Knight, bought the former Ty's Market on the corner of Spring and Miller in 1952. Knight's Market is seeking to expand and add a bakery in the current single-family house. They are asking the city to rezone the property from residential to C1 commercial. (Photos by the writer.)

The city’s fiscal year ends June 30. Year to date, 10 zoning or planned unit development (PUD) applications have been received, compared to one in fiscal year 2011. Twenty-one site plans have been submitted this year, compared to 13 in FY 2011. And 494 zoning compliance reviews have been completed this year for building permits, up from 215 in FY 2011 – a 129% increase.

At the commission’s May 15 meeting, five projects were considered. The one drawing most interest from residents was a proposed expansion of Knight’s Market at the corner of Spring and Miller. The plan calls for an addition on the current market building, which has been run by the Knight family since 1952. Three parcels would be combined into one that would be rezoned as C1 (local business), allowing the Knights to turn one of two single-family homes next to the market into a bakery. The bakery wouldn’t have a retail space – it would be used to make products for the market and the family’s restaurants in Ann Arbor and Jackson.

Ten people spoke during a public hearing on the project,  mostly residents of the neighborhood. They expressed support and gratitude for the Knights and their business, but raised concerns about increased truck traffic and “commercial creep.” Residents were also cautious about the future of the site, if ownership changes hands after the property is rezoned for commercial uses.

Speaking on behalf of the family, Sherry Knight Bedolla assured commissioners that there are no plans to sell to a developer – the family simply needs to meet demand for its baked goods, she said. The bakery would also be used to repackage food from the restaurant into ready-to-eat meals that would be sold in the market. At the planning staff’s request, commissioners ultimately voted to postpone action on the project to allow time for additional review.

Also postponed was action on the site plan for DTE Energy’s Buckler electrical substation at 984 Broadway near Canal Street. DTE hopes to build the substation in the utility company’s Ann Arbor service center to provide an increase in electrical power to the downtown area, due to increased demand for electricity. The project is expected to be back on the planning commission’s June 5 agenda. A companion project – a site plan for remediation of the nearby MichCon property on Broadway – was unanimously approved, assuming that a list of contingencies are met.

Two other projects were also unanimously approved: (1) an expansion of parking for the Wintermeyer office complex on South State; and (2) a temporary retail sales special exception use for Phantom Fireworks, to sell fireworks in the parking lot of Colonial Lanes at 1950 South Industrial Highway.

Knight’s Market Expansion

Ann Arbor planning commissioners were asked to consider a request from Knight’s Market – a rezoning and site plan proposal to allow the neighborhood market to expand and add a bakery. City planner Alexis DiLeo gave the staff report.

Knight’s Market is located at the northeast corner of Spring and Miller. The market’s owner, Ray Knight, also owns two separate, adjacent parcels. (Knight is perhaps best known for his family’s restaurant, Knight’s Steakhouse, located at 2324 Dexter Ave.) The grocery store is on land zoned zoned C1 (local business) and M1 (light industrial). Another parcel at 306-308 Spring St. has two zoning designations – R2A (two-family dwelling) and M1 – and contains two single-family homes and part of a parking lot. The third parcel at 310 Spring St. is also zoned R2A and M1 and contains the other half of the store’s parking lot. All three parcels are currently non-conforming in some way, according to a staff report, and are located in the 100-year Allen Creek floodplain.

The proposal from Knight’s involves several steps. The request calls for 306, 308 and 310 Spring to be rezoned to C1. That rezoning would allow the building at 306 Spring to be converted into a bakery, although the intent is to leave the exterior of the house intact. The rezoning would also allow for approval to build a 1,200-square-foot addition to the existing grocery store and to expand, reconfigure, and improve the existing parking lot. In addition, the plan requests that 418 Miller Ave. – the site of the existing grocery – also be rezoned to C1.

The proposed work to the parking lot includes providing three additional spaces (for a total of 17 parking spaces), a designated snow pile storage area, solid waste and recycling container storage enclosure, right-of-way screening, conflicting land use buffer, and rain gardens for storm water management. An unused curbcut on Miller Avenue would be removed and the curb and lawn extension would be restored there. A temporary storage building at 418 Miller would be removed. The house at 310 Spring would remain a single-family dwelling.

The staff report notes that a neighborhood meeting in September 2011 drew about 10 people, who raised concerns about the proposed bakery at 306 Spring, as well as possible future uses for adjacent land also owned by Knight at 314 and 422 Spring, which are not part of the current proposal.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Public Hearing

Ten people spoke during the project’s public hearing. Architect Dick Fry described more details of the project. The site will be “cleaned up,” he said, including removal of a trailer that’s been illegally located there for years. No changes to the footprints of the two houses are planned, and the parking is being expanded. He noted that members of the Knight family were attending the meeting – they had been raised on this property. Fry noted that he’s heard speculation about the rezoning being requested in order to sell out to a big developer. That’s not their intention, he said. The Knights need more room to prepare food that will be sold at the grocery.

Dick Fry, the architect for the Knight's Market expansion.

He said the Knights have agreed to accept the floodplain lines, rather than taking a stand and showing documents that indicate the floodplain had been drawn in a different location when the project first started. They’ll be floodproofing the building – pulling off the siding and putting up brick, which will also make the building look nicer, he said. Fry also told commissioners that there are plans to put up signs – many people don’t know it’s a market. [The building is marked only by black knight chess icons on the sides facing Miller and Spring. The door into the building is off of the parking lot – there is a relatively new sign on that side of the structure, next to the door.]

