Former park advisory commissioner Gwen Nystuen and former planning commissioner Eric Lipson of the Library Green Conservancy spoke during public commentary. They advocated for integrated planning of public space in the Library Block, which includes Liberty Plaza and the Library Lane site. (Photos by the writer.)

An existing lease to the University of Michigan expires on Aug. 31, 2014. PAC recommended that the city renew the lease for two years, with an additional two-year option for renewal beyond that. Annual revenue will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget.

The three lots are: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks (Lot A); (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot B); and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot C). The lots are used by UM during restricted hours.

Three people spoke during public commentary regarding Fuller Park, though most of their focus was on the possibility of locating a train station at that site, which they opposed.

Responding to concerns raised during public commentary, commissioners discussed and ultimately amended the recommendation, adding a whereas clause that stated the “resolution does not commit PAC to support or oppose the use of Lot A as a rail station.”

The July 15 agenda also included two items related to Liberty Plaza: (1) extension of a fee waiver for events held at Liberty Plaza; and (2) feedback in response to city council action, which addressed Liberty Plaza and the potential park atop the Library Lane underground parking structure.

The existing fee waiver, which had been in place for a year, expired on July 1. The feedback to the city council related to action at the council’s June 16, 2014 meeting, which took place after a contentious debate over a resolution co-sponsored by Christopher Taylor, who also serves as an ex officio member of PAC.

On July 15, the commission also heard public commentary related to this area, as Library Green Conservancy members advocated for PAC to consider the entire block – both Liberty Plaza and Library Lane – when making recommendations to the council.

But because three PAC members were absent, chair Ingrid Ault suggested that the two items be put off until more commissioners could participate in a discussion. Absent on July 15 were PAC vice chair Graydon Krapohl, Alan Jackson, and Bob Galardi, who also serves as chair of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy board.

There was no formal vote to postpone, but it’s likely that the items will appear on PAC’s Aug. 19 agenda. That date falls after the Aug. 5 primary elections. Krapohl, a Democrat, is the only candidate running for Ward 4 city council. Christopher Taylor – a councilmember who serves as an ex officio member of PAC – is one of four Democrats running for mayor.

During the July 15 meeting, PAC also received a briefing on activities at Mack Pool, the city’s only indoor pool. Although the city had considered closing it just a few years ago, new programming has resulted in increased revenues for that facility.

Liberty Plaza

Two items appeared on the July 15 agenda related to Liberty Plaza: (1) extension of a fee waiver for events held at Liberty Plaza; and (2) feedback in response to city council action, which addressed Liberty Plaza and the potential park atop the Library Lane underground parking structure.

The commission also heard public commentary related to this area.

Liberty Plaza: Fee Waiver – Background

By way of background on the fee waiver, a year ago the city council voted to waive fees for use of Liberty Plaza, located at Liberty and Divisions streets. The waiver was for a one-year trial period, through July 1, 2014.

Looking down the steps into Liberty Plaza, at the southwest corner of Division and Liberty.

The waiver had been recommended by PAC at its June 18, 2013 meeting. It came in response to a situation that arose earlier that spring when city staff applied fees to the hosting of Pizza in the Park in Liberty Plaza – a homelessness outreach ministry of a local church.

The goal of the waiver was to attract additional musicians, performers, and other events at Liberty Plaza.” A key “whereas” clause of the 2013 council resolution stated: “… it is the goal of PAC to further activate Liberty Plaza by increasing social, cultural, and recreational activities that take place there; …”

Later in the year, on Nov. 18, 2013, the council approved ordinance revisions to allow for a waiver of fees when an organization uses any park to distribute goods for basic human needs. The ordinance was revised to include the following text: “There shall be no park rental fee charged in association with a permit, where the permitted event’s primary proposed activity is the charitable distribution of goods for basic human needs.”

The July 15, 2014 PAC agenda did not include a staff recommendation or draft resolution related to the fee waiver. The meeting packet contained copies of the resolution approved by PAC in June 2013 and by the city council later that year.

Liberty Plaza: Council Resolution – Background

The July 15 PAC agenda also included a slot to discuss the city council resolution that had been passed at the council’s June 16, 2014 meeting.

That council resolution had been brought forward by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – who serves as an ex officio member of PAC – as well as mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1). The original version would have directed the city administrator to “work collaboratively with the property owners adjacent to and near Liberty Plaza, the general public, PAC [park advisory commission], the Ann Arbor District Library, and the DDA to develop a conceptual design for an improved Liberty Plaza…”

Christopher Taylor at PAC’s July 15 meeting.

But after nearly an hour of debate, the council voted to refer the resolution to PAC instead of approving it. The vote on referral to PAC came amid deliberation on some amendments to the resolution proposed by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) that would have broadened the scope of the effort to include the Library Lane lot. [.pdf of Lumm's amendments]

Funding for the collaborative work on the redesign, in the amount of $23,577, was specified in the proposed resolution as coming from the parks and recreation budget. In addition to a concept for a “re-imagined Liberty Plaza,” the resolution was supposed to result in options for funding construction, to be provided by city staff. The resolution called for a report to be provided to the park advisory commission by December 2014 and to the city council a month later in January 2015.

This resolution came in the context of a push by some Ann Arbor residents – including members of the Library Green Conservancy – to establish public park space on top of the underground Library Lane parking garage, which is southwest of Liberty Plaza separated from that park by a surface parking lot owned by First Martin Corp.

Related to that, the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting – as part of reconsidering a vote it had taken at its previous meeting on March 17 – to designate a 12,000-square-foot portion of the Library Lane surface to be reserved as an urban park. The result of the reconsidered resolution on April 7 undid the council’s earlier decision to establish a square foot range for the urban plaza – from 6,500-12,000 square feet. That April 7 council decision was made on a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Deliberations among councilmembers on June 16, 2014 included questions about why PAC hadn’t been consulted on the resolution on Liberty Plaza. Taylor indicated that it wasn’t necessary to consult PAC, as it’s the council’s prerogative to set policy. The day after the council met, PAC’s regular monthly meeting, on June 17, was canceled.

PAC had previously been directed by the council to develop a set of recommendations regarding downtown parks, which were completed last year. The council accepted PAC’s recommendations at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of 21-page PAC downtown parks report]

Liberty Plaza and Library Lane: PAC’s April 15 Meeting

The last time members of PAC had a discussion about Liberty Plaza and the Library Lane site was on April 15, 2014, when they discussed the council resolution that had been passed on April 7. That’s the resolution designating a 12,000-square-foot portion of the Library Lane surface to be reserved as an urban park. [CTN video of PAC's April 15, 2014 meeting – the Library Lane park discussion beings at roughly the 1:42 minute mark]

The surface of the Library Lane parking structure is highlighted in yellow. The city council has designated 12,000 square feet of that lot, on the west side along the South Fifth Avenue, as a future park.

During PAC’s April 15 discussion, which lasted about 30 minutes, councilmember Mike Anglin – who serves as an ex officio member of PAC and who supports a Library Lane public space – told commissioners that the council didn’t give direction to PAC, but he thought that PAC should take initiative. PAC should start coming up with ideas about how a park at Library Lane should be designed, he said – who should be involved, how the meetings should be held, and how the process should be handled. He urged commissioners to watch the council’s April 14 deliberations, saying “that’s about the only way to truly understand what happened … because discussions take strange directions.”

It would be a real task to develop the city’s “first urban park,” he said. “The field, to me, is kind of open,” but there is direction to move forward. “There’s all sorts of … language going around and a lot of words being expressed, but there’s still a lot of room for discussion.” Anglin said he was confident that the community is intelligent enough to figure it out, though it might take a long time.

Another factor is that the council directed the city administrator to hire a broker for the possible sale of development rights on a portion of the Library Lane site.

Anglin told commissioners on April 15 that PAC should take the initiative, but there shouldn’t be a “stacked deck” with a pre-determined outcome. “If we do that, the process will die immediately – it’ll be dead on arrival.” A stacked deck is when the process is conducted “with all your cronies,” he said. Instead, it needs to be inclusive, with people that will likely disagree. He said he knew the library, for example, would come with some strong opinions.

David Santacroce, who was appointed to PAC in November 2013, told Anglin that he’d read the recommendation from PAC about downtown parks, and was confused about what’s expected of PAC now. “It seems like a re-do of the same work,” Santacroce said. “I don’t understand what’s supposed to be different about this public engagement and this downtown study that didn’t happen in the last go-around.” Was the council looking for more specifics about what kind of park should go there?

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said there’s a tendency to “remember what was said last.” Much of the recent discussion had been on the size of a park at Library Lane, and whether the city administrator should retain a broker, he said. But when PAC’s downtown park subcommittee had solicited feedback in 2013, they got over 1,600 survey responses and provided a lot of information, he noted. Smith thought it would be valuable to remind people about that, and to take another look at the public feedback from those surveys. There’s a lot of information about what residents would like to see in a downtown park. “We’ve got a pulse on that,” Smith said. [.pdf of downtown park survey results]

Anglin said he’s always felt that the major stakeholders are the library, the city, and maybe a developer. Some councilmembers think the developer should take care of and pay for a park. There are also “background people” who are privately saying that they would pay for a park, he said. “The game is not over yet.” So in that context, Anglin added, the community needs to have a discussion about “what do you want your town to be like in the downtown?”

Library Lane is a small two-way street that runs between South Fifth and Division, north of the downtown library – the brick building in the background. The street was built as part of the city-owned underground parking structure.

Anglin indicated that the Ann Arbor District Library might come up with a plan to build a new downtown library, which might include the Library Lane park area. The city made a major investment in that site, he said – maybe more than $56 million. The design of a park might include a couple of fountains, he said, or a band shell, a place to play chess, a rose garden and trees. He said that Argo Cascades “was never in the plan,” but that’s been a success. “If we build something and we’re not pleased with it, it can come out,” he added. The city has land and an opportunity for an urban park next to the library, where more people go than anyplace else in town, he said.

Graydon Krapohl said the question of a vision for the downtown is bigger than PAC’s role. Krapohl agreed that there’s already a lot of good information in the downtown park subcommittee’s report that was provided to council. It’s premature to have PAC develop ideas for a park without knowing what a developer might do or what kind of development might be there, he said. After a developer is involved, then PAC would have a role, he said. But it would be a waste of time and money to work on a design before that.

Krapohl thought that by setting the Library Lane’s park size at 12,000 square feet, it might have eliminated some potential interest in developing the property.

Krapohl also noted that the downtown park subcommittee worked for eight months to develop recommendations, which the full commission approved. He pointed out that Anglin was the only councilmember who didn’t vote to support that report at the council meeting. Anglin hadn’t provided any input or guidance to PAC about how the recommendations should have been shaped, Krapohl said.

Ingrid Ault said she’d been frustrated by the “blatant ignoring” of two key components in those recommendations – the point that funding needs to be identified, and if funding comes from the parks and recreation budget, what’s the impact on other programs? She also thought that council was ignoring placemaking principles that had been identified in the recommendations. “You’re asking us to design some kind of a park in an area that we know, based on best practices, won’t do well,” she said. “For me, that was really quite frustrating.”

Missy Stults agreed with Ault and Krapohl. She suggested returning to the downtown park subcommittee’s survey of residents, and draw out some of the main themes from respondents. But she agreed that PAC’s role right now shouldn’t extend beyond that.

Anglin responded, saying he’s well aware that the city doesn’t protect the citizens’ property “as much as we do the developers’ property.” The Library Lane site is the public’s property, and he wanted that discussion to occur. If it were already a park, then of course PAC would be involved in planning it, he said.

Regarding PAC’s recommendations for downtown parks, Anglin said he objected to the recommendation for development, because the community hadn’t said they wanted development there.

Santacroce then asked whether Anglin wanted additional input on whether there should be any development on the Library Lane site. Anglin indicated that he objected to the assumption that the lot would need to be developed, in order to recoup the city’s investment in the infrastructure there. He said that when the library ultimately builds a new downtown library, “it will be a spectacular work of art, if you will, and a community resource that we can all be proud of – as we are today.”

