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

The council’s April 7 agenda features two significant items of old business: a first reading of an ordinance that would regulate outdoor smoking in certain locations; and an allocation of funds for the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force.

The pedestrian safety task force funding resolution is now expected to be withdrawn. At the first meeting of the task force, held on Friday, April 4, Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere, speaking from the audience, told the group that it was her intent to withdraw the funding resolution when the council meets on April 7. Even if the resolution is withdrawn at the April 7 meeting, however, the task force will be able to continue its work.

Pedestrian issues form one of the themes of the meeting agenda – as the council will be approving annual contracts for the sidewalk repair program, as well as applying for a grant to renovate the pathway in Gallup Park – from the Geddes Dam at the east end of the Gallup Park pathway, to the parking lot east of Huron Parkway. Along with the sidewalk maintenance program contracts, the city council will also be asked to approve the annual street resurfacing program contracts.

Another main theme of the meeting is land use. Carried over as a topic from the council’s March 17 meeting is the surface of the city-owned Library Lane underground parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor. After voting on March 17 to hire a real estate broker, the council will consider a resolution on April 7 that would allocate to the city’s affordable housing trust fund half of the proceeds of any sale of the site’s development rights.

But on April 7, the council will also be considering an amendment to the March 17 resolution that directed the city administrator to list the surface of the Library Lane parking structure for sale. The amendment would require a public process to take place before brokerage services are obtained or the real estate is listed for sale. That public process is supposed to allow discussion of the possibility that the entire surface of the underground parking garage could be used as a park or plaza. The amendment is sponsored by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4).

The council will also be considering some items that arrived on its agenda via the city’s planning commission: rezoning of a nature area to PL (public land); and a resolution calling on the University of Michigan to incorporate the city’s land use recommendations as it considers the future use of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street. The April 7 agenda also includes, as an item of communication, a resolution passed by the city planning commission on March 18, 2014 that gives advice to the council about how to develop the Library Lane property.

In other business, the council will be considering a resolution to approve an expansion of the Main Street business improvement zone (BIZ). The geographic area of the self-assessment district – which handles sidewalk snow removal, sweeping and other upkeep for property owners – would more than double. The final decision rests with the property owners in the expanded area.

Also at its April 7 meeting, the council will consider a resolution asking that Michigan state officials stop opposing a recent court ruling that allows same-sex marriages.

The council’s agenda also includes several street-closing approvals for upcoming events: Taste of Ann Arbor on June 2; The Event on Main Street on June 19; the Ann Arbor Jaycees Fourth of July Parade on July 4; and the Townie Street Party on July 14.

Among the reports and communications attached to the agenda is the final report of a council economic collaborative task force.

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

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

Outdoor Smoking

A new local law regulating smoking in some outdoor locations will be given a first reading by the council for the third time at its April 7 meeting. The law would regulate smoking outside of public buildings and also potentially in areas of some city parks.

The most recent action – to postpone the ordinance until April 7 – came at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting. The new ordinance had also been postponed at the council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), sponsor of the proposed new local law, had appeared before the city’s park advisory commission on Feb. 25, 2014 to brief commissioners on the proposal and solicit feedback.

Made punishable under the proposed ordinance through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building.

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

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

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

At the council’s March 3 meeting, other councilmembers expressed concern about the potential disparate impact of such a law on the homeless, and the challenge of enforcement.

Peds: Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force

At its April 7 meeting, the council will consider for the second time a resolution that would appropriate $197,250 to fund the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force. Action to postpone the resolution until April 7 came at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.

The total amount proposed to be appropriated for the task force project budget is $197,250. That amount includes an “estimated $122,500” as the approximate cost of the anticipated city staff effort for the project. The total project budget includes $77,400 for a professional services agreement with Project Innovations Inc.

The funds are to be sourced in part from an allocation made during the May 20, 2013 budget deliberations, which appropriated $75,000 for a study to prioritize sidewalk gap elimination. The connection between sidewalk gaps and the task force’s work is based in part on one of the other “resolved” clauses establishing the task force: “… the task force will also address sidewalk gaps and create a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling those gaps; …”

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

Another key “resolved” clause establishing the group’s scope of work includes the following: “… the task force will explore strategies to improve pedestrian safety and access within a framework of shared responsibility through community outreach and data collection, and will recommend to council improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

The responsibilities of the task force include delivery of a report a year from now – in February 2015.

The funding for the task force is in part to be used to pay for a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations Inc. to provide facilitator support to the task force.

According to a staff memo written in response to councilmember questions, the facilitator would assist with an anticipated 18 task force meetings, 24 resource group (staff) meetings, five stakeholder meetings and three public meetings. The facilitator would be “preparing materials and agendas; facilitating the meetings; summarizing the meetings; facilitating communication and discussions between, and among, the task force members and the resource group; and, developing materials for community outreach in addition to the actual public meetings, including content for press releases and web page publishing, and a community survey.”

According to the staff memo, a “team of staff members has identified Project Innovations, Inc. as a firm in the region that has demonstrated skill in task force facilitation and robust community engagement efforts, and is uniquely qualified with the capacity to facilitate the pedestrian safety and access task force’s rigorous work approach within the specified timeframe.” Based on the phrasing in the memo, the work appears not to have been put out to bid and Project Innovations was identified as a “sole source” provider.

Project Innovations is the same firm currently providing facilitation support to a citizens advisory committee that is attached to a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study being conducted by the city.

The resolution establishing the task force does not explicitly charge the group with a review of the city’s crosswalk law. But the pedestrian safety task force was established in the same time frame as the council was considering an amendment to the city’s crosswalk law. The council ultimately voted to change the language of that law at its Dec. 2, 2013 meeting – so that motorists were required to concede the right-of-way only to pedestrians who had already entered the crosswalk.

That change was subsequently vetoed by mayor John Hieftje. Drawing on the phrasing used in Hieftje’s statement of veto, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has indicated he intends to bring forward an amendment that would require motorists to stop at crosswalks for pedestrians only if “they can do so safely.” At the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, Kunselman announced he’d be pursuing such an amendment.

Peds: Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force – Recent Developments

The funding resolution is now expected to be withdrawn. At the first meeting of the task force, held on Friday, April 4, Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere, speaking from the audience, told the group that it was her intent to withdraw the funding resolution when the council meets on April 7.

Even if the resolution is withdrawn at the April 7 meeting, the task force would still be able to continue its work. Here’s why. In the resolution that’s expected to be withdrawn, the total amount proposed to be appropriated for the task force project budget is $197,250. That amount includes an “estimated $122,500” as the approximate cost of the anticipated city staff effort for the project. The total project budget includes $77,400 for a professional services agreement with Project Innovations Inc.

So the portion of the project budget that requires hard costs to be covered – other than city staff time – is the cost for the consultant to provide facilitation services. And according to a staff memo to the city administrator written after the council’s action to postpone, the bulk of the cost can already be covered in an existing budget allocation. From the March 27, 2014 staff memo to the city administrator: “The estimated amount for the facilitation work is $70,000 to $90,000. Of this amount, $75,000 is currently budgeted for pedestrian safety and sidewalk-gap planning. The remaining $15,000 will be included in the City Administrator’s recommended FY 14 budget amendment.”

In addition to authorizing the funding, the resolution would authorize a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations for the facilitation work. But now, it’s not clear that particular consultant will be selected for the work. Originally, Project Innovations had been identified by staff as a contractor uniquely qualified to do the facilitation work. Project Innovations is familiar to city staff as the facilitator for a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study the city is currently conducting. But now the city has decided to issue an RFP (request for proposals) for the facilitation work. [.pdf of RFP No. 893] Responses to the RFP are due by April 22, 2014.

At the April 4 task force meeting, Connie Pulcipher – a systems planner with the city of Ann Arbor – told members of the task force that they could be involved in the process of interviewing respondents to the RFP. The delay in selecting a facilitator means that the original timeline for the group’s work, which included a final report by February 2015, has shifted to around August 2015.

Peds: Belle Tire Easement

On the council’s agenda is approval of an easement related to the Belle Tire site plan at State and Ellsworth. The planning commission recommended approval at its March 18, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of a proposed Belle Tire site.

The site plan itself was recommend for approval by the commission at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting, and the project subsequently received city council approval on Oct. 7, 2013. The site is located in Ward 4.

By way of background, a 50-foot-wide right-of-way easement on the front this site was recorded by the city as part of a previously approved land division for this parcel. That easement reduced the front setback of the Belle Tire building from 10 feet to roughly 3 feet. The minimum front setback for this site is 10 feet.

So the property owner, who also owns the adjacent site at 3975 S. State, has proposed that the city vacate the northern 7 feet of its right-of-way easement.

In exchange, the property owner has offered to convey a non-motorized use easement over the same 7 feet. Such an easement would allow for this strip to be used by the public for future non-motorized transportation facilities, according to a staff memo. And as a non-motorized use easement, the 7-foot strip would be considered part of the required 10-foot front building setback.

Peds: Gallup Park Path

On the council’s consent agenda – a group of items voted on all-in-one-go – is approval of a grant application to fund renovations to a pathway that runs through Gallup Park, which is part of the Border to Border Trail (B2B) connecting the eastern and western borders of Washtenaw County. Renovations would include repairs to the existing asphalt, as well as widening to 10 feet – in part to meet current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards.

The grant application would be made to SEMCOG (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments) and MDOT (Michigan Dept. of Transportation) for the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). The grant funds, if awarded, would fund renovation of the pathway from the Geddes Dam at the east end of the Gallup Park pathway, to the parking lot east of Huron Parkway. The work would include the loop that leads around that part of the park. Total length of the pathway to be renovated is about two miles.

The city would provide a grant match of $200,000, which would be paid out of the parks and recreation capital improvements millage.

Peds: Sidewalk Maintenance Program

Also related to pedestrian issues are two contracts related to the annual sidewalk maintenance and repair program, which is funded out of a five-year millage approved by voters in November 2011.

A sidewalk marked with a “C” – which indicates that it needs to be cut flush – on Fifth Avenue south of William Street.

Some sidewalk slabs are in reasonably good shape but are out of alignment with adjacent slabs. The city takes the approach of shaving the portion that’s out of alignment so that it’s flush.

Cutting the concrete is more cost effective than replacing the entire slab. The contract for the cutting work for the upcoming 2014 program is to be awarded to Precision Concrete Cutting for $207,350.

The other part of the program involves outright replacement of sidewalk slabs.

That contract is to be awarded to Doan Construction Company for $1,707,037.

Areas of the city of Ann Arbor where sidewalk repair will be done in 2013 and 2014.

Asphalt: Street Resurfacing Program

In addition to an annual sidewalk repair program, the city manages an annual street resurfacing program. On the council’s April 7 agenda is the award of a construction contract to Barrett Paving Materials Inc. for $3.409 million for the 2014 program. Also on the agenda is a professional contract for materials testing – with CTI and Associates Inc. for $82,332.

Heavy black highlights indicate stretches of road that are a part of the city of Ann Arbor’s street resurfacing program in 2014.

Text descriptions of the streets to be resurfaced are as follows:

• Washington: First St to Fourth Ave (April – May)
• Fuller: Maiden Lane to Huron River Bridge (May – June)
• Newport: Sunset to south of Bird Rd (June – July)
• Linwood:, Doty to Wildwood (April – May)
• Northside Grill Alley: Broadway to End (April – May)
• Vinewood: Berkshire to Avon (May – June)
• Steeplechase: Whiltshire to Blaney (June – July)
• St. Aubin: Platt to Creek Dr (June – July)
• Woodbury: Astor to Stadium (July – July)
• Prairie: Plymouth to Aurora (July – August)
• Burlington Court: Burlington to End (July – August)
• Waldenwood & Adjacent Courts: Penberton to Earhart (north end) (July – September)

Asphalt: Windemere Tennis Courts

The council will consider a $134,297 contract with Nagle Paving Co. to relocate and rebuild the tennis courts at Windemere Park. The park advisory commission recommended approval of the contract at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting.

PAC’s recommendation on the contract followed its approval on Jan. 28, 2014 of a revised new location for tennis courts at Windemere Park, on the city’s northeast side. The final location approved by PAC was one put forward at a public meeting earlier this year.

The new location for the tennis courts has been disputed among neighbors who live near Windemere Park, a nearly four-acre parcel north of Glazier Way between Green and Earhart roads. The tennis courts there have deteriorated, and the city has been looking at options for replacing them. Neighbors had originally advocated keeping the courts in the same location, but the soil there is unstable. Before the area was developed, the current location of the courts was a pond.

Nagle Paving was the lowest of five responsible bidders on the project, according to a staff memo. Including a 10% construction contingency, the entire project budget is $147,727. Funding will come from the FY 2014 park maintenance and capital improvement millage revenues. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution] [.pdf of cost comparison chart]

Land: Library Lot Proceeds to Affordable Housing

The city council will consider a resolution at its April 7 meeting that would direct the city administrator to allocate half the proceeds from a possible upcoming real estate sale to support affordable housing. The land in question is the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure, which completed construction in the summer of 2012. [.pdf of draft resolution on Library Lane sale]

The Library Lane underground parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

From the resolution: “Resolved, That City Council direct the City Administrator to allocate 50% of any and all proceeds, after fees and closing costs, from the sale of development rights at 319 S. Fifth Avenue [the Library Lane lot] to the affordable housing fund.” Use of money in the city’s affordable housing trust fund is subject to recommendations by the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB).

Based on a ballpark estimated value for the property of $6-7 million dollars – given by Jim Chaconas of Colliers International at the council’s March 17, 2014 meeting – the resolution would translate to somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 million to support affordable housing, depending on fees and closing costs.

No specific deal appears to be in the offing to develop the top of the structure. But the council voted at its March 17, 2014 meeting to hire a brokerage service to list the development rights to the top of the underground parking garage for sale. At the same meeting, the council passed a separate resolution that reserved 6,500-12,000 square feet on the Library Lane site for a publicly owned urban park.

The resolution allocating 50% of proceeds of a Library Lane sale to support affordable housing is now sponsored by four councilmembers: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5),  and mayor John Hieftje.

The strategy of channeling at least some of the proceeds of land sales to support affordable housing efforts has been a consistent part of city policy dating back several years. However, the council has not always agreed on the portion of a sale that should be allocated to support affordable housing. At the March 16 Sunday night caucus, Briere indicated one reason she might be reluctant at the following evening’s council meeting to support the hiring of a broker to list the Library Lane development rights for sale: She did not at that time want to take on the fight with other councilmembers about what to do with the proceeds. But Briere voted with seven of her colleagues on the 8-1 vote that saw only Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) dissenting. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) were not present for that vote.

The sale of another city property – the former Y lot in downtown Ann Arbor, on William between Fourth and Fifth avenues, across the street from the Library Lane site – is expected to generate roughly $1.4 million in net proceeds from the $5.25 million purchase price. That sale to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann had a closing date of April 2, 2014. And the sale was, in fact, completed.

The council voted at its Dec. 16, 2013 meeting to allocate all of those net proceeds to the affordable housing trust fund. More recently, at its March 3, 2014 meeting, the council directed the city administrator to prepare a budget resolution that would – upon completion of the former Y lot sale – allocate $600,000 from the affordable housing trust fund to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, to support major capital improvements to its properties.

More than a year ago, at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a general policy on proceeds of land sales that was based on a budget committee recommendation. Essentially the policy is to consider land sales on a case-by-case basis, considering all the needs of the city. A nod to affordable housing was included in an amendment added at the council meeting in the form of a statement that all needs of the city would be considered in deciding the use of land sale proceeds – but “especially the need for affordable housing.”

The draft resolution to be considered at the April 7 council meeting cites the budget committee’s recommendation, which was adopted in the Oct. 15, 2012 council resolution, that “no less than 10% of net proceeds of any sale will be allocated and distributed to the affordable housing trust fund …”

Land: Amendment to Library Lane Resolution to List for Sale

On April 7, the council will also be revisiting the March 17 resolution on listing the surface of the Library Lane structure for sale. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) have sponsored a resolution that would delay the hiring of a broker and listing the property for sale until a public process, to be structured by the city administrator, is completed.

That public process is supposed to allow discussion of the possibility that the entire surface of the underground parking garage could be used as a park or plaza. From the resolution:

Resolved, That Resolution R-14-098 Directing the City Administrator to List for Sale 319 South Fifth and Retain Estate Brokerage Services be amended to direct the City Administrator to require that retention of brokerage services be delayed and listing not occur until adequate public process has taken place to explore public uses for the entire property;

Resolved, That the City Administrator structure the public process to allow citizens an opportunity to bring forward and discuss any and all appropriate public uses for this City-owned property, including its use, in its entirety, as a park or plaza;

Resolved, That City Administrator schedule a public hearing as part of the public process for citizen input on public uses for the property

Resolved, That City Administrator provide City Council with report on the public process at its completion; and

Resolved, On completion of the required public process, the City Administrator is directed to seek further direction from City Council as to whether the property should be listed or to continue to develop a wholly public or mixed public/private plan for its use.

The vote on the council’s March 17 resolution was 8-1, with dissent only from Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was absent from the start of the meeting and Margie Teall (Ward 4) departed late in the meeting but before the vote was taken.

The April 7 council agenda also includes, as an item of communication, a resolution passed by the city planning commission on March 18, 2014 that gives advice to the council about how to develop the Library Lane property. The commission’s recommendations focused on conditions for developing the site that would garner economic benefits to the city, such as a mixed-use development that generates foot traffic, with an entry plaza or open space and a design that “creates an iconic addition to the skyline.” The recommendations drew on material in several existing documents, including the Connecting William Street report that was completed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority about a year ago.

Also attached to the council agenda as an item of communication is a resolution passed by the Ann Arbor District Library board on March 17, 2014. The resolution asked the council to reject designating a portion of the city-owned Library Lane site – which is adjacent to the downtown library – as a public park or plaza at this time.

Land: Recommendation to UM on Edwards Brothers

An additional land-use item on the council’s April 7 agenda is a resolution recommending that the University of Michigan collaborate with the city of Ann Arbor on the future development of the former Edwards Brothers property at 2500-2550 South State Street, immediately adjacent to existing UM athletic facilities. The university is purchasing the 16.7-acre property, following the Ann Arbor city council’s decision on Feb. 24, 2014 not to exercise its right of first refusal to buy the site.

The city planning commission passed the same resolution at its March 18, 2014 meeting and forwarded it to the city council.

The resolution was drafted by planning manager Wendy Rampson based on previous discussions by the planning commission and city council. [.pdf of resolution as amended at March 18 planning commission meeting]

The one resolved clause states:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council and Ann Arbor City Planning Commission request that The Regents of The University of Michigan and President authorize University staff to meet with City representatives to collaborate on issues related to future development of the South Athletic Campus area, including, but not limited to:

• Exploring the creation of one or more parcels fronting South State Street to be developed, preferably privately, for complementary uses adjacent to the South Athletic Campus that also follow the South State Street plan recommendations;
• Discussing options for the relocation of park-and-ride facilities as the South Athletic Campus develops; and
• Discussing the opportunities for a future pedestrian and vehicular connection between South Main Street and South State Street via the planned Oakbrook Drive extension through the South Athletic Campus site.

At the planning commission’s March 18 meeting, Rampson said she’s already shared a draft of the resolution with UM planner Sue Gott and Jim Kosteva, the university’s director of community relations.

The city council voted down a resolution that would have authorized Ann Arbor’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers Malloy property, at a special session of the council on Feb. 24, 2014. That will allow the University of Michigan to purchase the property unimpeded.

Land: Stapp Nature Area Addition Rezoning

The council’s April 7 agenda includes a resolution giving initial approval to rezoning of land that’s been donated to the city by developer Bill Martin, founder of First Martin Corp. The 2.2-acre parcel at 3301 Traverwood Drive is being added to the adjacent Stapp Nature Area, near the Leslie Park golf course.

Land donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline..

City staff recommended that the donated parcel be rezoned from R4D (multi-family dwelling) to PL (public land). The land reaches from Traverwood Drive to the Leslie Park golf course, south of Huron Parkway. Adding the land expands a corridor of natural areas and parkland. Stapp Nature Area, a 8.11-acre property with a mature native forest and small vernal pool, is adjacent to Tuebingen Park and has a connection to Leslie Woods.

The site is on the northern edge of a larger property that’s being developed by First Martin Corp. as Traverwood Apartments. That project received its final necessary approvals from the city council on Jan. 6, 2014.

First Martin has committed to creating a pedestrian access from the apartment complex to the nature area, which will be formalized with an access easement.

The city has a policy of rezoning city-owned land to PL (public land). This parcel will be differentiated as parkland by its inclusion in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, because it will become part of the Stapp Nature Area, which is already in the PROS plan.

The council would be giving the rezoning initial approval at its April 7 meeting. The final vote would come at a future meeting after a public hearing.

Land: Main Street BIZ Expansion

On the council’s April 7 agenda is approval of an expansion of the geographic area of the Main Street Business Improvement Zone. The business improvement zone was established in 2010 by a vote of property owners in the zone to provide a mechanism for taxing themselves to pay for items like sidewalk snow removal, sidewalk sweeping and landscaping. [For the state enabling legislation for a BIZ, see Public Act 120 of 1961]

The current geographic area of the Main Street BIZ extends north-to-south from William to Huron on both sides of Main Street, extending to the mid-block alleys. The expansion would extend the area westward by a half block from the alley to Ashley Street. The expansion would also extend the area eastward by a half block along the whole north-south dimension; and between William and Liberty, the zone would expand westward an additional block – to Fourth Avenue.

While the council must give its approval of the plan, the expansion is contingent on a vote among property owners in the area, which has to be set for no later than 49 days after the date of the council’s resolution. The council’s April 7 meeting agenda includes a public hearing on the issue.

Main Street BIZ geographic area and expansion. (Map by The Chronicle from the BIZ plan using Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS services mapping tools.)

Same-Sex Marriage

At its April 7 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council will consider a resolution asking that Michigan state officials stop opposing a recent court ruling that allows same-sex marriages. [.pdf of draft resolution on same-sex marriage]

The ruling in question was issued by federal judge Bernard Friedman on Friday, March 21, 2014 in the case of Deboer v. Snyder. In that ruling, Friedman found that Article I, Section 25 of the Michigan Constitution – which limits the benefits of marriage to unions between one man and one woman – did not advance any legitimate state interest. So the ruling had the effect of making same-sex marriages legal in Michigan.

But the day following the decision, on March 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a temporary stay on Friedman’s ruling. Michigan’s Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette are appealing Friedman’s decision.

The council’s resolution reads in part:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council urges Governor Snyder and Attorney General Schuette to immediately suspend all efforts to appeal or otherwise contest Judge Friedman’s Ruling…

Before the stay on Friedman’s ruling took effect, Washtenaw County clerk Larry Kestenbaum opened his office for business on Saturday, March 22, and issued 74 marriage licenses for same-sex couples in Washtenaw County. The county board had already set the stage for those couples to receive what practically amounts to a fee waiver for the expedited processing of a license, which ordinarily takes three days. The “fee” approved by the board at its Feb. 19, 2014 meeting reduced the usual fee from $50 to 1 cent.

The resolution passed by the county board on Feb. 19 allows the county clerk, consulting with the county administrator, to establish a “fee holiday” on the day preceding a period during which the office’s vital records division would be closed for four or more days, or when an unusual number of marriage license applicants are expected to appear. During a “fee holiday,” the charge for immediately processing a marriage license is 1 cent.

The resolution to be considered by the Ann Arbor city council on April 7 currently initially had four sponsors: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). Later Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and mayor John Hieftje were added, for a total of six. So that resolution is almost sure to be approved – because it needs only a six-vote majority on the 11-member council.

Economic Collaborative Task Force

Among the many agenda attachments – reports and communications – is the final report of the economic collaborative task force, established by the council last year at its May 20, 2013 meeting. The idea to establish the task force had grown out of a desire to review the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in the context of proposed changes to the city ordinance governing the DDA. The task force drew members from city of Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor SPARK and the Ann Arbor DDA.  [.pdf of March 28, 2014 economic collaborative task force report]

In more detail, the task force was supposed to do the following:

• Provide clarity, alignment and specificity on economic development policy and objectives for fiscal year 2014 toward accomplishing city council’s success statement for Economic Development.
• Provide for strategic alignment of priorities between the Task Force member entities.
• Highlight cost sharing and maximizing of resource utilization.
• Identify options for sustaining, modifying, or eliminating operations in a financially-responsible manner through efficiencies and/or partnerships as part of a cohesive economic development plan for the city.

The “success statement” mentioned in the resolution was crafted by the city council at a budget retreat held in late 2012.

Those initially appointed to represent the city on the task force were city administrator Steve Powers, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and then councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

According to the resolution establishing the task force, a report was supposed to be presented to the council in December 2013 and the task force was supposed to expire at the end of 2013.

The 4.5-page report in general calls on the city, the Ann Arbor DDA and Ann Arbor SPARK to continue existing initiatives.

Some highlights of the report include a recommendation that the city consider technology infrastructure that is “essential for companies to compete globally and for communities to attract the necessary talent.” In that category of infrastructure, the report indicates that the city and Ann Arbor SPARK should “continue their work to develop a proposal for high-speed fiber that would accelerate both commercial and residential internet speeds.”

Also recommended in the report is the preparation of a plan to market and sell surplus city-owned properties. Properties included on the list include the South Ashley/West William (Kline) lot, the South Main/East William (Palio) lot, Library Lane, and 415 W. Washington.

4:00 p.m. Staff written responses to councilmember questions about agenda items are now available. [.pdf of April 7, 2014 staff responses to councilmember questions]

6:24 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has already arrived in council chambers. She was here earlier for a meeting of the council rules committee – along with Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), mayor John Hieftje and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Dinner for Petersen tonight at the council table is salad.

6:37 p.m. Paul Fulton with the city’s IT department is here, available to comment on an agenda item involving the TRAKiT system.

6:58 p.m. Council chambers are starting to fill up. Councilmembers Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Taylor, and Warpehoski have all arrived.

6:59 p.m. Councilmembers Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) have now arrived.

7:03 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. We’re almost ready to start.

7:08 p.m. And we’re off.

7:08 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance.

7:09 p.m. Approval of agenda. All councilmembers are present and correct.

7:11 p.m. Approval of agenda. Kunselman is bringing back the two resolutions from the last meeting on the Library Lane site for reconsideration. He was on the prevailing side for both of those resolutions – which were both approved.

7:13 p.m. The items will be placed under “unfinished business” which comes right after the outdoor smoking ordinance. And Eaton wants DC-4 to be heard before DC-3.

7:13 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved its agenda for tonight’s meeting, over dissent from Teall.

7:16 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers reports that the amount of funds available from the sale of the former Y lot is $1.42 million. Powers also notes that the homeless shelter had found housing for 107 people this season as of the end of February.

Powers now is alerting the council to the report of the collaborative economic task force, which is attached to tonight’s agenda.