Sherry Knight Bedolla spoke on behalf of the Knight family. Ray Knight is her father, she said, and two of her four brothers – Jeff and Don – were at the meeting, along with her brother-in-law, Vernon Bedolla. They all work or have worked in the store or at Knight’s restaurant, and want to keep those businesses going. She gave a bit of history about the store, explaining how the small local market became known for its quality meat. She said she was amazed that it’s still in business, after big supermarkets became popular. Yes, the store’s prices are a bit more expensive than larger groceries, she said, but not overly priced. It serves the neighborhood and community. She said she grew up in the house next to the market, and some family members still live in the neighborhood. They don’t plan on going anywhere or selling out.

They aren’t looking to make huge changes, Bedolla said, but she noted that it’s been about 50 years since they’ve made major improvements. They want to make the outside look nicer. If rezoning for the bakery is approved, they’ll be able to do more baking for the restaurants and market, she said. Right now, she can’t satisfy customer demand. They also plan to bring food from the restaurant and package it for ready-to-eat meals that they’ll sell at the store. The changes will also provide jobs for their growing family and others, Bedolla said.

Tim Athan lives on Spring Street, and noted that the project would bring food manufacturing to the neighborhood, with trucks and increased energy use. He said he realized that mixed-use is a tenet of New Urbanism, but this project works against that because it might put the existing bakery – Big City Small World Bakery – out of business. He said he does like mixed-use development, and would like to see the city encourage restoration of older neighborhood stores that already exist.

Athan said it’s a nice neighborhood being encroached on by creeping urban growth. He used to live on Ashley and saw the same thing happen there. He doesn’t want it to happen on “good old Spring Street,” just for the convenience of the Knights. The street already suffers from high traffic, he noted – it’s a well-known cut-through to avoid the stoplights on Main Street. The city’s master plan mandates for reduced neighborhood intrusions, he said, but the city hasn’t helped with that. Each step isn’t bad, but the cumulative effect is negative and transforms the neighborhood. He asked whether anyone would look at the existing Knight’s Market and say that the design they’ve had for decades is big on charm. The proposed plan to use brick is great, but there’s still a long way to go, he said, and past performance should count for something. A sweet neighborhood is being whittled away unnecessarily, he said.

Steve Schewe began by joking that his wife Nancy had told him to speak up. They also live on Spring, and he wanted to read a letter that had been submitted to commissioners earlier. [.pdf of Schewe's letter] He said he’s known the Knights since 1973, and called them ”a classic, hard-working Midwestern family. They are wonderful neighbors and we have complete confidence that they will make improvements in their family-owned and family-operated market that will improve the quality of life in our shared neighborhood.”

Schewe talked about the family’s history and how they help out neighbors by clearing snow or letting people run tabs at the market during tough times. Bob Knight even escorted Nancy Schewe home one night when a murderer had escaped, Schewe said – armed with a baseball bat, Bob Knight had checked to make sure the house was safe for her. Schewe noted that the Knights sell products from local businesses like Mighty Good Coffee, Metzger’s, Ann Arbor Tortilla Factory and Dry Bucket Farms. “The Knights don’t make reckless moves,” Schewe said. “They are slow and cautious, and that is why we trust that they will not abuse this request for rezoning.”

Kathleen Canning, another Spring Street resident, said she’s shopped there since she finally figured out it was a market. Along with Big City bakery, it makes the neighborhood wonderful, she said, and she hopes that the Knights will stay and thrive. However, she also expressed concern about encroaching commercial zoning in an area that’s already seeing urban encroachment. The neighborhood is at its limit. She and Nancy Schewe had organized to get a residential parking program in the neighborhood, which had caused quite a bit of friendly disagreement among neighbors, she said. That program has improved conditions, but there’s still a lot of truck traffic.

Trucks don’t have an easy way out of Spring after they deliver to Knight’s Market, she noted. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that truck traffic will increase with this project, she said. The Knights are asking the neighborhood to bear more traffic, Canning said – that needs to be recognized, and solutions need to be pursued. There are increasing numbers of small children in the neighborhood, and traffic is a concern. The second concern is about the permanence of commercial zoning. She said it’s obviously not possible for zoning to revert to residential, if the property is sold, so she’s very nervous about the potential for commercial buildings that might get built where the houses are now.

Laurie Feldt has lived on the corner of Spring and Cherry since 1992, and said she definitely supported the project. The Knights have traditionally hired from the neighborhood, so it’s an opportunity for more jobs that residents can walk to, she said. The Knights are fair employers – they pay well and treat you well. The amount of truck traffic isn’t a big concern for her – there are already a lot of trucks on Spring, including city trucks and tow trucks. It would be nice for traffic to be mitigated, but she didn’t see how that would happen. Neighbors tolerate parking regulations and home construction projects because properties should work for the owner’s needs.

Feldt said she has a cottage industry baking business in her home, yet she welcomes the Knight’s new bakery. And it would make life easier to have prepared meals available in the market. She said her father is an emeritus professor of urban planning, and he affirmed her guess that the Knight’s project would increase property values and that mixed-use is the way to go. It’s an urban neighborhood, and having these gems gives the neighborhood more value and meaning, she concluded.

The white building, marked only by the black knight chess icons, houses Knight's Market on the northeast corner of Miller and Spring. Across Spring Street in the bright yellow/orange building is Big City Small World Bakery.