Anglin said he didn’t have all the answers, but he thought the answers could come from the community. To him, it wasn’t political – he just liked the concept of having a community commons.

Krapohl again said it sounded like a broader discussion that PAC could participate in, but that it wasn’t PAC’s role to lead. That broader question is what do residents want downtown to be. That discussion would in turn provide guidance regarding the Library Lane site. Does the community want part of the site developed so that the city can reap the return of tax revenue for years to come? Or should it be a large park, that will have to be paid for some way?

The broader discussion needs to include businesses, Krapohl said, as well as the DDA, neighborhood associations, PAC, the planning commission, the environmental commission and others.

Santacroce asked whether the council resolution already called for a building on the Library Lane site. If so, then “isn’t this issue out of the barn already?” One of the resolved clauses from the April 7 resolution states:

RESOLVED, That the City will work with the developer of the remaining portion of the Library Lane site to ensure that the designs for both spaces, an urban public park and the adjacent development, complement and support each other’s successful uses;

Anglin replied that developers would have to know what they’re getting, and the council has carved out 12,000 square feet for a park. It might take a long time, he said. Anglin also noted that he and other councilmembers simply want to discuss this issue with the community.

Smith noted that at the April 7 meeting, the council passed a resolution directing the city administrator to hire a broker for possible sale of development rights on the portion of the Library Lane site that’s not designated for a park. He pointed out that a different resolution, which would have stopped this process, was not approved by the council.

Instead of re-inventing the wheel, Smith noted that there was also extensive outreach regarding a vision for downtown as part of the DDA’s Connecting William Street study. There’s a tremendous amount of information in that effort, too, he said. More time needs to be spent evaluating the existing information that’s already available.

Smith noted that some people in the community would rather not see any private development on the Library Lane site. There are others who view this as an opportunity for collaboration and compatibility between the private and public sectors, he said. Smith pointed to results from the downtown park subcommittee survey, in which about 70% of the 1,600 respondents preferred a public/private approach to funding. Those responses shouldn’t be forgotten, he said.

Liberty Plaza and Library Lane: July 15 Public Commentary

At PAC’s July 15 meeting, two people spoke during public commentary to address the issue of a park at the Library Lane site.

Gwen Nystuen, a former park commissioner, said she was there to talk about the Library Lane site. In June, the city council had asked PAC to develop a conceptual design integrating Liberty Plaza and Library Green – or whatever it will be called, she said. The intent was that the two parks should complement each other and become successful urban design parks. It will be challenging, but worth it, Nystuen said. There’s no question that Ann Arbor needs public open space downtown, and it has the ability to make the parks exciting and attractive, she said.

Former PAC member Gwen Nystuen and Ward 5 city councilmember Mike Anglin, who serves as an ex officio member of PAC.

Nystuen showed two drawings by the Library Green Conservancy, illustrating how walkways could be developed. The drawings were taken from a 1991 Luckenbach/Ziegelman report that looked at development of the entire block. [.pdf of Luckenbach/Ziegelman report] Nystuen pointed out that there are park acquisition funds that could be used to buy easements to make these paths possible.

She noted that there are several properties in that block that might be redeveloped, including the downtown library and credit union site. That means it’s important to plan for the pedestrian connections, she said. The downtown citizens advisory council has supported creating pathways to walk through the block from as many directions as possible. PAC’s own recommendations, she noted, state that “Future improvements should also work to create a permanent and highly visible connection between Library Lot and Liberty Plaza.”

Eric Lipson introduced himself as a 35-year resident of Ann Arbor and former city planning commissioner. He’s also a member of the Library Green Conservancy, which has been advocating for a public park atop the Library Lane underground parking structure. And he’s a member of the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor, which is helping to fund a universal access playground at Gallup Park. He’s happy and excited that PAC is looking at ways to design and improve Liberty Plaza. But it makes obvious sense to plan not just for Liberty Plaza, but also for the entire block – bounded by Fifth and Division, and William and Liberty. There are some areas with barriers to pedestrian flow at Liberty Plaza, such as steps, which discourage the plaza’s use by the general public and encourage use “by those seeking to take advantage of the privacy of the sunken cul-de-sacs,” he said.

Will Hathaway of the Library Green Conservancy passes out materials before PAC’s July 15 meeting. In the background is Christopher Taylor, a city councilmember and ex officio member of PAC.

Effective approaches to planning of public open space look at ways to connect activity centers, like the Diag does. The vision of connected public spaces on the Library Lot has been endorsed many times, Lipson noted – by the 1991 Luckenbach/Ziegelman study, the 2005 Calthorpe, the survey done by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority for its Connecting William Street project, and PAC’s own survey of public preferences for downtown parks. Lipson noted that last spring, mayor John Hieftje proposed a clearly defined pedestrian path that would connect Liberty Plaza with public open space on the Library Lot, and then continue on to the former Y lot and the city-owned lot at the corner of Main and William, next to Palio restaurant. “This makes all the sense in the world,” Lipson said.

Liberty Plaza is the logical collection point and gateway from Liberty Street to the library, credit union, bus station, and on to Main Street. Bringing walkways from Division and Liberty up to grade, along with improved lighting and signage, would go a long way to creating a constant pedestrian flow, improve handicapped access and deter illicit behavior, he said. Preserving mature trees will make their shade a welcome place to gather on hot days. A water feature would be wonderful – perhaps using water currently collected and stored under the Library Lane lot.

Connecting Liberty Plaza to the proposed Library Lot plaza will create numerous opportunities for activating both corners of that block and all of the “activity-generators” between and beyond that area. It’s an exciting opportunity for PAC to have a major impact on the vitality of the downtown, Lipson concluded. He hoped commissioners would take full advantage of it.

Liberty Plaza: Commission Discussion

When PAC reached the two Liberty Plaza items on its July 15 agenda – the fee waiver and the city council’s referral of the resolution on Liberty Plaza – chair Ingrid Ault suggested that the conversation should be postponed. She said that key PAC members were absent, who could offer insight: Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl.

PAC chair Ingrid Ault and Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation.

Ault noted that Galardi is chair of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy board. She pointed out that Krapohl is PAC’s vice chair and had participated in the downtown park subcommittee, though he wasn’t an official subcommittee member. And Jackson had been instrumental in that subcommittee’s work, she said. Ault thought it would be prudent to wait until those members were at the table, before having this discussion.

No one objected.

Ault asked PAC’s city council representatives – Christopher Taylor and Mike Anglin – whether this would be an issue for the council. Both Taylor and Anglin indicated that it would not be a problem to wait.

There was no discussion of the specific meeting at which these issues would be re-introduced. The previous fee waiver for Liberty Plaza expired on July 1, 2014.

By way of additional background, the next scheduled meeting for PAC, on Aug. 19, will fall two weeks after the Aug. 5 primary election. Graydon Krapohl, PAC’s vice chair, is the only candidate running for Ward 4 city council. Christopher Taylor is one of four Democrats running for mayor.

In addition, PAC chair Ingrid Ault is expected to resign her post later this year, as she is moving out of town. Earlier this year she took a job as an educator with the Michigan State University Extension in Calhoun County, Michigan, based in Marshall. She has been commuting there from her residence in Ann Arbor.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Fuller Park

A resolution to recommend the possible four-year extension on a University of Michigan lease of three parking lots at Fuller Park appeared on PAC’s July 15 agenda.

Map of parking lots at Fuller Park that are leased to the University of Michigan.

The existing lease expires on Aug. 31, 2014. The three lots are: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks (Lot A); (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot B); and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park (Lot C). The lots are used by UM during restricted hours.

The city has leased Lot A to UM since 1993. Lots B and C have been leased since 2009.

The proposal, which requires city council approval, is for a two-year lease with one additional two-year option for renewal. Annual revenue of this lease will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget. [.pdf of proposed lease agreement] [.pdf of staff report]

The hours that UM can use these lots are stipulated in the agreement:

• Lot A: 4 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.
• Lot B (paved lot): 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, beginning the day after Labor Day through the Friday before Memorial Day, excluding holidays.
• Lot C (unpaved lot): 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager, noted that the revenue from these three lots is significant for the parks and recreation operating budget. The current agreement – which was approved by the council in 2009 and extended by two administrative renewals – is essentially the same as the agreement that will expire, Smith said.

The main purpose of the lots is for the parks, Smith explained. That’s reflected in the hours during which UM can use the lots – on weekdays, prior to 4-5 p.m. The outdoor pool and soccer fields don’t need the quantity of parking during the winter or off-season. “It’s an asset within the parks department that we can either have sit there, or we can lease it for a significant amount of revenue that obviously helps us provide other programs,” he said. If the city doesn’t lease those parking lots, “I am absolutely certain that people will park in it anyway,” Smith added.

Fuller Park: Public Commentary

Three people spoke during public commentary about Fuller Park.

From left: Rita Mitchell, Nancy Shiffler and George Gaston.

Nancy Shiffler introduced herself as chair of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. She was there to talk about Fuller Park and the potential location of a new train station. In looking at the lease agreement, there seems to be an assumption that the train station could go on the south side of Fuller Road, on a portion of Fuller Park. The city is going through an environmental review of potential sites, and the Sierra Club is concerned that the appropriate procedures are followed, she said. In particular, that means taking into account the Dept. of Transportation’s Section 4(F) requirements when one of the proposed sites involves city parkland. There’s a hope that PAC would be looking closely at the criteria that are being used to evaluate sites in that review process, she said.

When it comes to Fuller Park, the assessment should be looking at the impact on the park in its entirety, Shiffler stressed, not simply the portion of the site where a station might be located. If you look at projections of 10 Amtrak runs per day, plus an unknown number of commuter passengers – which could reach up to 500,000 a year – then the traffic impact along the Fuller Road corridor would be increased a lot, she said. It should be very clear what the impact might be on Fuller Pool and the rest of the park, such as the impact on air quality from idling trains and buses. She noted that a station could impact the Border-to-Border trail, which is intended to run through a portion of the park, as well as the entire Huron River valley.

Rita Mitchell said she’d been following the issues related to Fuller Park for a long time – since 2009, when there was proposal to build a large parking structure there. There’s been a parking lot of the site for more than 20 years, “but it was a park beforehand,” she noted, and it was one of the earliest parks in Ann Arbor along the river. It has history that some people haven’t seen, because they’re newcomers to Ann Arbor.

Mitchell said that part of Fuller Park could be returned a recreation area, or a place that could mirror the kinds of things that happen now in Gallup Park, which is often very crowded. As someone who’s a member of Protect Ann Arbor Parks, Mitchell asked PAC to consider the issues of protecting parkland, and to avoid the potential of turning it into a transportation center. If it could happen there, what would stop it from happening in any park?

Mitchell said it was disturbing to see an early termination clause in the lease agreement with UM. She hoped that PAC would study it carefully, possibly put it on the table for a while, and acknowledge that the public has not weighed in on a transportation center at that location. The environmental assessment for a train station is still going on, she noted, so it’s disturbing to see a transportation center referenced in a document that would be signed by the city.

George Gaston noted that he lived by Island Park, one of the oldest parks in the city. He came to speak in defense of Fuller Park, one of the chain of parks along the river assembled by Eli Gallup during his 38-year term as parks superintendent for the city. When Gallup assembled these properties, Gaston said, there were houses, farms, businesses and factories – it was not open, vacant land. There was a conscious effort to open up the riverside for public use, and “we would like to see it maintained for public use,” he said. The surface parking lot at Fuller Park (Lot A) was never intended to be permanent, Gaston said. At the time when the lease was first signed, PAC had considered it a temporary measure to provide parking as part of a swap while the UM Cancer Center was being built. Twenty years later, it’s still there.