7:16 p.m. INT-1 Veg Week Proclamation. The week of April 21-27, 2014, is being proclaimed as Ann Arbor Veg Week. The proclamation names several local organizations and businesses as supporting it: Nicola’s Books, The Lunch Room, Ann Arbor District Library, Humane Society of Huron Valley, Main Street Area Association, A2 Fitness Professionals, and Current Publications. More than 20 restaurants that will be offering vegan special menu items throughout the week, according to the resolution.

7:21 p.m. INT-2 Elizabeth Dean Day Proclamation. This proclamation honors Elizabeth Russell Dean, who died exactly 50 years ago today, on April 7, 1964. She bequeathed nearly $2 million for the benefit of public trees of Ann Arbor, which is held in a trust with the annual interest income to be used for the planting, care and maintenance of these trees. The proclamation of the anniversary of Dean’s death as Elizabeth R. Dean Day “serves as a reminder of the vast contributions Ms. Dean made to ensure that Ann Arbor will forever remain a ‘City of Trees.’”

7:22 p.m. Edith Fletcher and Jane Immonen are on hand to receive the proclamation.

7:22 p.m. Public commentary reserved time. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Eight people are signed up to speak during public commentary reserved time, half of them to address the topic of the Library Lane site: Alan Haber, Odile Hugonot-Haber, Ingrid Ault and Ali Ramlawi. Ault is chair of the park advisory commission. Ramlawi is owner of the Jerusalem Garden restaurant, which is currently located almost directly adjacent to the Library Lane property and will border the lot when it moves into the former Seva building.

Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about affordable transportation. Frank Burdick is signed up to talk about the funding resolution for the pedestrian safety task force. Cliff Douglas is signed up to talk about the outdoor smoking ordinance. Douglas is director of UM’s Tobacco Research Network. And Kermit Schlansker is signed up to talk about “How to Sow the Earth.”

7:28 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a recent candidate for the state legislature and for the city council. He calls attention to the fact that U.S. president Barack Obama visited Ann Arbor last week, to support an increase to the minimum wage. He wishes that Obama had also supported an expanded transit system in his remarks. Partridge calls for affordable housing and the elimination of homelessness. He advocates for affordable healthcare and lifetime education. He notes the needs of the most disadvantaged members of society, saying we must give more attention to the most vulnerable among us. He calls on people to support the transit millage [on the May 6 ballot].

7:29 p.m. Frank Burdick introduces himself as a Ward 4 resident. He asks that the council postpone consideration of funding a consultant for the pedestrian safety task force. He says that city staff are competent to serve the role of a facilitator. He calls on the council to fund concrete, not more consultants.

7:33 p.m. Cliff Douglas speaks in support of the outdoor smoking ordinance. He’s lived in Ann Arbor since 1997, he says, and is speaking as an individual. But he’s also director of UM’s Tobacco Research Network. He names a number of other individuals at the UM School of Public Health who support the ordinance. The key issue, he says, is that although smoking is devastating to its users, it also causes harm to the environment and results in avoidable cleanup costs. In the U.S. there are 921 municipalities with 100% smoke-free ordinances. He has an 11-year-old son and can’t count the number of times the boy has put cigarette butts in his mouth. Cigarette butts are the leading cause of litter, he says.

7:36 p.m. Alan Haber tells the councilmembers that he’s written to each of them asking them to postpone the idea of selling the Library Lane site. They should use the occasion to establish a public process to explore the full public use of the land. There’s a font of creativity in this town to which the council should open the door, he says. There are possibilities for good and the future and for the children of future generations, he says. He urges the council not to press to find out how much it’s worth in terms of monetary value. He urges beginning now with intermediate activities. He’s asking for support and encouragement for people to gather on the surface of the Library Lane underground garage on Earth Day, which falls on April 22.

7:39 p.m. Ingrid Ault introduces herself as a Ward 1 resident and chair of the city’s park advisory commission. She says she’s puzzled about the idea that the listing of the Library Lane site for sale should be delayed until a public process can take place. She cites the Connecting William Street study and the work of the PAC subcommittee on downtown public parks as public process that has already taken place. About public process she says, “This has already been done.” “When will the madness stop?” she wonders. She hopes it will stop tonight. How would the process be different? She says that a “special interest group” [the Library Green Conservancy] can’t take no for an answer. She asks the council to “end the hamster wheel ride tonight.” [Editor's note: Will Hathaway of the Library Green Conservancy has contacted The Chronicle, saying that while some members of the conservancy are certainly in favor of this resolution, the group has not taken a position on it.]

7:41 p.m. Odile Hugonot-Haber says it’s amusing to her to hear that there’s been a lot of public process and when the process has been done, so many people say they want a public space, a green space, a place where people can come together. There is no place for women with their children to go, she says. The people have clearly spoken, she says, but elected and appointed officials refuse to hear.

7:43 p.m. Kermit Schlansker says that the U.S. Senate had an all-night session recently on global warming. He says conservation is overlooked as a solution. We desperately need to reduce our energy consumption, he says. He calls for living configurations like an apartment house on farmland. Bigger buildings are easier to heat, he says.

7:48 p.m. Ali Ramlawi thanks mayor Hieftje for over 10 years of service. even if he’s disagreed with some of Hieftje’s policies. The future of the surface of the Library Lane site has been a hot button issue, he says. He says that the whole western half should be a plaza. It’s too small for just the southwest corner to be used as a plaza, he says. There’s a lot of fear that the next Liberty Plaza will be built. Liberty Plaza is haunted with a poor design, he says. A better design and a better police presence would lead to a successful plaza, he says.

7:48 p.m. Communications from the council. This is a slot on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:49 p.m. Margie Teall is thanking everyone who helped put on FestiFools this past weekend.

7:51 p.m. Jane Lumm announces that there’s a public meeting hosted by MDOT on the Jackson Avenue reconstruction project from Dexter to Maple. The road will be reconfigured to three lanes – one in each direction and a turn lane. She had not supported that configuration. The meeting will take place on April 10 from 4-6 p.m. at the downtown library. Chuck Warpehoski notes that the purpose of the meeting is to inform the public about the construction schedule. It’s being set up as a drop-in, drop-out situation.

7:54 p.m. Mike Anglin says that when city staff, who are extremely competent, are used in projects then it gets good results. When consultants are used, it creates a disconnect, he says. There’s a good dialogue going on between staff and residents along Seventh Street about traffic calming, he says.

7:55 p.m. Communications from the mayor. Hieftje is describing an energy conference and signing the Alliance to Save Energy.

8:00 p.m. Hieftje is saying that the weather at FoolMoon on Friday, April 4 was wet and cold. He’s recounting several other events of the weekend, including Hash Bash. Hieftje reports that Obama told him he likes coming to Ann Arbor.

Hieftje is now following up on the city administrator’s remarks on the homeless shelter. He says that he met with leaders of Washtenaw County on the topic of homelessness. The city administrator will be providing a report on the work of the shelter and costs that were incurred during the past season. Hieftje is reviewing the history of the homeless shelter. The proportion of county residents served there has decreased over the years, he says. The system is not designed to handle these kind of numbers: Is it a regional center for southeast Michigan? If so, then the city needs to work with the state legislature and other regional partners, he says.

8:02 p.m. Briere inquires about the implications of refusing service to anyone.

8:05 p.m. MC-1 Confirmation of appointments. This item will confirm nominations from the council’s previous meeting, on March 17. The appointments are:

• Ann Arbor Commission on Disability Issues: Westley Resendes, filling a vacancy left by Patti Smith, for a term ending May 31, 2015;
• Economic Development Corporation: Dale Leslie and Tim Marshall (re-appointments for terms ending May 31, 2019);
• Historic District Commission: Ellen Ramsburgh (re-appointment for a term ending May 31, 2017);
• Public Market Advisory Commission: Aimee Germain (re-appointment for a term ending May 31, 2017).

8:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve all the nominations made at its previous meeting.

8:05 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. A raft of nominations is being made tonight. The vote on the appointments will come at the next meeting of the council. The nominations are:

• Airport Advisory Committee: Mary Karen McClellan (filling a vacancy, for a term ending May 30, 2016);
• Ann Arbor Housing Commission: Gwenyth Hayes (serving out rest of term for Gloria Black as a resident’s representative, through May 4, 2015) and Daniel Lee (re-appointment, for a term ending May 6, 2019);
• Design Review Board: Shannan Gibb-Randall (serving out rest of term for Mary Jucari, through May 30, 2015);
• Employees Retirement Systems Board of Trustees: Mark Heusel (re-appointment for a term through May 2, 2017);
• Public Market Advisory Commission: David Santacroce (re-appointment for a term through May 30, 2017).

8:06 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Two public hearings appear on tonight’s agenda.

For the first one, the property owner has proposed that the city vacate the northern 7 feet of its right-of-way easement. In exchange, the property owner has offered to convey a non-motorized use easement over the same 7 feet. Such an easement would allow for this strip to be used by the public for future non-motorized transportation facilities, according to a staff memo. And as a non-motorized use easement, the 7-foot strip would be considered part of the required 10-foot front building setback. This resolution would approve that arrangement. [For more background, see Peds: Belle Tire Easement above.]

The second public hearing is on the expansion of the geographic area of the Main Street Business Improvement Zone. The business improvement zone was established in 2010 by a vote of property owners in the zone to provide a mechanism for taxing themselves to pay for items like sidewalk snow removal, sidewalk sweeping and landscaping. For the expansion to be finalized it will need to be approved by property owners in the expanded district. [For more background, see Land: Main Street BIZ Expansion above.]

8:07 p.m. PH-1 Belle Tire ROW Vacation. No one speaks at this public hearing.

8:07 p.m. PH-2 Amended Main Street BIZ plan.

8:09 p.m. Thomas Partridge says he thinks that this plan should give more attention and greater priority to seniors and those who need access to public transportation.

8:11 p.m. Jan Culbertson says she’s a property owner in the area. She supports the expansion. The consistency of the services is important, she says.

8:13 p.m. Bill Kinley speaks in favor of allowing property owners to make a decision about whether to participate in the expanded BIZ. He’s eager to see a consistent and attractive sidewalk experience. This is not an expense for general taxpayers, but rather of the property owners in the area, he points out.

8:14 p.m. Jim McDonald asks the council to allow property owners to vote on whether they want to participate in the expanded BIZ.

8:14 p.m. Ed Shaffran introduces himself as chair of the Main Street BIZ board. He thanks councilmembers for the conversations he’s had with them. He’s there in case they have any questions, he says.

8:15 p.m. Approval of previous meeting’s minutes.

8:15 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the minutes of its previous meeting.

8:15 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Approve contract for construction materials testing with CTI and Associates Inc. for the 2014 street resurfacing project ($82,332)
• CA-2 Approve purchase a TS15P R1000 Robotic Total Station and DNA10 Digital Level for Surveying ($33,671)
• CA-3 Approve purchase order for annual maintenance and support of TRAKiT System with CRW Systems Inc. for FY 2014 ($36,500)
• CA-4 Street Closing: Townie Street Party (Monday, July 14, 2014)
• CA-5 Street Closing: Ann Arbor Jaycees Fourth of July Parade (Friday, July 4, 2014)
• CA-6 Street Closing: Townie Party-Ann Arbor Mile (Monday, July 14, 2014)
• CA-7 Approve Transportation Alternatives Program Grant application to SEMCOG and MDOT to fund renovations of the Gallup Park pathway. [For more background, see Peds: Gallup Park Path above.]
• CA-8 Street Closing: Taste of Ann Arbor (Sunday, June 2, 2014)
• CA-9 Street Closing: The Event on Main Street (Thursday, June 19, 2014)

8:15 p.m. Councilmembers can pull out any item on the consent agenda for separate consideration. No one does tonight.

8:15 p.m. Outcome: The council has now approved all items on its consent agenda.

8:16 p.m. C-1 Outdoor Smoking Ordinance. This is still the first reading of a new local law regulating smoking in some outdoor locations. It was previously postponed at two different council meetings. The law would regulate smoking outside of public buildings and also potentially in areas of some city parks. Made punishable under the proposed ordinance through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building. [For more background, see Outdoor Smoking above.]

8:18 p.m. Warpehoski first moves to replace a substitute resolution. It specifies that it’s a police officer who can enforce the ordinance, not a general employee.

Ellen Rabinowitz, interim health officer for Washtenaw County, is now at the podium sharing the county’s experience in enforcing the county’s ordinance on smoking outside entrances to buildings.

8:23 p.m. Rabinowitz is echoing the sentiments of Cliff Douglas during public commentary. Enforcement has been straightforward, she says. “Our experience in Washtenaw County has been quite good.” There’s been lots of compliance, she says.

Warpehoski is asking about Rabinowitz’s work with the Village of Dexter. Warpehoski invites her to explain why an enforcement mechanism is needed at all, if the idea is that it will be self-enforced.

8:24 p.m. Warpehoski asks Rabinowitz to comment on the benefit of such an ordinance as a public health professional. She ticks through the dangers of smoking. It harms users and innocent bystanders, she says. Anything we can do to limit smoking is a good thing, she says.

8:26 p.m. Eaton confirms that Rabinowitz works for Washtenaw County. He ventures that the county has not made efforts to ban smoking in its parks. She explains that the county parks commission has designated certain areas of county parks as non-smoking. Eaton confirms with Rabinowitz that she is the enforcement officer. He’s quizzing her about how the enforcement mechanism works.

8:28 p.m. Kunselman ventures that the county sheriff does not have a role in enforcement. Rabinowitz confirms that. Kunselman asks if she or her designee has the ability to issue a citation. It seems so. Kunselman says his concern is that he doesn’t want law enforcement officers to be writing tickets. He says it sounds like most people comply when they’re asked to stop.

8:30 p.m. Teall wants information about how other municipalities handle enforcement. Lumm notes that the county has had few complaints filed about violations. Lumm says that the council has received a letter from the People’s Food Co-op. Lumm asks if Rabinowitz has received a complaint from that business. Rabinowtz isn’t sure if People’s Food Co-op was one of the 400 complaints over the last 12 years.

8:31 p.m. Kailasapathy wonders how the city ordinance will add to the county ordinance. Rabinowitz says it will add teeth.

8:33 p.m. Kailasapathy asks for specifics about what Rabinowitz means by “teeth.” She means it in the sense of an additional tool, not in the sense that police officers will enforce it. Kailasapathy wonders if AAPD should be tackling heroin use at the public library or chasing down smokers.

8:34 p.m. Rabinowitz tells Kailasapathy that she’s right: They need to address the problem of heroin overdoses. But the smoking ordinance, she thinks, will be largely self-enforcing.

8:35 p.m. Briere asks if Warpehoski will accept a friendly amendment to the definition of “smoking.” She wants to add e-cigarettes to the definition. Warpehoski says he’d consider that friendly.

8:37 p.m. Warpehoski says he’s continued his outreach to various organizations: merchant area associations and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. He didn’t hear any objections. He recounts the origin of the ordinance – that he’d heard from constituents who felt trapped in situations where they could not get away from second-hand smoke. What drove it home for him was hearing from local businesses in the Sculpture Plaza area.

8:40 p.m. Warpehoski says the allocation of police officers is a red-herring argument. He cites a report out of Toronto that indicates outdoor smoking ordinances don’t cause an additional burden on police. He’s now going over arguments based on litter prevention. He calls it a humble effort. It’s narrow in scope, he says.

8:43 p.m. Warpehoski says it’s a way to make a healthier community. We should have smoke-free playgrounds and bus stops, he says. Taylor thanks Warpehoski for his work in amassing the information. It’s a deeply reasonable effort, he said. Smoking is a scourge, Taylor says, and smokers are accustomed to having a limited set of areas in which they can smoke. The facts are plainly stated, he says. It’s a reasonable ordinance. Concerns about allocation of police resources are not reasonable, Taylor says.

8:46 p.m. Kunselman reports the experience he had of walking behind a group of women who were walking down the sidewalk, three of whom were smoking. That would still be legal, he says. He ventures that receptacles for butts are provided. He brings up the issue of wood smoke, like that generated at Bill’s Beer Garden. He’s received complaints from constituents about wood burning in neighborhoods. He asks Warpehoski if he’d be willing to remove the penalty of a $50 ticket. If there’s a problem with compliance, then the council can revise the ordinance, Kunselman says.

8:48 p.m. Warpehoski ventures that Kunselman might be right that the new law would just move smokers to the sidewalk. But he sees that as an improvement. Warpehoski is now talking about the general issue of good and bad behavior in parks. If there’s a park where smoking is common, that would drive him and his kids out of that park.

8:49 p.m. On the wood smoke issue, Warpehoski says that he’d tried to keep his effort focused and targeted.

8:51 p.m. On the idea of removing the penalties, Warpehoski says we have a set of ordinances – not a book of suggestions. He invites Kunselman to move an amendment and see where it goes.

8:53 p.m. Hieftje says we’ve been talking about this for a while. He says that the information available now is typical of what the council has for a second reading. He says that he doesn’t understand why the council is overthinking the idea of banning smoking in city parks. Lumm says it’s not rational to pass ordinances at first reading just to get to second reading.

8:53 p.m. Lumm is talking about Satchel’s BBQ on Washtenaw Avenue and the wood smoke that comes from there.

8:56 p.m. Lumm says the ordinance is a solution in search of a problem. She appreciates that the ordinance has been amended. She calls it a pretty big step to regulate smoking in city parks. Many of the issues have not been addressed to her satisfaction, she says.

8:58 p.m. Kailasapathy says that the ordinance is structured to be punitive and not educational. Lower socio-economic groups have higher smoking rates, she says. She worries about the disparate impact. She wishes that the police can be taken out of the equation.

8:59 p.m. Warpehoski reiterates his response to Kunselman – that an amendment removing the penalty could be made, but he wouldn’t support it.

9:01 p.m. Eaton asks why e-cigarettes were added through Briere’s amendment – because he thought they did not emit harmful fumes. Cliff Douglas is explaining that these devices are not regulated and that they do contain nicotine.

9:02 p.m. Eaton and Douglas are engaged in a back-and-forth on e-cigarettes.

9:05 p.m. Eaton and Douglas are now discussing enforcement issues.

9:07 p.m. Douglas tells Kunselman that smoking rates have dropped on the UM campus.

9:08 p.m. Kunselman ventures that there’s no enforcement on the UM campus of the no-smoking ordinance, but it still works. Douglas allows that the campus police don’t enforce it, but there is an enforcement mechanism – through an employee’s supervisor, for example.

9:10 p.m. Teall says, “I want to say something!” If there’s a sign you can point to, that allows an ordinary citizen to have something to back up a request made to someone to stop smoking, she notes.

9:12 p.m. Eaton is in a back-and-forth with Rabinowitz on how compliance works.

9:14 p.m. The chief health officer for UM is now at the podium. UM had wanted to be respectful of smokers, but also wanted to create a healthy campus. The medical campus had been smoke-free since 1998, he says. Only one person had been discharged from employment for repetitive smoking, he says.

9:16 p.m. People are not issued citations at UM for smoking anymore than people would be issued a citation for not eating their five vegetables. Warpehoski asks how smoking at UM stadium is handled.

9:18 p.m. Petersen calls the question, saying that the ordinance has a lot of common sense in it and is very practical. Hieftje says everyone needs to have had a chance to speak.

9:20 p.m. [The council isn't voting on calling the question.]

9:20 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval of the ordinance regulating smoking in some outdoor locations, over dissent from Kailasapathy, Lumm and Eaton.

9:21 p.m. C-2 Stapp Rezoning. This item would give initial approval to rezoning of land that’s been donated to the city by developer Bill Martin, founder of First Martin Corp. The 2.2-acre parcel at 3301 Traverwood Drive is being added to the adjacent Stapp Nature Area, near the Leslie Park golf course. [For more background, see Land: Stapp Nature Area Addition Rezoning above.]

9:21 p.m. Briere gives some brief background.

9:21 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval of the rezoning.

9:21 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

9:35 p.m. We’re back.

9:36 p.m. Reconsideration: Library Lot – Designation of Area as Urban Park

9:37 p.m. The council has voted to reconsider the resolution. It was a voice vote, with some dissent, not clear who.

9:38 p.m. Kunselman calls the situation that has arisen – the “unpredictability of posturing politicians trying to please people.”

9:42 p.m. Kunselman is proposing that the previous resolution be amended so that the square footage for the urban plaza is approximately 12,000 square feet. [This is prompted by the fact that Briere proposed the amendment at the March 17 meeting that changed the square footage from 12,000 square feet to a range – from 6,500 to 12,000. And now Briere has co-sponsored the resolution by Eaton and Anglin, later on the agenda, that calls for a public process that could result in the entire surface of the parking structure being used as an urban plaza.]

9:44 p.m. Briere responds to Kunselman by drawing the distinction between a civic use and a greatest and highest use. Hieftje ventures that the council’s action is making it difficult to follow what is going on. He says that using the entire South Fifth Avenue frontage (12,000 square feet) would cost the city $2 million in terms of potential selling price. He’s hesitant to give that up – $1 million of which could go to support affordable housing.

9:45 p.m. Kunselman says he supports the idea of a cantilevered building. He cites the comments from Jerusalem Garden owner Ali Ramlawi during public commentary in support of the idea that a plaza of 6,500 would be too small.

9:47 p.m. Teall says she shares Hieftje’s concerns. She likes the flexibility of the range – 6,500 to 12,000 square feet. She says 6,500 is not too small. Petersen is glad to see these resolutions come back. She says that passing the resolutions “jumped the gun” a little bit. Petersen is pitching the idea of a postponement.

9:48 p.m. Petersen says she wants the time of the postponement to be used to put together a group of stakeholders: the Ann Arbor District Library, Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, First Martin, Dennis Dahlmann, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and the Library Green Conservancy, among others.

9:49 p.m. Petersen says she wants to postpone until the first meeting in October. Hieftje points out that the question before the council right now is Kunselman’s amendment. So the council goes back to the amendment.

9:50 p.m. On the amendment, Taylor says that it’s inconsistent with the library’s view and with the park advisory commission’s view. It’s a blunt instrument that has been deployed for a delicate task, he says. If it’s passed as amended, it would be an impediment to the development of this important parcel.

9:51 p.m. Petersen gets confirmation that the amendment would be consistent with a cantilevered building over the northwest portion of the property.

9:53 p.m. Briere says she hopes that a public space is going to be built. The language change at the last meeting was recommended to her by those who supported the park, she says. Her interest was in making the northern boundary of a plaza flexible. She responds to the talk about a cantilevered building by saying she’s not interested in trying to design a building at tonight’s meeting.

9:56 p.m. Briere quips that it’s an interesting challenge to not posture politically on the council. She won’t support Kunselman’s amendment. Anglin says the question of when we will have a community space in this town has been discussed for a long time. Anglin says he’s not running for office; he’s speaking for the public. He wonders if the council’s action at the last meeting was really what the public wants. He can’t support 12,000 square feet because he’s thinking about something much larger.

9:59 p.m. Warpehoski said at the last meeting there had been a dual narrative that we’d done a lot of process and that we’d not done enough process. He seeks a solution that 1. works for park advocates; 2. works for the city; 3. works for the AADL. He won’t support the amendment. Lumm says she will support it, saying the difference between 6,500 and 12,000 is small.

10:00 p.m. Taylor stresses that the PAC recommendation had not been 12,000 but rather more than the 5,000 that had been indicated in the Connecting William Street study.

10:01 p.m. Part of Warpehoski’s comments included the sentiment that he wanted to see a park on the Library Lane site in time for his kids to be able to play on it.

10:02 p.m. Eaton reminds the council that a sale of this property would require an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council. He said that there wouldn’t be eight votes without 12,000 square feet of parkland. He’ll support the amendment.

10:03 p.m. Kunselman says that the surface has been a surface parking lot for a very long time and he thought it would stay that way.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The amendment passes over dissent from Briere, Taylor, Teall, Warpehoski, and Hieftje.

10:06 p.m. Petersen moves for postponement. Powers asks an opportunity to provide the council with better than just a guess about how long the stakeholder work would take. So the postponement would be to the next meeting, on April 21.

10:07 p.m. Kailsapathy says the resolution should be voted on tonight, and that the stakeholder meetings can be a separate resolution. She doesn’t want to drag it out. Hieftje also won’t support the postponement. There’ve been over 40 public meetings and it’s been going on for years, he says.

10:09 p.m. Taylor says he’ll support the postponement. The reconsideration was appropriate from a parliamentary perspective. But the AADL would probably have a hard time swallowing that as a proper process, he says. The notion that it was amended and passed at the previous meeting, then at this meeting restored to its original form, would be seen as borderline contemptuous of the library’s position, Taylor says.

10:11 p.m. Lumm says that the council is well informed of the AADL’s position. She says she’s going to oppose postponement.

10:13 p.m. Warpehoski says that once upon a time, a pig and a chicken decided to go into business that would serve ham and eggs. Then they said they weren’t sure if they should do that because one of them was bringing the ham and the other was bringing the eggs. Different stakeholders on the Library Lane site would be bringing ham and others would be bringing eggs. He would support the postponement because he was optimistic that the stakeholders could work something out.

10:15 p.m. Petersen explains to Kailaspathy that the postponement for two weeks would allow the city administrator to provide an update on the progress of hiring a broker, which would also include information on programming and maintenance of the public space on top of the Library Lane site.

10:16 p.m. Hieftje wants to move toward a vote on the postponement. Anglin asks a procedural question about reconsideration.

10:17 p.m. Kunselman says he won’t support the postponement. He appreciates Petersen’s effort to coordinate everyone, but he thinks that will create additional unneeded complexity. He ventures that Powers has not yet hired a broker, so there wouldn’t be much of an update.

10:19 p.m. Kunselman says that it’s important for the broker to have a clear understanding of what the council’s intent is. He cautions against postponing to get more information, when there is not going to be any additional information.

10:21 p.m. Outcome: The postponement fails on a 5-6 vote. Voting against were Kailasapathy, Lumm, Kunselman, Eaton, Anglin and Hieftje.

10:21 p.m. Taylor says this resolution is borderline contemptuous of the library. It’s also unwise – because predetermining the size of the public space without the full context of the site is inconsistent with that open space being successful.

10:22 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the resolution as amended to stipulate the 12,000 square footage – over dissent from Taylor, Teall, Warpehoski, and Hieftje.

10:23 p.m. Reconsideration: Direct Library Lot Listing for Sale

10:23 p.m. The council has voted to reconsider the resolution from last meeting.

10:24 p.m. Kunselman reports that he met with the outside bond counsel last Friday – on the private and public use questions related to the Build America Bond financing. The post-construction analysis had not been done, Kunselman says.

10:27 p.m. Kunselman says there wouldn’t be a post-construction analysis until the property was listed for sale. He says the number of private use spaces available will affect the value of the property. He’s going through the actual costs paid for construction and asks how much of the debt was actually applied. What if the number of spaces is significantly less than the 29% that were calculated pre-construction? He brought it back for reconsideration to let his colleagues know why it was important to list it for sale.

10:28 p.m. Anglin asks why the council can’t get the post-construction analysis just by asking for it.