Sandra Levitsky also lives on Spring, and echoed her neighbors’ comments both for and against the project. She said she’s an enormous fan of the market and the family. But she’s lived in two neighborhoods in Los Angeles and Minneapolis that suffered from “commercial creep” into a residential neighborhood. In both cases, a benign and seemingly good plan turned bad when the property changed hands. In both LA and Minneapolis, it resulted in fairly ugly fights between residents and commercial owners, she said. She wished for some guarantee to be built into the zoning. ”I trust the Knight family, but who knows what will happen in the future?” As the mother of a 1-year-old, Levitsky also was concerned about traffic and especially increased truck traffic, and hoped the city could address it.

Virginia Gordan lives on Cherry, and said she didn’t mean any disrespect to the Knights or the market by her comments. She agreed with all of the positive attributes that had been cited. But she wanted to highlight a couple of things. Increased traffic is a concern, but the biggest issue is rezoning from residential to C1. What might change in the family’s current plans, or what happens if they sell? Commercial creep is a concern. Now, you can see the market on the corner but you can see houses immediately north of the store. If those are rezoned for commercial use, that’s scary, she said. After the property is rezoned, it seems there’s very little the city can do – South Fifth is an example, she said. [Gordan was alluding to the controversial City Place apartment project on South Fifth, between William and Packard. That property was not rezoned. But Gordan's point was that City Place was seen as an undesirable project that the city council could not reject because it met the conditions of zoning and could thus be built "by right."]

Karen Garrison, who also lives on Spring, began by saying that the character of the Knight family isn’t on trial. She likes the market and family, and appreciates what they’ve done. But what is on trial is the character of the neighborhood, she said. It’s a very special place, and has recently developed into the Water Hill neighborhood, which makes her proud. Garrison said she sees this projects as a conflict with the character of a residential area with community spirit. Ashley doesn’t have that same community feeling – that’s the reason why there’s not a music festival on Ashley, she said.

Scott Newell told commissioners that he owned Big City Small World Bakery at the northwest corner of Miller and Spring. He said he was very conflicted, “but these guys are great,” referring to the Knights. He agreed with the pros and cons he’d heard from previous speakers. If the city does approve the project, he hoped that a real streetlight could be installed on that corner, like one at First and Ashley. Pedestrian traffic is heavy, especially during rush hour, he said, and there are a lot of young families. Newell wrapped up by saying, ”These guys are great and I love ‘em.”

Knight’s Market Expansion: Commission Discussion

Tony Derezinski began the discussion by noting that a range of commentary had been heard but the one constant was a high respect for the Knight family and what they’ve done. People are also concerned about the future, he said, which is natural. It reminded Derezinski about the expansion of Zingerman’s Deli, and how people in the neighborhood praised Zingerman’s but were concerned about delivery trucks and other issues. [The planning commission recommended approval of the Zingerman's expansion at their May 18, 2010 meeting. The project was later approved by the city council and construction is well underway.]

Part of the situation is inevitable, he said. Trucks are already there – it’s a matter of degree as to what might happen in the future, and that’s impossible to predict. People are also worried about the rezoning, Derezinski said, but he felt that the issue was addressed in the staff report. There are natural boundaries to delineate the residential from the commercial. Is it enough to prevent leapfrogging up the street? On these decisions, you do the best you can, he said. Encroachment does happen, but on the other hand it’s good to have neighborhood stores. ”I guess I’m about as conflicted as you are,” he told the residents. It comes down to whether the city is willing to take a chance on the Knights, he said.

The rest of the commissioners’ comments are organized here by topic.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Commission Discussion – Traffic, Parking

Eleanore Adenekan had questions about the truck traffic, and asked for the market’s hours of operation.  Sherry Knight Bedolla said it’s open 8 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, and 8-5 on Saturday. The market is closed on Sundays.

Aerial view of Knight's property – the three parcels that are part of the project are outlined in black. Spring Street is the north-south street on the west side of the property. Miller Avenue runs east-west along the market's southern edge.

Adenekan then wanted to know how many trucks come through. Bedolla noted that part of the truck traffic is unrelated to Knight’s – the truck drivers coming down eastbound Miller see the railroad bridge ahead and if they don’t think the truck will fit under it, they cut up Spring Street. As for trucks coming to Knight’s, she estimated there are about a dozen per week, and she didn’t think it would increase very much. Products for the bakery will be delivered on trucks that already make stops at the market, and there are already delivery trucks that go back and forth between the market and restaurant.

Bonnie Bona said the parking expansion made her a little uncomfortable. How much does the market need and use? When she thinks of neighborhood stores – like the Big City bakery or Jefferson Market – she doesn’t think about parking. Neither of those stores have parking. She said she realized that the city has a 14-space minimum requirement, but the site plan calls for 17.

Bedolla reported that there are about six employee cars on the lot each day, with the rest for customers. They’re trying not to use spaces in the neighborhood, she said. Usually four or five customer vehicles are in the lot, though sometimes during rush hour it’s full, she said.

Bona clarified with Dick Fry that two bike hoops are planned, but more could be added.

Evan Pratt said he used to live in that area, on Chapin. It’s true that Spring Street is a cut-through, but most of that traffic is related to the railroad bridge, he said. And he didn’t think it was unreasonable to get two or three deliveries a day.

Pratt also noted that the city has a traffic-calming program, which requires a certain percentage of residents to petition for changes. He said he now lives off of Broadway, and the traffic calming there has been a benefit – maybe not with the amount of traffic, he said, but to reduce speeds.