If the city is intent on renewing this lease, Gaston said, he asked whether PAC has reviewed the figures involved. There’s another parking lot at Riverside Park that the university leases from the city, and there’s a great disparity between what UM pays there compared to the Fuller Park lot, he said. The city needs to decide whether it should be subsidizing parking for the university or should the city be getting full value from the lease. The university charges its departments as well as individuals for the parking permits, he noted. It’s still parkland, would be nice to be used for the Border-to-Border trail. There isn’t enough parking for the parks now, Gaston concluded.

Fuller Park: Commission Discussion

Colin Smith, manager of parks and recreation, responded to some of the issues raised during public commentary. He said that he and other staff are very concerned about making sure that whatever happens with the train station is done in an open and transparent way. That’s why Eli Cooper, the city’s transportation program manager, and the consultant on this project addressed PAC earlier this year to give an update, Smith said. He and park planner Amy Kuras are involved in that process, to evaluate the potential sites for a station. That work is ongoing, and any recommendations will be brought to PAC for review.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager.

Smith pointed out that the PAC meeting packet had included both a proposed new lease as well as a copy of the 2012 lease agreement. [.pdf of proposed 2014 lease] [.pdf of 2012 lease]

Smith noted that the 2012 lease, which was the same one that had been in place since 2009, had a section on page 3 that was titled “Early Termination/Potential Rail Station and Local Connector.” It specifically addressed the project that was called the Fuller Road Station.

The reality, Smith said, is that this agreement isn’t about the train station. It’s a lease agreement between two parties for the use of a parking lot, while recognizing what’s going on in the community, he added. “It is possible, if the public decides and council decides, that this could become something else. And as such, it seems both kind of a courtesy and a standard business practice to let the people who you’re going into a lease with know that there may be a change,” he said, and to clarify how it would be addressed.

So this is nothing new, Smith concluded. The change between the 2014 lease and the prior lease is the title of that section, which is now titled “Early Termination/Transportation Use.” That section states:

City reserves the right to terminate this Lease for use of all or a portion of the site to facilitate public transportation with 12 months advance written notification to University. Termination under this provision will be automatically effective on the date specified in the notice and City shall have no further obligation to University under this Lease except that if the 12-month notice period occurs so as to cross annual payment periods (i.e. for example: notice period June- May/annual payment period September-August), University shall be entitled to a rebate of that portion of the annual payment applicable to the months after the termination date.

Upon initiating formal planning for construction of a new commuter rail station, relocating the Ann Arbor Amtrak intercity passenger station or developing a local connector service contemplating use of a part, or all, of Lot A, City shall notify University of such planning considerations. Notification shall be in writing and will include information regarding University input in City’s planning process. City will work cooperatively with University while considering enhancing transportation service to this location. The planning process will assure both parties’ interests are included in all considerations. It is recognized that provision of high capacity public mass transportation service to this site is intended to increase access and mobility resulting in a decrease in the need for surface parking by University. Notwithstanding the above, it is understood by the parties that participation by University in the planning process does not negate or otherwise impact City’s right to terminate this Lease for the reason stated.

Karen Levin asked why there needs to be any mention of “transportation use.” Why can’t the lease simply mention the early termination option? “It seems like that’s what there’s a concern about,” she said. Why is there a need to be so specific? Early termination could result from something else, she noted.

Smith replied that the section is included as a recognition of what’s going on in the community, a conversation that’s essentially running parallel with the lease and that includes the same property.

Levin was concerned that the section makes it appear that PAC is indirectly endorsing a train station at that location.

Karen Levin.

David Santacroce said that if he were in the university’s position, he wouldn’t want to sign a lease “where you could willy-nilly cancel it for any reason.” So having a specific reason gives the university some comfort in the negotiation process, he said.

Smith noted that the section prior to that includes standard default/termination language, allowing either party to terminate under certain conditions.

The section titled “Early Termination/Transportation Use” in the 2014 proposed lease is actually somewhat shorter and less specific than the 2012 version, he noted.

Missy Stults told Smith that she picked up from public commentary the sense that the use of Fuller Park land as a parking lot was intended to be temporary. She asked him to talk about that history, and whether there’s been any discussion about reverting it to parkland.

Smith replied that the lot on the south side of Fuller Road, Lot A, has been a parking lot leased to the university for 21 years. The other lots have been leased since 2009. In terms of needs for additional parkland space at that location, “it’s not something I’ve had a strong call for,” he said. It wasn’t clear how all of the space would be used for the Border-to-Border trail, for example. During the summer months in the evenings, most of the parking is used for park activities – including the pool and soccer fields. So “I would certainly be hesitant to remove parking for park use,” Smith said.

Levin again expressed concern about the language in the agreement. She thought the lease made it appear that the train station would be located there, and she hoped there was a way to indicate that it was only a possibility.

Smith noted that the language has been in the lease for about six years, and it hasn’t caused a “great deal of heartache.” But if it would make commissioners feel more comfortable, he said, he could contact the university and see if it’s important that the language remain. If it’s removed, he added, he didn’t think it changed things very much. The environmental assessment for a train station’s potential new location will continue, he noted. The lease “doesn’t have the strength to determine that this is the site for a station. This doesn’t do that at all.”

Christopher Taylor weighed in, saying that “the obligations that the language creates are predicated upon, or rather spring from when the thing occurs.” As a consequence, the agreement has to talk about the thing occurring, he said, in order to describe what happens after it occurs. Taylor said it’s like the heading could be “If A Large Number of Things Fall Into Place Such That A Station Is Proposed And Planned At This Location,” then the following things would happen. He said the lease lists what would need to happen if all those things occur, but “it doesn’t push it, I don’t think.” It doesn’t predispose the city or university to do certain things, Taylor continued, “it’s just a contingency.”

Missy Stults.

Mike Anglin asked whether commissioners would be amenable to stating that the passage of this recommendation in no way supports a decision to move forward with the train station. It would indicate that this isn’t an endorsement of a train station location, he said, but simply addressing the needs that the park system has for this revenue. PAC is not endorsing any railroad station in parkland, he said – “period.” Nor is PAC not endorsing, he noted.

Santacroce said he didn’t read the lease as an endorsement. But at some point, PAC might decide that it does want to endorse a train station at that location. To include language stating that it’s not an endorsement or a refusal to endorse “all feels to me a little bit wrought.” The proposed agreement struck him as just good planning for the future. He understood the concerns, but thought that the debate over the train station “is a whole different subject, and this doesn’t speak to it at all – other than giving the city an option, at some point.”

Anglin pointed out that the lease requires council approval. He urged that some caveat be included, in order to secure that approval.

Stults clarified with Smith that the city attorney’s office had already reviewed the lease. She wondered if adding the word “if” would provide some assurance, inserted into this sentence: “If upon initiating formal planning for construction of a new commuter rail station …” She asked the two attorneys who serve on PAC – Santacroce and Taylor – what they thought.

Santacroce indicated that it was awkward, because “clearly some legal minds already thought about the construction of this,” and he was hesitant to change it.

Taylor said he already read the language as constituting a “condition precedent upon initiating formal planning when that thing occurs.” He added: “That thing is not going to occur without a large, full, transparent conversation – if ever.” If he were drafting the lease, he would have no problem inserting “if” into the agreement. However, “I don’t know that it’s our role to wordsmith it,” he added.

Taylor indicated that if PAC passed the recommendation, it would be important for him and Anglin to communicate to the council that the recommendation “is entirely silent as to whether or not a station at this location is wise or foolish.”

Smith pointed out that the “if” is implied in the first paragraph of that section: “City reserves the right to terminate this Lease for use of all or a portion of the site to facilitate public transportation with 12 months advance written notification to University.” He also described the kind of input that he and Kuras were providing for the environmental assessment, noting that they’ll continue to be involved in that effort.

David Santacroce.

Santacroce noted that PAC is being asked to do is to recommend that the city sign the lease. Ultimately, the council will decide. And as long as it’s communicated clearly that PAC isn’t taking a position on the use of the park for a train station, he was comfortable with this resolution.

Anglin then pointed out that all parkland is considered public land, and “subject to transportation use.”

Levin again suggested adding something to the resolution to address the concern that had been raised during public commentary. Smith said he understood her position, but he wondered whether it would be “cleaner” for councilmembers to simply share PAC’s conversation about this issue with the rest of council – rather than adding a resolved clause that doesn’t have anything to do with the business at hand. He noted that it wouldn’t be an issue if the current agreement didn’t expire until next year. The expiration just happened to coincide with the environmental assessment for a train station location.

Stults wondered if PAC ever communicated to council by attaching a memo or cover letter with its resolution. Smith replied: “You may do whatever you want when it comes to communicating with council.” He thought council would welcome feedback on this, with the resolution or additional communication.

Santacroce suggested adding a resolved clause: “Whereas by this resolution, PAC takes no position on any potential use of this land at this time.” This is about appearances, he said, and although he doesn’t read it that way, some people could interpret the termination language as a threat. He’s hesitant to change the lease itself, because of the logistics involved – it would have to go back to the city attorney’s office and the UM general counsel’s office. “They’ll be spending money, we’ll be spending money – it just seems like a waste of effort that could go elsewhere.”

Anglin characterized it as a controversial issue. If he were drafting the lease, he’d strike all language out of the agreement that mentioned the possible transportation or any future use. There’s been a community conversation and it’s down to two sites, he said, “so it’s getting near decision time.” He didn’t think PAC’s job was to reflect “on what is going on out there. It’s not affecting this lease in any shape or form – unless there’s some legal things going on” regarding land use or other constraints. He thought the dialogue would still be going on for at least two more years.

Anglin said the city had a lot of other parking agreements with UM, and those don’t mention anything like this. “Rather than confuse it and muddy some waters in pro or con, it’s best to just pull back and say we’re just leasing it,” he said. It was just a suggestion, he added, but he thought there would be some councilmembers who’d share that opinion.

Smith replied that you could see it both ways. One could argue that it’s more transparent to mention the possible transportation use as part of the lease agreement, he said, compared to leaving it out. “It’s obviously perceived otherwise by some, too,” he added.

Santacroce thought it made simple business sense to leave the section in the lease, even if the possibility of putting a transportation center there is remote. He didn’t want to get involved in a discussion about whether it should be located there, but it would be foolhardy for the city not to include that option.

Taylor then proposed adding a whereas clause to the resolution: “Whereas this resolution does not commit PAC to support or reject the use of Lot A as a rail station.”

Other commissioners indicated support for adding that clause to their resolution.

As the discussion wrapped up, Smith also responded to another concern raised during public commentary – about the amount being charged for the Fuller Park lots, compared to parking at Riverside Park. At Riverside, a handful of spaces are leased to the university off of Canal Street. Those spots do bring in more per spot, he noted. The university rents those spots as “Blue” parking permits. The spots at Fuller Park are “Yellow” permits. The university issues those Yellow permits for $153 per year. There are roughly 450 spots at Fuller, but the university doesn’t have access to those lots at all times, he noted. [.pdf of UM parking permit fees]

Outcome: PAC unanimously recommended approval of the lease renewal. The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Mack Pool

Gayle Hurn, recreation supervisor for Mack and Fuller pools, made a presentation to PAC about the past season at Mack indoor pool, and a look ahead at things to come. [.pdf of Hurn's presentation]

Gayle Hurn, recreation supervisor for Mack and Fuller pools.

By way of background, in April 2009 former city administrator Roger Fraser had proposed either closing Mack Pool or turning it over to the Ann Arbor Public Schools, as a way to help balance the city’s budget in the face of declining revenues. Supporters of the pool mobilized to come up with ideas for cutting expenses and increasing pool revenues. Ultimately, the city council voted for a budget that included keeping the pool. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Task Force Floats Ways to Save Mack Pool“; “More Options for Ann Arbor’s Mack Pool“; and “Ann Arbor Budget: Formal Commencement.”

At PAC’s July 15 meeting, Hurn began by describing the features of the pool, which is located inside the AAPS school Ann Arbor Open. The pool is shared, and used by the school in the morning and by the public in the very early mornings, afternoons, evenings and weekends.