10:31 p.m. Hieftje tells Anglin that he can just send the city attorney an email asking for it. Kunselman says that he wants the outside bond counsel to put in writing that it agrees with the analysis – because he wants the outside bond counsel’s insurance to cover any errors and omissions. City attorney Stephen Postema says it would be a normal process to get that information as part of putting the property on the market. Kailasapathy says the council should be able to get the information directly. She wants the outside bond counsel to analyze the post-construction numbers.

10:32 p.m. Kailasapathy says we should not rush into selling the land, just in order to get this post-construction analysis. Postema reiterates that it would be a normal part of selling the property.

10:33 p.m. Briere says that now that she understands Kunselman’s motivation for wanting to list the land – and given that it’s clear he didn’t necessarily expect the land to be sold, she thinks it would be easy to vote it down.

10:36 p.m. Kunselman now adds that he brought up the issue because nobody else had brought it up. When he put it forward, community outcry had been heard and some of his colleagues had gotten cold feet. Instead of delaying the listing (as Anglin and Eaton’s resolution later in the meeting would do), he invited his colleagues to vote down the resolution. He’d still vote to list the property, however. Kunselman ventures that the Library Lane site has been an uncomfortable topic – and had caused people to lose elections. It doesn’t hurt to get the information and it doesn’t hurt to list the property for sale, Kunselman says.

10:38 p.m. Anglin wonders why they can’t just ask for the information. Kunselman says he’s not about to put millions of dollars to construct a park on the Library Lane site. There are other park needs – a tunnel to complete the Border to Border Trail, for example – that he would vote to spend money on before he’d spend money on a park on top of the Library Lane parking structure.

10:40 p.m. Kunselman says that through all this discussion, no one has talked about where the money is coming from to build a park on the Library Lot. By listing it for sale, it at least starts a conversation with someone who has some money, he says.

10:41 p.m. Kunselman is reviewing the DDA’s proposed budget and concludes that the DDA would not have money to put into it.

10:44 p.m. Taylor says he wants to provide some context. To look at the Library Lane site on its own is misleading, he says. The parking system as a whole generates revenues that are used to pay the debt, he says. The Library Lane parking structure had allowed tech companies to locate in the downtown and was a success by any rational measure, he says. Hieftje agrees with Taylor. Lumm says she voted for the resolution last time. She seems inclined to support it this time around.

10:45 p.m. Lumm is now talking about the resolution later on the agenda that would delay the listing. She says that’s also important.

10:47 p.m. Heiftje says he’ll vote for the resolution because he doesn’t see any other way to fund a plaza. Briere says she’ll vote for it because there’s an opportunity to amend it later on the agenda.

10:48 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to affirm its vote from the last meeting over dissent from Kailasapathy, Lumm, Eaton, Anglin.

10:48 p.m. DC-1 Same-sex Marriage. This resolution asks that Michigan state officials stop opposing a recent court ruling that allows same-sex marriages. The ruling in question was issued by federal judge Bernard Friedman on Friday, March 21, 2014 in the case of Deboer v. Snyder. In that ruling, Friedman found that Article I, Section 25 of the Michigan Constitution – which limits the benefits of marriage to unions between one man and one woman – did not advance any legitimate state interest. So the ruling had the effect of making same-sex marriages legal in Michigan.

But the day following the decision, on March 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a temporary stay on Friedman’s ruling. Michigan’s Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette are appealing Friedman’s decision. [For more background, see Same-Sex Marriage above.]

10:49 p.m. Taylor is reviewing the content and background of the resolution.

10:51 p.m. Warpehoski echoes the thanks Taylor gave to Washtenaw County clerk Kestenbaum. He didn’t remember crying at his own wedding, but he’d cried at the weddings of some same-sex couples immediately after the Friedman ruling.

10:52 p.m. Lumm was pleased that it had been brought forward and was pleased to add her name as a co-sponsor.

10:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimosuly to approve the resolution calling for state officials to stop opposing the Friedman ruling on same-sex marriage.

10:53 p.m. DC-2 Amended Main Street BIZ plan. This resolution would approve expansion of the geographic area of the Main Street Business Improvement Zone. The business improvement zone was established in 2010 by a vote of property owners in the zone to provide a mechanism for taxing themselves to pay for items like sidewalk snow removal, sidewalk sweeping and landscaping. For the expansion to be finalized it will need to be approved by property owners in the expanded district. [For more background, see Land: Main Street BIZ Expansion above.]

10:54 p.m. Taylor is reviewing the background. He encourages the council’s support.

10:56 p.m. Kailasapathy asks Ed Shaffran to the podium. She’s comparing the situation to Russia and Crimea. Shaffran explains that they’re following the state statute.

10:57 p.m. Kailsapathy says that the sidewalks on Main Street are wider than on Fourth Avenue. Shaffran ventures that the square footage of sidewalks might differ, but he alludes to 13 iterations to come up with an equitable approach.

10:58 p.m. Shaffran tells Kailasapathy that as a property owner on Main Street and on Fourth Avenue, he’s not hearing snow removal contractors say that they’d charge less to remove snow on Fourth Avenue.

11:02 p.m. Kailsapathy tells Shaffran that she’s weighing in on behalf of property owners who could not attend the meeting. Shaffran notes that the vote needs a 60% majority. Eaton asks what would happen if everyone in the existing BIZ voted for it and in the expanded zone voted against it – and Shaffran tells him it would fail. The new area is larger than the existing area.

11:02 p.m. Hieftje says he’ll vote for it. Warpehoski says he’ll vote for it because it’s an accessibility issue.

11:02 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the amended Main Street BIZ plan.

11:03 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

11:12 p.m. We’re back.

11:12 p.m. DC-4 Amend March 17, 2014 resolution directing Library Lot to be listed for sale. This item revisits a March 17, 2014 resolution on listing the surface of the Library Lane structure for sale. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) sponsored the item which delays the hiring of a broker and listing the property for sale until a public process, to be structured by the city administrator, is completed. That public process is supposed to allow discussion of the possibility that the entire surface of the underground parking garage could be used as a park or plaza. [For more background, see Land: Amendment to Library Lane Resolution to List for Sale above.]

11:15 p.m. The reconsidered resolution – to list the Library Lane development rights for sale – from the last meeting was approved (again) earlier tonight. This resolution would amend that resolution to delay the listing until after additional public process.

11:16 p.m. Anglin is giving the background on this proposal to amend the council’s previous resolution. This is to create something the entire city can be proud of, Anglin says.

11:20 p.m. Briere says that more than four years ago, she and Anglin and Kunselman were among those who’d requested that the task force reviewing the responses to the Library Lot RFP also consider those proposals that proposed public space. This resolution would allow the city administrator to structure a public process. She says if she had her way – which she ventured she would not – the city would bring in someone from the outside, because we as a community have become polarized, she says.

11:21 p.m. Briere will support this because having the community discussion is vital to having that public space work. If we don’t have community buy-in, it won’t be a successful space, whether there are eight votes or not, she says.

11:22 p.m. Hieftje is inviting Ault to the podium. He’s asking her to review the outreach that the downtown parks subcommittee had done. Ault, who is chair of the park advisory commission, also chaired that subcommittee.

11:25 p.m. Hieftje says it’s been going on for years. He calls it kicking the can down the road. He says there’s no way to build something on the Library Lane site without selling something. Hieftje highlights the part of the resolution that contemplates the use “in its entirety” of the surface as a public plaza. He calculates that this would entail throwing away $16 million. He says he’d prefer to spend a half million redeveloping Liberty Plaza. “I don’t understand it,” he says about the resolution.

11:27 p.m. Hieftje says that when a pretty narrow interest group wins, then maybe people will say that there’s been enough public process. Kunselman says he also won’t support the resolution. He says the public process described in the resolution could be done in parallel with listing the property for sale.

11:29 p.m. Kunselman says he’d support the resolution if the part about delaying the hiring of a broker were deleted. He says, “I’m not sellin’ without getting a 12,000 square foot plaza or public use space.” He also won’t support considering the entire parcel as a “commons.” Kunselman says that he’s had a conversation with a member of the Library Green Conservancy and that group is not behind this proposal, he says. That group had done its homework and worked to figure out what was possible.

11:30 p.m. Kunselman points out that a planter can get really heavy when it fills up with water.

11:32 p.m. Eaton notes that at the March 17 meeting, the library had asked the council to delay the resolution. And since that meeting, the planning commission had passed a resolution asking the council to use an RFP process. He felt there was still an interest among stakeholders in a continued conversation.

11:34 p.m. Petersen is asking Anglin and Eaton what they intend to happen.

11:35 p.m. She wants to know if the intent is to have a conversation with the stakeholders about keeping the entire site green. Yes, says Anglin.

11:38 p.m. Warpehoski says he can’t vote for this resolution at the same time he voted to accept the PAC recommendations that called for some kind of mixed use. This evening the council had thumbed its nose at the library but now is saying they need to be a partner. Warpehoski says Kunselman has this one right. He thinks that a sales agreement can have a rider agreement just like the former Y lot did. He thinks that the public process can unfold in a parallel way. Warpehoski ventures that there will be a “hot mess” discount when a developer thinks about trying to do business with the city.

11:39 p.m. Lumm says that Warpehoski is right about the conversation being a little bit weird. But she says that if you step back and think about it, it’s about making sure that the public has a chance to provide input.

11:42 p.m. Lumm says more discussion is not a terrible thing. Taylor agrees with Warpehoski’s point about voting for the PAC recommendations and voting for this resolution – that they’re inconsistent. Taylor says that Kunselman has it right – that we’ll see what a developer has to propose, quipping “whoever dares” to bid on the property.

11:44 p.m. Hieftje is suggesting some sort of compromise.

11:44 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess so that councilmembers can figure out some compromise.

11:46 p.m. We’re back.

11:48 p.m. The council has essentially agreed to vote this down and possibly bring it back at a future meeting.

11:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to reject the resolution that would have halted the listing of the Library Lane surface development rights for sale, until a public process has been completed.

11:49 p.m. DC-3 Library Lot sale proceeds. This resolution would direct the city administrator to allocate half the proceeds from a possible upcoming real estate sale to support affordable housing. The land in question is the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure, which completed construction in the summer of 2012. [For more background, see Land: Library Lot Proceeds to Affordable Housing above.]

11:51 p.m. Briere is explaining the background of the resolution. She didn’t think the minimum 10% recommendation of the council’s budget committee over a year ago would be enough. She calls this as modest as possible – and made it 50%.

11:55 p.m. Eaton says that because we have no idea how much the property might sell for, he asks Briere if she would accept an amendment to say “up to 50%” – in case the property generated a greater-than-expected amount of money. Briere says if the property hypothetically generated a sale price of $15 million, she wouldn’t hesitate to put $7.5 million into the affordable housing trust fund.

11:56 p.m. Hieftje says that it would be a “game changer” to be able to work with Washtenaw County on the Platt Road property to develop affordable housing. There would be no harm done in passing this tonight. Taylor concurs with Hieftje that Ann Arbor needs more affordable housing and that’s a capital-intensive endeavor.

11:58 p.m. Taylor says that using the proceeds for affordable housing is consistent with a deeply held community value. Lumm says she supports the concept. She points out that this is what the council had done with the former Y lot. Earmarking half for affordable housing is not unreasonable, she says. But she questions why this decision needs to happen now. It makes more sense to not make this decision now. We should think this through in the context of all city council priorities, she says.

12:02 a.m. Kunselman echoes Lumm, saying that it’s counting our chickens before they hatch. This is not a binding resolution, he says. He ventures that the council won’t see a sale until at least next year, and many councilmembers here tonight won’t be here then. It would make a great statement, he says, but wouldn’t do much for what the council needs to focus on – working on the budget process. He wonders why some of this money would not go toward downtown beat cops.

12:03 a.m. Kailasapathy is focusing on the part of the resolution that puts the other half of the proceeds into the general fund. She wants to see the part of the proceeds not going to affordable housing to go toward capital investments.

12:04 a.m. City administrator Steve Powers ventures that it could be restricted as capital investments. Kailasapathy says she’s not sure if she wants to put in the energy to amend the resolution now, given that a sale is so far away.

12:05 a.m. Petersen says that even if it’s premature, that doesn’t mean it should be voted down. She wants to postpone it until after the budget is approved.

12:06 a.m. The postponement being discussed is until the first meeting in June. [The council ratifies the FY 2015 budget at its second meeting in May.]

12:07 a.m. Briere is arguing against the postponement by drawing a distinction between policy and budgeting.

12:08 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the resolution allocating 50% of the net proceeds of a future Library Lot sale to the affordable housing trust fund. Dissenting were Briere, Taylor, Teall, Warpehoski, and Hieftje.

12:08 a.m. DB-1 Belle Tire ROW Vacation. The property owner has proposed that the city vacate the northern 7 feet of its right-of-way easement. In exchange, the property owner has offered to convey a non-motorized use easement over the same 7 feet. Such an easement would allow for this strip to be used by the public for future non-motorized transportation facilities, according to a staff memo. And as a non-motorized use easement, the 7-foot strip would be considered part of the required 10-foot front building setback. This resolution would approve that arrangement. [For more background, see Peds: Belle Tire Easement above.]

12:08 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the Belle Tire non-motorized easement.

12:09 a.m. DB-2 Request UM regents consider city land use recs. This resolution, which originated with the planning commission, recommends that the University of Michigan collaborate with the city of Ann Arbor on the future development of the former Edwards Brothers property at 2500-2550 South State Street, immediately adjacent to existing UM athletic facilities. The university is purchasing the 16.7-acre property, following the Ann Arbor city council’s decision on Feb. 24, 2014 not to exercise its right of first refusal to buy the site. [For more background, see Land: Recommendation to UM on Edwards Brothers above.]

12:10 a.m. Petersen said that when she heard the resolution was coming forward, she was eager to support it. She wished that the city had more leverage, which could have resulted from exercising the city’s right of first refusal on the property. The dialogue has been a long time coming.

12:11 a.m. Lumm said she also wished that the city had exercised its right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property. “Let the talks begin,” she says.

12:11 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the resolution asking UM regents to consider city planning documents as it plans the future of the former Edwards Brothers property on South State Street.

12:11 a.m. DS-1 Pedestrian safety task force funding resolution. This would appropriate $197,250 to fund the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force. It was postponed to tonight from the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.That amount includes an “estimated $122,500” as the approximate cost of the anticipated city staff effort for the project. The total project budget includes $77,400 for a professional services agreement with Project Innovations Inc. to provide facilitation services. This item is expected to be withdrawn, and the city is putting the facilitator contract out for bid. [For more background, see Peds: Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force above.]

12:12 a.m. Briere says she’d like to withdraw the resolution, saying that the staff memo makes it clear that no allocation needs to be made at this time. She gives an update on the first task force’s meeting.

12:13 a.m. Outcome: The resolution has been withdrawn.

12:14 a.m. Eaton raises the question of whether Briere can withdraw the resolution, given that it was placed on the agenda by staff.

12:15 a.m. Hieftje says he’s uncomfortable not voting on it.

12:16 a.m. So the council is now discussing the resolution. Lumm moves to table it. Warpehoski notes that a motion to table is not subject to debate.

12:19 a.m. Briere explains that her intent was not to prevent people from talking, but rather to save time, given that it was a null point. If the staff doesn’t need an allocation of funds, there’s no reason to allocate funds. Briere points to the memo from staff. Powers concurs that the resolution is no longer needed. Lumm withdraws her motion to table.

12:20 a.m. Kailasapathy questions why there’s an RFP being issued for the consultant.

12:22 a.m. Eaton says he’s troubled that the city is considering spending this much money on a consultant to support a task force.

12:24 a.m. Warpehoski is arguing for the need for the labor of a consultant.

12:28 a.m. Powers reminds the council that the $75,000 for sidewalk gaps was to prioritize gaps, not to install concrete. Lumm appreciates the fact that now an RFP is being issued.

12:39 a.m. Lumm is arguing against the resolution. Hieftje points out that those who moved the resolution also want to see it voted down. Kailasapathy asks why the city is hiring a consultant when it’s not clear what kind of consultant is needed. Teall doesn’t understand why Briere and Warpehoski – as the mover and seconder – want to see the resolution voted down. She thinks a task force should be supported. Warpehoski reviews the background. Teall ventures that it’s really all about Project Innovations. Many of the sanitary sewer wet weather citizens advisory committee members were satisfied with Project Innovations work on that project. When there were some complaints, they got a lot of traction, Teall said, and she wasn’t sure that was fair. Briere raises the point that many people objected to the fact that Project Innovations would have been given a no-bid contract.

12:40 a.m. Briere tells Teall that the task force doesn’t need an allocation of funds right now.

12:40 a.m. Outcome: The council votes unanimously to reject the resolution.

12:41 a.m. DS-2 Windemere Tennis Court contract with Nagle Paving Company. The council will consider a $134,297 contract with Nagle Paving Co. to relocate and rebuild the tennis courts at Windemere Park. [For more background, see Asphalt: Windemere Tennis Courts above.]

12:41 a.m. Lumm thanks staff and the neighbors who worked hard on it.

12:43 a.m. Taylor piles on with thanks to PAC, who listened and worked with the neighbors.

12:43 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to to approve the Windemere tennis courts paving contract.

12:43 a.m. DS-3 Annual street resurfacing contract with Barrett Paving This resolution approves a construction contract to Barrett Paving Materials Inc. for $3.409 million for the 2014 street resurfacing program. [For more background, see Asphalt: Street Resurfacing Program above.]

12:43 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the annual street resurfacing contract.

12:44 a.m. DS-4 Annual sidewalk repair contract with Doan Construction Company. Part of the city’s sidewalk repair program involves outright replacement of sidewalk slabs. This resolution approves that contract with Doan Construction Company for $1,707,037. [For more background, see Peds: Sidewalk Maintenance Program above.]

12:45 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the annual sidewalk repair contract.

12:45 a.m. DS-5 Annual sidewalk cutting contract with Precision Concrete Cutting. Some sidewalk slabs are in reasonably good shape but are out of alignment with adjacent slabs. The city takes the approach of shaving the portion that’s out of alignment so that it’s flush. This resolution approves the contract for the cutting work for the upcoming 2014 program is to be awarded to Precision Concrete Cutting for $207,350.

12:45 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the annual sidewalk cutting contract.

12:46 a.m. Communications from the council. Warpehoski thanks the Veg Week sponsors for bringing food. He mentions that the rules committee is looking at an ethics policy that might also include a gift acceptance policy.

12:48 a.m. Kunselman is quoting out a correction made in The Ann Arbor Observer, that vindicates statements by him and Kailsasapathy in a December 2013 article and apologizes to him. “Apology accepted,” Kunselman says.

12:53 a.m. Kunselman is quoting out incident reports from the AADL that documented heroin overdoses at the downtown location. Kunselman says he’d asked the city administrator to find out what exactly is going on. He says he hasn’t seen anything about arrests being made. He wonders why someone who ODs and survives is not prosecuted and why the dealers are not tracked down and prosecuted. Hieftje ventures that the police might be pursuing this matter “quietly.” Kunselman doesn’t agree with that approach. Warpehoski says that he’s inquired with Jim Balmer of Dawn Farms and the indication was that treatment is an appropriate response to addiction. Kailasapathy says that this doesn’t apply to those who are peddling the drugs.

12:54 a.m. Briere says that Kailasapathy is right, but that it can take time to develop a case against a drug dealer.

12:55 a.m. Clerk’s report of communications, petitions and referrals. Outcome: The council has accepted the clerk’s report.

12:55 a.m. Public comment general time. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:56 a.m. Stefan Trendov says that in all the time he’s watched the council, he thinks that the councilmembers are finally talking to each other. They’re going in a good direction and he wishes them a good night.

12:58 a.m. Kai Petainen says that he wants the Ann Arbor station study process to be transparent. He says that a label on one of the maps covers up green dots that show areas of environmental concerns near the Fuller Road site. He wants maps that don’t look like marketing materials, he says.

1:02 a.m. Alan Haber says he’s sat through the deliberations and gives them great honor for persevering through all the detail. He’s always considered the whole surface of the Library Lot parking structure as a community space. He objects to the characterization of his group as a narrow interest group.

1:04 a.m. Odile Hugonot-Haber expresses disappointment at the council’s decisions on the Library Lot. She reports that she’s heard about a greenbelt property that sold its development rights for mineral extraction through fracking.

1:07 a.m. Caleb Poirer says that he was impressed with the patience that councilmembers had shown each other tonight. He thanks the attendees of the March 17 meeting on homelessness. He was moved by Briere’s point that affordable housing is a priority, but not a funded one. He tells the story of “Million-Dollar Murray.” Sometimes affordable housing reduces the need for policing.

1:08 a.m. Hieftje asks Powers if new mics can be purchased – as they generate a fair amount of static.

1:09 a.m. Closed session. The council is going into closed session to discuss pending litigation.

1:25 a.m. We’re back.

1:25 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the April 7, 2014 meeting agenda.

The council’s April 7 agenda features two significant items of old business: a first reading of an ordinance that would regulate outdoor smoking in certain locations; and an allocation of funds for the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force.

[Updated 5 p.m. April 4, 2014. The pedestrian safety task force funding resolution is now expected to be withdrawn. At the first meeting of the task force, held on Friday, April 4, Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere, speaking from the audience, told the group that it was her intent to withdraw the funding resolution when the council meets on April 7. Withdrawing the resolution at the April 7 meeting would not mean that the task force will not be able to do its work. Details are included after the jump.]

Pedestrian issues form one of the themes of the meeting agenda – as the council will be approving annual contracts for the sidewalk repair program, as well as applying for a grant to renovate the pathway in Gallup Park – from the Geddes Dam at the east end of the Gallup Park pathway, to the parking lot east of Huron Parkway. Along with the sidewalk maintenance program contracts, the city council will also be asked to approve the annual street resurfacing program contracts.

Another main theme of the meeting is land use. Carried over as a topic from the council’s March 17 meeting is the surface of the city-owned Library Lane underground parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor. After voting on March 17 to hire a real estate broker, the council will consider a resolution on April 7 that would allocate to the city’s affordable housing trust fund half of the proceeds of any sale of the site’s development rights.

But on April 7 the council will also be considering an amendment to the March 17 resolution that directed the city administrator to list the surface of the Library Lane parking structure for sale. The amendment would require a public process to take place before brokerage services are obtained or the real estate is listed for sale. That public process is supposed to allow discussion of the possibility that the entire surface of the underground parking garage could be used as a park or plaza. The amendment is sponsored by Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4).

The council will also be considering three items that arrived on its agenda via the city’s planning commission: rezoning of a nature area to PL (public land); approval of a site plan for the gym expansion at Concordia University [now expected on the April 21 meeting agenda]; and a resolution calling on the University of Michigan to incorporate the city’s land use recommendations as it considers the future use of the Edwards Brothers property on South State Street.

In other business, the council will be considering a resolution to approve an expansion of the Main Street business improvement zone (BIZ). The geographic area of the self-assessment district – which handles sidewalk snow removal, sweeping and other upkeep for property owners – would more than double. The final decision rests with the property owners in the expanded area.

Also at its April 7 meeting, the council will consider a resolution asking that Michigan state officials stop opposing a recent court ruling that allows same-sex marriages.

The council’s agenda also includes several street-closing approvals for upcoming events: Taste of Ann Arbor on June 2; The Event on Main Street on June 19; the Ann Arbor Jaycees Fourth of July Parade on July 4; and the Townie Street Party on July 14.

Among the reports and communications attached to the agenda is the final report of a council economic collaborative task force.

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

Outdoor Smoking

A new local law regulating smoking in some outdoor locations will be given a first reading by the council for the third time at its April 7 meeting. The law would regulate smoking outside of public buildings and also potentially in areas of some city parks.

The most recent action – to postpone the ordinance until April 7 – came at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting. The new ordinance had also been postponed at the council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), sponsor of the proposed new local law, had appeared before the city’s park advisory commission on Feb. 25, 2014 to brief commissioners on the proposal and solicit feedback.

Made punishable under the proposed ordinance through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building.

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

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

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

At the council’s March 3 meeting, other councilmembers expressed concern about the potential disparate impact of such a law on the homeless, and the challenge of enforcement.

Peds: Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force

At its April 7 meeting, the council will consider for the second time a resolution that would appropriate $197,250 to fund the work of a pedestrian safety and access task force. Action to postpone the resolution until April 7 came at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.

The total amount proposed to be appropriated for the task force project budget is $197,250. That amount includes an “estimated $122,500” as the approximate cost of the anticipated city staff effort for the project. The total project budget includes $77,400 for a professional services agreement with Project Innovations Inc.

The funds are to be sourced in part from an allocation made during the May 20, 2013 budget deliberations, which appropriated $75,000 for a study to prioritize sidewalk gap elimination. The connection between sidewalk gaps and the task force’s work is based in part on one of the other “resolved” clauses establishing the task force: “… the task force will also address sidewalk gaps and create a tool for setting priorities for funding and filling those gaps; …”

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

Another key “resolved” clause establishing the group’s scope of work includes the following: “… the task force will explore strategies to improve pedestrian safety and access within a framework of shared responsibility through community outreach and data collection, and will recommend to council improvements in the development and application of the Complete Streets model, using best practices, sound data and objective analysis.”

The responsibilities of the task force include delivery of a report a year from now – in February 2015.

The funding for the task force is in part to be used to pay for a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations Inc. to provide facilitator support to the task force.

According to a staff memo written in response to councilmember questions, the facilitator would assist with an anticipated 18 task force meetings, 24 resource group (staff) meetings, five stakeholder meetings and three public meetings. The facilitator would be “preparing materials and agendas; facilitating the meetings; summarizing the meetings; facilitating communication and discussions between, and among, the task force members and the resource group; and, developing materials for community outreach in addition to the actual public meetings, including content for press releases and web page publishing, and a community survey.”

According to the staff memo, a “team of staff members has identified Project Innovations, Inc. as a firm in the region that has demonstrated skill in task force facilitation and robust community engagement efforts, and is uniquely qualified with the capacity to facilitate the pedestrian safety and access task force’s rigorous work approach within the specified timeframe.” Based on the phrasing in the memo, the work appears not to have been put out to bid and Project Innovations was identified as a “sole source” provider.

Project Innovations is the same firm currently providing facilitation support to a citizens advisory committee that is attached to a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study being conducted by the city.

The resolution establishing the task force does not explicitly charge the group with a review of the city’s crosswalk law. But the pedestrian safety task force was established in the same time frame as the council was considering an amendment to the city’s crosswalk law. The council ultimately voted to change the language of that law at its Dec. 2, 2013 meeting – so that motorists were required to concede the right-of-way only to pedestrians who had already entered the crosswalk.

That change was subsequently vetoed by mayor John Hieftje. Drawing on the phrasing used in Hieftje’s statement of veto, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) has indicated he intends to bring forward an amendment that would require motorists to stop at crosswalks for pedestrians only if “they can do so safely.” At the council’s Feb. 18, 2014 meeting, Kunselman announced he’d be pursuing such an amendment.