Kirk Westphal said he didn’t know if a traffic study was warranted, but he noted that traffic creep can also be an issue. Alexis DiLeo replied that the site plan didn’t trigger a traffic study. Typically the trigger is if there’s more than 50 vehicles in the peak hour, but that threshold didn’t speak to deliveries, she noted – it looked at employees and customers. She said she hadn’t previously been aware of the concerns about truck traffic, however, so she could see what the options are for further study.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Commission Discussion – Zoning

Bonnie Bona said she had a couple of concerns about the project. The bakery will be a production facility, not retail – that’s a fact, she said. Her conflict is with the lack of retail. On the other hand, rezoning away from residential in a floodplain makes sense. Hundreds of homes are located in the floodplain, and usually the residents are the most financially challenged, she said. That’s not where people should be living.

Bona asked the planning staff if contract zoning might be an option to add restrictions on what would be allowed on the site. She also wondered about lot size. Currently, C1 has a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet, she noted. At what point does a national chain become interested in a site – 20,000 square feet? 50,000 square feet? Bona said she’d be more comfortable knowing about that.

The entrance to Knight's Market off of Spring Street is between the market building and a single-family house, which would be converted to a bakery if rezoning is approved.

Diane Giannola also expressed concern about commercial creep. After the rezoning, would there still be three separate parcels? Alexis DiLeo said the site plan is contingent on combining the lots. Giannola wondered if it’s big enough that a national chain might want to locate there.

Giannola’s other concern is that there’s no retail in the bakery. Was any kind of store planned inside the bakery? Sherry Knight Bedolla replied that the intent is to make baked goods to sell in the market and restaurants. They didn’t want to encroach on the neighborhood by having another store. The outside of the house will look as it does now, she said – the exterior won’t change.

Giannola thought it didn’t really fit in C1 zoning if there’s no retail. Dick Fry clarified that the retail sales must be on the site, but not necessarily in the same building. It would be easy to have a walk-in room and counter sales, he said, but that would complicate the site and the traffic.

Kirk Westphal observed that it was great to hear the rich input from the community – it helps flesh out the commission’s discussion to picture what the worst case scenario could be, he said. He was struggling with the project as well, and asked planning staff to give examples about what kinds of businesses can operate in C1 districts, and at what scale.

DiLeo said that C1 allows for general retail sales, restaurants, and service businesses like dry cleaners and nail salons. There’s a limit of 8,000 square feet per use, she said, but that’s not a building size limitation. So there could be a strip mall, and each business could have up to 8,000 square feet of space. The limiting factor for building size would be the floor-area ratio (FAR), based on the lot size. Residential use would not be prohibited, but it would be discouraged because of the floodplain, DiLeo said.

Evan Pratt asked if staff had considered other zoning districts. DiLeo replied that C1 is the least intense of the commercial zones. It’s the only zoning district with a size limitation for use, for example.

Pratt commented that the current zoning is “pretty arcane.” What are the uses for M1 – the strip that goes along the railroad tracks? That’s for transportation and railroad uses, DiLeo said, and light manufacturing – something like a small machine shop. M1 allows for items to be assembled, but not created from raw materials. Pratt ventured that cleaning up the M1 zoning is a good thing.

Wendy Woods said she appreciated the concern about commercial creep, but that’s a balancing act that no one can predict. In the past, the Knights have attempted to keep their business going, she said, and it’s their intent to stay. She asked for clarification about whether anything can be done regarding a change of ownership. DiLeo replied that the zoning is tied to the land, not the land’s use or owners. Conditional or contract zoning is something that the property owners could offer to do, but the owners can’t stipulate that the zoning will automatically revert to its previous zoning. That would be in conflict with due process and public noticing, she said. If it’s rezoned from commercial back to residential or to some other kind of district, it would need to go through the rezoning process.

Westphal asked whether contract or conditional zoning could stipulate the size of a building’s footprint or area, for example. DiLeo said she’d need to check with the city attorney’s office on what kind of conditions could be stipulated. Westphal asked about a PUD (planned unit development) – might that type of zoning be useful in this situation? DiLeo said that typically, conditional zoning is a good tool to use when you want to limit what’s allowed, while a PUD is a useful tool when you want to expand what’s allowed from the base zoning.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Commission Discussion – Design

Bonnie Bona noted that she lives in the “upper Water Hill” neighborhood, north of the Spring/Miller area, and she frequents Big City bakery and the Kerrytown shops. But she hasn’t been to Knight’s Market in 25 years, she said, because it’s not welcoming. What are the owners trying to do to make it more welcoming? Windows would be good, to help keep an eye on the street, she said. [The current building has one small window facing Miller, and a few small windows facing Spring.] Bona also noted that Big City bakery has a residence above its shop. Why doesn’t the Knight’s plan have the same?

Dick Fry said they haven’t gotten into details about the building design, and the things that Bona mentioned would help. The entrance will likely stay on the side of the building where it’s currently located, facing north onto the parking lot, but the owners are open to other ideas, he said. Bona encouraged him to invite input from the neighbors – ultimately, she said, they’re the ones who have to live with it.

Kirk Westphal said he echoed Bona’s sentiments regarding the building facade for the sides facing Miller and Spring.

Knight’s Market Expansion: Commission Discussion – Wrapping Up

Eric Mahler asked Alexis DiLeo how much time it would take to address the outstanding issues. Would it be back for review at the planning commission’s June 5 meeting? Planning manager Wendy Rampson said that depends on whether the owners are interested in doing something different with the zoning. If the zoning approach changes, it would take longer. [Rampson subsequently confirmed that the project will not be on the June 5 agenda.]