It’s the city’s only indoor pool – a six-lane, 25 yard pool with an attached 30-foot by 45-foot toddler area. It employs 15-18 seasonal workers. Last season, there were over 67,000 visits to the pool.

In the 2013-2014 fiscal year, the pool was budgeted for revenue of $119,000 but brought in more than that – $159,000. That was due to new programming and different ways of using the pool space and time, Hurn said. The new program also resulted in higher-than-budgeted expenses, she noted – about $29,000 over budget. Now that the new programs have been started, the intent is to help those grow to increase the revenue while keeping expenses stable.

The staff is trying to create as many new opportunities for using the pool as possible, Hurn explained. Having more people exposed to swimming means the community is healthier, and that there’s support for keeping Mack Pool open.

Programs include:

• Group swim lessons, with 299 participants in 2013-14 compared to 246 the previous year. The staff is looking at offering more classes at different skill levels.
• Private, one-on-one swim lessons, with 237 participants in 2013-14 compared to 110 a year ago.
• Masters swim sessions, with 384 registered pass holders and 383 drop-in swimmers. The previous year, there were 283 pass holders.
• A youth swim team – the Mack Manta Rays – was a new addition in the 2013-14 season, and was very successful, Hurn said. There were 183 registered swimmers over two sessions. They compete against teams in Chelsea, Dexter, Ypsilanti and other municipalities.
• Water aerobics had 63 participants, and is another program that the staff hopes to grow.
• Log rolling was new in the 2013-14 season, and was a huge hit, Hurn said. An initial demonstration by representatives of Keylog Rolling resulted in Hurn buying one of the logs and using it for special events, for workshops and private parties. Hurn hopes to someday form a competitive team.

In addition to these programs, Mack Pool also offers special events, including monthly “Splash Days” and four “Dive-In” movie nights, when families can bring their flotation devices to watch a children’s film. The most popular one was “Frozen,” Hurn said. It’s something that’s being carried over to the city’s outdoor pools as well.

Hurn also described training that’s provided to pool staff, including re-certification courses for CPR and lifeguarding. They also offer Red Cross lifeguard certification courses to the public now, too.

Regarding maintenance, Hurn reported that a large roof repair project is being completed this summer. A new pool cover was purchased to help reducing heating costs. That made a big difference, she said, especially coupled with thermal curtains that were hung during the winter. The pool pump was also rebuilt.

Looking ahead, Hurn described efforts to grow the use of Mack Pool, including more evening group swim lessons, more private lessons, and a wider variety of party packages

Mack Pool: Commission Discussion

Paige Morrison asked about the expansion of private parties, and wondered how many hours per week the pool would be available for that.

PAC member Paige Morrison.

Gayle Hurn said that most people are looking to book parties on the weekends. The pool closes to the public at 6 p.m., so a private dive-in movie party could be scheduled after that. She noted that private birthday parties are also booked during the pool’s general swim time on Saturdays, and use only a portion of the pool.

Ingrid Ault thanked Hurn for her work and enthusiasm, and pledged to learn how to log roll.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, praised Hurn for her work. It’s her first year in that position, and has brought energy and enthusiasm as reflected in new programming. Smith also complimented deputy parks & recreation manager Jeff Straw, who supervises Hurn. Smith noted that Straw gives the staff latitude to try new ideas, even ones that seem a little “out there.”

Manager’s Report

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, provided several updates. He noted that the city’s fiscal year ended on June 30, 2014. Typically a detailed year-end financial report would be provided at the July meeting, but Bob Galardi – chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee – couldn’t attend the July 15 meeting.

As a quick preview, Smith said, the parks and recreation unit exceeded its revenue budget for the year. The budget had called for $3.729 million in revenues, but actual revenues were about $3.81 million for the year. Revenues were up for the canoe liveries and Mack Pool.

The expenditure budget was $5.273 million, and actual expenditures were slightly lower – $5.186 million. He noted that more bills for the year will be arriving, so the final amount for expenditures could be higher. A more detailed update will be presented to PAC at its August meeting.

Smith also reported that the first meeting had been held for a subcommittee to discuss smoking in the parks. He thought the group would have something to report to PAC in August.

Responding to a query from Ingrid Ault, Smith said that on the weekends, University of Michigan is allowing the city to use its surface parking near the Kellogg Eye Center, near Argo Pond. There’ve been 80-100 cars parked there each weekend day. A shuttle comes by to take people to the canoe livery, or it’s within walking distance, he said. The arrangement has reduced complaints about parking in the neighborhood near Argo Pond. UM is not charging the city for the parking use, he said.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Karen Levin, Paige Morrison, David Santacroce, Missy Stults, and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio members). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Absent: Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl.

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2014 at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. If you’re already helping The Chronicle with some financial green, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Will Hathaway gave a presentation about a proposal to build an urban park at the Library Lane site. He spoke on behalf of the Library Green Conservancy, which is working with some city councilmembers on the proposal. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners were briefed by Will Hathaway on behalf of the Library Green Conservancy, which has been advocating for a large section of the site to be designated as a park. He described a resolution that was later brought forward by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.

Hathaway highlighted aspects of the proposal that drew on recommendations made by PAC to the city council last fall. He said he wasn’t asking for PAC to take any specific action on this proposal, but asked for feedback. Several commissioners raised concerns, including some that focused on the process of bringing this resolution forward without specific direction from the council. Hathaway noted that the resolution is intended to start the process, with council direction, to begin working with stakeholders, PAC, the public and others in the design and development of this park.

Subsequently, at the March 3 council meeting, PAC chair Ingrid Ault and former chair Julie Grand both spoke during public commentary and urged postponement of the resolution. Mayor John Hieftje, responding to the initiative, gave his own presentation on March 3 with a different vision for connected urban spaces downtown.

And Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) told councilmembers that he wanted a postponement to have time to meet with Ann Arbor District Library board members about moving the library over to the surface of the Library Lane structure. He also plans to bring forward a resolution that would move towards hiring a broker to list development rights on the Library Lane surface for sale.

Ultimately, the council voted to postpone action until its March 17 meeting. At that meeting, it’s likely that Eaton will bring forward a revised resolution, a copy of which was provided to The Chronicle on March 13. The revised resolution indicates that the area designated as a park would be 12,000 square feet, compared to 10,000 square feet in the original resolution. That square footage reflects the actual dimensions of the proposed boundaries, according to a staff memo. The revised resolution also eliminates an October 2014 deadline for making design recommendations to the council, and deletes any reference to PAC. [.pdf of revised resolution for March 17 council meeting]

In other action at PAC’s Feb. 25 meeting, commissioners heard three other presentations related to city parks. Councilmember Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) described a proposed ordinance that he’s brought to council regarding outdoor smoking in public places, including parks. Elements of the ordinance include authorizing the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking.

Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest & natural resources planning coordinator, gave a presentation to PAC about the urban and community forest management plan. The city recently released a draft and is seeking input. And Doug Kelly, Ann Arbor’s director of golf, gave an update on the city’s two golf courses at Huron Hills and Leslie Park.

In voting items, PAC recommended approval of an amendment to the city’s golf cart lease with Pifer Inc., and supported approval of contracts for work at Windemere and Clinton parks.

Commissioners also got a brief financial update for the current fiscal year, which runs through June 30, 2014. Bob Galardi, chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee, summarized the status this way: “Basically, we’re in great shape.”

Urban Park Proposal

Will Hathaway, on behalf of the Library Green Conservancy, presented a proposal to PAC to build an urban park on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure. He noted that the conservancy has been working with a group of city councilmembers on a resolution that would be brought forward at the council’s March 3 meeting. [.pdf of March 3 resolution] [.pdf of proposed site boundaries presented to PAC]

Library Lane park proposal as presented to PAC on Feb. 25.

Ann Arbor used to have a town square, Hathaway said – it was the lawn of the old Washtenaw County courthouse, which served as a gathering place for events like speeches by presidential candidates. When that courthouse was torn down, the city lost its town square, he said, so there’s been a need since then.

In the late 1980s, city council formed a task force to make recommendations for developing what’s known as the “library block,” Hathaway said – an area bounded by Fifth Avenue, William, Division and Liberty streets. That effort culminated in the Luckenbach/Ziegelman report of 1991. [.pdf of Luckenbach/Ziegelman report] The report includes a concept drawing for a town square-type park on South Fifth Avenue.

More recently, the city went through an initiative called the Calthorpe process, Hathaway said, which yielded another vision for a city plaza that spanned the entire library block, connecting to the existing Liberty Plaza park. [That process resulted in the rezoning effort called Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown (A2D2).]

Then, during the city’s 2009 RFP (request for proposals) process for the top of the Library Lane site, two concepts for parks were proposed, he said: a town square concept, and the community commons concept. Neither of those two ideas for a park – nor for any other development – were ultimately deemed by the city to meet the criteria set forth in the RFP, he said.

Since 2009, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has completed the Library Lane underground parking structure. That project was finished in 2012, with over 700 spaces. Prior to that, the surface lot had about 200 spaces, Hathaway said. The DDA envisioned future development atop the underground structure, and included an area with reinforced footings for a tall building. The DDA plan called for a modest public plaza, he noted, which could be extended by closing the Library Lane street that runs between Fifth and Division. The DDA plan also envisioned that the Ann Arbor District Library entrance would be reoriented to face north, onto Library Lane. The current entrance faces west, onto Fifth Avenue.

Until the top was developed, the DDA’s default plan was to use the surface for parking, with about 40 spaces, Hathaway said. It was meant as a temporary placeholder.

Gwen Nystuen, a former Ann Arbor park advisory commission, is a member of the Library Green Conservancy. She was one of several conservancy members who attended PAC’s Feb. 25 meeting.

Hathaway described the Connecting William Street project, which the DDA oversaw at the direction of city council, as a way to find consensus for developing five city-owned lots in the downtown area, including the top of the Library Lane structure. After the CWS process found strong interest in public parks, he said, the council turned to PAC to make recommendations. PAC formed a downtown park subcommittee, which developed recommendations during an eight-month process.

Those recommendations, which also called for developing a park or open space on top of the Library Lane structure, were approved by PAC at its Oct. 15, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report] [The subcommittee's report was accepted by the Ann Arbor city council on Nov. 7, 2013 over dissent from councilmember Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who serves on PAC as an ex officio member.]

Several findings from the subcommittee’s work stand out, Hathaway told commissioners. Public opinion strongly favors more urban parks, he noted, with 76% of respondents to an online survey stating that Ann Arbor would benefit from having more urban parks and open space. The first choice of locations was the Library Lane lot, he said.

PAC’s recommendations listed additional possible locations for downtown parks. The Library Green Conservancy pulled out PAC’s criteria that were specific to a park on the Library Lane site, he said, noting that the PAC recommendations were a thoughtful attempt to anticipate what factors would lead to the success of an urban park.

Hathaway then listed the specific PAC recommendations that the conservancy used to develop its proposal. PAC recommended that a park on the site should make use of the closure of Library Lane, and the size should be larger than the DDA’s recommended minimum of 5,000 square feet.

The draft proposal for council was to reserve about 10,000 square feet of the Library Lane site for an urban park, to be “bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street sidewalk to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, and the southern curb of the service alley on the north.” It would be about the same size as Liberty Plaza, which Hathaway described as a “companion” park on the northeast corner of the library block, at Liberty and Division. [The revised resolution on city council's March 17 agenda now indicates dimensions of 12,000 square feet, with the southern boundary extending to the Library Lane curb.]

The Library Lane park could be expanded on occasion by closing the Library Lane street. Hathaway noted that this was also part of the recommendations in the DDA’s Connecting William Street report.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks & recreation manager, and park commissioner Missy Stults tried to solve a computer glitch in the presentation by Will Hathaway of the Library Green Conservancy.