The council’s April 7 deliberations on the funding of the task force could be impacted by the first meeting of the task force, which is scheduled for April 4. Based on the agenda for that first task force meeting, recommendations on the funding question could come from the task force to the council to consider on April 7. Indications at the March 3 council meeting were that the budget for the task force and the scope of work for the staff and consultant support could change considerably.

[Updated 5 p.m. April 4, 2014]  The funding resolution is now expected to be withdrawn. At the first meeting of the task force, held on Friday, April 4, Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere, speaking from the audience, told the group that it was her intent to withdraw the funding resolution when the council meets on April 7.

Withdrawing the resolution at the April 7 meeting would not mean that the task force will not be able to do its work. Here’s why. In the resolution that’s expected to be withdrawn, the total amount proposed to be appropriated for the task force project budget is $197,250. That amount includes an “estimated $122,500” as the approximate cost of the anticipated city staff effort for the project. The total project budget includes $77,400 for a professional services agreement with Project Innovations Inc.

So the portion of the project budget that requires hard costs to be covered – other than city staff time – is the cost for the consultant to provide facilitation services. And according to a staff memo to the city administrator written after the council’s action to postpone, the bulk of the cost can already be covered in an existing budget allocation. From the March 27, 2014 staff memo to the city administrator: “The estimated amount for the facilitation work is $70,000 to $90,000. Of this amount, $75,000 is currently budgeted for pedestrian safety and sidewalk-gap planning. The remaining $15,000 will be included in the City Administrator’s recommended FY 14 budget amendment.”

In addition to authorizing the funding, the resolution would authorize a $77,400 contract with Project Innovations for the facilitation work. But now, it’s not clear that particular consultant will be selected for the work. Originally Project Innovations had been identified by staff as a contractor uniquely qualified to do the facilitation work. Project Innovations is familiar to city staff as the facilitator for a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study the city is currently conducting. But now the city has decided to issue an RFP for the facilitation work. [.pdf of RFP No. 893] Responses to the RFP are due by April 22, 2014.

At the April 4 task force meeting, Connie Pulcipher – a systems planner with the city of Ann Arbor – told members of the task force that they could be involved in the process of interviewing respondents to the RFP. The delay in selecting a facilitator means that the original timeline for the group’s work, which included a final report by February 2015, has shifted to around August 2015.

Peds: Belle Tire Easement

On the council’s agenda is approval of an easement related to the Belle Tire site plan at State and Ellsworth. The planning commission recommended approval at its March 18, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of a proposed Belle Tire site.

The site plan itself was recommend for approval by the commission at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting, and the project subsequently received city council approval on Oct. 7, 2013. The site is located in Ward 4.

By way of background, a 50-foot-wide right-of-way easement on the front this site was recorded by the city as part of a previously approved land division for this parcel. That easement reduced the front setback of the Belle Tire building from 10 feet to roughly 3 feet. The minimum front setback for this site is 10 feet.

So the property owner, who also owns the adjacent site at 3975 S. State, has proposed that the city vacate the northern 7 feet of its right-of-way easement.

In exchange, the property owner has offered to convey a non-motorized use easement over the same 7 feet. Such an easement would allow for this strip to be used by the public for future non-motorized transportation facilities, according to a staff memo. And as a non-motorized use easement, the 7-foot strip would be considered part of the required 10-foot front building setback.

Peds: Gallup Park Path

On the council’s consent agenda – a group of items voted on all-in-one-go – is approval of a grant application to fund renovations to a pathway that runs through Gallup Park, which is part of the Border to Border Trail (B2B) connecting the eastern and western borders of Washtenaw County. Renovations would include repairs to the existing asphalt, as well as widening to 10 feet – in part to meet current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards.

The grant application would be made to SEMCOG (Southeast Michigan Council of Governments) and MDOT (Michigan Dept. of Transportation) for the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). The grant funds, if awarded, would fund renovation of the pathway from the Geddes Dam at the east end of the Gallup Park pathway, to the parking lot east of Huron Parkway. The work would include the loop that leads around that part of the park. Total length of the pathway to be renovated is about two miles.

The city would provide a grant match of $200,000, which would be paid out of the parks and recreation capital improvements millage.

Peds: Sidewalk Maintenance Program

Also related to pedestrian issues are two contracts related to the annual sidewalk maintenance and repair program, which is funded out of a five-year millage approved by voters in November 2011.

A sidewalk marked with a “C” – which indicates that it needs to be cut flush – on Fifth Avenue south of William Street.

Some sidewalk slabs are in reasonably good shape but are out of alignment with adjacent slabs. The city takes the approach of shaving the portion that’s out of alignment so that it’s flush.

Cutting the concrete is more cost effective than replacing the entire slab. The contract for the cutting work for the upcoming 2014 program is to be awarded to Precision Concrete Cutting for $207,350.

The other part of the program involves outright replacement of sidewalk slabs.

That contract is to be awarded to Doan Construction Company for $1,707,037.

Areas of the city of Ann Arbor where sidewalk repair will be done in 2013 and 2014.

Asphalt: Street Resurfacing Program

In addition to an annual sidewalk repair program, the city manages an annual street resurfacing program. On the council’s April 7 agenda is the award of a construction contract to Barrett Paving Materials Inc. for $3.409 million for the 2014 program. Also on the agenda is a professional contract for materials testing – with CTI and Associates Inc. for $82,332.

Heavy black highlights indicate stretches of road that are a part of the city of Ann Arbor’s street resurfacing program in 2014.

Text descriptions of the streets to be resurfaced are as follows:

• Washington: First Ave to Fourth Ave (April – May)
• Fuller: Maiden Lane to Huron River Bridge (May – June)
• Newport: Sunset to south of Bird Rd (June – July)
• Linwood:, Doty to Wildwood (April – May)
• Northside Grill Alley: Broadway to End (April – May)
• Vinewood: Berkshire to Avon (May – June)
• Steeplechase: Whiltshire to Blaney (June – July)
• St. Aubin: Platt to Creek Dr (June – July)
• Woodbury: Astor to Stadium (July – July)
• Prairie: Plymouth to Aurora (July – August)
• Burlington Court: Burlington to End (July – August)
• Waldenwood & Adjacent Courts: Penberton to Earhart (north end) (July – September)

Asphalt: Windemere Tennis Courts

The council will consider a $134,297 contract with Nagle Paving Co. to relocate and rebuild the tennis courts at Windemere Park. The park advisory commission recommended approval of the contract at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting.

PAC’s recommendation on the contract followed its approval on Jan. 28, 2014 of a revised new location for tennis courts at Windemere Park, on the city’s northeast side. The final location approved by PAC was one put forward at a public meeting earlier this year.

The new location for the tennis courts has been disputed among neighbors who live near Windemere Park, a nearly four-acre parcel north of Glazier Way between Green and Earhart roads. The tennis courts there have deteriorated, and the city has been looking at options for replacing them. Neighbors had originally advocated keeping the courts in the same location, but the soil there is unstable. Before the area was developed, the current location of the courts was a pond.

Nagle Paving was the lowest of five responsible bidders on the project, according to a staff memo. Including a 10% construction contingency, the entire project budget is $147,727. Funding will come from the FY 2014 park maintenance and capital improvement millage revenues. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution] [.pdf of cost comparison chart]

Land: Library Lot Proceeds to Affordable Housing

The city council will consider a resolution at its April 7 meeting that would direct the city administrator to allocate half the proceeds from a possible upcoming real estate sale to support affordable housing. The land in question is the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure, which completed construction in the summer of 2012. [.pdf of draft resolution on Library Lane sale]

The Library Lane underground parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

From the resolution: “Resolved, That City Council direct the City Administrator to allocate 50% of any and all proceeds, after fees and closing costs, from the sale of development rights at 319 S. Fifth Avenue [the Library Lane lot] to the affordable housing fund.” Use of money in the city’s affordable housing trust fund is subject to recommendations by the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB).

Based on a ballpark estimated value for the property of $6-7 million dollars – given by Jim Chaconas of Colliers International at the council’s March 17, 2014 meeting – the resolution would translate to somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 million to support affordable housing, depending on fees and closing costs.

No specific deal appears to be in the offing to develop the top of the structure. But the council voted at its March 17, 2014 meeting to hire a brokerage service to list the development rights to the top of the underground parking garage for sale. At the same meeting, the council passed a separate resolution that reserved 6,500-12,000 square feet on the Library Lane site for a publicly owned urban park.

The resolution allocating 50% of proceeds of a Library Lane sale to support affordable housing is sponsored by four councilmembers: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje.

The strategy of channeling at least some of the proceeds of land sales to support affordable housing efforts has been a consistent part of city policy dating back several years. However, the council has not always agreed on the portion of a sale that should be allocated to support affordable housing. At the March 16 Sunday night caucus, Briere indicated one reason she might be reluctant at the following evening’s council meeting to support the hiring of a broker to list the Library Lane development rights for sale: She did not at that time want to take on the fight with other councilmembers about what to do with the proceeds. But Briere voted with seven of her colleagues on the 8-1 vote that saw only Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) dissenting. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Margie Teall (Ward 4) were not present for that vote.

The sale of another city property – the former Y lot in downtown Ann Arbor, on William between Fourth and Fifth avenues, across the street from the Library Lane site – is expected to generate roughly $1.4 million in net proceeds from the $5.25 million purchase price. That sale to hotelier Dennis Dahlmann had a closing date of April 2, 2014. And that sale was, in fact, completed.

The council voted at its Dec. 16, 2013 meeting to allocate all of those net proceeds to the affordable housing trust fund. More recently, at its March 3, 2014 meeting, the council directed the city administrator to prepare a budget resolution that would – upon completion of the former Y lot sale – allocate $600,000 from the affordable housing trust fund to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, to support major capital improvements to its properties.

More than a year ago, at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council adopted a general policy on proceeds of land sales that was based on a budget committee recommendation. Essentially the policy is to consider land sales on a case-by-case basis, considering all the needs of the city. A nod to affordable housing was included in an amendment added at the council meeting in the form of a statement that all needs of the city would be considered in deciding the use of land sale proceeds – but “especially the need for affordable housing.”

The draft resolution to be considered at the April 7 council meeting cites the budget committee’s recommendation, which was adopted in the Oct. 15, 2012 council resolution, that “no less than 10% of net proceeds of any sale will be allocated and distributed to the affordable housing trust fund …”

Land: Amendment to Library Lane Resolution to List for Sale

On April 7, the council will also be revisiting the March 17 resolution on listing the surface of the Library Lane structure for sale. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) have sponsored a resolution that would delay the hiring of a broker and listing the property for sale until a public process, to be structured by the city administrator, is completed.

That public process is supposed to allow discussion of the possibility that the entire surface of the underground parking garage could be used as a park or plaza. From the resolution:

Resolved, That Resolution R-14-098 Directing the City Administrator to List for Sale 319 South Fifth and Retain Estate Brokerage Services be amended to direct the City Administrator to require that retention of brokerage services be delayed and listing not occur until adequate public process has taken place to explore public uses for the entire property;

Resolved, That the City Administrator structure the public process to allow citizens an opportunity to bring forward and discuss any and all appropriate public uses for this City-owned property, including its use, in its entirety, as a park or plaza;

Resolved, That City Administrator schedule a public hearing as part of the public process for citizen input on public uses for the property

Resolved, That City Administrator provide City Council with report on the public process at its completion; and

Resolved, On completion of the required public process, the City Administrator is directed to seek further direction from City Council as to whether the property should be listed or to continue to develop a wholly public or mixed public/private plan for its use.

The vote on the council’s March 17 resolution was 8-1, with dissent only from Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was absent from the start of the meeting and Margie Teall (Ward 4) departed late in the meeting but before the vote was taken.

The April 7 council agenda also includes, as an item of communication, a resolution passed by the city planning commission on March 18, 2014 that gives advice to the council about how to develop the Library Lane property. The commission’s recommendations focused on conditions for developing the site that would garner economic benefits to the city, such as a mixed-use development that generates foot traffic, with an entry plaza or open space and a design that “creates an iconic addition to the skyline.” The recommendations drew on material in several existing documents, including the Connecting William Street report that was completed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority about a year ago.

Also attached to the council agenda as an item of communication is a resolution passed by the Ann Arbor District Library board on March 17, 2014. The resolution asked the council to reject designating a portion of the city-owned Library Lane site – which is adjacent to the downtown library – as a public park or plaza at this time.

Land: Recommendation to UM on Edwards Brothers

An additional land-use item on the council’s April 7 agenda is a resolution recommending that the University of Michigan collaborate with the city of Ann Arbor on the future development of the former Edwards Brothers property at 2500-2550 South State Street, immediately adjacent to existing UM athletic facilities. The university is purchasing the 16.7-acre property, following the Ann Arbor city council’s decision on Feb. 24, 2014 not to exercise its right of first refusal to buy the site.

The city planning commission passed the same resolution at its March 18, 2014 meeting and forwarded it to the city council.

The resolution was drafted by planning manager Wendy Rampson based on previous discussions by the planning commission and city council. [.pdf of resolution as amended at March 18 planning commission meeting]

The one resolved clause states:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council and Ann Arbor City Planning Commission request that The Regents of The University of Michigan and President authorize University staff to meet with City representatives to collaborate on issues related to future development of the South Athletic Campus area, including, but not limited to:

• Exploring the creation of one or more parcels fronting South State Street to be developed, preferably privately, for complementary uses adjacent to the South Athletic Campus that also follow the South State Street plan recommendations;
• Discussing options for the relocation of park-and-ride facilities as the South Athletic Campus develops; and
• Discussing the opportunities for a future pedestrian and vehicular connection between South Main Street and South State Street via the planned Oakbrook Drive extension through the South Athletic Campus site.

At the planning commission’s March 18 meeting, Rampson said she’s already shared a draft of the resolution with UM planner Sue Gott and Jim Kosteva, the university’s director of community relations.

The city council voted down a resolution that would have authorized Ann Arbor’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers Malloy property, at a special session of the council on Feb. 24, 2014. That will allow the University of Michigan to purchase the property unimpeded.

Land: Stapp Nature Area Addition Rezoning

The council’s April 7 agenda includes a resolution giving initial approval to rezoning of land that’s been donated to the city by developer Bill Martin, founder of First Martin Corp. The 2.2-acre parcel at 3301 Traverwood Drive is being added to the adjacent Stapp Nature Area, near the Leslie Park golf course.

Land donated by Bill Martin to the city of Ann Arbor indicated in red outline..

City staff recommended that the donated parcel be rezoned from R4D (multi-family dwelling) to PL (public land). The land reaches from Traverwood Drive to the Leslie Park golf course, south of Huron Parkway. Adding the land expands a corridor of natural areas and parkland. Stapp Nature Area, a 8.11-acre property with a mature native forest and small vernal pool, is adjacent to Tuebingen Park and has a connection to Leslie Woods.

The site is on the northern edge of a larger property that’s being developed by First Martin Corp. as Traverwood Apartments. That project received its final necessary approvals from the city council on Jan. 6, 2014.

First Martin has committed to creating a pedestrian access from the apartment complex to the nature area, which will be formalized with an access easement.

The city has a policy of rezoning city-owned land to PL (public land). This parcel will be differentiated as parkland by its inclusion in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, because it will become part of the Stapp Nature Area, which is already in the PROS plan.

The council would be giving the rezoning initial approval at its April 7 meeting. The final vote would come at a future meeting after a public hearing.

Land: Concordia University Gym Expansion

An additional land-use issue that appears was expected on the city council’s April 7 agenda is approval of a site plan to expand the existing Concordia University gym.

Corrected: This item is now expected to be considered at the council’s April 21 meeting. 

The plan also includes reconfiguring nearby parking lots and stormwater management features on the 187-acre site at 4090 Geddes Road, just west of US-23 and north of the Huron River. The city planning commission recommended approval of the site plan at its March 4, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of Concordia University campus, south of Geddes Road and west of US-23.

As a separate item, planning commissioners were asked to grant a special exception use for the project. That’s required because the private university is located on a site zoned R1B (single-family residential district).

The site plan requires city council approval, but the special exception use does not.

The proposal calls for a three-story, 34,391-square-foot addition to the current 22,021-square-foot gym that was built in the early 1960s, located on the west side of Concordia’s main campus. [.pdf of campus map] The addition will include men’s and women’s locker rooms, athletic office space, classrooms and an auxiliary gym. A second phase of the project entails constructing a single-story, 5,280-square-foot athletic training room.

An existing gravel parking area west of the gym will be paved and landscaped, and another lot north of the gym along Geddes will get new landscaping and bioswales. A total of 92 new parking spaces will be created, mostly in the former gravel lot. A new stormwater management system will be completed to address a 100-year storm event, including a detention pond with an outlet into a bioswale south of the developed area.

The site plan is for a planned project, which allows variations in height and placement. The proposed addition would be 39 feet high. The site’s zoning has a height limit of 30 feet. The existing gym is about 33 feet high, measured at the midpoint of the roof.

Land: Main Street BIZ Expansion

On the council’s April 7 agenda is approval of an expansion of the geographic area of the Main Street Business Improvement Zone. The business improvement zone was established in 2010 by a vote of property owners in the zone to provide a mechanism for taxing themselves to pay for items like sidewalk snow removal, sidewalk sweeping and landscaping. [For the state enabling legislation for a BIZ, see Public Act 120 of 1961]

The current geographic area of the Main Street BIZ extends north-to-south from William to Huron on both sides of Main Street, extending to the mid-block alleys. The expansion would extend the area westward by a half block from the alley to Ashley Street. The expansion would also extend the area eastward by a half block along the whole north-south dimension; and between William and Liberty, the zone would expand westward an additional block – to Fourth Avenue.

While the council must give its approval of the plan, the expansion is contingent on a vote among property owners in the area, which has to be set for no later than 49 days after the date of the council’s resolution. The council’s April 7 meeting agenda includes a public hearing on the issue.

Main Street BIZ geographic area and expansion. (Map by The Chronicle from the BIZ plan using Washtenaw County and city of Ann Arbor GIS services mapping tools.)

Same-Sex Marriage

At its April 7 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council will consider a resolution asking that Michigan state officials stop opposing a recent court ruling that allows same-sex marriages. [.pdf of draft resolution on same-sex marriage]

The ruling in question was issued by federal judge Bernard Friedman on Friday, March 21, 2014 in the case of Deboer v. Snyder. In that ruling, Friedman found that Article I, Section 25 of the Michigan Constitution – which limits the benefits of marriage to unions between one man and one woman – did not advance any legitimate state interest. So the ruling had the effect of making same-sex marriages legal in Michigan.

But the day following the decision, on March 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a temporary stay on Friedman’s ruling. Michigan’s Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette are appealing Friedman’s decision.

The council’s resolution reads in part:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council urges Governor Snyder and Attorney General Schuette to immediately suspend all efforts to appeal or otherwise contest Judge Friedman’s Ruling…

Before the stay on Friedman’s ruling took effect, Washtenaw County clerk Larry Kestenbaum opened his office for business on Saturday, March 22, and issued 74 marriage licenses for same-sex couples in Washtenaw County. The county board had already set the stage for those couples to receive what practically amounts to a fee waiver for the expedited processing of a license, which ordinarily takes three days. The “fee” approved by the board at its Feb. 19, 2014 meeting reduced the usual fee from $50 to 1 cent.

The resolution passed by the county board on Feb. 19 allows the county clerk, consulting with the county administrator, to establish a “fee holiday” on the day preceding a period during which the office’s vital records division would be closed for four or more days, or when an unusual number of marriage license applicants are expected to appear. During a “fee holiday,” the charge for immediately processing a marriage license is 1 cent.

The resolution to be considered by the Ann Arbor city council on April 7 currently has four sponsors: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Economic Collaborative Task Force

Among the many agenda attachments – reports and communications – is the final report of the economic collaborative task force, established by the council last year at its May 20, 2013 meeting. The idea to establish the task force had grown out of an idea to review the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in the context of proposed changes to the city ordinance governing the DDA. The task force drew members from city of Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor SPARK and the Ann Arbor DDA.  [.pdf of March 28, 2014 economic collaborative task force report]

In more detail, the task force was supposed to do the following:

• Provide clarity, alignment and specificity on economic development policy and objectives for fiscal year 2014 toward accomplishing city council’s success statement for Economic Development.
• Provide for strategic alignment of priorities between the Task Force member entities.
• Highlight cost sharing and maximizing of resource utilization.
• Identify options for sustaining, modifying, or eliminating operations in a financially-responsible manner through efficiencies and/or partnerships as part of a cohesive economic development plan for the city.

The “success statement” mentioned in the resolution was crafted by the city council at a budget retreat held in late 2012.

Those initially appointed to represent the city on the task force were city administrator Steve Powers, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and then councilmember Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

According to the resolution establishing the task force, a report was supposed to be presented to the council in December 2013 and the task force was supposed to expire at the end of 2013.

The 4.5-page report in general calls on the city, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and Ann Arbor SPARK to continue existing initiatives.

Some highlights of the report include a recommendation that the city consider technology infrastructure that is “essential for companies to compete globally and for communities to attract the necessary talent.” In that category of infrastructure, the report indicates that the city and Ann Arbor SPARK should “continue their work to develop a proposal for high-speed fiber that would accelerate both commercial and residential internet speeds.”

Also recommended in the report is the preparation of a plan to market and sell surplus city-owned properties. Properties included on the list include the South Ashley/West William (Kline) lot, the South Main/East William (Palio) lot, Library Lane, and 415 W. Washington.

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

On March 17, the council had passed a resolution directing the city administrator to hire a brokerage service to sell development rights to the Library Lane surface, where an underground parking structure is located. The council also engaged in a lengthy debate – two and a half hours of sometimes heated commentary – over a proposal reserving part of the surface for a publicly owned urban park. That resolution also passed, over dissent from mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4).

The planning commission resolution gives advice to the council about how to handle the sale of development rights. [.pdf of Library Lane advice resolution, as amended during March 18 meeting] The two resolved clauses are:

Resolved, that the City Planning Commission recommends to City Council that if the development rights over the “Library Lot” underground parking structure are sold, an RFQ/RFP process be utilized that conditions the sale of the property in order to obtain a long-term, ongoing and growing economic benefit for the residents of the city;

Resolved, that the City Planning Commission recommends to City Council that if the development rights over the “Library Lot” underground parking structure are sold, an RFP contain all of the following conditions:

• A building that generates foot traffic, provides a human scale at the ground floor and creates visual appeal and contains active uses on all first floor street frontage and open space;
• A requirement for an entry plaza or open space appropriately scaled and located to be properly activated by adjacent building uses and to be maintained by the developer;
• A “mixed use” development with a density at around 700% FAR that takes advantage of the investment in footings and the mid-block location with active uses that have a high level of transparency fronting the plaza and at least 60% of Fifth Avenue and Library Lane frontages, while encouraging large floor plate office or lodging as a primary use, residential as a secondary use, and incorporating a cultural venue.
• A requirement for the entry plaza or open space to incorporate generous landscaping;
• A requirement that discourages surface parking, limits vehicular access for service areas to be located in alleys where available and prohibits service areas from being located on Fifth Avenue
• To seek a design for this site that is meant to be visible on all four sides and that creates an iconic addition to the skyline;
• A requirement for high quality construction; and
• A request for a third party environmental certification (e.g., LEED Gold or Platinum)

The resolution was brought forward by planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona. It’s similar in intent to the recommendations that the commission gave to council regarding the use of the former Y lot, at the commission’s Aug. 20, 2013 meeting.

The Library Lane parking deck is highlighted in yellow. The name “Library Lane” is based only on the proximity of the structure to the downtown location of the Ann Arbor District Library. The library does not own the structure or the mid-block cut-through. (Base image from Washtenaw County and City of Ann Arbor GIS services.)

In introducing the resolution on March 18, Bona noted that it’s similar to the resolution regarding the former Y lot. One major difference is the recommendation to seek an “iconic design” for the Library Lane site, because it is more centrally located.

Wendy Woods wondered about the recommendation to use an RFP/RFQ process, pointing out that the council has already given direction to use a brokerage service – as the city did with the former Y lot. Commissioners thought that their efforts to influence the outcome of land use would be similar in either instance – the RFP/RFQ process or seeking proposals via a broker.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item.

In separate action on March 18, commissioners also passed a resolution with recommendations on uses for the Edwards Brothers site on South State Street, which the University of Michigan is acquiring. [.pdf of Edwards Brothers resolution]

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

In introducing the resolution, planning manager Wendy Rampson said she drafted the resolution based on previous discussions at planning commission and city council. The intent is for this resolution to be jointly passed by both entities. [.pdf of resolution as amended at March 18 planning commission meeting]

The one resolved clause states:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Council and Ann Arbor City Planning Commission request that The Regents of The University of Michigan and President authorize University staff to meet with City representatives to collaborate on issues related to future development of the South Athletic Campus area, including, but not limited to:

• Exploring the creation of one or more parcels fronting South State Street to be developed, preferably privately, for complementary uses adjacent to the South Athletic Campus that also follow the South State Street plan recommendations;
• Discussing options for the relocation of park-and-ride facilities as the South Athletic Campus develops; and
• Discussing the opportunities for a future pedestrian and vehicular connection between South Main Street and South State Street via the planned Oakbrook Drive extension through the South Athletic Campus site.

Rampson said she’s already shared a draft of resolution with UM planner Sue Gott and Jim Kosteva, the university’s director of community relations. The resolution will be forwarded to the city council, with the understanding that changes made to the resolution by the council will be supported by the planning commission without further review.

The city council voted down a resolution that would have authorized Ann Arbor’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers Malloy property, at a special session of the council on Feb. 24, 2014. That will allow the University of Michigan to purchase the property unimpeded.

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

Members of the Ann Arbor planning commission, from left: Eleanore Adenekan, Kirk Westphal and Diane Giannola. At the right is Wendy Rampson, head of the city's planning staff. Commissioners were attending the March 8, 2012 meeting of the master plan revisions committee. (Photos by the writer.)

The Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan, known as HRIMP, was completed in 2009. But in large part because of controversy related to Argo Dam – centered on whether or not the dam should be removed – none of the 30 other recommendations were implemented.

Only one of the HRIMP recommendations relates to land use, and is therefore in the purview of the planning commission. That recommendation calls for limited commercial development – such as a restaurant or other publicly-used entity – in the Broadway bridge/Argo area.

Much of the discussion at the March 8 committee meeting centered on the property now owned by MichCon, a subsidiary of DTE Energy, located north of Broadway Street, between the Huron River and the railroad tracks that run past the Amtrak station. A state-supervised cleanup effort is underway at that site, but its future use – including the possibility that it could be acquired by the city and turned into a park – is unclear.

Remediation of the MichCon site was also a topic at the March 12, 2012 Ann Arbor city council work session, where the property’s potential future use was discussed. That presentation also included an update on a whitewater river feature that DTE Energy is paying for. The whitewater section to be built in the Huron River was originally part of the same project as the city’s Argo Dam bypass reconstruction. The bypass, which has been recently named the Argo Cascades, is nearly complete.