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on the Knight’s Market expansion.

DTE Buckler Substation

Planning commissioners were asked to consider a site plan for a new DTE Buckler electrical substation at 984 Broadway near Canal Street.

Site plan for DTE Buckler substation. (Links to larger image.)

City planner Jeff Kahan gave the staff report. DTE is building the new Buckler substation in the utility company’s Ann Arbor service center to provide an increase in electrical power to the downtown area due to increased demand for electricity.

According to a staff memo, the project will include two 15.5-foot tall electrical transformers and related electrical equipment on raised concrete pads, and a new power delivery center (PDC) – a 630-square-foot, 12.5-foot tall steel structure. The project also will include a new six-foot tall perimeter chain link fence with one foot of barb wire and a concrete block retaining wall. The source of power will be transmitted through underground sub-transmission cables in an existing manhole and conduit system.

Because of floodplain issues, DTE has proposed to build raised transformer pads by bringing in 800 cubic yards of fill. To mitigate that impact to the floodplain, DTE plans to remove 1,155 cubic yards of earth on the MichCon site at 841 Broadway. [MichCon is a DTE subsidiary.] The proposal also calls for removing a building on the MichCon site, which will give the company an additional 55 cubic yards of ”floodplain mitigation credit.” The proposal for this MichCon portion of the project was presented in a separate agenda item (see below).

City planning staff had recommended postponement of the Buckler substation site plan to allow more time to review several outstanding issues. For example, staff has recommended that DTE seek a variance from the city’s zoning board of appeals for a 100-year detention requirement – the proposed site plan would require such a variance. The site is located within the Huron River’s 100-year floodplain.

The project also needs a variance to the 15-foot conflicting land use buffer requirements along the east side property line, adjacent to Riverside Park. DTE is requesting a variance that would allow 33 trees and 38 shrubs to be planted along the far western side of Riverside Park instead of on DTE property. The city’s park advisory commission recommended approval of that variance at its Feb. 28, 2012 meeting.

DTE Buckler Substation: Public Hearing

The only person to speak during the public hearing was Mike Witkowski, DTE planning engineer for Washtenaw County. He thanked Kahan and other city planning staff for their help in working through a number of issues. He noted that DTE’s current infrastructure can’t support demand for electricity in that part of the city. Within a mile radius of the current Argo substation on Broadway, peak loads were 17% higher in 2011 compared to 2009. That’s what happens when you knock down a building and put up a high rise, he said – a probable allusion to the University of Michigan’s Kellogg Eye Center on Wall Street, near the proposed substation site.

Without this project, he said, DTE has limited or no ability to serve new businesses, and there would be increased risk of brownouts or blackouts to do equipment overloads. He said the utility has plans to address those concerns in the interim, but they need a long-term solution.

The location is critical because the substation needs to be near the center of the load, he said. The Buckler location would also be near existing infrastructure for DTE’s system. If the project is approved, Witkowski said the first circuits likely would be energized in May of 2013. A lot needs to happen before then, he added – it’s a long design and construction process. But once energized, the new circuits will support new customers.

Witkowski described the Buckler substation project as a $10 million investment in the city. DTE wants to foster a favorable environment for economic development, he said, and this substation should provide the ability to sustain growth for years to come.

DTE Buckler Substation: Commission Discussion

Wendy Woods asked whether the city council would need to vote on this item. Eric Mahler, the planning commission’s chair, replied that only planning commission approval is needed.

Woods highlighted Witkowski’s comments about the growth in demand and DTE’s ability to provide electricity to additional customers. She noted that the city has a focus on sustainability, and those numbers grabbed her attention. She asked for more details about the future ability to serve new customers.

It’s hard to make specific projections, Witkowski said. He noted that the last Ann Arbor substation was built in the 1960s, but Ann Arbor is a hot spot in the state for growth, unlike other areas. Electric vehicles might also increase demand in the future, he said. But if he had to give a ballpark estimate, Witkowski said the new substation would likely meet demand for at least 20 years.

Kirk Westphal’s initial line of questioning focused on the fence, and he wondered whether it could be a solid wall, rather than chain link and barbed wire – that’s the least desirable alternative, he said. Mark Fairless, a civil engineer with DTE, said the design, including the use of chain link and barbed wire, meets the national electrical safety code for substation protection. It’s a standard design, he said, and provides the most protection both for DTE’s assets and the public.

When Westphal pressed about other options that might be available, Fairless repeated that the proposed design is DTE’s standard one – they haven’t looked at other options. The retaining wall is required because of the substation’s location in the floodplain, he said, and the fence construction is standard. Westphal encouraged the designers to consider different materials.

DTE's Argo substation on the northwest corner of Broadway and Swift, looking west over the Broadway bridge.

Westphal then turned to the topic of the Argo substation on Broadway, saying he rides past it every day and “it’s not the best feature of the neighborhood.” Is there any opportunity to consolidate the two sites – to upgrade the new Buckler substation so that the one on Argo wouldn’t be needed?

Witkowski clarified that the Buckler substation isn’t planned to be a replacement for Argo. The two sites would work in tandem, he said. He noted that the Argo substation serves a wide area, including city hall, that couldn’t be picked up by the new substation. It wouldn’t be economically feasible for DTE to decommission it, he said.

Evan Pratt wanted to know what the bigger picture plans are for Buckler and Argo. It would be nice if DTE’s long-range plan were to move Argo off of this major city corridor. What’s the expected life for the Argo substation? he asked.