PAC also had recommended that a park on that site should use the city’s investment in “development-ready infrastructure,” Hathaway noted, including reinforced footings and other elements. But he said much of the infrastructure could be used for development of adjacent sites too, not just on top of the underground parking structure. So “the value of it is not linked completely to what happens on site,” Hathaway said.

Hathaway also noted that PAC had recommended that development of the Library Lane site and adjacent parcels, with accompanying increases in activity, is essential for the future success of the site, and that future improvements should work to create a highly visible connection between Library Lane and Liberty Plaza.

Some of the development of the library block is constrained by historic preservation, Hathaway said. Some historic buildings can be modified in certain ways, for example, but not removed. Historic buildings along South Fifth now house Earthen Jar and Jerusalem Garden restaurants. On Division, the historic buildings include the Kempf House Museum and the Noble house and its carriage house. Hathaway also reviewed the buildings in the block that could be renovated or replaced, as well as potential new paths that could be created to encourage pedestrian flow through the block.

Hathaway referred to other PAC recommendations as well, including: (1) any additional park/open space would require robust public input regarding the design, features, and proposed activities; and (2) the Ann Arbor District Library must also be strongly represented in the planning process.

The council resolution anticipates additional public process, Hathaway said, with the library’s involvement being essential to the process, as well as involvement of other stakeholders on that block.

The original resolution also called for financial support as well as an allocation of staff time to design and create the park. The resolution asked PAC and the parks staff to prepare preliminary recommendations for the park’s design, to be presented at the council’s first meeting in October of 2014.

Other aspects of the resolution described for PAC included:

• adding the designated portion of the Library Lane structure’s surface to the city’s parks & recreation open space (PROS) plan, and stating that it will remain a city-owned, public park;
• asking the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to prepare for an eventual transition from parking to non-parking on the surface of the Library Lane structure;
• asking the DDA to conduct a structural analysis of the Library Lane structure to determine if any modifications are needed to safely support design features, such as soil, plantings of various sizes, water features, a skating rink, a performance stage, and play equipment;
• asking that the city’s community services and parks staff work with DDA and the Ann Arbor District Library to facilitate public programming with activities including craft fairs, book fairs, food carts, and fine arts performances;
• asking the DDA to work with the city to explore possible above-ground private and/or public development of the remaining, build-able portion of the surface level north of the central elevator and above the central exit/entrance ramp.

The proposed resolution also specified certain conditions for development rights on the remaining surface of Library Lane, including additional public open space and pedestrian access as features of any private development. The resolution also calls for close collaboration with neighboring properties and businesses, including the Ann Arbor District Library, First Martin Corp., the University of Michigan Credit Union, the Inter-Cooperative Council, and the businesses facing Fifth Avenue and Liberty Street.

“There are lots of questions that still need to be asked and answered before the vision for a park becomes reality,” Hathaway said. “This is really I guess what we would characterize as Step One.”

He likened the process to the one that led to the Ann Arbor skatepark being built at Veterans Memorial Park. Designating the Library Lane site as a future park would allow the rest of the process to move forward, he said. It would also create clarity for adjacent development.

Hathaway described PAC’s leadership last year, with its downtown park subcommittee, as a key step in a long process. ”We look forward to working with you to create a new urban park for Ann Arbor,” Hathaway concluded.

Urban Park Proposal: Commission Discussion

Ingrid Ault began the discussion by saying it wasn’t clear to her what Hathaway was asking for from PAC. Hathaway replied that the conservancy wanted to touch base with PAC, but he didn’t have a request. As news of the conservancy’s efforts on this council resolution emerged, he said some park commissioners had been curious about it. He said he’d welcome feedback, because the resolution was still a draft.

Hathaway said they’d been working closely with councilmember Jack Eaton (Ward 4), who had shared an earlier draft with city staff. The draft that PAC was seeing reflected input from parks staff. Hathaway said they’d like to move forward as soon as possible, because designating the site for a park will allow other steps to occur.

Park advisory commissioner David Santacroce.

David Santacroce wondered if any thought was given to designating a range of space, but not a specific parcel. Santacroce said that if he owned a vacant parcel, the natural process would be to decide what gets built there, and then decide how open space could complement that. In the conservancy’s proposal, the fixed park space really dictates the rest of the development on that site, he said, and it feels a little “like cart, then horse.”

Hathaway replied that a portion of the site, in the southwest corner, is already designated for a plaza or open space – in all of the plans, including the DDA’s. So that already dictates where a plaza or public park could be located, he said. The DDA did not include reinforced footings in that area, because they knew that no building would be constructed there, he noted. “In some ways, we’re sort of working within the design that the DDA created with the Library Lane project.”

Over the past few years, the conservancy has considered a lot of different ways that a park could be designed, Hathaway said. And there are people in the conservancy who are very disappointed in the size of the proposal – they’d prefer to see the entire surface of the Library Lane site turned into a public park. The conservancy tried to figure out what was doable within the framework that the DDA created, he said, and within the reality of city council.

Graydon Krapohl asked whether the intent was to take this proposal directly to city council, without going through PAC, the DDA or the planning commission. “I’m a little troubled by the process,” he said. PAC’s report on downtown parks had been accepted by the council, Krapohl noted, but PAC hadn’t received any additional direction from council to examine the use of the Library Lane site as a city park, or to begin the public process for design and use. So presenting a resolution to council seems to circumvent the public process, he said. “In that regard, I would be very troubled as a citizen that a resolution would go forward without the public process having been fully done.”

Hathaway replied that this might not be the normal process, but “I would say that actually this has gone through an exhaustive process.” The DDA’s Connecting William Street process in 2012 was a chance to look at it and report to city council, Hathaway said. Then PAC’s downtown park subcommittee studied the issue and made recommendations last fall, which the council accepted. So this has gone through a lot of public process, Hathaway said, “probably more than a lot of other parks before they’re approved.”

The designation of the space isn’t the final word, Hathaway added. It’s really the first step.

Graydon Krapohl, vice chair of PAC.

Krapohl argued that the next step should be direction given by council, asking PAC to look at establishing a park. The public process so far hasn’t determined the exact dimensions or location of a park, he said. The proposed resolution makes certain assumptions “that may or may not be true,” Krapohl added. He noted that the conservancy doesn’t act in an official capacity for the city in any way.

That’s why the conservancy is working with members of city council, Hathaway replied. The resolution is doing exactly what Krapohl described, he added, by asking the council to give direction to PAC, and designating the Library Lane site for a park.

Krapohl described the resolution as being very specific, with very little leeway in terms of additional public input about the park’s location. It’s being done outside the typical public process, he said. It’s premature to take the resolution to council without it first being reviewed and endorsed by PAC and the planning commission. “I don’t think it serves the best public interest,” Krapohl said.

Hathaway replied, saying “I guess we just are looking at it in a different way.”

Alan Jackson said his concern related to activation of the space on multiple sides. The conservancy’s proposal takes the park up to the edge of the alley on the site’s north side, which might not be a great way to activate that side, he said. Jackson also said it was hard to deal in generalities, and that dealing with a more specific proposal would be more useful. The best time to consider a park on this site is when a developer has made a proposal for the site, Jackson said, and to have the park plan be built in concert with a development. Jackson was interested in a longer-term view, waiting until the site was being developed.

Hathaway said the resolution attempts to lay out exactly the kind of process that Jackson described. The resolution lays out several steps before the site would be used as a park, Hathaway said, and for now it would continue to be a surface parking lot. Some of the steps include having the city and DDA find a development for the site that would accomplish the goal of mixed-use development.

Park advisory commissioner Karen Levin.

Responding to Jackson’s concern about activating the north side of the site, Hathaway said the conservancy has thought about it but it’s not something they can control. There’s outdoor seating at Earthen Jar when the weather is warm, he noted. An awning could be put there, similar to the type of seating at Sculpture Plaza, he said, so an adjacent business could begin to activate that space.

Hathaway also pointed out that the library is talking about renovating its front entrance. He hoped the library would still be open to re-orienting the entrance to the building’s north side, rather than investing in the current entrance facing west. [At the library board's Feb. 17, 2014 meeting, the facilities committee indicated that they had reviewed and rejected the option of relocating the entrance to the north side. Hathaway attended a March 13 public forum at the downtown library regarding the front entrance, and advocated again for re-orienting it to the north.]

Mike Anglin noted that the city had decided to sell the nearby former Y lot, in a deal that was reached rather quickly, he said, to the satisfaction of many people. [Anglin was referring to an offer from hotelier Dennis Dahlmann. The council had approved a $5.25 million purchase agreement with Dahlmann for the city-owned land, located on William between Fourth and Fifth avenues. That approval came at the council's Nov. 18, 2013 meeting. However, the deal hasn't yet closed. The date set for closing, according to a March 12 communication from city administrator Steve Powers, is April 2.]

Anglin also mentioned that the library had previously put forward a plan to rebuild its downtown location, south of Library Lane. The plan hadn’t been public discussed enough, he said, so there was a lot of opposition. [The library had put a bond proposal on the November 2012 ballot to pay for a new building, but it was rejected by a majority of voters.]

Now, Anglin continued, “I think what we’re seeing here is a little something different.” He said people argued over how much money was spent at the Library Lane site on infrastructure for future development. It had been a major investment, he said, “and surely the city is going to use it for something that should benefit the community.”

Anglin said he has supported using some of the Library Lane space as a park. He thought that designating this space for a park was following PAC’s recommendation. People want a downtown park, he said. More people would move downtown, Anglin added, but the city needs to provide amenities. He referenced four other city-owned downtown parcels that were part of the Connecting William Street study. Anglin thought that designating part of the Library Lane site as a park would actually enhance its appeal for developers.

There would be additional time to figure out what would actually go there, Anglin said. Should it be a big rose garden or a place where kids can swim or a walkway with “pretty lights”? There are lots of opportunities, he said. “So I do not find this process offensive.” Rather, he thought Hathaway “was stepping up as a private citizen.” The council hasn’t given direction, Anglin added, because councilmembers couldn’t agree.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks & recreation manager.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said that the one thing in the resolution that gives him pause as a staff person was this part of the second resolved clause: “The City Council requests that the PAC and Parks Department staff prepare preliminary recommendations for the design of the new urban park for consideration by City Council at its first meeting in October, 2014; …”

It’s not just the timeframe that’s a concern, Smith said. There’s agreement in general for a park on the Library Lane site, he noted. But the subcommittee report that PAC approved and that council accepted is at odds with the current resolution directing staff and PAC to design a park that wouldn’t be done in concert with any other development on the site. “And that’s where I feel we’re getting pulled in two different ways here,” he said. Staff will do what they’re directed to do, he added, “but that is not without some conflict in my mind right now.”

Ingrid Ault, PAC’s chair, weighed in. She said the draft resolution was very long “and really difficult to read.” It was hard for her to understand what the resolution was trying to accomplish. If the resolution was supporting PAC’s recommendations, she said, then it should state that clearly. She didn’t think that there was supporting documentation for many of the statements in the resolution. Ault didn’t think anyone on PAC would be ready to make a statement about the resolution at that meeting.

Krapohl said it seems like the next step from council should be to create a task force, similar to what happened for the North Main/Huron River corridor project. Members could include representatives from the conservancy, from PAC, from the planning commission, staff and others, he said, to talk about what the process should be. It was important not to rush this through, he added.

Hathaway replied that a portion of the Library Lane site has been designated as a public plaza since the start of planning for the underground parking structure. The draft resolution was just recommending that the area be extended to the north, he said, at the discretion of city council. He thought it flowed from the work of PAC last year.

He realized the resolution was long, saying he modeled it after others that had come before council, especially some by Christopher Taylor. Taylor’s resolutions use the whereas clauses to “tell the story of how we arrived at the resolved clauses,” Hathaway noted.

The Library Lane park resolution has a lot of whereas clauses because there’s a lot of information that feeds into the resolved clauses, Hathaway explained. So the whereas clauses “are the legislative history of how we got to this point,” he said. The whereas clauses include references to other documents used “throughout this long process,” he added. “It does sort of add up to an understandable conclusion.”