This article includes a summary of the council working session related to the MichCon cleanup, as well as a report on the master plan revisions committee meeting. Based on discussions at that committee meeting, it seems likely that a proposal will be forwarded to the full planning commission to add the HRIMP recommendation to the city’s master plan. Any changes to the master plan would also require city council approval.

Background: HRIMP Report

The Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) committee was established by the city’s environmental commission in March of 2006 to develop a plan for protecting and maintaining the portion of the Huron River that flows through the city of Ann Arbor. Beginning in early 2009, a series of public forums were held as the committee entered the final stages of its work. [See Chronicle coverage: "Not So Gently Down the Stream"]

The Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan produced by the committee contains 30 recommendations labeled “consensus recommendations,” with two others on which there was no consensus. [link to .pdf of full HRIMP report] The two non-consensus resolutions contradicted each other, with one calling for the removal of Argo Dam and the other calling for its preservation. Much of the public engagement focused exclusively on the dam-in/dam-out question.

Part of the context for that question was a problem with toe drains, identified by the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, in the earthen embankment adjacent to the concrete and steel dam, which separates the headrace from the river. In May of 2009 the city’s environmental commission voted in support of dam removal, while the city’s park advisory commission voted for its preservation. [Chronicle coverage: "City Council To Weigh Mixed Advice on Dam"]

The dispute with the state related to Argo Dam was ultimately resolved when the city council approved a $1,168,170 project at its Nov. 15, 2010 meeting to build a bypass that replaced the headrace and eliminated the portage previously required by canoeists and kayakers. Final work is being done on that bypass – including installation of a new pedestrian bridge – and it’s expected to be open later this spring.

There was no action on the “consensus” recommendations, however. A resolution to accept the HRIMP committee’s plan was first considered at the council’s Nov. 16, 2009 meeting, but postponed until Dec. 7. At the council’s Sunday caucus prior to that Dec. 7 meeting, the focus of discussion was on the difference between “approving” the plan and “accepting” it, with the option of “receiving” it also thrown into the mix. [Chronicle coverage: "Huron River Plan, Percent for Art Program also Discussed"]

After considerable deliberation and public commentary at the council’s Dec. 7, 2009 meeting, the council voted to remand the 30 consensus recommendations to the park advisory commission and the environmental commission, asking those groups to develop options for implementation. No further action has been taken.

Master Plan Revisions Committee & HRIMP

The planning commission’s master plan revisions (MPR) committee is charged with reviewing possible changes to the city’s master plan, which are in turn considered by the full commission and eventually require approval by city council. The current MPR committee members are Eleanore Adenekan, Erica Briggs, Diane Giannola, Evan Pratt and Wendy Woods.

Planning commissioner Kirk Westphal had expressed a desire to revisit the recommendations of the Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) that related to planning issues, so planning staff scheduled that topic for the March 8 MPR meeting. In addition to Westphal, three other commissioners attended: Adenekan, Giannola and Pratt.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, began the meeting by very briefly reviewing the development of the HRIMP, noting that the city council didn’t adopt or even accept it. “Basically, they said thank you for your work,” she said. Most of the discussion in the community and by the council centered on the most controversial aspect, she said – whether to remove the Argo Dam. [The council never voted on that issue either. But by not taking action, councilmembers made the de facto decision to leave the dam in place for at least the foreseeable future.]

Aside from the dam, the other HRIMP recommendations are equally if not more important, Rampson said.

Westphal, who serves as the planning commission liaison to the environmental commission, said it seemed to be a natural fit with planning to have a discussion about the HRIMP’s land use recommendation. He noted that it’s a dynamic situation, given MichCon’s cleanup efforts along the river, but it’s an opportunity to open up discussion on those HRIMP recommendations that didn’t get much traction. The HRIMP committee spent a lot of time and thought on the project, he said, “and it seemed like something we should pick up.” Personally, he said, he’d love to see more people at the river.

MichCon Property Remediation

Much of the MPR committee discussion focused on the MichCon property that’s located north of Broadway Street, between the Huron River and the railroad tracks that run past the Amtrak station. MichCon is a subsidiary of DTE Energy – DTE also owns property on the opposite side of the river, south of Broadway, where it plans to build a new electricity substation. [An item related to the substation was discussed at the Feb. 28, 2012 meeting of the city's park advisory commission. A site plan for the project will be on the planning commission's April 3 agenda.]

Diane Giannola asked about the status of a cleanup project at the MichCon site. Planning staff said they didn’t know details.

However, at a March 12, 2012 working session, the Ann Arbor city council was briefed about the future of the former coal gasification site. The cleanup and remediation operation is being handled by MichCon, and overseen by the state of Michigan’s Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).

Craig Hupy, the city’s interim public services area administrator, introduced the presentation, telling councilmembers that its purpose was to give them a heads up before the mandatory public meetings start happening. MichCon would also be returning to the city council to get access to the sanitary sewers during the cleanup. MichCon will also need to coordinate with the city’s park operations staff, Hupy said.

The timeline for the project would see construction wrapping up in October of 2012:

• November 2011: pre-design studies report – submitted to MDEQ
• February 2012: response activities plan – submitted to MDEQ
• February 2012: construction permit application – submitted to MDEQ
• March 12, 2012: Ann Arbor city council work session – presentation
• March 20, 2012: parks advisory commission – presentation
• March 2012–July 2012: pre-construction activities and engineering
• April 11, 2012: MDEQ public meeting/public hearing
• June 2012: receive MDEQ plan approval and permit
• July 2012: contractor bid and selection
• August–October 2012: (2.5 months) construction

Presenting on behalf of MichCon was Shayne Wiesemann, a senior environmental engineer with DTE Energy.

MichCon Property Remediation: Background

Wiesemann told the council that MichCon had been working diligently with Michigan’s Dept. of Environmental Quality, as well as the Huron River Watershed Council and Ann Arbor city staff.

Aerial view of MichCon property. (Image links to dynamic Google map.)

Wiesemann thanked the city staff for their help over the last few years – they’d had weekly meetings or phone calls. He named city staffers Colin Smith (manager of parks and recreation), Sumedh Bahl (community services area administrator), Matt Naud (environmental coordinator), Craig Hupy (head of systems planning and interim public services area administrator) and Cresson Slotten (manager in systems planning).

Wiesemann ticked through a quick overview of the history of the site. It was developed as a coal gasification plant in 1900 by the Ann Arbor Gas Company, and the gas produced there was used by Ann Arbor residents for the next 50 years – for cooking, heating and lighting. As natural gas began to be supplied to the city in 1939 (which is a relatively cleaner fuel), use of manufactured gas diminished. By the late 1950s the gas manufacturing facility was decommissioned.

By then MichCon had become the owner of the facility, and in the early 1960s the MichCon service center was constructed. The property was used to dispatch crews to customers for another 50 years. MichCon merged with DTE Energy in 2001, becoming a subsidiary of the energy utility. In 2009, MichCon’s Broadway service center was deconstructed.

MichCon Property Remediation: Site Investigation

Wiesemann explained that residuals from the gas manufacturing process remained at the site. When the service center was demolished, MichCon investigated the site, he said. That site investigation is now completed.

Yellow areas are locations where soil is to be excavated and replaced with clean material. (Image links to .pdf of slide presentation with higher resolution images.)

He described how MichCon had excavated 1,680 cubic yards of contaminated soil from the western parcel and another 4,340 cubic yards from the eastern parcel. MichCon had installed a groundwater treatment system, and established routine groundwater monitoring and reporting. In total, Wiesemann told the council, MichCon has spent $2.6 million on the site investigation cleanup so far.

The investigation, Wiesemann continued, had provided a rich set of data with thousands of test results. The extent and nature of the environmental impacts at the site are now known, he said, and there’s no immediate risk to human health or the environment. There are still some structures on the site that are slated for removal, which have contamination. He showed the council a PowerPoint slide that indicated areas in yellow where structures and soil would be removed. One elongated area adjacent to the river is an area of impacted shallow soil and sediment – which will be excavated and replaced.

MichCon Property Remediation: Implementation

The success of the remediation plan, for which MichCon is now seeking approval from MDEQ, Wiesemann said, would lie in its implementation. He then sought to assure the council that impacts to Ann Arbor residents would be minimized. He told the council that MichCon has a lot of experience doing these kinds of remedial excavations – having completed dozens of them over the decades.

MichCon will use site controls like a security fence so that trespassers or children won’t wander onto the site. Surface water protection will be critical, he said, and a variety of tools will be used, including coffer dams, soft booms, and hard boom. Monitoring of the river water during the excavation would take place both upstream and downstream, he said. Odor-suppressing mist and foam would also be used, he said.

Wiesemann allowed that the impact of up to 20 trucks a day entering and leaving the site could be significant. Wheel washing would ensure that the trucks were not tracking sediment out of the site. MichCon would also plan to optimize the scheduling of truck traffic. In coordinating with the city, he said, MichCon had been advised, for example, that the Beakes and North Main area is not the best place to try to bring trucks through.

Wiesemann also pointed out the short-term economic gain due to the remediation activity and the long-term benefit of the environmental remediation. In addition to that, he reminded the council that MichCon will install and pay for the whitewater feature in the Huron River that was originally a part of the same project as the city’s planned Argo Dam bypass construction. The bypass, which has been named the Argo Cascades, is nearly complete.

MichCon Property Remediation: Whitewater Feature

Some councilmembers expressed concern about the impact of the excavation work on recreational users of the river. Wiesemann explained that the work would start on the upstream side and proceed downstream. By the time the work gets to the entry point from the Argo Cascades into the river, he said, it will be after Labor Day. After Labor Day, the Argo livery only offers weekend trips, which will coordinate well with MichCon’s weekday excavation activity. He allowed that it would not prevent someone from using their own canoe, instead of renting from the city’s livery. The fact that MichCon’s work will take place during the summer months, when the river will be relatively low, will also aid construction, he said.

Schematic showing the placement of the planned whitewater amenity in the Huron River, upstream from where the Argo Cascades enters into the river. (Image links to .pdf of slide presentation with higher resolution images.)

In connection with construction of the whitewater feature, councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) questioned the placement of the feature that was indicated in the slide Wiesemann had shown, saying the rocks were not in the same place the council had previously been told they would be. It appeared that canoeists and kayakers who wanted to paddle through the planned whitewater amenity would need to navigate down the Cascades bypass, then paddle upstream through the whitewater and then reverse course, she said.

Wiesemann confirmed that was the planned implementation was as Briere described it. He indicated that this approach had been vetted with the city’s park and recreation staff. Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager, confirmed that understanding, telling the council that Cheryl Saam, manager of the canoe livery, had been consulted as well. The idea was to make sure that the swifter water was well away from the entry of the Cascades into the river – to ensure that novice paddlers did not encounter the whitewater. It would also mitigate against any congestion between user groups. [That is, experienced users looking to spend the day paddling up and down through the whitewater feature would not interfere with novice paddlers who would be descending the Cascades and continuing on a leisurely float down the Huron.]

MichCon Property Remediation: Future of the Site

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know what the future of the parcel was after the remediation was complete. Wiesemann indicated it was not clear. MichCon recognized that there was a lot of potential on the site for redevelopment. Talks had just started to take place with interested stakeholders in the community. But at this point, he said, it would be premature to speculate on the end use. But he allowed that the MichCon leadership does see the parcel as “a catalyst for economic growth and public enjoyment within the community.”

Mayor John Hieftje weighed in with his hope that DTE Energy would collaborate with the Wolfpack, to add the parcel to the city’s park system. [The Wolfpack is a conservancy group associated with the National Wildlife Federation, co-founded by local attorney and former Clinton advisor Paul Dimond and retired Ford executive Ray Pittman. (.pdf file of Wolfpack members)] Hieftje described how he could imagine tiered seating installed on the river bank opposite the whitewater feature so that people could come out and watch the kayakers navigate the rapids.

Hieftje confirmed with Wiesemann that even factoring in significant delays, the whitewater feature would be available for recreational users in the spring of 2013.

HRIMP and Land Use: Master Plan Revision?

At the March 8 master plan revisions committee meeting, Wendy Rampson – the city’s planning manager – noted that the Parks & Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan puts a priority on acquiring land along the Huron River. It indicates the goal of acquiring the entire MichCon parcel, Rampson said, but she’s not sure that’s realistic. The city’s Central Area Future Land Use map – part of the city’s master plan – shows the western portion of the site as parkland, and the eastern half for commercial/office use. Currently, the site is zoned M1 (industrial). Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff pointed out that much of the property lies within the floodway, which would limit development.

Rampson noted that there is only one HRIMP recommendation related to land use – the section on commercial development in the Broadway bridge/Argo area. From the HRIMP report:

Encourage limited development of a restaurant and/or other public-use facilities where the public congregates and can enjoy the river in the Broadway Bridge/Argo area, especially if it generates revenue for river planning and implementation.

Rampson asked whether the committee wanted to start working on a master plan amendment to incorporate this recommendation, or to propose something that makes the expectations for this recommendation clearer.

Evan Pratt, who had served on the HRIMP committee, said discussion on this topic among HRIMP committee members had centered mostly on the idea of having a restaurant in that area. He cited the example of Zingerman’s coffee and baked goods being sold at the cafe in Gallup Park – that’s an example of a business and park co-existing, he said. The idea was that it would be desirable if someone wanted to have a business that was related to the river area and that didn’t undermine the city’s canoe livery – like a bicycle rental business. So the zoning for that area shouldn’t allow large operations, but something more in keeping with drawing people to the river, Pratt explained.

Diane Giannola asked whether something like miniature golf would be appropriate. Is the idea to create an entertainment area, like a boardwalk?

Pratt replied that they don’t want anything like a San Antonio River Walk, but rather something for people to do that will open up the Huron River. Kirk Westphal added that a lot of ideas were discussed, including a paddle-up microbrewery, but a restaurant seemed to be the most common suggestion.

Rampson noted that while many people talk about a restaurant located right along the river, the topography would make that challenging. If the MichCon parcel becomes available, a building along the west end near the river isn’t possible, because the property is in the floodway. It would be possible to develop something on the east end of that property, she said, “but that doesn’t have the lovely views.”

Giannola noted that a raised structure could be built on the west portion of the property, but Rampson said that’s not what most people seem to envision – the preference is to be next to the river, not looking down on it. Westphal said there’s still a view of the river on the east end of the property, closer to the bridge. It’s not a wide-open vista, he said, but it’s nice.

Westphal wondered whether it would be possible to have a restaurant near the Argo livery, on land next to Argo Pond. Rampson said the HRIMP report wasn’t explicit about recommending anything in that area. Pratt weighed in that the spirit of the HRIMP committee discussions had focused on the Broadway area.

One issue with a restaurant near the Argo livery is that it’s located in a quiet residential area, Rampson noted. The lodge for the Society of Les Voyageurs is located there too. The question is whether introducing this type of new land use into that area is appropriate, she said.

A detail from the Central Area Future Land Use map, part of the land use section (Chapter 5) of the city's master plan. The large green and red section north of the railroad track and northwest of Broadway Street is the MichCon property. The property is zoned industrial, but the future land use indicates the western portion (green) for parks and open space, and the eastern portion (red) for commercial/office use. The Huron River runs to the north of the property. (Image links to .pdf of full Central Area Future Land Use map)

Rampson pointed out that for years, there have been efforts to revitalize the Lowertown area, east of the Broadway bridge. Perhaps a project on land near the bridge and the river could serve as a catalyst for development in Lowertown, she said. Rampson quipped that there’s a question about whether any land will be left after the University of Michigan finishes its projects in that area. [UM has been acquiring property along Wall Street, where its Kellogg Eye Center is located. The area is near the university's large medical complex.]

Rampson asked commissioners how deep they wanted to explore these options. A mini-study would be one approach, she said, or staff could work with commissioners to develop a set of recommendations. She asked whether they were interested in looking at just the site near the Broadway bridge, or if they wanted to focus on a broader area.

Giannola expressed support for looking at the entire Broadway/Lowertown area, not just one site.

City planner Jeff Kahan noted that there are several master plan-related efforts in the works right now – including studies of the Washtenaw Avenue and South State corridors – and the staff needs to strategize about how to use its limited resources. People might wonder what’s triggering an effort related to the HRIMP recommendations now, he said.

Rampson replied that there’s interest in the MichCon property, and in what DTE’s plans are for the property after they finish remediation work there. They could either put it on the market or ask the city to make an offer, she said. So you could argue that it’s timely to look at future land use for that area.

Kahan wondered whether it would “muck up the works” to go through a master plan and possible rezoning process that ends up doubling the value of that MichCon property, especially since it’s not yet clear what the company plans to do. He also noted that transit-related plans are unfolding quickly, and there’s uncertainty about that too. [The Fuller Road Station, a proposed parking garage and transit center located in that general area, has been paused – see Chronicle coverage: "UM, Ann Arbor Halt Fuller Road Project"]

Finally, Kahan said, if a drain is dug underneath the railroad, the floodplain lines could change yet again – that’s another factor that could have an impact on the area. [Earlier in the meeting, Rampson had mentioned that the city is issuing a request for proposals (RFP) to possibly build a drain underneath the railroad to relieve flooding. The project might include a pedestrian underpass.]

Pratt noted that the city has three plans, each recommending three different types of land use for the Broadway bridges and Argo Dam area: (1) the HRIMP, which recommends commercial development; (2) the property’s current zoning, for industrial use; and (3) the master plan’s future land use map, which shows a combination of parkland and commercial/office use. Each of those land uses reflect different levels of intensity, he observed.

Rampson said she doesn’t think anyone is talking about rezoning at this point. The master plan could simply be amended to indicate a preference for the type of use on that property. Then if the property changes hands and is sold to a private developer, there would be guidance if the developer proposed a project there that required rezoning – which would be likely, she said. It would be less of a problem if the property is acquired by the city, she said, and becomes zoned as public land.

The MichCon property has a high recreational value, Kahan said. It’s a critical piece of the puzzle for creating a pathway system of parkland along the river, and the city has acquisition funds available for parkland. It would be good to have a conversation with Ginny Trocchio about that, he said. [Trocchio is the Conservation Fund staff member who manages the city's greenbelt and park acquisitions program, under contract with the city.]

Kahan said it goes back to his earlier point – should the city take action that might have an impact on the property’s value, by potentially increasing an appraisal of the land?

For now, Rampson said, the simplest approach would be to insert the language of the HRIMP recommendation into the city’s master plan. That way, there would be guidance regarding future use of the property in that area.

The committee discussed where the language might be inserted – in the master plan’s Lowertown section, or the central area section. [link to .pdf of the master plan's chapter on land use] Kahan wondered whether the HRIMP should be added as a supporting document to the master plan, as part of this change. Rampson advised against that, noting that it might open the Argo Dam question. “I’m not sure you really want to go there,” she told commissioners.

Pratt said he recognized that revisiting HRIMP could be opening a can of worms. But at the least, he said, getting HRIMP’s land use language into the master plan, as it relates to commercial development near the Broadway bridge and Argo, will help safeguard the future of that area.

The committee’s discussion will be taken up by the full planning commission at an upcoming, to-be-determined meeting.

Present: Planning commissioners Eleanore Adenekan, Diane Giannola, Evan Pratt and Kirk Westphal. Also city planners Wendy Rampson and Jeff Kahan.

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

Joe Grengs, a University of Michigan associate professor of urban and regional planning, and Ginny Trocchio, who manages the city's greenbelt program, were among the speakers at a Feb. 9 sustainability forum.

Issues of land use and accessibility were the topic of a sustainability forum on Feb. 9, the second in a series that’s part of a broader city sustainability initiative. During the forum, city staff also unveiled a set of draft goals for Ann Arbor related to four general sustainability themes: Resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, told the audience that the 15 draft goals were extracted from more than 200 that had been identified in existing city planning documents. The hope is to reach consensus on these sustainability goals, then present them to the city council as possible amendments to the city’s master plan.

Speakers at the Feb. 9 forum included Joe Grengs, a University of Michigan associate professor of urban and regional planning; Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager and member of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board; Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff; Ginny Trocchio, who manages the city’s greenbelt program; and Evan Pratt of the city’s planning commission.

A Q&A followed presentations by the speakers and covered a wide range of topics, including thoughts on the proposed Fuller Road Station. The following day, Feb. 10, the city and University of Michigan announced plans to halt the initial phase of that controversial project – a large parking structure near the UM medical campus.

The topics of the series of forums reflect four general sustainability themes: Resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. The first forum, held in January, focused on resource management, including water, solid waste, the urban forest and natural areas.

All forums are held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library and are being videotaped by AADL staff. The videos will be posted on the library’s website. Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” and an update on the project given at the November 2011 park advisory commission meeting.

Draft Sustainability Goals

The Feb. 9 forum was moderated by Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager. She said it’s hoped that the city’s sustainability effort, and these forums in particular, will serve as a springboard for a community discussion and help set overarching sustainability goals.

Wendy Rampson, city of Ann Arbor planning manager, moderated the Feb. 9 forum.

The overall sustainability initiative started informally nearly two years ago, with a joint meeting of the city’s planning, environmental and energy commissions. The idea is to help shape decisions by looking at a triple bottom line: environmental quality, economic vitality, and social equity.

In early 2011, the city received a $95,000 grant from the Home Depot Foundation to fund a formal sustainability project. The project set out to review the city’s existing plans and organize them into a framework of goals, objectives and indicators that can guide future planning and policy. The overall project also aimed to improve access to the city’s plans and to the sustainability components of each plan, and to incorporate the concept of sustainability into city planning and future city plans.

In addition to city staff, this work was initially guided by volunteers who serve on four city advisory commissions: park, planning, energy and environmental. Members from those groups met at a joint working session in late September of 2011. Since then, the city’s housing commission and housing & human services commission have been added to the conversation, Rampson said. Many of those members attended the Feb. 9 forum, which was held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library and drew around 100 people.

Over the past year, city staff and a committee made of up members from several city advisory commissions have evaluated the city’s 27 existing planning documents and pulled out 226 goals from those plans that relate to sustainability. From there, they prioritized the goals and developed a small subset to present for discussion.

The draft goals are:

Climate & Energy

• Sustainable Energy: Improve access to and support use of renewable energy by all members of our community.
• Energy Conservation: Reduce energy consumption and eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions in our community.
• High Performance Buildings: Increase efficiency in new and existing buildings within our community.

Community

• Engaged Community: Ensure our community is strongly connected through outreach, opportunities for engagement, and stewardship of community resources.
• Diverse Housing: Provide high quality, safe, efficient, and affordable housing choices to meet the current and future needs of our community, particularly for low-income households.
• Safe Community: Minimize risk to public health and property from manmade and natural hazards.
• Active Living: Improve quality of life by providing diverse cultural, recreational, and educational opportunities for all members of our community.
• Economic Vitality: Create a resilient economy that provides access to employment opportunities, supports a diverse range of economic activities, and attracts investment to our community.

Land Use

• Transportation Options: Establish a physical and cultural environment that supports and encourages safe, comfortable and efficient ways for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users to travel throughout the city and region.
• Sustainable Systems: Plan for and manage constructed and natural infrastructure systems to meet the current and future needs of our community.
• Efficient Land Use: Encourage a compact pattern of diverse development that maintains our sense of place, preserves our natural systems, and strengthens our neighborhoods, corridors, and downtown.

Resource Management

• Clean Air and Water: Eliminate pollutants in our air and water systems.
• Healthy Ecosystems: Conserve, protect, enhance, and restore our aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
• Responsible Resource Use: Produce zero waste and optimize the use and reuse of resources in our community.
• Local Food: Conserve, protect, enhance, and restore our local agriculture and aquaculture resource.

Rampson described the proposed goals as “very, very drafty.” A public meeting to discuss the goals will be held on March 29. Feedback can also be sent to the city via email at sustainability@a2gov.org.

Sustainability & Land Use: Framing the Issue

Joe Grengs – a UM associate professor of urban and regional planning – led off remarks from the panel at the Feb. 9 forum. He began by saying it was great to discuss these issues, and that there are very committed people in the city who are willing to take risks and do things in innovative ways. His task at the forum was to frame the discussion of land use and sustainability, and he planned to do it through the lens of one idea – interaction.

Joe Grengs, University of Michigan associate professor of urban and regional planning, speaking at a Feb. 9 forum on sustainability in the city of Ann Arbor.

The real estate adage of “location, location, location” is really just a way of saying that place matters, Grengs said. Where you’re situated has an impact on your ability to interact with people and places – at schools, stores, work, and places of worship. Each location ties you to a network of opportunities and constraints. For example, it determines your social network, to some extent. It determines your educational opportunities – a family living just across the border in one school district might be able to send their kids to a great school, while the family on the other side of the district border might be going to a school with a weaker reputation.

Location is very much rooted in factors like income and race, he noted, and it’s central to determining the degree to which people interact. Transportation and land use also have a lot to do with interaction. To illustrate, Grengs presented a scenario. It’s Saturday afternoon, and you have four errands to run. Your teenager needs to get to high school for theater rehearsal, while your youngest child must get to the park for soccer practice. You have to drop by the drugstore to pick up a prescription, and as you’re leaving, your partner asks you to stop at the party store to get some candy.

To do these errands, would you rather travel slow or fast? Grengs asked. Most people would answer fast, he said, but his answer is: It depends. He said he’d ask how much total time it takes to do the errands – that’s more important than your speed of travel. So if you’re traveling slower but the places you need to be are close to you, it will take less time to do the errands. Proximity is crucial, Grengs said.

Yet transportation policies and our government’s codes and standards emphasize mobility and speed, Grengs observed. If that’s your end goal, then the means of achieving that goal include things like capacity expansion – more roads, more lanes of traffic – and ease of parking. But there’s a better way, he contended.

What if the goal is accessibility, Grengs asked, measured by the amount of interactions you can accomplish within a given period? And this really is our goal, he noted. With some exceptions, you’re not getting in the car and traveling to a location just because you like to drive. You’re interested in reaching the destination.

So what tools can you use to achieve the goal of accessibility? Mobility is one way, Grengs said. Connectivity – including the use of technology, like the Internet – is another. A third way of achieving accessibility is proximity – and that’s what land use policies can address.

In looking at these methods of achieving accessibility, Grengs noted that there’s a tension between mobility and proximity. Mobility is important when destinations are spread out, like in a rural or suburban setting. People travel on freeways or other major roads at high speeds to get from place to place. In contrast, in a place like Manhattan everything is close together. You won’t be traveling fast, or far. But in terms of accessibility, proximity helps residents accomplish more even though they’re moving more slowly, Grengs said.

Grengs concluded his remarks by making two final points. When a community takes steps to increase mobility, it’s important to stop and ask: Is this hurting us in terms of proximity? An example is sprawl – when infrastructure like roads is built farther out, developers respond by building in those far-ranging locations, and it undermines the goal of accessibility.

The other question to ask is: How can a community achieve its goal of accessibility? It’s a two-part recipe, Grengs said: (1) by making accessible places, through transportation and land use policies; and (2) by encouraging people to live and work in accessible places. Usually, he said, a community needs high density to achieve those goals.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority

Wendy Rampson introduced Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, by noting that the DDA was originally formed to support parking and infrastructure projects. But its work has shifted over the years from mobility issues to an increasing focus on accessibility, Rampson said.