That’s hard to say, Witkowski replied. When the project began in 2008, the original idea was to do upgrades at the Argo substation, he said. But that was before Ann Arbor started seeing accelerated growth. Because of the type of equipment at Argo, DTE couldn’t do the upgrade until some of the load was taken off of that substation. Now, he said, there’s a strong possibility that they’ll clean up the Argo site and make it less congested. However, essential equipment is there that can’t be moved at this point, and it will remain there for the foreseeable future, he said.

Bonnie Bona said she agreed with Pratt – there’s a bigger aesthetic consideration at Argo. She also pointed out that Michigan Stadium was previously surrounded by a chain link fence, too. Now, the fence is wrought iron and painted blue, with brick pilasters. Bona joked that as long as commissioners were redesigning DTE’s substations, she wanted to bring up the fact that the Buckler substation would be located near the Huron River. In the long term, she said, it would be nice to think that the area could be a more active, integrated part of the community. Is there anything about the substation that makes it integral to that site, or could it stand alone if other parts of the site were used for other purposes, like a park?

Witkowski said the site is perfect for the substation, and he explained how the location would allow the substation’s equipment to feed into DTE’s existing infrastructure.

Bona then asked a question about landscaping – she assumed that no trees would be removed? Fairless replied that six of the 13 trees would be taken down, because they are on the property line, growing into the existing fence. Landscaping plans call for DTE to add 23 trees, however, and to donate another 10 trees to be planted in Riverside Park.

Eric Mahler asked whether the $10 million investment is contingent on making a rate increase request to the Michigan Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities in the state. No, Witkowski replied. This project has already been approved by DTE’s executive management, and doesn’t require asking for rate adjustments from the MPSC.

Mahler wondered what information the planning staff needed. Jeff Kahan indicated that they had been awaiting several items, and that DTE had recently turned in a revised site plan that the staff hadn’t yet had the opportunity to review. Kahan expected the project would be ready for the planning commission’s meeting on June 5. [Planning staff later confirmed that the project will be on the June 5 agenda.]

After discussion ended, Bona made a motion to postpone, which was seconded by Westphal.

Before the vote, Tony Derezinski asked if DTE was working under any sort of critical timeframe. Scott Trowbridge, DTE’s project manager for the Buckler substation, said the company can move ahead and start making decisions about the project, but there’s some risk involved since it hasn’t yet been approved by the city. He said they’d likely do some work around the existing service center, to accommodate the eventual substation construction. At some point, though, the timing of approval will affect how well DTE can be prepared for electricity demands in the summer of 2013.

Derezinski said it will likely be just a short postponement, and it seemed like “you wouldn’t go bankrupt on that.” Trowbridge indicated that Derezinski was correct – DTE would not go bankrupt.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to postpone action on the Buckler substation project. It will return to the planning commission at its next meeting on June 5.

MichCon Site Remediation

A site plan for remediation of the MichCon property at 841 Broadway was another DTE-related item on the May 21 agenda. The proposal was made in conjunction with the site plan for the new DTE Buckler electrical substation on the opposite side of Broadway. MichCon is a subsidiary of DTE.

The MichCon site plan approval is contingent on three things: (1) obtaining variances from the city’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA) to exempt MichCon from providing a new stormwater management system; (2) obtaining a Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) permit for work within the floodplain and Huron River; and (3) indicating water main and storm sewer easements on the site plan and providing the city with legal descriptions for those easements prior to the city issuing grading permits.

From left: Planning commissioners Bonnie Bona, Wendy Woods and Diane Giannola.

The remediation site plan entails removing 1,155 cubic yards of earth on the MichCon property, including the site’s most heavily contaminated soil. The company would get another 55 cubic yards of “floodplain mitigation credit” as a result of removing a building on the site. The remediation is intended to offset impact on the Huron River floodplain that’s expected when DTE brings in 800 cubic yards of soil to build raised transformer pads at the new Buckler substation.

According to a staff memo, a ZBA variance is needed to exempt the company from building new stormwater detention systems. Because contaminated soil will remain on the site after remediation, the company has indicated that installing new detention systems would be harmful to groundwater and the Huron River. Detention systems would not be required if impervious surfaces were removed on the site. However, removing impervious surfaces would allow contaminants in the soil to leach into the Huron River and groundwater. The proposal calls for leaving the existing impervious surfaces in place to provide a cap on contaminated soils.

[DTE officials had previously briefed the city's park advisory commission about this project at PAC's March 20, 2012 meeting, and had made a presentation at a March 12, 2012 city council working session. An extensive report on that presentation is included in The Chronicle’s coverage of a recent master plan committee meeting: “Planning Group Revisits Huron River Report.”]

The MichCon remediation requires approval only from the planning commission, and does not require action by the city council.

MichCon Site Remediation: Public Hearing

Two people spoke during the public hearing for this project. Paul Machiele of Ann Arbor told commissioners that he’s overjoyed by many aspects of this project, but also has some concerns. He said he’s a recreational kayaker on the Huron River. Last summer, he visited the city of Bend, Oregon, and was amazed by the transformation of the riverfront there, with pathways, canoe/kayak launch sites and other features. When he returned here and kayaked along the Huron River starting near Argo Pond, he wondered ”why is Ann Arbor wasting our river?” He keeps driving past the MichCon site and wonders why it’s not possible to get access to the river from that site. It’s a flowing stretch of river in the downtown area, and a wonderful opportunity to encourage more people to go to the river, as well as for more businesses to grow in that area. He advocated for opening up both sides of the river along that stretch, including pathways for people to jog or walk. Machiele said he didn’t know what the restrictions would be, but it’s a wonderful opportunity and shouldn’t be wasted.