Christopher Taylor, who serves on city council and is an ex officio member of PAC.

It’s a delicate balance, Hathaway said, to provide enough direction without micromanaging.

Ault replied that the resolution struck her as “a little micromanaged.” She again stated that the number of resolved clauses made it really hard for her to read.

Jackson said it wasn’t clear to him that this was the best way to proceed. He wanted to focus on moving the process forward, and he liked Krapohl’s suggestion about creating a task force.

Taylor appreciated that Hathaway had acknowledged the conservancy’s internal conflict regarding the amount of space. The resolution is a departure from the DDA plan, Taylor said, “but it is not a wholesale departure.” Taylor wanted to acknowledge that.

Taylor then noted that PAC’s recommendations had mentioned parks and open space, but the proposed resolution only talks about parks and seeks to move the identified parcel straight to the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan. That approach is “answering the question before it’s even asked,” Taylor said. If a parcel were incorporated into the PROS plan as parkland, then if the city wanted to sell the rights to develop the parcel, “that requires a plebiscite,” Taylor said.

In the end, Taylor contended, the public doesn’t care who owns the site, as long as the public can use it. Questions about who owns the site or manages it or pays for it – these questions are “up in the air,” he said. He suggested an RFP process that would seek development along with plans for open space, rather than “locking down” the site for a park. The creativity would not merely be in the design of a park, “but its integration as well,” Taylor said. Also, designating it as a park “presupposes who’s going to pay for it.”

Hathaway then indicated that the discussion might have reached its end “within the limits of your agenda.” Ault said she hoped PAC had provided some feedback that Hathaway could use.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Urban Park Proposal: Council’s March 3 Meeting

At the city council’s March 3, 2014 meeting, Jack Eaton (Ward 4) brought forward the urban park proposal that Hathaway had presented to PAC. Other sponsors of the resolution were Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). It was Eaton’s first resolution since being elected in November 2012.

Several people spoke about the issue of downtown parks during public commentary on March 3, including the current PAC chair, Ingrid Ault, and former PAC chair Julie Grand. They highlighted the PAC recommendations on downtown parks, and urged the council to postpone action on the resolution.

Sketch of possible park at the Library Lane site, presented by mayor John Hieftje during the city council’s March 3, 2014 meeting.

Also at the March 3 meeting, mayor John Hieftje presented his own vision for urban parks to counter Eaton’s proposal. Hieftje argued for considering several open spaces downtown, including the surface lot on the northeast corner of Main & William, next to Palio restaurant. [.pdf of slides presented by Hieftje on March 3] The concept included putting decorative pavement in the sidewalks to create something like a “yellow brick road” that would lead people from a re-imagined and re-done Liberty Plaza, down Library Lane to a park on top of the Library Lane parking structure, then further west to the proposed Allen Creek greenway. Going in the other direction, heading east, the walk would go all the way through – with marked special pavement – to the University of Michigan Diag, which Hieftje called the largest park in the downtown.

During deliberations on Eaton’s resolution later in the March 3 meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he wanted a postponement to have time to meet with some Ann Arbor District Library board members. He wanted to talk to the library board about moving the library over to the surface of the Library Lane structure. He didn’t think the city would break even on the building rights for the top of the parking structure, given the amount of investment for development that has already been made. So he thought that partnering with a public entity might make more sense.

Kunselman also said he wanted to list the Library Lane surface for sale. He planned to bring a resolution forward that would direct the city administrator to hire a broker to sell the rights to build on top of the parking structure.

Ultimately, councilmembers voted to postpone the Library Lane park resolution until their March 17 meeting.

A report on deliberations during the March 3 council meeting is provided in The Chronicle’s live updates filed from council chambers. A full report of the issue – including public commentary and Hieftje’s presentation – is included in the March 3, 2014 meeting report.

Urban Park Proposal: Revised Resolution for March 17 Council Meeting

The resolution that the city council will consider on March 17 will differ from the one considered on March 3. In an email to The Chronicle on March 13, Will Hathaway sent a revised resolution that has been placed on the March 17 agenda. [.pdf of revised resolution] The revised resolution is now a part of the council’s online agenda.

The revised resolution indicates that the area designated as a park would be 12,000 square feet, compared to 10,000 square feet in the original resolution. That square footage reflects the actual dimensions of the proposed boundaries, based on additional information from city staff. The revised version also eliminates the October 2014 deadline for making design recommendations to the council, and deletes any reference to PAC.

The number of resolved clauses has been decreased from seven to four. From the revised resolution:

Resolved, That City Council approve the reservation of the site for an urban public park of approximately 12,000 square feet on the surface of the Library Lane Structure bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street curb to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, and the southern curb of the service alley on the north (see two related site plans). This portion of the surface of the Library Lane Structure shall be added to the PROS Plan and remain a City-owned, public park;

Resolved, that the City will encourage the creative use of this space to commence on an occasional basis during the transition from parking to public park even before the urban park design and installation work is complete, and hereby requests that Community Services and the Park Department work together with DDA and the AADL to encourage groups to reserve the space for public activities including, but not limited to, craft fairs, book fairs, food carts, fine arts performances, and other activities and consider modification of permit requirements in order to eliminate fees for those seeking to put on public programs on the Library Lane site;

Resolved, that the City will work with the developer of the remaining portion of the Library Lane site to ensure that the designs for both spaces, an urban public park and the adjacent development, complement and support each other’s successful uses;

Resolved, That all development on the Library Lane site, whether public or private, will proceed in close collaboration with neighboring properties and businesses including, but not limited to the Ann Arbor District Library, First Martin Corporation, the University of Michigan Credit Union, the Inter-Cooperative Council, and the businesses fronting on Fifth Avenue and Liberty Street. Possible goals of this collaboration include:

• Reorientation of the physical design and uses of these adjacent properties so that they help to create pedestrian interaction with the public park on the Library Lane Structure,
• Creation of pedestrian walkways that connect the Library Lane Structure and public park to Liberty Plaza, Liberty Street and William Street;
• Discussion about incentives, such as premiums or subsidies, that the City or DDA might offer to encourage both physical reorientation and pedestrian access/easements through adjacent properties, and
• Consideration of possible joint development on the Library Lane Structure’s remaining build-able portion.

A memo from Jack Eaton to the council, dated March 11, 2014, summarizes the most significant changes between the original resolution and the revised version that’s on the March 17 agenda. [.pdf of Eaton's March 11 memo]

Outdoor Smoking Ordinance

Chuck Warpehoski, a city councilmember representing Ward 5, spoke to PAC on Feb. 25 about a proposed ordinance regarding outdoor smoking in public places. He said the proposal came about because of concerns he’d heard from the community. [.pdf of proposed ordinance]

The proposed ordinance would set a $50 civil fine that could be imposed for 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.

Chuck Warpehoski, a Ward 5 city councilmember, spoke to park advisory commissioners about a proposed ordinance to regulate outdoor smoking.

Warpehoski told PAC that he was speaking to the commission because the ordinance would allow the city administrator to designate parts of Ann Arbor parkland as smoke-free zones. Currently, people can smoke in public parks, playgrounds or natural areas.

Warpehoski reported that he’d spoken to board members of the People’s Food Co-op regarding concerns about smoking in Sculpture Plaza, a city park at the southeast corner of Fourth & Catherine. The co-op’s storefront faces the plaza, and there are concerns that smokers in the plaza are affecting business. Warpehoski said that one of his constituents had to relocate her office from the space above the co-op due to people smoking outside. He said he’s also heard concerns from people who wait for buses, and have to stand near smokers.

He told PAC he was interested in getting feedback before the city council voted on the ordinance.

Warpehoski pointed out that the PAC meeting packet also include materials developed by people at the University of Michigan who are involved in nationwide efforts to reduce smoking in public places. [.pdf of tobacco fact sheet] The material includes a list of over 900 municipalities across the country that have a blanket ban on smoking in parks, including several municipalities in Michigan. [.pdf of no-smoking municipalities]

He noted that the proposed ordinance for Ann Arbor “is not that aggressive.” Although it would allow for the city administrator to ban smoking in all parks, he said, the intent is to be more incremental and address specific areas, like the plaza in front of People’s Food Co-op. He noted that another councilmember, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), told him that when she participates in the annual clean-up of Plymouth Park, they always find cigarette butts in the playground. So this ordinance would give the city some ability to “rein that in,” he said.

Outdoor Smoking Ordinance: Commission Discussion

Graydon Krapohl observed that the ordinance gives the city administrator a lot of authority to make decisions. He wondered if there were any guidelines, framework or process for determining where the smoking ban would be applied.

Chuck Warpehoski said he couldn’t imagine that the decision would be made without consulting PAC, but a process wasn’t written into the ordinance.

Alan Jackson asked if the ordinance would apply to e-cigarettes. He also wondered how the ban would be enforced, whether enforcement would be effective, and what the cost would be. Jackson joked that his concerns might be because he’d just watched the Ken Burns’ series on Prohibition. He observed that in the case of the People’s Food Co-op, someone could just smoke on the sidewalk instead of in the public plaza.

Warpehoski replied that the ordinance doesn’t address e-cigarettes, although there are concerns about toxicity from that product and it’s within the city’s regulatory authority to take that on.

Regarding enforcement, Warpehoski noted that the goal is not to write a lot of tickets and take in a lot of revenue from that. The language in the ordinance is being changed to allow ticketing only if someone refuses to move to a smoking area or refuses to extinguish the cigarette. “We’re not trying to be punitive in this,” he said. He envisions that it would be largely self-policing. No-smoking signs will deal with most of the problem, he said, without needing the threat of someone writing tickets.

The ordinance will give the administrator and staff a tool to address these problems, Warpehoski said.

David Santacroce referred to this section of the proposed ordinance:

6:2. Smoking Prohibited in Outdoor Public Places.
…
(2) A person who violates subsection (1) where no signs are posted is subject to being cited with a violation only if he or she ceases smoking immediately upon being requested or ordered to do so.

Warpehoski noted that there’s a missing word: It should be “…only if he or she doesn’t cease smoking immediately…” Santacroce said that wasn’t his question. He wanted to know who would be making the request, saying there was ambiguity on that issue. Does it refer to law enforcement, or someone from the parks staff? With the current language, Santacroce said, it could be a request from another citizen.

Santacroce also said he could see why it would be more palatable to take an incremental approach rather than a blanket ban. But it’s possible that the administrator could simply prohibit smoking in all parks as soon as the ordinance is enacted. Santacroce said he supported the ordinance, “but it seems like it’s a little bit of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Warpehoski said he had a hard time imagining a city administrator in this city immediately banning all smoking in all parks. “We love our process here, right?” Warpehoski said, so it’s hard to imagine that kind of sudden action happening without public engagement.

Krapohl picked up the question about enforcement. Would a police officer need to come whenever a smoking violation is reported?

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said that tickets could be written by either police officers or community standards officers. It would be possible to provide other staff with the authority to write tickets as well, he said, but it would be important to provide appropriate training for that. “It’s not as straightforward as one might think,” Smith said. He added that he didn’t think it would be a high priority for the police department.

Santacroce, a law professor at the University of Michigan, noted that a violation of the ordinance would be a civil infraction, which he described as a misdemeanor. “So that stays on someone’s record for their life,” he said. [At the city council's March 3, 2014 meeting, councilmember Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who is an ex officio member of PAC, asked city attorney Stephen Postema if a violation of the ordinance would be a misdemeanor. Postema didn't answer the question with a direct yes or no, instead stating that a civil infraction is not a violation of the criminal code.]

Park advisory commissioner Alan Jackson.

Warpehoski replied that he’d work with the city’s legal staff to clear up any ambiguity. He said he hoped there would never be a citation written. But he wanted someone to have that ability, if a smoker is being obnoxious and refusing to move or put out the cigarette. Other municipalities aren’t writing a lot of tickets for this kind of thing, he added.