City of Ann Arbor transportation manager Eli Cooper and Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority executive director Susan Pollay.

Pollay began by noting that the downtown doesn’t exist in isolation. She briefly reviewed the history of DDAs, noting that 1972 state-enabling legislation allowed the creation of these authorities in order to support economic development. There are now about 300 DDAs in Michigan, she said. The Ann Arbor DDA was formed in 1982 and over the years has been known for its management of the city’s parking system. In 2003 the DDA’s development plan was amended and renewed by the city for 30 years, and sustainability was one of its eight key goals. The aim, Pollay said, is for the downtown to be ”the sustainable heart of a sustainable city.”

The DDA supports that goal with different approaches, Pollay said. Regarding land use, the organization acts as an advocate. The DDA supported land conservation millages that were put on the ballot – and ultimately approved by voters – for the county and the city, she said. The authority also supports zoning that encourages residential development in the downtown area, Pollay said.

She noted between 1990 and 2000, there was no population growth in the DDA district. But the 2010 census showed that the DDA district had gained 1,263 new residents  – a 30% increase since 2000 – for a total of 4,607 residents. That’s at a time when the city and state lost population, she said.

Transportation is another approach that the DDA uses to achieve sustainability, Pollay said. More than 60,000 people commute into Ann Arbor each day. The idea is to get people out of those vehicles and using other forms of transportation. The DDA has provided grants for increasing service along the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s #4 Route between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. Grants are also supporting (1) the AATA express routes between Ann Arbor, Chelsea and Canton; (2) parking for AATA service to the airport, which is expected to launch in March; (3) an exploratory study for commuter rail between Ann Arbor and Howell; and (4) a feasibility study for a transit connector between Ann Arbor’s north and south sides.

Pollay also pointed to the DDA’s financial support of the getDowntown program, noting that there’s been a dramatic shift in the number of people who use alternative transportation, including public transit and bicycling. Since 2002, the DDA has funded 95% of the program’s go!pass, which provides free bus passes to more than 7,300 employees of downtown businesses. In 2011, more than 630,000 rides were taking using the go!pass, Pollay said – a 15% increase compared to 2010. [For a roundup of ridership data, including go!pass usage, see "Transit: Ridership Data Roundup"]

Other transportation-oriented initiatives that the DDA helps fund include bike parking and lockers, free parking for motorcycles and mopeds, a Night Ride service, the Zipcar car-sharing service, and grants to groups like the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition. Pollay said that 33% of downtown employees who own cars choose not to drive them to work.

The DDA also supports efforts to make the downtown more walkable, Pollay said. In addition to major streetscape improvement projects, other efforts include creating topiaries and edible landscaping, window display contests, and trip hazard/sidewalk maintenance.

Pollay pointed to sustainability as a component of construction projects supported by the DDA. For example, the authority provided a grant to the city of Ann Arbor to cover LEED certification costs on the city’s new municipal building. And the new underground parking garage that the DDA is building along South Fifth Avenue will include elements like electric-car stations, energy-saving fixtures, reuse of excavation site materials, and 100% stormwater detention.

Energy-saving programs are another way that the DDA supports sustainability, Pollay said. The DDA provided a grant to install LED lights downtown, for example, and has funded about 120 energy audits for downtown businesses. The authority tries to highlight these efforts whenever possible, Pollay said, to let the public know how the city is working toward sustainability. She cited signs at the Fifth and William surface parking lot as an example, explaining how pervious pavement is used there to handle stormwater runoff.

Pollay concluded by noting that many of these projects are accomplished by partnering with other entities.

Sustainability and Transportation

Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, spoke about the city’s efforts to encourage different modes of transportation. Nationwide, in 1960 about 60% of people used a private vehicle as their primary mode of transportation to work. That number increased to nearly 90% by 2000, he noted. But in Ann Arbor, only about 70% use a private vehicle to get to work – and that percentage has been relatively flat since the 1970s.

So Ann Arbor has found a way to bend the trends, Cooper said. What makes the city special, and what can be done to strengthen the aspects of transportation that are sustainable?

The number of people who walk to work in Ann Arbor is about four times the national average, Cooper said. Policies that relate to sidewalk maintenance and pedestrian crossings help make that a safer option, he said, noting that the city recently adjusted its ordinance on pedestrian crossings. The city realizes that walking is a very sustainable mode of transportation, he said.

Going up the transportation hierarchy is bicycling, Cooper said. The city and University of Michigan have had a bicycle coordinating committee dating back to the 1970s. This year, the number of bike lanes in the city will exceed 40 miles, he said, and 3.5% of residents use bikes to commute from work – up from 2.3% in 2000. Bicyclists are burning calories, not carbon, Cooper quipped, and that’s part of the sustainability equation.

While walking and bicycling satisfy shorter trips, Cooper said, public transit gets you anywhere you want to go. He said the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority provides a fantastic service in a sustainable way. [Cooper was recently appointed to the AATA board.] Some buses in the fleet use biodiesel fuel, he noted, and about 50% of the fleet are hybrid electric buses.

Cooper also discussed railroad service in Ann Arbor, noting that investments are being made at the state and federal level to improve the tracks between Chicago and Detroit – passing through Ann Arbor – to make service more reliable. Work on a commuter rail service between Ypsilanti and Detroit is also underway, he said, although no dates have yet been set for when that might start.

Despite all of this, automobiless are still the main mode of transportation, Cooper noted, even in Ann Arbor. Auto technology is becoming more sustainable, he said, so the challenge is how the city can encourage people to use those more sustainable types of vehicles. That might include putting in charging stations for electric vehicles, or expanding car-sharing programs, he said.

Land Preservation: Ann Arbor’s Greenbelt

Ginny Trocchio gave an overview of the city’s greenbelt program – she’s a staff member of The Conservation Fund, which is under contract with the city to manage the program. The greenbelt is funded through a 30-year, 0.5 mill tax that voters approved in 2003 for land preservation and acquisition. A portion of that millage is used for parks acquisition, Trocchio said, but her presentation would focus on the greenbelt, which protects land outside of the city from development.

Park advisory commissioners Sam Offen and Gwen Nystuen attended the sustainability forum as members of the audience.

Most of the land preservation occurs through the purchase of conservation easements, she said. The property remains in private ownership, but there are restrictions on what can be done on the land, ensuring that the land isn’t developed and that its natural features are preserved. City staff go out to the properties once a year to monitor compliance.

Why is there a need for a greenbelt? Trocchio noted that in 2003, the real estate market and overall economy were quite different than today. Farmland and open space was being bought and converted into residential subdivisions, and there were concerns about the amount of sprawl that this area was seeing.

Since the millage was passed, Ann Arbor has protected over 3,500 acres within the greenbelt’s boundary, Trocchio reported. The city has also been able to leverage its investment on a one-to-one dollar match, by partnering with other entities. More recently, land prices have also worked in the program’s favor. When the greenbelt program was launched, land prices were about $16,000 per acre, Trocchio said. Now, that price has fallen closer to $4,000.

The city has also been able to secure more matching funds in recent years, both from federal sources as well as local partners like Washtenaw County, which has its own millage to protect open space and farmland. Some townships in the county – including the townships of Ann Arbor and Webster – also have land preservation millages, and have partnered with the greenbelt program.

Trocchio briefly reviewed the program’s finances, noting that the city had taken out a $20 million bond in fiscal year 2006 and is making payments with proceeds from the millage. In addition to debt service, expenses include greenbelt purchases. [For a detailed financial update on the greenbelt program, see Chronicle coverage of a September 2011 meeting of the greenbelt advisory commission.]

While there’s not the same kind of development pressure now, Trocchio cited food security as an issue, and noted that the city is building a sustainable perimeter of farmland. The program is also protecting land in the Huron River watershed, she noted, and protecting the region’s water supply. Other attributes of the greenbelt include preservation of scenic views, and in some cases support of educational and recreational opportunities – the Fox Science Preserve, a partnership with Washtenaw County, is an example of that, she said.

Ann Arbor Planning Policy

Two panelists addressed sustainability from the city’s planning perspective: Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff, and Evan Pratt, a member of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

From left: Susan Pollay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and Jeff Kahan, Ann Arbor city planner.

Kahan told the audience that Ann Arbor has been pushing for sustainability before people even knew the word. He described five elements of the city’s sustainable land use: (1) natural systems preservation; (2) adaptive re-use; (3) land use efficiency; (4) mixed use development; and (5) pedestrian/transit-oriented development.

Protecting natural areas is one of the things the city does best, Kahan said. Ann Arbor was the first in Michigan to insert language into its city code to protect wetlands, landmark trees, woodlands and other natural areas, he said. And it was the second city in the nation to require on-site stormwater detention.

Adaptive re-use has been done in the city for decades, without thinking about it in terms of sustainability, Kahan said. Examples in town include the Gandy Dancer restaurant in a former train station, the Armory condo development at Fifth Avenue and Ann Street, Kerrytown Market and Shops, and Liberty Lofts.

Kahan then turned to land use efficiency, saying you couldn’t talk about it without mentioning the topic’s four-letter word, “which of course is ‘density.’” The city is preserving land in the greenbelt surrounding Ann Arbor, but the flip side of that is accommodating density in appropriate areas, he said, like the downtown and commercial corridors. Kahan also cited mixed-use developments – buildings that typically include a mix of retail shops and residential units – as being another land use approach that works downtown or in corridors like State Street or Washtenaw Avenue.

The city has also taken steps to encourage pedestrian- and transit-oriented development, Kahan said. He pointed to changes in the city code that have allowed buildings to be constructed closer to sidewalks, encouraging developers to put parking behind buildings rather than close to the street.

Evan Pratt discussed the role of the planning commission in land use and sustainability. He said a remark by Susan Pollay earlier in the forum had really resonated with him – that without partnerships, sustainability isn’t possible.

From left: Ann Arbor city planner Jeff Kahan and Ann Arbor city planning commissioner Evan Pratt.

Pratt said the process of reviewing goals in the city’s various planning documents has been interesting. There’s a lot of crossover, and some conflicting goals as well. He likes the idea of developing a matrix for scoring projects, so that a blended perspective could be used to evaluate projects.

It’s important to develop good policies that encourage the types of projects that the city wants to see, Pratt said – projects that encourage people to live downtown, for example, and that add to the city’s vibrancy. As an example, Pratt pointed to the 618 S. Main project that the planning commission recommended for approval at its Jan. 19, 2012 meeting. It was a “planned project,” he said, which meant that by offering up certain premiums, the developer could get permission to build a structure taller than what zoning would otherwise allow. In this case, those premiums included capturing 100% of the stormwater runoff on-site, putting solar panels on the roof to help heat water for the building, and getting LEED certification – something that’s written into a development agreement with the city.

Pratt concluded by saying there was one big “eureka” moment in looking through the 226 goals that had been culled from city plans. The words “region” or “county” appeared only three times. So Pratt said he wanted to leave the audience with one question: In what areas does Ann Arbor need to broaden its horizons?

Questions & Comments

During the last part of the forum, panelists fielded questions and commentary from the audience. This report summarizes the questions and presents them thematically.

Questions & Comments: Huron River

Question: Is anything being done to make the Huron River more of an attraction?

Evan Pratt of the city’s planning commission noted that he’s also involved with the Huron River Watershed Council, a nonprofit that’s charged with protecting the river and its tributaries. [HRWC's website lists Pratt as chair of its board of directors.] Of all the city’s land use plans, he observed, none of them focus on the land adjacent to the river. The city’s Huron River and Impoundment Management Plan (HRIMP) turned into an Argo Dam argument, he said, but there are some recommendations in the plan that apply to land use around the river. For example, a recommendation for commercial development in the Broadway bridges area states:

Encourage limited development of a restaurant and/or other public-use facilities where the public congregates and can enjoy the river in the Broadway Bridge/Argo area, especially if it generates revenue for river planning and implementation.

Pratt said the planning commission is interested in revisiting the HRIMP recommendations. He also pointed to the county’s Border-to-Border trail for pedestrians and bicyclists, and said a similar initiative is underway for the Huron River. Called RiverUp! and coordinated by the watershed council, the idea is to encourage communities to turn their face to the river, Pratt said. Among other things, there’s an economic benefit to doing that, he said. [For Chronicle coverage of the initiative, see: "RiverUp! Focuses on Revitalizing Huron River"]

Ginny Trocchio noted that one goal of the city’s greenbelt program is to protect land located in the Huron River watershed.

Wendy Rampson of the city’s planning staff recalled that two decades ago, the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan had identified a goal of developing a ring of parkland around Argo Pond. Much of the property at that time was owned by industrial firms, she said. Over the years, the city was able to acquire key parcels – including land that’s now Bandemer Park – and today that portion of the river has a trail system and more public access. It shows the value of planning documents and a vision in working toward a goal, Rampson said.

Questions & Comments: Urban Open Space

Question: What about the need for open space in downtown Ann Arbor? There’s been a debate about the Library Lot on South Fifth Avenue, and whether the top of the underground parking structure being built there should be open space or a high-rise building. [The underground parking is being built by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.] Research has shown the need for greenways and open space in urban areas, and how that kind of space generates economic development around it.

Noting that she lives near Dolph nature area on the city’s far west side, Susan Pollay of the DDA observed that the need for open space downtown is very different than in other parts of the city. Downtown open space poses different challenges and serves different purposes. Sculpture Plaza, at the corner of Fourth and Catherine, has been successful, she noted, while Liberty Plaza at Liberty and Division doesn’t feel as good.

Eric Lipson, former Ann Arbor city planning commissioner, addressed the panel with a question about open space and its role in the downtown, in the context of the future use of the top of the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage, which is nearing completion. In the background is Clark Charnetski, who addressed the panel expressing support for the Fuller Road Station.

Ingredients to Sculpture Plaza’s success include the fact that it’s small and manageable, Pollay said. It’s adjacent to retail stores, which helps animate the plaza – there’s usually activity there. Employees at the shops take ownership of the area, helping to clean it up. All of that is missing at Liberty Plaza, Pollay said. As the city looks at developing a greenway or deciding what goes atop the Library Lot, she indicated it will be important to learn from these other urban park experiences.

Urban areas also can serve multiple functions, Pollay noted. Main Street can be shut down for events like FestiFools. The surface parking lot next to Palio restaurant – at the corner of Main and William – is used for events like the annual car show and Taste of Ann Arbor. There are different needs and uses for open space, depending on the season, she said. Sidewalks are also important elements of urban open space, as are landscaped areas around parking lots. She noted that dogs, for example, need areas where owners can take them to do their business. The city can be smarter in thinking about the needs for downtown open space, Pollay concluded.

Jeff Kahan said the city’s planning staff is very interested in this issue. But you can’t simply apply suburban concepts – the notion that more is better – to the downtown, he said. Smaller, intimate spaces are more appropriate, like the farmers market, sidewalks, the Diag, or the bandshell at West Park. It’s important to remember that downtown users of open space aren’t likely looking for a large playground, he said. For one thing, not that many families with kids live downtown.

Eric Lipson, who had posed the original question, followed up by asking Pollay if she would support having a surface parking lot atop the underground parking structure that would also be used for community events. Absolutely, Pollay replied. She noted that the entry/exit ramps into the garage were specifically designed so that Library Lane – the small street running between Fifth and Division, just north of the downtown library – could be closed so that events could be held there. The point was to make cars secondary to that space, she said.

Lipson said everyone agrees that micro areas like Sculpture Plaza are needed. But there’s also a need for larger spaces, he said, like the Ingalls Mall area on the University of Michigan campus, where the Street Art Fair and Summer Festival‘s Top of the Park events are held. The Library Lot could serve the same purpose for the downtown, he said.

Wendy Rampson observed that the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan is a good place for this kind of suggestion to be included.

Questions & Comments: Fuller Road Station

Clark Charnetski – a member of the AATA’s local advisory council – referred to Evan Pratt’s description of a blended perspective, and said that Fuller Road Station is an example of that. Tradeoffs are involved, he said, and it’s important to look at two locations: The existing Amtrak station on Depot Street, and the proposed Fuller Road Station.

Although Fuller Road Station would use three acres for parking and a train station, Charnetski said, it would free up space where the current train station is located, which is near property owned by DTE that’s being cleaned up and could possibly become a park along the Huron River. So the tradeoff is in favor of relocating the train station to Fuller Road Station, Charnetski concluded – that’s something to keep in mind. [Charnetski's remarks were made the day before news broke that the city of Ann Arbor and University of Michigan were suspending plans for Fuller Road Station's initial phase – a large parking structure located near UM's medical complex. See Chronicle coverage: "UM, Ann Arbor Halt Fuller Road Project"]

Wendy Rampson of the city’s planning staff noted that projects like Fuller Road Station and the Library Lot illustrate the difficult decisions that communities make on issues like density and transportation, and the appropriate locations for development. Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, said locating a train station next to a major employment site is fundamental in order to encourage walkability.

Rampson asked Joe Grengs – a UM associate professor of urban and regional planning – to comment on techniques that communities might use to grapple with these tensions. Grengs said focus groups and other methods can be used to draw out ideas. But regarding the Fuller Road Station project in particular, Grengs said he had some concerns. He didn’t believe the university needed more parking, and said there are steps that could be taken to reallocate parking within UM’s current infrastructure.

The Fuller Road Station project undermines the city’s stated sustainability goals, Grengs said, because the mode of parking falls into a completely different category than walking, biking and rail transit. All of those latter modes work well in areas of high density, he said. But cars work against that – they are “big, hulking objects” that simply sit all day, he observed. So to have 1,000 cars parked at that location every day, at a place where there should be opportunities for interaction – places for retail or recreation, for example – “to me is a mistake and I’d urge the city to think about that,” he concluded. Grengs’ remarks were met with a smattering of applause from the audience.

Later during the Q&A, Rita Mitchell said she agreed with Grengs regarding Fuller Road Station, and she urged the city to consider adaptive re-use of the existing site of the Amtrak station instead.

Questions & Comments: Public Transit & Housing

Jeaninne Palms told panelists that she really appreciated these public discussions on sustainability issues. [Palms was one of the organizers of the Transition Ann Arbor initiative, which focused on some of these same issues.] The forums bring up perspectives that people don’t often think about, she noted. Palms cited Grengs’ comments about accessibility, and observed that that Ann Arbor Transportation Authority recently increased the frequency of buses along Route #4, between Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor. She wondered what his thoughts were about making it more accessible for people who work in Ann Arbor to also live in Ann Arbor.

Jeaninne Palms addressed the panel with a question about transportation goals.

Grengs replied that Palms’ comment illustrates the point that addressing transportation goals can be done better by thinking about land use. Affordability is a barrier to living in Ann Arbor, he noted – it’s easier for low-income residents to live in Ypsilanti. So one way to solve the transportation problem is to create more affordable housing closer to jobs.

Evan Pratt pointed to the 618 S. Main project that planning commission recommended for approval in January. [See Chronicle coverage: "618 S. Main Project Gets Planning Support"] The apartment building will have a variety of unit sizes, he noted. [The proposal calls for 70 studio apartments, 70 one-bedroom units, 42 two-bedroom units, and 7 duplex units with 1 bedroom each.] The plan also includes 121 spaces for on-site parking, Pratt said, which is far fewer than the total number of bedrooms.

He also noted that the development “unbundles” parking – that is, tenants aren’t given a parking space as part of their lease. Parking spaces must be rented separately. The city wants to encourage that, Pratt said. It’s not possible to stop people from choosing to have a car, he said, but it’s possible to ensure that a choice must be made – that it’s not automatic for parking to be provided.

Wendy Rampson observed that the issue involves the question of density. If it’s important to have more workforce housing, that means more housing units will be needed. One way to accomplish that is through accessory apartments, she said. But when the city discussed that possibility a decade ago, the community decided that wasn’t something it wanted. In places like California, Rampson said, communities have turned to accessory dwellings as one way to increase density.

[At the same meeting in January 2012 when the planning commission recommended approval of the 618 S. Main project, they also authorized a special exception use at 3645 Waldenwood, to allow an accessory apartment to be added to the single-family house there. According to planning staff, it was only the second time a special exception use had been requested for an accessory unit since the accessory dwelling ordinance was crafted in the early 1980s. The effort that Rampson mentioned would have changed the city's zoning to make it possible for non-family members to live in accessory apartments.]

Commenting at the end of the Q&A session, Rita Mitchell noted that a four-party agreement is now being discussed that could lead to a countywide transportation system. [Action on four-party agreement – between the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Washtenaw County, and the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – has been postponed three times by the Ann Arbor city council, most recently at its Feb. 6, 2012 meeting.] Mitchell suggested that AATA should improve its existing routes and make service truly excellent, saying it would be a draw for people and would provide environmental benefits as well.

Rampson noted that transit ridership has increased. The AATA recently started more frequent service on Route #4 between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, she said, which is already showing increased ridership. Eli Cooper added that increased service requires increased resources. Part of the proposed countywide plan calls for enhancing services in the core population areas, as well as better connecting communities within the county, he said.

Questions & Comments: Noise

Question: Ann Arbor is surrounded by freeways. I live by M-14 and there’s nothing but noise. There should be some thought given to creating a buffer – berms, or trees – because noise has a big impact on quality of life.

Susan Pollay said she didn’t have an answer, but a comment. A few years ago, when M-14 was shut down for construction, it was incredibly quiet. It was remarkable not to have that freeway sound – she hadn’t previously been aware that it was such a constant background noise.

Eli Cooper noted that building noise barriers or berms is prohibitively expensive, and yields a limited effect. He agreed that noise affects the quality of life for residents. That’s why it’s important to encourage quieter modes of transportation, like walking, bicycling, or using hybrid buses.

Questions & Comments: Local vs. State Policy

Question: To what extent are people thinking about the future, with regard to resisting certain tendencies? For example, the University of Michigan isn’t accountable to the residents of Ann Arbor. The state is also doing things that residents don’t want – like allowing companies to shoot movies in the city. There’s nothing sustainable about that. The city should have its own policies.

Eli Cooper replied that in order to be successful, the city needs to align its policies with entities around it. Being sustainable within the city’s boundaries is one thing, he said, but it’s also important to consider sustainability in a broader context. And it’s important for the city to coordinate and work well with higher forms of government, like the county and the state.

Future Forums

Two more forums in this sustainability series are planned. All forums will be held at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library building, 343 S. Fifth Ave. starting at 7 p.m.

• March 8, 2012: Climate and Energy – including an overview of Ann Arbor’s climate action plan, climate impacts, renewable and alternative energy, energy efficiency and conservation.
• April 12, 2012: Community – including housing, public safety, public art, recreation, outreach, civic engagement, and stewardship of community resources.

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

Construction on the bridge project is expected to start in the fall of 2011.

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

The view southward on Harris Street in Saline. Saline city hall, where the Feb. 8, 2011 transit master planning forum was held, sits to the left of the frame. (Photo by the writer.)

A second public engagement phase of the countywide planning exercise is now wrapping up, with 20 community forums held through the month of February at locations across the county. The final four of those forums will take place next week. Coverage of the forum hosted in the Saline area is provided by Chronicle intern and Saline resident Hayley Byrnes.

On Feb. 8, at Saline city hall, the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority sponsored the ninth of 20 community forums being held from the end of January through February. Every forum is open to all Washtenaw County residents, but they’re being held at locations across the county – like Saline – to make it easier for people to attend.

The goal of a previous round of 20 public forums, held last year, was to get participants to brainstorm about countywide transit. But the current set of forums is all about presenting participants with three specific scenarios that have been developed so far, based in part on those first 20 meetings. The AATA is calling these three scenarios: Lifeline Plus, Accessible County and Smart Growth. From those three scenarios, a preferred scenario will be developed. An AATA board consensus on that scenario is expected in March, with board action on adoption of a countywide transit plan expected in April.

Michael Benham, who’s coordinating the project for the AATA, and Juliet Edmonson, a consultant with Steer Davies Gleave (SDG), hosted the Saline forum. Michael Ford, CEO of the AATA, made an appearance in video form. For county residents who cannot attend any of the forums, the AATA is also seeking feedback on the three scenarios using an online survey.

A Digital Welcome: Overview of the AATA

The forum began with a video featuring Michael Ford, AATA’s CEO, describing the advantages of public transportation. Taking public transportation, he said, is “more than getting on a bus.” Alternative and public ways of transit shape our community, he continued. The video also featured various figures in Washtenaw County, including Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje and Ypsilanti mayor Paul Schreiber.

Objectives: Developing a Preferred Scenario

After the brief introduction and video, Michael Benham outlined the objectives for the evening. The primary objective, he said, was to update attendees on the transit master plan (TMP), a project that the AATA has been working on since the summer of 2010. The AATA began the process with more than a hundred meetings last summer, including 20 public forums, asking for input from communities throughout Washtenaw County.

In broad strokes, here’s where the project stands: Based on prior public input, the review of existing plans and data, and an assessment of the county’s transportation needs, three possible scenarios have now been developed, out of which one preferred scenario will be constructed.

More specifically, MovingYouForward.org, AATA’s website devoted to the development of the countywide master plan, outlines six steps to the process of implementing the plan: (1) visions and objectives; (2) existing conditions and needs; (3) transportation options and scenario development; (4) developing the preferred scenario; (5) transit master plan, (6) and funding and implementation plan.

The current round of public meetings is part of step (4). At the January AATA board meeting, board members indicated that they hoped to achieve a consensus on a preferred scenario in March and adoption of a transit master plan in April.

Along with familiarizing everyone with the distinctions between the three scenarios, Benham said at the Saline forum that he hoped to outline the benefits of each scenario. The ultimate goal, he said, is to “enable [citizens] to make an informed choice.”

Forum Goal: Feedback

Benham paraphrased the website’s timeline, stating that the AATA’s focus now is on honing and revising the newly-created scenarios that emerged from public meetings held last June and July. “We’re not just here to provide buses,” he said, “but buses for your education, for your community involvement.” Again he stressed that the role of the AATA is not simply transportation: it should serve to enhance the entire community.

At that point Benham stopped looking at a PowerPoint slide that listed the six stages of the TMP, turned to the audience and told them that feedback was the AATA’s primary concern. He didn’t want to just read off a PowerPoint slide for an hour and a half, he continued. Audience interaction and an informal atmosphere are paramount for the AATA to accurately gather feedback, he concluded, which was the primary purpose of the forum itself.

The Three TMP Scenarios: An Overview

Benham outlined four steps that the AATA took while creating the three scenarios for the TMP: public involvement, he said, was the primary step; the second came with research, particularly of other cities and transit systems; then came studies of other transit options; finally, the AATA took into account input from existing community plans.

Out of all that work, three distinct plans emerged, which the AATA is calling: Lifeline Plus, Accessible County, and Smart Growth. The plans are cumulative, meaning that everything included in Lifeline Plus is also included in Accessible County, with the addition of other features. The same can be said for Smart Growth, which builds upon Accessible County. Thus, the most comprehensive and expensive of the plans is Smart Growth, while Lifeline Plus implements the fewest number of changes.