Shayne Wiesemann, a senior environmental engineer with DTE and project manager for the remediation, said that the request in front of the planning commission is just one piece of a broader effort. The remediation allows DTE to start listening to input from community stakeholders, he said – the Huron River Watershed Council, National Wildlife Federation, and the city, among others. He noted that DTE has entered into a partnership with the city regarding the whitewater feature that DTE will now be building along that stretch of the river. The company will be looking at future uses for the property – there’s been a lot of talk in the community about it becoming a park, or a place for mixed-use development, he said. But for now, DTE’s focus is on remediation, Wiesemann said. It’s an important step in making the site available for other uses. The site has been described as a jewel in the Border-to-Border trail, he noted, and DTE executives see the property as being an economic catalyst for the community. The request at this meeting is just a part of that process, he concluded.

MichCon Site Remediation: Commission Discussion

Tony Derezinski began the discussion by talking about how the project fits into the overall improvement in that area, including the new Argo Cascades bypass. The hard and gritty truth is that the MichCon property needs to be cleaned up, he said. He’s very much in favor of this remediation.

Bonnie Bona asked about the fence on the property. Jeff Kahan replied that the existing fence prevents access from Broadway, but the entire site isn’t enclosed. Shayne Wiesemann of DTE noted that the property’s west side isn’t fenced, and the idea is eventually to take down the fence on the east side, along the river, after remediation is completed.

Evan Pratt asked where he could find a copy of the environmental report for the site. He said he understood that the planning commission couldn’t have much input on that. Wiesemann said the results are posted on the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality’s website.  [The MDEQ keeps a list of contaminated sites in the state, including those in Ann Arbor, with a list of the contaminants at those sites. The contaminants at the MichCon Broadway site include heavy metals (lead, nickel, zinc, etc.) and phthalates.] He noted that the report had been available at a public forum in April, and at the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library.

Pratt said it was great that DTE is cleaning up the site, but it gave him pause to hear that asphalt would be left on part of the site because of concerns over what might be underneath it. He understood that it’s complicated, but asked for the simple version – anything that’s left on the site would be authorized by the DEQ? Is it developable in general? he asked.

Wiesemann replied that the cleanup would be amenable for industrial uses. DTE is stopping there until it knows what the future uses for the site will be, he said. They are eliminating risks along the river bank, and remediating some of the bad “hot spots” in the upland area. Beyond that, they don’t want to do too much or too little at this point, he said. When DTE figures out the final use of the property, they’ll submit another plan to the DEQ to fulfill requirements for that end use, and whatever project is proposed would also go through the city’s full site plan process.

Pratt said it sounds like recreational options are still on the table. Wiesemann’s reply was non-committal, saying that DTE was working with Laura Rubin, executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, and Andy Buchsbaum, regional executive director of the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Natural Resources Center – both organizations are based in Ann Arbor. Everything’s on the table, Wiesemann said, and DTE wants to see this site fully enjoyed by the community.

Wendy Woods asked where the contaminated soils are transported. Wiesemann said the soil will be taken to a landfill with a Type II license. In the past, they’ve used the landfill in Northville, he said [the Arbor Hills landfill, operated by Veolia ES Arbor Hills Landfill Inc.]. But it might be taken to other appropriately licensed facilities in southeast Michigan, he said.

Woods clarified that this is a different process than a brownfield redevelopment project. That’s right, Wiesemann replied. MichCon/DTE is liable because the company purchased the site as part of a merger. DTE will be paying for it out of the company’s environmental reserve, he said, which is rate recoverable. [That means that DTE could ask the MPSC for an increase in rates to cover the costs.]

Kirk Westphal followed up on the public commentary, and asked about access to the river. Can a boat be launched from this site? No, Kahan replied. Wiesemann said people will be able to access the planned whitewater features from the opposite side of the river, from the pathway running next to Argo Cascades. Wiesemann said the pathways – and a boardwalk that will be built over wetlands in that area – are subject to DEQ approval, as part of the overall whitewater project.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the site plan for remediation of the MichCon property, assuming that the stated contingencies are addressed.

Wintermeyer Parking Expansion

The planning commission was asked to approve an expansion to the Wintermeyer office parking lot at 2144 and 2178 S. State St., south of Stimson and east of the University of Michigan golf course. A landscape modification on the 1.8-acre site also was requested.

A map showing the location of the Wintermeyer office buildings on the west side of South State Street.

Alexis DiLeo gave the staff report. Two two-story office buildings are currently located on the site, along with an 85-space parking lot. The parcel is zoned O (office). After the expansion, there will be a total of 101 parking spaces on the site. A maximum of 111 parking spaces are allowed for the existing office development.

City staff have notified the property owner, Tracy Wintermeyer, that eight slabs of sidewalk in front of the site are need replacement. He has agreed to do that, DiLeo noted.

Modifications to the landscaping requirements include: (1) allowing the existing landscaping islands in the parking lot to remain in their current locations; and (2) allowing existing runs of 21 and 28 continuous spaces to remain in place. Landscaping regulations limit the number of continuous parking spaces to 15.