Jackson asked what officers in the Ann Arbor police department think about the proposal, “since they’re the ones who’re going to really bear the brunt of dealing with this.” Jackson also wondered if this ordinance was really about smoking, or was it “about not wanting homeless people around.” Ordinances of this type are often used to target certain populations, he said.

Ingrid Ault, PAC’s chair, responded by saying she’s had many conversations with Lesley Perkins, the co-op’s general manager. The concern is about smoking, Ault said. The co-op has received many complaints, she added, noting that as a co-op customer she’s also experienced the situation.

Warpehoski said the co-op has been very welcoming to the people who stand outside and sell Groundcover News, a publication sold by homeless or low-income residents. The co-op puts an ad in the publication each month with a $1 off coupon, he noted. Vendors are allowed to use the co-op’s bathrooms, Warpehoski said. The co-op has been very hospitable, so he didn’t think the issue was about the homeless. It was about not wanting to have smoke outside the door.

Smith said he fundamentally agreed with the proposed ordinance. From a staff perspective, it needs to be applied equitably. It’s important to develop a standard approach to implementing the ordinance. Although the focus has been on Sculpture Plaza, Smith said he’d be more comfortable applying it to all parks in the downtown, for example, so that when the staff is questioned about why there’s a ban in certain places, they have a clear answer.

Smith also noted that there are over 150 parks in the city, and there are times and places when smoking is appropriate. When there are weddings at Cobblestone Farm, for example, “I’m quite sure cigars are lit up,” he said. It might not be bad if the city administrator were to ask for PAC’s recommendation about where to apply the ban, Smith said.

Warpehoski said he’d be comfortable adding a provision to the ordinance that includes getting advice or recommendations from PAC. Krapohl suggested adding a bullet point under the section that describes the city administrator’s authority, to include a public process that explains how decisions will be made.

Ault asked Warpehoski if he’d return to PAC to give an update as the ordinance approval process progresses. Christopher Taylor, a councilmember who serves as an ex officio member of PAC, suggested that either he or Anglin could give updates instead.

Warpehoski explained that the proposed ordinance was on the March 3 council agenda for first reading. If it was passed, it would come back to council for a second reading at a future meeting, when a public hearing would be held.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

At the council’s March 3, 2014 meeting, councilmembers voted to postpone action on the proposed ordinance until April 7. [.pdf of resolution considered on March 3] The March 3 resolution was a slightly different version than the one presented to PAC, but did not include Krapohl’s suggestion to outline a public process for decision-making.

The council vote to postpone came over dissent from mayor John Hieftje and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). Questions at the council table focused on how enforcement would be handled and where the ban would be in effect. During deliberations, Warpehoski expressed frustration that councilmembers hadn’t raised their questions and concerns sooner. He first introduced the resolution on Feb. 3.

Urban Forest

Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest & natural resources planning coordinator, gave a presentation to PAC on Feb. 25 about the urban and community forest management plan. After working on the plan for a couple of years, the city recently released a draft and is seeking input, she said. [.pdf of Gray's presentation] [.pdf of draft plan]

Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest & natural resources planning coordinator.

An urban forest is defined as all the trees, shrubs and woody vegetation growing along city streets, in public parks and on institutional and private property. In Ann Arbor, about 25% is on public property, with 75% on private property.

Based on a U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service i-Tree Eco Analysis done in 2012, Ann Arbor’s urban forest has an estimated 1.45 million trees. It creates a 33% tree canopy – the layer of leaves, branches and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above.

The city manages 43,240 street trees and about 6,900 park trees in mowed areas. A tree inventory conducted in 2009 didn’t include natural areas, she noted, so there are thousands of trees that aren’t counted. The urban forest includes over 200 species, representing 82 genera.

Gray described a range of benefits provided by the urban forest, estimating that the benefits in stormwater management, air quality, energy conservation and quality of life total $4.6 million annually. As an example, studies show that people tend to spend more money in shopping areas that have more trees, she said.

Over the last decade, the urban forest has faced two major challenges, Gray told PAC: the emerald ash borer, and budget reductions. The city lost over 10,000 ash trees, and had to focus its constrained resources on removing those trees. That resulted in deferred maintenance for other aspects of the urban forest, she said.

That deferred maintenance didn’t affect park trees, because the parks millage provided funding, she said. But for street trees, she reported a significant backlog issue. As of July 1, 2013 – the start of the city’s current fiscal year – there was a backlog of 1,412 street trees that needed removal; 3,110 trees that needed priority pruning; 38,471 trees that needed routine pruning; and 1,371 stump removals. Gray reported that the city removes about 550 trees each year, and plants about 1,000 trees annually. No routine pruning cycle or proactive maintenance occurs at this time, she said.

To address these challenges, the city began developing its first-ever urban and community forest management plan. Gray described the planning process and public outreach, using the consultant Smith Group JJR. The process included staff, a working group, an advisory committee, stakeholder groups and the general public, she said, as well as feedback from an online survey.

Based on that input, draft goals and recommendations were developed, Gray said. The overarching goal is ”the sustainable protection, preservation, maintenance and expansion of the urban and community forest.”

There are 17 recommendations, listed in priority based on community feedback for implementation:

1. Implement proactive tree maintenance program.
2. Strengthen tree planting and young tree maintenance programs.
3. Monitor threats to the urban and community forest.
4. Increase landmark/special tree protections.
5. Secure adequate city‐funding for urban forestry core services.
6. Develop street tree master plans.
7. Pursue grant and philanthropic funding opportunities.
8. Strengthen forestry related ordinances.
9. Update tree inventory and canopy analysis.
10. Develop urban forest best management practices.
11. Increase urban forestry volunteerism.
12. Strengthen relationships with outside entities who impact trees.
13. Implement community outreach program.
14. Obtain the best use of wood from removed trees.
15. Create city staff working groups to coordinate projects that impact trees.
16. Engage the city’s Environmental Commission in urban and community forestry issues.
17. Review the urban forest management plan periodically and update as needed.

Regarding recommendation #16, Gray said the idea is to create a resource committee devoted to urban and community forest issues on both public and private property. The proposal would include two representatives from PAC.

Each of the 17 recommendations includes action tasks and implementation ideas, case studies, and resources that are needed, including funding.

In terms of next steps, Gray noted that the city is accepting public commentary on draft plan through March 28. The plan will be finalized in April, then reviewed by both the environmental and park advisory commissions at their April meetings. Each of those commissions will be asked to pass resolutions recommending that the city council adopt the plan, she said. It’s expected to be on the council’s agenda in June or July.

Urban Forest: Commission Discussion

Acknowledging that Ann Arbor is known as Tree Town, Alan Jackson noted that the city’s natural areas preservation staff sometimes promotes other types of ecosystems, like prairies. He asked how that fits in with the urban forest plan. Kerry Gray replied that trees aren’t always the best vegetation for a particular location, and the plan addresses that issue.

Christopher Taylor wondered whether the community priorities, as reflected in the urban forestry plan, are parallel with the professional judgment of staff. Absolutely, Gray replied.

Paige Morrison asked how the goals for canopy coverage had been developed. She was referring to the goals on this chart:

Chart of urban forest canopy goals.

Gray replied that the goals were developed through a process that involved the plan’s advisory committee. American Forests, a nonprofit conservation group, recommends that communities in the Midwest have 40% tree canopy cover. “But we couldn’t find the science behind how they arrived at this 40%,” she added. So the advisory committee and staff looked at where areas would be best suited for increased canopy cover.

Mike Anglin asked how many more employees would be needed to fulfill the goals in this plan, “in a perfect world.” He noted the importance of maintaining trees, and said that people who own property with trees generally spend $1,000 annually to maintain them. Gray replied that the draft plan does include staffing recommendations for about 12 qualified forestry staff members. Currently, the city employs eight staff in forestry. But she noted that the city’s forestry operations have always used contractors for much of the work, and that would continue.

Anglin also thanked Gray for how the city is handling the removal of silver maples. He called the trees a hazard. Residents had been complaining because trees were being removed from city streets, he noted, particularly silver maples. He described that situation as the impetus for developing the urban forest management plan. He thought Gray had handled the situation very well.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Golf Courses Update

Doug Kelly, Ann Arbor’s director of golf, attended PAC’s Feb. 25 meeting along with Scott Spooner, the city’s golf course maintenance superintendent, and Andrew Walton, recreational supervisor for the golf courses. They were on hand to give an update on the city’s two golf courses at Huron Hills and Leslie Park. The presentation was similar to one that PAC had received at its March 19, 2013 meeting.

Doug Kelly, Ann Arbor’s director of golf. In the background is Andrew Walton, recreational supervisor for the golf courses.

Kelly described Huron Hills as a shorter layout that’s about 5,000 yards long, compared to 6,200 to 7,500 yards for a typical course. That shorter length makes it very accessible for the entire golfing community, for people of all ages, abilities and economic backgrounds. It’s also very affordable, he said, where juniors and seniors can pay $9 for 9 holes or $14 for 18 holes. It was one of the first courses in the area to offer a parent-child rate, trying to get more families out. There are “wee tees” on the first seven holes – located on the east side of Huron Parkway, so that kids don’t have to cross the road.

During the winter months, Huron Hills also provides one of the area’s best sledding hills, he said.

Leslie Park is a very well-respected and busy course, Kelly said, attracting golfers from across southeast Michigan and beyond with its layout that is challenging, yet playable. Golf Digest magazine has rated it as the best municipal course in the state, he said. The course has also received national awards from Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program and the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America.

In total, both courses employ about 44 seasonal workers and three full-time staff. The courses are open seven days a week during the season, which some years runs from March until December. This year it’s more likely to start in April, he said. The hours are usually 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. There are over 280 acres between the two courses, and 170 of those are maintained. About 54,000 golfers use the courses each year, with revenue of about $1.2 million.

As background, in 2007, the city council and staff examined the golf courses closely, hired a consultant and made some decisions about the future of the courses. As a result of that evaluation, the city decided to invest in infrastructure and staff.

Those changes have led to an increase in the number of golf rounds at both courses. At Huron Hills, rounds grew from 13,913 in 2007 to 23,842 rounds in the 2012 season, then dipped to about 21,000 in 2013. Kelly attributed the 2013 decline to weather, including a “really terrible” spring and an early winter.

The same pattern is seen at Leslie Park. In 2007, 21,857 rounds were played, compared to 32,628 in 2012. The rounds dipped to 29,400 in 2013.

So rounds at Huron Hills and Leslie Park have increased 70% and 50% since 2007, respectively, during a period when rounds of golf in Michigan have been flat, Kelly said.

Correlating to the increased number of rounds, revenues have also increased during that period, Kelly reported. In fiscal year 2007, Huron Hill reported revenues of $242,577. Those increased 55% to $375,068 in fiscal 2012, then dipped to about $332,000 last year. At Leslie Park, revenues grew from $623,942 in FY 2007 to $929,071 in FY 2012 – an increase of 49%. Last year, revenues were about $801,000.

Spooner gave an update on a major Traver Creek reconstruction project, which ran through Leslie Park golf course. The $1.4 million project added about 6.5 acres of wetland habitat, and added about 1,000 feet to the length of the creek, which slows it down, he said. Native plant species were added, and creekbeds were regraded to be less vertical. The intent is to better manage stormwater and decrease flooding. The project lasted from October 2012 until May of 2013.

Scott Spooner, the city’s golf course maintenance superintendent. His blog is called Tree Town Turf Guy.

Leslie Park golf course has been certified by the Michigan Turfgrass Environmental Stewardship Program, which requires that the course exceed requirements of environmental laws, protect water resources and enhance the maintenance of turf grass and open spaces. The course also was designated as an Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary, part of a national program that focuses on enhancing the habitat for wildlife on golf courses. Huron Hills is currently working to get both of these certifications.