The goal of Lifeline Plus is slightly different than the other two plans. Lifeline Plus primarily improves existing services and strengthens countywide connections for seniors. Rather than create new options or methods of transit, it enhances options already available to residents.

Accessible County also strengthens existing services, but would build more transit options for areas outside of urban areas. While Lifeline Plus would focus on densely populated areas such as Ann Arbor, Accessible County would have a more countywide perspective and integrate transit more thoroughly in areas such as Dexter and Chelsea.

The third plan, Smart Growth, would accomplish the same tasks as Accessible County, though it would possibly integrate rail elements (an element not found in either of the other two plans). Transit would become a permanent feature – it would serve to develop urban infrastructure and connect citizens to all parts of Washtenaw County.

Lifeline Plus: The Strengthening Scenario

Benham deferred to Juliet Edmonson to walk the audience through the scenarios in detail. Edmonson is a consultant with Steer Davies Gleave, which was contracted by the AATA to assist with the development of the countywide planning effort. She’s been living in Ann Arbor since last summer.

Lifeline Plus – Concept and Key Features

The first scenario, Lifeline Plus, is the one least different from existing transportation services. While Accessible County expands throughout all of Washtenaw County and Smart Growth aims to reinvent county’s transportation network, Lifeline Plus focuses on strengthening the current transportation options. It would start by enhancing the urban bus network. One key feature of the Lifeline Plus, explained Edmonds, is the expected increase in frequency of buses. More evening and weekend services would be available under the plan.

Along with increasing the frequency of services, Edmonson stressed that physical refurbishment and redevelopment of bus infrastructure would occur as well. Under the Lifeline Plus scenario, two existing transit stations would be developed further: the Blake Transit Center hub in Ann Arbor, and a similar one in Ypsilanti. The plan would also include a downtown circulator in Ann Arbor. In connection to circulators, Edmonson mentioned the LINK – an Ann Arbor downtown circulator that used to operate with purple-painted buses, but that was discontinued by the AATA board in August 2009. Under Lifeline Plus, she said, a service similar to the LINK would be restored.

AATA Lifeline Plus scenario (Image links to higher resolution .pdf of all three scenarios. )

Edmonson then relied on a colored map with various symbols to aid her next few points. The map gave a schematic representation of Washtenaw County, highlighting the cities of Chelsea, Dexter, Whitmore Lake, Barton Hills, Ann Arbor, Saline, Ypsilanti, Manchester, and Milan. Each town or city then had certain symbols next to its label – for example, all nine municipalities were tagged with a blue bus symbol, meaning that there would be vehicle improvements to buses across the county under the Lifeline Plus scenario.

Transit, Edmonson said, would also not be narrowly understood to include only buses: the Lifeline Plus scenario also includes enhancements for pedestrians and cyclists. Edmonson also indicated that in Ann Arbor there would be special focus on allowing for bus priority over other kinds of traffic. She said a chief goal of public transit is to allow for a reliable and consistent ride. If you are expecting your ride to take 20 minutes, she said, it should take 20 minutes.

Further emphasis would be placed on bus stops, including better shelters for the winter and easier sidewalk access. Integrated ticketing, she continued, would also be a priority under this scenario. Rather than penalizing people for using more than one kind of service, she said, the AATA would hope to centralize their ticketing, making it easier for customers to use multiple services.

Under the Lifeline Plus scenario, the kind of service offered currently by WAVE (Western Washtenaw Area Value Express), which is operated by a nonprofit, would be enhanced further, with longer operating hours; it would also be expected to integrate Chelsea and Dexter, as part the AATA’s vision for countywide transportation. The People’s Express, a transportation service for seniors, currently providing service in the townships, would also be enhanced to include Canton and Chelsea.

While the Lifeline Plus scenario improves existing options in Ann Arbor, the scenario also strengthens local transportation in Chelsea by including a local circulator. A shuttle currently operates in Chelsea, through a partnership with WAVE and the United Methodist Retirement Communities (UMRC). Under the Lifeline Plus scenario, that kind of shuttle would have longer operating hours.

On a more Ann Arbor-centric note, Edmonson explained that on the Lifeline Plus scenario, six new intercept park-and-ride lots would be available to commuters into downtown Ann Arbor. Park-and-ride commuters could park in a lot on the outskirts of Ann Arbor and catch a bus into the downtown area. The AATA already has four such park-and-ride lots, including the lot near Plymouth Road and US-23, which was constructed last year specifically as a park-and-ride lot.

An airport express shuttle would also be implemented on the Lifeline Plus scenario, making it easier to get to and from the Detroit Metro Airport. On a final countywide note, Edmonson said that two measures would be enhanced and promoted throughout the county: car/vanpools and door-to-door services. While both these services are available currently, Edmonson stressed that they would be even more accessible for everyone within the county under the Lifeline Plus scenario.

Accessible County: The Expansion Scenario

Edmonson assured the audience that her explanation of Accessible County would not be quite as comprehensive as Lifeline Plus, simply because every single feature included in Lifeline Plus would also be included in Accessible County. The Accessible County scenario would simply build even further on that base.

Accessible County – Concept and Key Features

Edmonson dived in to the Accessible County scenario by stressing a countywide express network and local transit hubs. Under this scenario, she said, Manchester, Saline, Milan, and Whitmore Lake would be included in this countywide network.

AATA Accessible County scenario (Image links to higher resolution .pdf of all three scenarios. )

For example, there would be an express service from Milan to Saline, and then to Ann Arbor. There may be another express service that runs through Manchester, then Saline, then finally to Ann Arbor. Faster trips would be an aspect of transportation addressed in Accessible County.

In the Lifeline Plus scenario, only Chelsea and Ann Arbor had a local circulator incorporated in the countywide transit plan. But under Accessible County, Chelsea, Dexter, and Saline would all have local circulators.

The final aspect of Accessible County not included in Lifeline Plus was a “Flex” ride service available for all residents of Washtenaw County. The Flex Ride would aim to fill in any gaps of other services and would have a personalized approach. The idea, Edmonson said, would be that a resident could call up the AATA and say, “I need to make this trip at this time,” and the AATA would make it work. That may be a door-to-door service, or that may mean sharing a car with more than one person, but the service would be for everyone, she said.

Smart Growth: The Re-Invention Scenario

The final scenario, Smart Growth, has the goal to “invest in transit across the county to stimulate economic growth and focus on land development in areas that best accommodate growth,” according to an AATA information booklet detailing the three scenarios. As with the second scenario, Smart Growth is cumulative and encompasses all the services offered in Lifeline Plus and Accessible County.

Smart Growth – Concept and Key Features

A defining feature of the Smart Growth scenario is the investment in regional rail systems, a feature not included in either of the other two scenarios. One rail line, the east-west connection, would run from Ann Arbor to Dearborn and Detroit.

AATA Smart Growth scenario (Image links to higher resolution .pdf of all three scenarios. )

A second rail line – the WALLY (Washtenaw Livingston Rail Line) – would be a commuter connection running north-south between Howell and Ann Arbor. Edmonson added that cities like Toledo were not included in the plan, but there is still the potential for those places to be incorporated in the Smart Growth model.

Two somewhat more local “high capacity” transit options would be included in Smart Growth: (1) Ann Arbor Connector – a connector running along the Plymouth Road and State Street corridors in Ann Arbor, bridging the University of Michigan campuses; and (2) Washtenaw Corridor Connector – a connector along Washtenaw Avenue between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. The term “high capacity” was left deliberately vague, with Edmonson saying this could mean light rail or perhaps bus rapid transit, where high-quality buses would be used. In both cases, the trip time for passengers would significantly decrease. [For more detailed Chronicle coverage of the Plymouth-State connector option, see: "AATA: Transit Study, Planning Updates"]

A Conversation Among Citizens

When Edmonson described the Plymouth-State connector, one forum attendee asked what would happen to University of Michigan buses running through that area. Benham responded that they would be replaced, at least partially, by something like the Ann Arbor Connector. Benham said this would reduce the currently cramped nature of these buses. “I know,” the attendee responded, “they’re standing room only.” Benham continued that if you want to get to downtown Ann Arbor, congestion clogs many of the roads before you arrive at Main Street. The idea of park-and-ride, he said, is to park on the outskirts – say around Briarwood Mall – and take a straight shot downtown using public transportation.

A second person asked, on a related note, whether the AATA was thinking to penalize people who drive to downtown Ann Arbor by increasing parking rates, thus indirectly encouraging the use of public transportation. [Setting parking rates is not within the purview of the AATA. Parking rates are currently set by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, with the city council holding a veto power.] Benham generalized, “I’ve heard talk of that; we welcome opportunities to get new riders.” The first attendee piped up again, saying, “For 75 cents, it’s worth it.” [Full fare on regular AATA buses is $1.50, but there's a $0.75 fare for students, as well as seniors age 60-64 (above 64, rides are free), income-eligible and disabled people.]

A third attendee brought some local perspective to the discussion. He mentioned the “good efforts” made in Saline in the past to bring about public transportation, but said that such offerings died for a lack of ridership. Do you think, he asked, enough people will support the comprehensive offerings of Smart Growth? Benham again responded in a general way, saying that’s a challenge faced by the AATA whenever they implement new programs.

Benham continued by stressing that the AATA is a creature of Ann Arbor – residents pay a transportation millage. Outside of that, however, the AATA has no guaranteed funding. The majority of funding for construction of these scenarios – Lifeline Plus, Accessible County, and Smart Growth – would come from federal grants. But in the past, these services have barely been able to get started before funding runs out. The whole rationale of this master plan, he continued, would be eventually achieve a more stable funding source.

The first attendee made a comment that followed up on the idea of transportation local to Saline, emphasizing that these buses can’t just run over by Briarwood or Ypsilanti – they have to come into Saline. Benham continued by acknowledging that the population of Washtenaw County has spread out, but the transportation system has not followed. We must, he said, start providing services for everyone within the county.

The Three Plans: Local Community Benefits

As a part of the scenario development, the AATA has attempted to quantify the benefits of different scenarios. [.pdf of benefit estimates]

Benham first highlighted the number of cars estimated to be taken off the road annually: the Lifeline Plus scenario would eliminate 2.9 million car trips, the Accessible County would eliminate 3.3 million, and Smart Growth would eliminate 5.4 million car trips annually.

Benham also highlighted the number of new jobs each scenario would create: from 418 for Lifeline Plus to 1,830 for Smart Growth. He then moved to the number of serious road accidents annually – under Smart Growth, a projected 111 serious car accidents are estimated to be prevented per year.

Along with that, he continued, there would be an increase in the senior population who are within walking distance to transit. Environmentally, each plan would include a significant reduction in emissions.

Benham emphasized that the numbers were conservative, and that perhaps even more businesses would relocate to Ann Arbor just because of Lifeline Plus. The effect, he explained, is indirect. With a stronger public transportation plan, he continued, employees would easily be able to get to and from work.

Additionally, the congestion in Ann Arbor would be eased because of the decrease in cars on the road. Even the smoggy atmosphere of Ann Arbor, one forum participant chimed in, would be relieved. As a result of all these positive impacts, Benham concluded, businesses would be more likely to locate near Ann Arbor, thus bringing more success and prosperity to the area.

Capital and Operational Costs

Benham then moved to the question of cost – both to build the infrastructure and to operate the system once it’s built. [.pdf of cost estimates]

Capital costs for the different scenarios break down like this for a 30-year period:

• Lifeline Plus: $48 million
• Accessible County: $51 million
• Smart Growth: $465 million

Annual total operating expenses break down like this:

• Lifeline Plus: ~$73 million
• Accessible County: ~$78 million
• Smart Growth: ~$100 million

While the Lifeline Plus and Accessible County are similar in capital cost, the Smart Growth scenario is considerably higher, because offers a new dimension of high-capacity transit and regional rail services. But, Benham pointed out, not all of those costs would be paid by Washtenaw County taxpayers alone. In the case of the rail options included in Smart Growth, roughly two-thirds of the track would be located in Wayne County. We want to emphasize cost, Benham said, not funding.

Benham then introduced a pie chart indicating various sources of funding. Historically, the federal government has paid for 45% of the funding; the state has paid another 13%; local sources contribute 16%; and the final 26% is generated directly through fares.

Benham cited the Millennium Park project in Chicago as a model for how funds could be broken down to minimize the expense on the taxpayer – in that example, the project cost half a billion dollars. Yet one-third of that came from private sources. Edmonson added that individuals, institutions, and corporations all have an incentive to contribute. Benham then returned to the local scenarios, saying that one-third of the operating costs would be shouldered by local residents.

The total operating cost divided into a scenario’s total community benefits makes up that scenario’s cost-benefit ratio. The Smart Growth scenario has the highest cost-benefit ratio, of 3.12 – that is, for every $1 of additional operating cost, the community receives an additional $3.12 of benefit. Lifeline Plus has a 2.6 cost-benefit ratio, while Accessible County’s is a near-identical 2.62.

Conclusion: Addressing Transit Needs

After discussing the funding side of the transit equation, Benham and Edmonson quickly switched to general benefits of transit, on any of the three scenarios. Transit, they said, relieves congestion, boosts our regional economy, increases choice riders, and allows senior populations to age in place. Benham continued, saying that people don’t realize they actually get time back on the bus. “Get some work done – sleep,” he said, adding jokingly, “text.”

But the AATA, he said, cannot do this alone. In every one of the scenarios – as well as for its current operations – the AATA has “strategic alliances” with WAVE, People’s Express, and Manchester Senior Services, Benham said.

He underlined that the term “transportation” need not be limited to buses and railways. The AATA also seeks to expand bikeways and sidewalks, along with roadways. One forum attendee, who had not spoken until that point, added that they’d seen how a person in a wheelchair had not been accommodated on a bus on South University Avenue.

Another forum attendee pointed out the need for additional bike racks or some similar device to allow cyclists to use buses. Benham responded by saying that currently buses do allow for bikes to be attached to front-mounted racks, but sometimes space is limited. “We are victims of our own success.” Safety is the top priority, and the possibility of hooking bikes to the back of buses – as the citizen was suggesting – allowed for a potential danger of theft. We can’t, he stressed, create situations that are potentially unsafe.

Switching gears, Benham pointed out that if the current trends continue, development will be everywhere. But if planning tools are used, space can remain open. Benham then showed a slide illustrating the projected impact on land use in the county, with and without investments in transit and other development tools. Without transit investments, the slide showed a continued loss of open space and agricultural land and a decrease in sense of place.

Contrasting maps showing future development in Washtenaw County. (Image links to higher resolution. pdf file)

Benham then used a transit center in Tempe, Ariz. to illustrate the potential of transit hubs. The Arizona center is a multi-use green facility that serves as a center for the entire community. It includes a bike station and even showers – it became more than a transit stop.

As his PowerPoint presentation came to an end, Benham said again that community input is vital. What do you, as residents, want the future to be like? With that, two forum attendees shared their own experiences with transit.

The first was a woman from Chelsea who helped establish the local circulator that runs through town. While the circulator began strictly for those in Chelsea’s United Methodist Retirement Communities (UMRC), she emphasized that it is hard for nonprofits to get funding. Eventually, they collaborated with the WAVE. She emphasized that even a simple circulator helps seniors maintain their independence. Saline, she added, also needs something like that.

The second resident has a son with a developmental disability, and emphasized that public transportation is crucial. Especially from Saline to Ann Arbor, she said, we need countywide transportation.

And with those last two comments, Benham thanked attendees for coming and expressed his appreciation for the community’s interest and involvement. [For county residents who cannot attend any of the forums, the AATA is also seeking feedback on the three scenarios using an online survey.]

Eunice Burns and Shirley Axon, co-founders of Huron River Day, were at the podium to receive a proclamation honoring the event to be held July 11. (Photos by the writer.)

Public commentary and deliberations on those two issues sent the council’s meeting well past midnight. [Chronicle coverage of those issues is included in Part 1 of this meeting report: "Unscripted: Historic District, Immigration"]

The council transacted a lot of other business as well. Councilmembers approved a change to the zoning code that modifies the list of allowable uses for public land so that the planned Fuller Road Station can be accommodated. Also passed was a change to the site plan approval process, which relaxes the requirement that up-to-date site plans be accessible to the public on a 24/7 basis.

Parks were front and center, and not just because of the public hearing and council action on allowable uses of public land. At the start of the meeting, a proclamation was made for Huron River Day, which takes place at Gallup Park on Sunday, July 11. And the council continued its pattern at the first meeting of the month of recognizing volunteers who help maintain the city’s parks through the Adopt-a-Park program.

In other action, the council approved the $2.5 million purchase of development rights for the 286-acre Braun farm in Ann Arbor Township, as recommended by the city’s greenbelt advisory commission, and established a residential parking permit program for the South University area.

Public Land Uses

Before the council was the second reading of a proposed revision to the city’s zoning ordinances, which calls for a change to the list of allowable land uses for land that is zoned as public land (PL). Some public land, but not all, is used for parks. The change was proposed to include “transportation facilities” so that the planned Fuller Road Station would unambiguously be included in the allowable uses.

[During his communications time, city administrator Roger Fraser indicated the the fourth public meeting on the Fuller Road Station would be held July 8 from 7-9 p.m. at the lower level meeting room at the county building at 200 N. Main St.]

The council had given the item some discussion at its June 21, 2010 meeting:

The planning commission had considered and unanimously recommended the change at its May 4, 2010 meeting. It’s been the subject of conversation in the community over the last couple of months in connection with the proposed Fuller Road Station – the project that prompted the desire to change the possible uses in the PL designation. The proposed change would replace “municipal airport” with “transportation facilities.”

5:10.13. PL public land district.
(1) Intent. This district is designed to classify publicly-owned uses and land and permit the normal principal and incidental uses required to carry out governmental functions and services.
(2) Permitted principal uses.
(a) Outdoor public recreational uses, such as: playgrounds, playfields, golf courses, boating areas, fishing sites, camping sites, parkways and parks. No structure shall be erected or maintained upon dedicated park land which is not customarily incidental to the principal use of the land.
(b) Natural open space, such as: conservation lands, wildlife sanctuaries, forest preserves.
(c) Developed open space, such as: arboreta, botanical and zoological gardens.
(d) Educational services, such as: public primary and secondary schools, and institutions of higher education.
(e) Cultural services, such as: museums and art galleries.
(f) Public-service institutions, such as: hospitals, sanatoria, homes for the elderly, children’s homes and correctional institutions.
(g) Essential services, buildings containing essential services and electrical substations.
(h) Municipal airports Transportation facilities.
(i) Civic center.
(j) Government offices and courts.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know why the change was a replacement of one term with another – why not add a term instead? Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, indicated that adding a list of possible facilities would possibly be seen as exhaustive. Higgins got confirmation that the impetus for the change was one project – Fuller Road Station.

Public Land Uses: Public Comment and Hearing

During the council’s general commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Julie Grand – the current chair of the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) – addressed the council on the topic of Fuller Road Station. She reminded the council that in their communications packet there was a resolution passed unanimously by PAC concerning the Fuller Road Station. She asked the council to read the resolution. Highlights from the resolution are process and revenue, she said. It’s important that the process be public and that a clear schedule be presented. It’s also important that the parks not lose money on the proposal. [Chronicle coverage: "PAC Softens Stance on Fuller Road Station"]

John Satarino, former chair of PAC, addressed the council on the topic of altering the possible uses of public land.

Introducing himself as former PAC chair was John Satarino, who called the change of permissible uses of public land in the city’s zoning code “a peculiar form of municipal corruption.” He called the Fuller Road Station agreement with the University of Michigan probably the “greatest ripoff sweetheart deal” in the city’s history.

He called it a “parkland grab” for the construction of a huge parking structure. Any transit use beyond the parking uses, he said, was years off. Secrecy and distortions, he said, had been used to limit public participation in the project. He said this was orchestrated by the city administrator, who seemed to have a disdain for the city’s parks.

Satarino then ticked through a number of items. He said that the “city bosses” had gotten an appraisal for the entire south end of Fuller Park for over $4 million, for the purpose of selling it to the University of Michigan to be used as housing. He contended there had been no public hearing yet on the Fuller Road Station. There’d been no public participation – by PAC or the Sierra Club – at the major organizational meetings where key planning was updated.

Gwen Nystuen, a current member of PAC, told the council that she’d attended the city planning commission meeting when the proposal had been reviewed by planning commissioners and had watched the city council’s treatment of the topic at the first reading. She said that the possible uses for public land could cover almost anything, and wondered if there was any use that was not possible for public land? She couldn’t think of any, she said. But isn’t the use of public land as open space and parks granted special legal status? she asked.

The real question is the standard by which the use is treated. If there’s a piece of land zoned PL, what is the process required in order to build an intermodal transit center on that land? What impediments currently exist, that have prompted the change in PL uses? The only place that she had found transportation facilities elsewhere in the zoning code is under M2 Heavy Industrial District, she said. There were many buffers required for adjacent land uses, she said, and she wondered if those standards would be used or not.

She concluded by reading aloud the first principal use for PL: “Outdoor public recreational uses, such as: playgrounds, playfields, golf courses, boating areas, fishing sites, camping sites, parkways and parks. No structure shall be erected or maintained upon dedicated park land which is not customarily incidental to the principal use of the land.”

Rita Mitchell suggested that the change meant a change from the way that people actually viewed parkland. Residents have different expectations of public land that’s used as a park than they do for other public land. The city hall building, for example, is also public land, she stated, but parkland is different – it’s something meant for recreation, for open space, available for people to come and go freely. The language change reflects an erosion of that expectation, she said.

Mitchell said that in some of the early meetings, it had been acknowledged that there was a need to change the zoning code to allow the Fuller Road Station project to “fit” better into the code. She said that she considered the current path for the project to be a “taking” of parkland from citizens that was intended to be used as open space. She cited the 2008 charter referendum, when voters expressed by an 80% majority that if parkland was to be sold, they wanted to vote on it. She challenged the council to make the case to the voters.

Brad Mikus noted the “such as” pattern to most of the items on the list – “… such as: conservation lands, wildlife sanctuaries, forest preserves.” That contrasts with the item that would swap in a single item “transportation facilities.” What is that, he asked? If the amendment is just for Fuller Road Station, he suggested that they should just change it to “parking deck” – so that the item would read “transportation facilities, such as a municipal airport or a parking deck.”

Introducing himself as a candidate for city council in Ward 5, “the only Republican in Ann Arbor,” was John Floyd. He suggested that if the city council thought that constructing a parking structure in the middle of Fuller Park was a great deal, why didn’t they just sell the land to the university? What’s the point of the city owning the land? he asked. The tortured legal reasoning involved by changing the language wasn’t fooling anyone, he said – the city was effectively selling the land to the university without having a sale. Why would the city want to own the university’s commuter parking lot? The idea that we would change the zoning code’s definition of public land use to avoid the process of selling the land just seems silly, he said.

Beverly Strassmann echoed the remarks made by Rita Mitchell and said that she had a new perspective on Fuller Park. In the fall of 2007, she said, she’d been a patient for two months at the University of Michigan hospital after returning from Africa with an undiagnosed illness. What had helped her get through that difficult time was that she’d looked out her hospital window at the parkland – she’d had a room with a view of the park.

Introducing himself as a candidate for the 18th District state senate seat in the Democratic primary was Thomas Partridge. He suggested that the city and the university could find a better location for the parking deck than the already very congested area of Fuller Road. He is not against a transit station, he said, but was against one at that location.

Public Land Uses: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) offered an amendment very much along similar lines as the suggestion from Brad Mikus during public commentary. The replacement language offered an elaboration of examples of what “transportation facilities” might include: ” … such as: municipal airports, train stations, bus stations, bicycle centers, auto and bicycle parking facilities.”

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) clarified with Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office that “such as” was not limiting language. Otherwise put, it was not construed as exhaustive of permissible facility types, and there was no limitation.

Mayor John Hieftje then clarified something that had also been discussed at the council’s previous meeting when the ordinance change had been given its first reading – the change in language was not substantial enough that it needed to go back to first reading.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he felt that simple use of a generic term was preferable, but had no objections to the “such as” language. However, Derezinski said he wanted to make sure that the minutes of the meeting reflected the belief of the council that the examples were not being given in a limiting way. [Note: The city council's minutes conform to the minimum requirements of the Open Meetings Act, but do not typically include the kind of detail that Derezinski wanted.]

Outcome: The amendment to the resolution as well as the ordinance change itself was unanimously approved.

Required Display of Plans

Before the council for its second reading was an ordinance revision affecting the availability of site plans for public inspection.

Currently, the city code on the approval process requires that up-to-date drawings for site plans be available in the lobby of the city hall 24/7 for a week before public hearings. The proposal recommended by the planning commission would relax the code by deleting the 24/7 requirement and by making clear that there’s not an obligation to continually update the material with any changes that might be made. Material recommended to be deleted is struck through, with proposed added language in italics.

5:135. Public information and hearings.

(2) Area plans, site plans, site plans for Planning Commission approval, PUD site plans, and preliminary plats and land divisions under review shall be displayed in a publicly accessible location in City Hall open to the public 24 hours per day, 7 days each week, for at least 1 week prior to the City Council and Planning Commission public hearings. Plans shall be current at the time of placement and subsequent revisions, if any, shall be available in the planning offices.

The issue had received brief discussion at the council’s previous meeting on June 21, 2010, with Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asking if technologies had been explored to expand accessibility to drawings. [For additional background, which includes how the accessibility requirement factored into a delay for the approval process for the City Place project last year, see Chronicle coverage: "Planning Commission: A Matter of Timing" The timing change referenced in that headline – from strict deadlines for planning commission and city council action, to a "reasonable time" standard – was approved on first reading at the July 6 council meeting, but will need approval on a second reading to be enacted.]

Required Display of Plans: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge decried the fact that the ordinance revision did not include a provision to ensure that fundamental requirements of affordable housing are included in the city’s ordinances. Mayor John Hieftje admonished Partridge to speak to the topic of the hearing, which was accessibility to site plan drawings. Partridge responded by saying that the issue related to a lack of transparency for site plans that lacked access to affordable housing. Because of the lack of transparency, he said, the city had been able to subvert the needs of residents for accessibility to affordable housing.

Required Display of Plans: Council Deliberations

The council did not deliberate on the resolution.

Outcome: The ordinance change that no longer requires updated site plans to be accessible to the public 24/7 a week before public hearings was unanimously approved.

Residential Parking District

The rationale for establishing Residential Parking Districts is to give residents of an area an advantage over non-residents in competition for street parking. From the city code:

Residential parking districts. If a residential area has excessive parking of vehicles not owned by residents of the area, the Administrator may, after notice to City Council, issue a traffic control order designating a residential parking district. The city shall install signs in a residential parking district indicating that parking time limits do not apply to vehicles with permits.