Wintermeyer Parking Expansion: Public Hearing

One person – David Diephuis, whose home is located directly north of the site – spoke during the project’s public hearing. He and his wife aren’t enthusiastic about additional parking, he said, but they understand the need for it as well as the owner’s right to build it, based on the property’s zoning. They also support the proposed underground water detention.

They initially had three concerns, Diephuis said, but two of those concerns have been resolved after talking with the owner and city staff. The unresolved issue relates to the buffer between his home and the parking lot retaining wall. The site plan calls for shrubs to be planted between the lot and the wall. Diephuis proposed planting fewer shrubs there, in exchange for larger shrubs between the wall and his property, to soften the sterile look of the wall. He said he hoped the issue could be handled administratively.

Turning to the other two concerns, Diephuis pointed to questions about whether the rain garden/landscaping could handle the water during a heavy rainstorm. The drainage ditch between his property and the Wintermeyer offices is already stressed because of the heavy runoff from the UM golf course – erosion to that ditch is already substantial, he said, especially as it nears State Street. He said city staff have assured him that remediation would be possible if the rain garden doesn’t work as planned. “I’ll cling to the hope that the engineers that reviewed the data and analyzed the risk are better at their jobs than some of today’s Wall Street bankers,” he quipped.

Finally, Diephuis noted that the project will impact the root zone of some landmark trees on his property. City staff have informed him that state law allows this, even if it kills the tree. He suggested that the city consider creating some kind of tree escrow account, to mitigate damage that might occur not just on a developer’s land, but for adjacent neighbors too.

Wintermeyer Parking Expansion: Commission Discussion

Evan Pratt asked about the landmark trees – are those scheduled for removal? Alexis DiLeo indicated that while the trees won’t be removed, the project will create a disturbance in the critical root zones of the trees.

Wendy Woods asked about the landscaping issue that had been raised during the public hearing. Is it staff’s intention to work on this, or is there something that the planning commission should do? she asked. DiLeo replied that it seemed Diephuis was asking the commission to give conditional approval of the project, and that staff would work on changes to the landscaping plan.

The property’s owner, Tracy Wintermeyer, stepped forward and told commissioners that he has a good relationship with Diephuis and is happy to put plantings on the north side of the retaining wall. He said he’d be amenable to making the project contingent on that, if necessary. “I want to keep Dave as a good neighbor,” he said.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson suggested making a formal amendment “just to be safe.”

Outcome on amendment: Commissioners unanimously approved an amendment making the project contingent on administrative approval of changes to the landscaping plan.

There was little additional discussion. Pratt said that in general, when infiltration is proposed as a way to handle stormwater runoff, it would be helpful for staff reports to include the soil type for that area.

Outcome: In two separate votes, commissioners unanimously approved the landscaping modifications, as amended, and site plan for expanding the Wintermeyer office parking lot.

Phantom Fireworks Permit

Planning commissioners were asked to grant a temporary retail sales special exception use for Phantom Fireworks, a firm based in Youngstown, Ohio.

City planner Alexis DiLeo gave the staff report. The business is proposing to put up a 40×40-foot tent and an 8×40-foot storage pod in the parking lot of Colonial Lanes at 1950 South Industrial Highway. The tent would be set back 25 feet from South Industrial and take up 24 parking spaces on 2.96-acre site, leaving 203 parking spaces for the bowling alley and Cubs A.C. restaurant.

The northeast, two-way traffic entrance would be temporarily closed by placing four orange traffic cones and yellow tape in the parking lot. The remaining four entrances to the site would remain open. The sales tent would operate from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. every day of the week, with sales hours extended to midnight depending upon sales demand leading up to July 4, according to the staff report.

The site is zoned C3 (fringe commercial district), which allows certain types of temporary outdoor sales. A special exception use is needed because the proposed sales are different from items sold at the property’s permanent business.

Phantom Fireworks Permit: Public Hearing

Rick Tapper introduced himself as the Michigan representative for Phantom Fireworks. He noted that although they’ve signed a lease for 30 days, they only plan to have the tent up for 10 days. On July 5, he said, the tent – which is fire resistant, he noted – comes down. They’ll be selling Class C fireworks, and using employees from Colonial Lanes who would have otherwise been laid off during this slow period for the bowling alley, Tapper said. The operation is insured, and he hoped that commissioners would approve the permit.

Phantom Fireworks Permit: Commission Discussion

Wendy Woods asked for a clarification regarding Class C fireworks – does the buyer have to be over age 18? Yes, Tapper replied, and the staff are trained to check everyone’s ID.

Rick Tapper of Phantom Fireworks.

Woods then noted that people tend to “get happy” on July 4th while using fireworks. She asked Tapper about how the staff would identify people who are intoxicated. Tapper assured her that training is provided to staff about how to recognize if someone is drunk or high.

Responding to additional queries from Woods, Tapper described how the tent and storage unit will be inspected by the city’s fire marshal, and how a lock on the storage unit will provide security when the business is closed.

Woods ventured that the hours of operation – until midnight – seem late. Tapper replied that about 70% of their business happens in three days, from July 2-4. That’s likely the only time they would sell past the normal closing of 10 p.m.

In response to a question from Tony Derezinski, DiLeo said that notices about the special exception use for Phantom Fireworks had been mailed out to neighbors in that area, but the planning staff had heard no questions or concerns about it.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the temporary retail sales special exception use for Phantom Fireworks. Special exception use is granted by the planning commission and does not require additional approval by the city council. 

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Absent: Erica Briggs.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, June 5, 2012 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 relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city planning commission. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to plan on doing the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.