Before the council was a resolution establishing a residential parking permit program (RPP) in the South University area. The South University Neighborhood Association (SUNA) has not been able to file a petition with 60% signed support, which is required. The staff memo accompanying the resolution attributed the failure to achieve 60% to the low number of long-term residents in the area, and recommended the district be established by waiving the requirement that the association submit a petition request with 60% signed support. [.pdf map of SUNA RPP]

At its June 21 meeting, the council had considered and approved an RPP in the Old Fourth Ward, with a similar rationale for waiving the 60% requirement. [.pdf map of OFW RPP]

The installation of signs for the OFW and SUNA districts will cost $20,985 ($415.55 x 50.5) and $4,156 ($415.55 x 10), respectively. The money will be taken from the city’s unobligated fund balance.

Permits for RPP districts are sold for $50, but only to residents, as defined in the application for a permit:

Residential Parking Permits will only be issued TO APPLICANTS LIVING IN THE AFFECTED AREA. You must show proof that residency has been established by providing a copy of:
1.    Motor vehicle registration showing the vehicle is registered in your name (applicant, spouse, or licensed dependent living at address – if last names differ, also provide a copy of birth certificate, marriage license, or other official document supporting request), and
2.    One of the Following: a. Current utility bill containing the appropriate name and address. b. Rent or lease agreement containing the appropriate name and address. c. Notarized declaration of residency by the owner or manager of a rental property. d. Driver’s license with the appropriate name and address.

The two residential parking permit programs are being established in connection with the University of Michigan dormitory at Huron and State, slated to open this fall.

During the brief council deliberations, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) described the SUNA parking district as the next area down the ring from the OFW parking district that the council had just put into place. The area has already been heavily impacted with commuter and long-term car storage, she said.

Outcome: The residential parking permit program for SUNA was unanimously approved.

Greenbelt

Before the council was an item to authorize $2,548,667 using money from the city’s greenbelt and open space millage to purchase development rights on the Charles F. and Catherine A. Braun property. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Also, New Appraisals Hike City's Cost for Two Properties"]

Mayor John Hieftje asked Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) – who serves on the city’s greenbelt advisory commission – to explain some of the background for the item. Hohnke described the property as one of those that inspired the desire to create the greenbelt program. The property was appraised, he said, and Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) funds were awarded. Delays at the federal level in reviewing the application moved the process past a 12-month window, during which appraisals are required to be current, so a new appraisal was requested. In the interim, property values went down, and the appraisal was reduced. Consequently matching FRPP funds were also reduced, explained Hohnke.

The net impact to the city is $121,000, Hohnke said, or roughly 5% of the budget for the project. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission continues to recommend purchase of the property, he said.

Outcome: The purchase of development rights for the Braun property was unanimously approved.

Unions

Before the council was a resolution approving the terms of a collective bargaining agreement for Police Deputy Chiefs Unit, Teamsters Local 214. The contract runs from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2011 and was subject to a wage and health care reopener for the final year of the contract.

Highlights from the human resources staff memorandum on the terms:

1. Updated Healthcare Plan to include a High and Low Plan Options, with an increase in deductibles and premiums, an increase to Preventative Care from the current level of $750 to $1000, and an increase in Co-Pays for Mandatory Mail Order Prescriptions to two co-pays for every three months of mail order prescriptions, effective August 1, 2010.

2. Increase in pension contribution to 6% (pre-tax) effective August 1, 2010.

3. Elimination of ICMA 457 match by the City effective July 1, 2010.

4. A $500 HRA contribution for each member effective July 1, 2010.

5. No across the board increase in wages.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said that as chair of the council’s labor committee, he was pleased to see the agreement and the resolution come forward. The terms provide savings to the city, he said, specifically in the area of increasing their own contributions to health care benefits. The health care plan they were voting on, Rapundalo said, is the same one enjoyed by the city’s non-union workers, with the same contribution level. Rapundalo also highlighted the fact that there’ll be an increase in the pension contribution made by employees and no across-the-board increase in wages.

Rapundalo thanked members of the union for stepping up and making sacrifices to help the city work within its budgetary constraints.

Ann Arbor is not unique in the need to achieve savings, Rapundalo reminded his council colleagues. He ticked through several other Michigan cities where safety services personnel had accepted significant percentage decreases in total benefits.

Outcome: The resolution was unanimously approved.

Miscellaneous Communications

Communications: Parks and Procs

The Golden Paintbrush Awards were handed out by Margaret Parker, chair of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission.

Carrie Hatcher Kay was honored for her volunteer work in the city’s parks.

The council continued its pattern of recognizing volunteers who help maintain the city’s parks through the Adopt-a-Park program. On Tuesday, Carrie Hatcher Kay was honored for her work in Waterworks and Maryfield Wildwood parks.

Huron River Day – which will take place at Gallup Park on the Huron River from 12-4 p.m Sunday, July 11, 2010 – was highlighted with a proclamation received by Huron River Day co-founders Shirley Axon and Eunice Burns.

Later, during his communications to the council, city administrator Roger Fraser highlighted the sponsors of the event: DTE Energy Foundation, Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing, Whole Foods, University of Michigan Credit Union, Stantec Consulting Services Inc, Bank of Ann Arbor, City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County Drain Commission, Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation, National Wildlife Federation, Huron River Watershed Council, and Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority.

Fraser also highlighted a variety of other activities that day – the Gallup Gallop, a 5K run and walk sponsored by the Ann Arbor Track Club, plus $5 canoe and kayak rentals.

Communications: Single-Stream Recycling

Single-stream recycling had started the previous day, Fraser reported. There’s no longer any need to keep paper separate from containers, he said. Except for #3 plastic, all clean plastic items can go into the curbside pickup program, including plastic yogurt cups. Even lawn furniture and 5-gallon buckets are also now acceptable.

Batteries and motor oil, Fraser said, are no longer accepted as part of the curbside program – however, residents could continue to bring those items to the drop-off station at Ellsworth and Platt.

Later in the evening, mayor John Hieftje made a point in connection with a tangentially-related item that the new $3 entrance fee to the drop-off station would be included in the range of rewards that residents could earn through the new RecycleBank awards program. [RecycleBank will begin Sept. 1, 2010.] Solid waste manager for the city, Tom McMurtie, explained that the fee had been instituted by Recycle Ann Arbor when the county withdrew its funding. Recycle Ann Arbor then chose to not accept city funding, rather than try to distinguish between city residents and non-city residents in assessing an entrance fee.

The new recycling carts will be distributed, starting Friday, July 9 – it’ll take 6-8 weeks for that process to take place. In the meantime, Fraser said, residents can continue to use their dual-stream totes. The totes can continue to be used by residents as they like, or placed in the new recycling carts.

Communications: Environment

The city has been selected to compete for two $500,000 two-year grants from the Home Depot Foundation as part of the Sustainable Cities Institute program. The city is partnering with the University of Michigan’s Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute on a proposal to make the city’s rental housing stock more energy efficient. There are only four cities competing for the two $500,000 grants, Fraser said.

Speaking to the topic of the impact of the heavy rains from June 6 on the community, Fraser said that the city would be purchasing radar data to understand better how the storm hit the city and what the impact was. It would help to evaluate the sanitary sewer system’s response to the storm and to make decisions about future capital improvement investments, including the footing drain disconnect program and the maintenance of the sanitary sewer system.

Road damages sustained during the storm are being reviewed, Fraser said.

Communications: Infrastructure

Regarding funding for the replacement of the East Stadium bridges, Fraser reported that the federal TIGER 2 preliminary grant phase is open – those applications are due by July 16. On July 30, the city will find out if they’ll be invited to submit the application for the second phase. A crucial criterion for advancement to the second phase, said Fraser, is the existence of local matching funds. The deadline for the second phase application is Aug. 23, with news expected on approval anticipated by the end of the year. The project is expected to start after the spring thaw in 2011, Fraser said.

Fraser also ticked through a number of road construction projects that are in progress.

Present: Stephen Rapundalo,Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke

Absent: Mike Anglin,

Next council meeting: July 19, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave.

The state’s constitution also came up in a recent letter conveyed to the city of Ann Arbor by an attorney for Alex de Parry, the developer of a proposed project called Heritage Row along Fifth Avenue south of William Street. The project was voted down at the Ann Arbor city council’s June 21 meeting on a 7-4 vote in favor, thus failing to meet the eight-vote majority required. [Chronicle coverage of that meeting is forthcoming.]

The main focus of the letter, sent to the city by de Parry’s legal counsel the same day as the council met to vote on Heritage Row, is not that project per se, but rather the historic district that the council may decide to establish at its next meeting on July 6. The recommended historic district, which includes the parcels that were to be used to build Heritage Row, received its initial consideration by the council at their June 21 meeting.

While its more customary for councilmembers to vote for a proposal at its first reading, even if they’re against it, three councilmembers at the June 21 meeting chose to oppose the establishment of the district already at its first reading. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 2 Ward 4) all voted against the historic district.

None of the three cited the specific issues raised in the letter from de Parry’s legal counsel as reasons for voting against the district – Derezinski had voted at the council’s Aug. 6, 2009 meeting against establishing a committee to study the question. And Rapundalo had supported a postponement of that vote.

But for the final vote on July 6, the points raised in the letter from de Parry’s legal counsel may well factor explicitly into the council’s deliberations. The legal reasoning in the letter leads to the conclusion that the way local historic districts are set up in Michigan potentially violates the state’s constitution. And if the reasoning in the letter stands legal scrutiny, it could change the way any future historic districts in the state of Michigan are established.

The Letter’s Main Points

The letter, written by Peter Webster, an attorney with Dickinson Wright PLLC, includes four basic points concerning the proposed historic district. The first two are general in nature, and relate to any historic district. The second two concern specific issues related to the proposed district in Ann Arbor along Fourth and Fifth avenues south of William Street.

1. Establishment of a historic district results in an unconstitutional “taking.”
2. The city council does not have the authority to adopt a historic district because a majority of the property owners within the proposed historic district have not signed a written petition in support of the district.
3. The study report submitted by the study committee does not justify the establishment of a historic district.
4. The study committee had a member with a conflict of interest.

We consider the letter’s points in reverse order.

Letter: Contention of Conflict of Interest

On Dec. 15, 2008, the city council considered but rejected establishing a committee to study an area south of William Street, continuing south of Packard Street to Madison Street to determine whether it would be appropriate to establish a historic district there.  Then at its Aug. 6, 2009 meeting, the council established a study committee for a smaller area along Fourth and Fifth avenues south of William Street and north of Packard Street. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "S. Fifth Avenue: Historic District, Development"]

The establishment of the study committee came when a “matter of right” version of a previously rejected development by Alex de Parry, called City Place, was moving through the city’s approval process. On the night of Aug. 6, 2009, the deliberations by councilmembers included references to the establishment of the study committee – and an associated moratorium on construction in the area – as a “tool in the tool box” and an option in the city council’s “arsenal.”

The council subsequently appointed members to the study committee: Ina Hanel-Gerdenich, Susan Wineberg, Sarah Shotwell Wallace, Patrick McCauley, Rebecca Lopez Kriss, Tom Whitaker and Kristi Gilbert.

Webster’s letter contends that Tom Whitaker’s membership on the historic district study committee posed a possible conflict of interest. From the letter [Fifth Avenue Limited Partnership is de Parry's development company]:

Mr. Whitaker wanted to buy the property owned by Fifth Avenue Limited Partnership for a cheap price. To that end, he created a limited liability company called Limited Resources, LLC on January 16, 2009. On January 17, 2009, he entered into a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement with Fifth Avenue Limited Partnership, and on January 30, 2009 provided a non-binding letter of intent as to basic terms for the purchase of the property under land contract.

Mr. Whitaker established a deadline for Fifth Avenue Limited Partnership to accept his offers after which he communicated that he would withdraw his offers and put his focus fully on the efforts of the Germantown Neighborhood Association which is to prevent the development of the property. After Fifth Avenue Limited Partnership rejected Mr. Whitaker’s offers and submitted redevelopment plans, Mr. Whitaker continued his efforts to advocate a moratorium against any redevelopment of the site, the establishment of a historic district, and sought to be appointed to the Historic District Study Committee which would have the practical effect of destroying Mr. DeParry’s redevelopment plans and reduce its market value. Perhaps it was, and still remains, Mr. Whitaker’s desire to buy the property at a depressed value after the establishment of a historic district.

In a telephone interview with The Chronicle, Whitaker declined to discuss details, citing the confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement he’d signed. He did confirm the formation of Limited Resources, LLC, but noted that the entity was not formed solely to explore the possible purchase of properties owned by de Parry. For example, Whitaker had used Limited Resources to purchase the house next door to his own house, he said.

Whitaker also characterized the negotiations as cordial, but said they did not ultimately converge to agreement with respect to a mechanism for the financial transaction or the dollar amounts involved. Responding to the characterization in the letter of his desire to purchase the properties at “a cheap price,” Whitaker said his was not a “low-ball” offer. Whitaker also noted his personal belief was that historic districts stabilize or increase the value of property, as opposed to lowering its value – which, Whitaker said, would be counter to the goal that Webster’s letter contends Whitaker had.

Letter: Justification in the Study Committee Report

Webster’s June 21 letter also contends that the study committee’s final report does not justify the establishment of the district. Without a great deal of elaboration about the specifics that are included in the report, the June 21 letter ticks through various requirements, concluding for each that they are not met.

• The preliminary report must address at a minimum the historic district or districts studied [MCL 399.203(1)(d)].
• The study committee must inventory all resources in the proposed district and express the percentage of historic to non-historic as required by the Local Historic Districts Act [MCL 399.201 - 399.215].
• The study committee was required to [d]etermine the total number of historic and nonhistoric resources within a proposed historic district and the percentage of historic resources of that total [MCL 399.203(1)(c)].

A previous letter sent by Webster on May 5, 2010 lays out in more detail some of the issues surrounding the identification and enumeration of all the resources in the district.  For example, the preliminary report created by the committee included the following description of previous studies of the area:

Portions of the district were surveyed as part of larger surveys by the city of Ann Arbor in 1973, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1982, 1988 and 1990. Copies of the survey forms and photographs are located at the City of Ann Arbor in the offices of the Community Services Area, Planning and Development Services Unit.

The May 5 letter from Webster criticizes that section of the preliminary report as follows:

The Report acknowledges that portions of the study area were part of other “surveys” in the following years 1973, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1982, 1988, and in 1990. In fact, the entire City of Ann Arbor had been exhaustively studied over the years to determine historic resources and proposed historic districts. Beyond the literal one sentence about these prior studies, nothing was addressed, and consequently, the Report fails to meet the legal requirements in this regard.

And in the final report approved by the committee, the section on previous surveys is expanded, essentially to explain why those previous surveys did not factor more prominently in the report [new material in italics]:

Portions of the proposed district were surveyed as part of larger formal and informal “windshield” surveys by the city of Ann Arbor in 1973, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1982, 1988 and 1990. These surveys consist only of a photo inventory and covered many different areas of the city. The inventories do not have associated survey reports and do not make evaluations or conclusions about potential historic properties or districts. The surveys do not contain any historic research and were of little value to the Committee’s work. Copies of all the survey data are located at the City of Ann Arbor in the offices of the Community Services Area, Planning and Development Services Unit.

In another example, the preliminary study committee report describes fencing in the recommended district:

Seven properties have mature (possibly lilac) bushes in the front and/or side or rear yards. The historic fencing in the district consists of a wrought iron fence shared by two properties and one example of a wood frame fence with a middle section of metal chicken wire. The latter is unique in that it includes one section topped with old wrought iron cresting. Both fences have associated gates.

Webster’s May 5 letter critiques that section, which was not modified in the final report, as follows:

… the Report must define essential features that must be present for the property to be considered historic. There is no explanation of why claimed features are historic. For example, there is no explanation of why a chicken wire fence is significant to German immigrants. Was chicken wire (apparently a historic feature), a symbol or especially important to such residents? Or was it run of the mill that is just old.

The central point from Webster’s June 21 letter about the justification of the district is a critique of three themes identified in the report as helping to justify the establishment of the district:

The Fourth and Fifth Avenue district is located at the intersection of three key elements of Ann Arbor’s settlement history: early settlement, German ethnic settlement, and settlement associated with the University of Michigan.

In the June 21 letter, Webster writes:

Recognition of historic significance does not justify the concocted “period of significance” and use of three different and separate “themes” to justify inclusion of virtually every single building in the area as being historic. Under this rationale, which knows no bounds, the City of Ann Arbor could claim the “theme” is the “history of development in Ann Arbor” with a “period of significance” from its inception to present and claim the entire City as a historic district.

Webster’s May 5 letter also contends that there is no principled basis for the proposed boundary of the district. That is a point of possible agreement among residents living south of Packard along Fourth and Fifth avenues, and whose property is not recommended for inclusion in the district.

At the city council’s June 21 meeting, several residents addressed the council, objecting to  the recommended southern boundary at Packard Street, arguing that the proposed district should extend southward to Madison. An argument for a larger district is based partly on residents’ contention that the block of Fifth Avenue south of Packard is actually the center of the historic resources in the area – it’s the only completely intact streetscape in the neighborhood. It’s also based on the historical significance of specific people who lived in the houses.

Letter: Is a Supporting Petition Required?

While two of the four points raised in Webster’s June 21 letter are specific to the establishment of a historic district on Fourth and Fifth avenues, the other two also bear in a general way on the interpretation of Michigan statutes.

One of those points is a single sentence of the Local Historic Districts Act concerning time frames and petitions [MCL 399.203(3)(b)]:

A local unit shall not pass an ordinance establishing a contiguous historic district less than 60 days after a majority of the property owners within the proposed historic district, as listed on the tax rolls of the local unit, have approved the establishment of the historic district pursuant to a written petition.

Webster’s letter contends that this sentence requires a petition to be signed by a majority of the property owners within a proposed district in order for a local government to establish an historic district. That’s counter to a state attorney general opinion on the question, which Webster acknowledges in his letter, but argues against, citing the legislative intent of the language.

The attorney general’s opinion from 1997, written by then-attorney general Frank Kelley, gives deference to the interpretation provided by  The Michigan Historical Center, which is the state agency charged with administering the Local Historic Districts Act. The attorney general’s opinion cites the center’s interpretation as summarized in Michigan Historic Preservation Network’s publication, “A Guide to Michigan’s Local Historic Districts Act”:

The last sentence of 3(3), included in P.A. 96 by amendment, must be carefully read. It provides that if a petition of support, signed by more than 50% of the property owners in a proposed contiguous historic district, is presented to the local legislative body, then the local legislative body must wait sixty days before adopting an ordinance of designation for that district. Note that no petition is required; note also that the section does not address the issue of petitions in opposition, which do not trigger the waiting period. If a support petition is presented, the sixty day wait must be observed. After that time, the local legislative body is free to adopt, reject, or otherwise handle the proposed ordinance as if there had been no petition.

Webster’s letter, on the other hand, contends that the legislative intent of the language was to protect property rights, and was intended to preclude the enactment of an ordinance until 60 days after a majority petition has approved of the establishment of the historic district.

Webster’s letter also alludes to the petition requirement arising from a “plain reading” of the statute. The Chronicle sought to compare the language in the Local Historic Districts Act to grammatically similar language in other contexts, and identified the following parallel construction in a regulation on human resources policies in Latvia:

The dismissal process cannot be commenced less than 60 days after the employer has submitted a formal notification to the State Employment Service and the appropriate municipality.

Here, on a plain reading interpretation, it seems apparent enough that a dismissal process requires the submission of a formal notification to the State Employment Service.

Not discussed in Webster’s letter, but also relevant to the interpretation of the Local Historic Districts Act, is a basic tenet of statutory interpretation that a legislative body did not intend an absurd result with its legislative language.

The result of the attorney general’s opinion is that someone who is interested in supporting the establishment of an historic district – and who demonstrates that support by circulating a petition that succeeds in garnering a majority of resident signatures – succeeds in only in delaying the establishment of the district upon submission of that supporting petition. A reasonable contention, then, is that this is an absurd result, and therefore could not have been the intent of the legislators.

The point of Webster’s letter with respect to the historic district currently being weighed by the Ann Arbor city council is that no supporting petition has been submitted.

At least some councilmembers might apply the requirement of majority support before voting for the district – independently of whether that support is shown through a written petition. For example, in a 2006 interview with Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), he stated:

My very first comment regarding historic districts is I don’t think that it’s the government’s role to impose something of that nature, unless the majority of the people in the neighborhood want it.

Letter: The Constitutional Argument

Of the four points made in Webster’s letter, the one with potential for broadest impact is the contention that Michigan’s statutes have a combined effect that a formation of a local historic district results in an unconstitutional de facto taking of property.

Regulatory Taking

It’s worth first considering a different kind of infringement of property rights, which Webster does not focus on in his letter – but also explicitly reserves the right to claim. From Webster’s letter [emphasis added]:

Without waiving or discussing traditional arguments that the City’s exercise of the police power to establish a historic district is an unconstitutional regulatory taking, I wanted to identify that under Michigan statutes, the establishment of a historic district is not merely a regulatory taking, but a de facto taking and a conveyance of a real property interest without due process or just compensation and violates the Michigan Constitution.

While Webster’s letter does not discuss regulatory taking, it’s still worth understanding what it is, in order to understand how it contrasts with a de facto taking.

It’s generally accepted that certain regulations on how land is used contribute to the public good, even though those regulations impinge to some extent on the rights of property owners to use that property in any way they see fit. Zoning is an example of a broad category of land use regulation that is generally accepted to contribute to the public good. For example, it prevents people from setting up iron ore mining and smelting operations in their residentially zoned Ann Arbor backyards.

While it might not be possible to reap whatever economic benefit might come from trying to mine and smelt iron ore in a typical Ann Arbor backyard, it’s still possible to use a residentially zoned parcel for something reasonable – living there.

It’s possible to conceive of a hypothetical situation, though, where zoning regulations might result in a situation where it’s not possible to use a piece of land for anything reasonable. By way of a simplistic example, suppose a 100-foot square parcel is subject to zoning that requires a 40-foot setback on every side, which results in a buildable area of 400 square feet in the center of the parcel.

Suppose further the zoning regulations are imposed that require a minimum 500 square foot building footprint. In that situation, the zoning regulations interact to result in an unbuildable lot. The owner of such a lot might reasonably claim that this amounts to an unfair regulatory taking and argue that the imposition of such zoning requires just compensation.

Requirements of historic districts regulate what property owners within a district can do with their property. So it’s conceivable that this regulation might be seen as an unfair burden on property owners and that a situation might arise where a property owner contends that the regulations of a historic district amount to a regulatory taking.

However, in the 1978 case Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Penn Central’s contention that the city’s Landmarks Law, which prevented Penn Central from constructing a multi-story office building above Grand Central Station, was a regulatory taking. The court thus denied Penn Central’s claim that it was entitled to just compensation, saying that Penn Central was still able to use the property in essentially the same manner it had up to that point.

While not waiving a possible claim for regulatory taking, Webster’s letter focuses on a different kind of taking: de facto.

De Facto Taking, Easements

The de facto taking of a property involves a governmental action that appropriates private property for public use. When the government exercises its power of eminent domain to transfer private property to public ownership, for example, then it must provide just compensation to the owner of the property. In Michigan, eminent domain is covered in the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act.

Webster’s argument is that the enactment of a local historic district involves the transfer of private property to public ownership – not all of it, but just part. The idea that rights to parts of real estate can be assigned to various parties is consistent with the commonly-used analogy of a bundle of sticks to characterize property rights. Any one stick can be separated from the bundle and treated separately.

One familiar way that a single stick can be separated out from the bundle is through an easement. For example, if one parcel is located behind another, the owner of the front property might sell an easement to the owner of the rear property so that the rear property can be easily accessed by its owner.

Easements are not just about access to property. They include the notion of restricting use of property. For example, in The Chronicle’s coverage of the city’s greenbelt advisory commission (GAC), one of the frequently encountered concepts is that of a “conservation easement.” A conservation easement on a property can require, for example, that the property not be developed. Easements are sticks in the bundle of property rights associated with land – sticks that can be bought and sold.

So why does Webster think that a local historic district amounts to an easement on the properties within a district? It’s not a matter of interpretation, but rather what Webster calls in his letter “the operation of law.”

Local Historic Districts as Easements

When a local historic district is enacted, the operation of law applying to the district includes the language of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act [emphasis added]:

“Historic preservation easement” means an interest in land that provides a limitation on the use of a structure or site that is listed as a national historic landmark under chapter 593, 49 Stat. 593, 16 U.S.C. 461 to 467, [...] or is recognized under a locally established historic district created pursuant to the local historic districts act, Act No. 169 of the Public Acts of 1970, being sections 399.201 to 399.215 of the Michigan Compiled Laws,

And the effect of a local historic district that creates an easement is, as Webster’s letter points out, reflected in the Michigan Historical Commission Act 271 of 1913. The act requires that the local government record the historic district ordinance with the Register of Deeds – the office that maintains records of easements on properties.

Webster continues, pointing out that the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act also states [emphasis added]:

A historic preservation easement is an interest in real estate, and a document creating 1 of those easements shall be considered a conveyance of real estate and shall be recorded in accord with Act No. 103 of the Public Acts of 1937, being sections 565.201 to 565.203 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, in relation to the execution and recording of instruments.

In his letter, Webster then points that “Michigan statutes require such interests in land be acquired in the same manner as a governmental unit acquires an interest in land (i.e. conveyance or condemnation under the Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act (UCPA) MCL 213.51 et seq.).”

Webster concludes that the enactment of a local historic district in Michigan requires a local government to purchase the easement through voluntary agreement of the property owner, or else to provide the due process of condemnation stipulated in the UCPA.

Failure to purchase the easement through voluntary agreement or through condemnation would, Webster writes, amount to a violation of Michigan’s constitution.  The constitution of the state of Michigan reads in relevant part:

ARTICLE X PROPERTY

§ 2 Eminent domain; compensation.

Sec. 2. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation therefore being first made or secured in a manner prescribed by law. If private property consisting of an individual’s principal residence is taken for public use, the amount of compensation made and determined for that taking shall be not less than 125% of that property’s fair market value, in addition to any other reimbursement allowed by law. Compensation shall be determined in proceedings in a court of record.

“Public use” does not include the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues. Private property otherwise may be taken for reasons of public use as that term is understood on the effective date of the amendment to this constitution that added this paragraph.

Implications for Historic Districts: Generally, Specifically

There is nothing peculiar to the recommended Ann Arbor Fourth/Fifth Avenue historic district in this constitutional argument. If the argument were to be used successfully to contest the establishment of that historic district, it would mean that any local historic district enacted under Michigan’s statutes would need to provide for compensation to property owners in the district.

If the city council does not establish the historic district at its July 6 meeting or some subsequent meeting before the construction moratorium ends on Aug. 6, then there are various possibilities for the future of South Fifth Street.

One possibility is that the “matter of right” City Place project could be built, which would demolish the seven houses. Another possibility is that a councilmember who voted against the Heritage Row project on June 21 could bring a motion to reconsider it at the council’s July 6 meeting and the Heritage Row project could be approved. Those voting against Heritage Row were Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).