Spooner reported that an Eagle Scout named Isaac built a tower for the chimney swift on the 14th hole. The bird isn’t endangered, but it’s of special concern in Michigan, he said. The tower is a place for the birds to roost. He also showed slides of four mallard duck nesting tubes that were built with the help of elementary school children. He said the golf course also works with the Leslie Science & Nature Center. [Spooner keeps a blog called Tree Town Turf Guy that describes these and other projects.]

Kelly continued the presentation, noting that he, Spooner and Walton were all hired at about the same time, soon after the consultant’s report was completed about the golf courses. For the past five years, they’ve been working to implement recommendations in the report, he said, and they’ve had a lot of success.

Looking ahead, they’ll continue their efforts to focus on environmental best practices, Kelly said, as well as to improve course conditions. Kelly also wants to increase the focus on family and junior golf, and continue an emphasis on customer service.

Golf Courses Update: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson praised the stormwater improvements at Leslie Park golf course, saying it’s good to reduce environmental problems on the golf course rather than just add pesticides. He noted that the golf courses are used in the winter for other activities, and he wondered if there were any plans related to that.

During the golf presentation, a slide showing sledding at Huron Hills in 1939. At the left is Ingrid Ault, PAC’s chair.

Doug Kelly replied that parking and accessibility are challenges for winter activities at Leslie Park, though the hill on hole 11 is one that’s used by people in the neighborhood, he said. At Huron Hills, it’s open and there’s plenty of parking. It’s continuously voted as one of the best sledding hills in the area, he noted. He showed some historical photos from 1939, when Huron Hills was a private club. There were built-in toboggan runs and a ski jump at the time.

Kelly said there’s a lot of potential at Huron Hills during the winter months. A lot of cross country skiers use the course as well, he added, and it’s been a great winter for that.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said he’s asked Kelly to develop a proposal for how Huron Hills could be used in the winter. Now that the golf courses are part of the general fund, rather than a separate enterprise fund, “we kind of look at them differently,” Smith said. The infrastructure is in place to provide more winter amenities, he noted. Smith joked that he didn’t envision another ski jump, though he said he’d relish trying to get such a project through the city attorney’s office.

Karen Levin said she thought there was cross country skiing at Leslie Park golf course, too. Kelly replied that some people do cross country ski there. The pedestrian gates are unlocked to allow access, he said, but it’s not something that the city promotes. Smith noted that the city stopped providing equipment for cross country skiing several years ago. It would be very expensive to buy the equipment again, he said, adding that not every winter is suitable for that sport.

Mike Anglin thanked Kelly and his staff for their work, saying that the community now accepts the golf courses as a tremendous resource. There were people who didn’t appreciate the courses in the past, he said. Anglin praised the growth in revenue, and the number of jobs that the courses provide for young people in the summer. “You should be very proud of what you’ve done with your team,” Anglin said.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Golf Cart Lease

An amendment to a two-year golf cart lease with Pifer Inc. was on PAC’s Feb. 25 agenda. The agreement would increase the original number of 65 leased carts by 34 carts, for a total of 99 carts. The city leases golf carts from Pifer for the Huron Hills and Leslie Park golf courses.

Paige Morrison attended her first meeting as a park advisory commissioner on Feb. 25, after city council appointed her on Feb. 3 to replace Jennifer Geer. In the background are students who were attending the PAC meeting as part of a class assignment.

The lease amendment would be for two years, for an amount not to exceed $50,340 over the length of the lease amendment term. Funding for FY 2014 would come from the parks and recreation services general fund and would be in the proposed budget for FY 2015, according to a staff memo. In FY 2013, the city generated about $225,000 in revenue from golf cart rentals.

The resolution also recommended the sale of 32 city-owned golf carts to Pifer for $50,340.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, reported that the city bought the carts five years ago for $975 apiece, and are re-selling them for $1,475 each.

He noted that the city has seen an increase in the use of carts at Huron Hills. It’s not only a good revenue-generator, he said, but it also provides an opportunity for a wider range of people to play the course, who aren’t able to walk it.

PAC had recommended the original lease a year ago, at its Feb. 26, 2013 meeting. The city council subsequently approved the agreement in March of 2013. The current amendment exercises the renewal option in that original deal, and establishes the qualities for new carts and trade-ins. The original terms remain in effect regarding sale price offered for acquiring the city’s old carts and the cost per new cart leased. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

During the brief discussion on Feb. 25, Alan Jackson asked about acquiring electric carts that would be rechargeable. The concern in the past was whether such carts would work over a long period, and whether there was adequate infrastructure. Smith replied that the city is planning to have a cart shed at Leslie Park for electric carts. That’s in the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) for fiscal 2015, which begins July 1, 2014. The amendment to the current lease would allow for a transition from the gas carts to electric carts, he said. Earlier versions of electric carts “struggled” with the hilly terrain of Leslie Park, Smith noted, but the carts have improved over the past decade and now perform well.

In response to a query from Jackson, Smith said that over the next year the staff will be looking for grants to help build the cart shed – perhaps by making the shed solar-powered.

Outcome: PAC unanimously passed the resolution regarding golf carts. The agreement will require approval from the city council.

Windemere Park

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, introduced this item by saying: “So, here it is.” The statement elicited laughs from commissioners, because the project has been in the works for about two years and had been someone controversial. The resolution was to recommend approval of a $134,297 contract with Nagle Paving Co. to relocate and rebuild the tennis courts at Windemere Park.

Mike Anglin.

On Jan. 28, 2014, PAC had approved 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]

Smith said that parks staff were happy with the number of responses they received. Nagle is the same firm that restored the tennis courts at Veterans Memorial Park in 2010, and the staff had been very happy with that work.

Ingrid Ault thanked park planner Amy Kuras, saying she knew that Kuras had worked hard on this project.

Alan Jackson observed that no one was attending the meeting to complain about this project, “so I consider that a tremendous accomplishment on the parks staff part.”

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the recommendation for selecting Nagle to do the work at Windemere Park. The item will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Clinton Park

PAC was asked to recommended approving a $133,843.00 contract with Best Asphalt to rebuild the tennis and basketball courts at Clinton Park. The park is located on the west side of Stone School Road, south of Eisenhower Parkway.

Including a 10% construction contingency, the project’s total budget is $147,227.

Best Asphalt provided the lowest of five bids, according to a staff memo. The project will be funded with revenues from the park maintenance and capital improvement millage. Colin Smith, manager of parks & recreation, described it as a “straightforward rebuild.” He thought the residents in that area will be pleased to see the improvements.

There was no discussion among commissioners.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to recommend approval of the contract. The council subsequently voted to approve the work at its March 3 meeting.

Financial Report

Bob Galardi, chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee, gave an update on the financial status of the city’s parks and recreation operations for the current fiscal year, which runs from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014. [.xls file of financial update]

Bob Galardi, chair of PAC’s budget and finance committee.

The results so far are in line with projections, Galardi said. Revenues will be affected by the weather, however. This spring, the golf courses won’t be opening as early as they have in recent years, he noted, so there will be a slight reduction in revenues.

In other highlights, Galardi pointed to Mack Pool, which is showing a forecasted $25,000 increase in revenues this year compared to what was projected in the budget. That’s because of actions that have been taken, like creating a swim team there, he said.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, reported that almost 100 people have signed up for the Mack Pool swim team, which accounts for part of the revenue increase.

In general, Galardi said, the update is that parks and recreation is on target to meet its budget projections. “Basically we’re in great shape,” he concluded.

Smith added that overall expenses are also in line with budgeted amounts. Certain facilities will have higher-than-projected expenses, he said, but other facilities will have lower-than-projected expenses. The same is true for revenues, he said.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Bob Galardi, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl, Karen Levin, Paige Morrison, David Santacroce, Missy Stults, and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio members). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. If you’re already helping The Chronicle with some financial green, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Library Lane park proposal.

In arguing for postponement, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he wanted time to bring forward a companion resolution that would involve putting the development rights for the top of the Library Lane parking structure up for sale. He also indicated he wanted to discuss the issue with members of the Ann Arbor District Library board and explore the idea of building a new library building on top of the structure.

The resolution postponed by the council on March 3 includes a proposal to reserve about 10,000 square feet on the surface of the Library Lane structure for an urban park, to be “bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street sidewalk to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, and the southern curb of the service alley on the north.” [.pdf of proposed resolution] [.pdf of proposed site boundaries]

The proposal was also presented at the Feb. 25, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. The commission was not asked to act on it.

Sponsors of the resolution that appeared on the March 3 city council agenda were Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who serves on PAC as an ex officio member.

The resolution calls for financial support as well as an allocation of staff time to design and create the park. The resolution asks PAC and the parks staff to prepare preliminary recommendations for the park’s design, to be presented at the council’s first meeting in October of 2014.

Other aspects of the proposal include:

• asking the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to prepare for an eventual transition from parking to non-parking on the surface of the Library Lane structure;
• asking the DDA to conduct a structural analysis of the Library Lane structure to determine if any modifications are needed to safely support design features, such as soil, plantings of various sizes, water features, a skating rink, a performance stage, and play equipment;
• asking that the city’s community services and parks staff work with DDA and the Ann Arbor District Library to facilitate public programming with activities including craft fairs, book fairs, food carts, and fine arts performances;
• asking the DDA to work with the city to explore possible above-ground private and/or public development of the remaining, build-able portion of the surface level north of the central elevator and above the central exit/entrance ramp.

The resolution specifies certain conditions for development rights on the remaining surface of Library Lane, including additional public open space and pedestrian access as features of any private development. The resolution also calls for close collaboration with neighboring properties and businesses, including the Ann Arbor District Library, First Martin Corp., the University of Michigan Credit Union, the Inter-Cooperative Council, and the businesses facing Fifth Avenue and Liberty Street.

Activists have pushed for a public park or plaza on the top of the Library Lane underground parking structure for several years. Several members of the Library Green Conservancy – including former park commissioner Gwen Nystuen, and former Ann Arbor planning commissioner Eric Lipson – attended PAC’s Feb. 25 meeting. The presentation to PAC was made by  Will Hathaway, on behalf of the Library Green Conservancy.

PAC has explored the urban park issue more broadly, most formally with a downtown parks subcommittee created in 2012. The subcommittee presented a report at PAC’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting that included general recommendations, with an emphasis on “placemaking” principles that include active use, visibility and safety. The most specific recommendation also called for developing a park or open space on top of the Library Lane structure. A park or open space at that location should exceed 5,000 square feet, according to the report, and connect to Library Lane, the small mid-block cut-through that runs north of the library between Fifth and Division. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report]

The subcommittee’s report was accepted by the Ann Arbor city council on Nov. 7, 2013 over dissent from Anglin.

Hathaway’s presentation on Feb. 25 drew on recommendations from the PAC subcommittee, as well as from information in the DDA’s Connecting William Street study.

On Feb. 25, several park commissioners raised concerns, some of which focused on the process of bringing this resolution forward without specific direction from the council. Hathaway noted that the council resolution is intended to start the process, with council direction, to begin working with stakeholders, PAC, the public and others in the design and development of this park.

Several people spoke about the issue during public commentary on March 3, including the current PAC chair, Ingrid Ault, and former PAC chair Julie Grand. They highlighted the PAC recommendations on downtown parks, and urged the council to postpone action on the resolution. A report on deliberations during the March 3 council meeting is provided in The Chronicle’s live updates filed from council chambers.

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]

Library Lane park proposal

The presentation by Will Hathaway, on behalf of the Library Green Conservancy, included a draft proposal of a resolution for the city council to reserve about 10,000 square feet on the surface of the Library Lane Structure for an urban park, to be “bounded by the Fifth Avenue sidewalk on the west, the Library Lane Street sidewalk to the south, the western entry to the central elevator to the east, and the southern curb of the service alley on the north.” [.pdf of proposed resolution] [.pdf of proposed site boundaries]

Hathaway said he’s been working with city councilmember Jack Eaton (Ward 4). Hathaway indicated that Eaton might be ready to bring the resolution to the council’s next meeting, on March 3.

The proposal also calls for financial support as well as an allocation of staff time to design and create the park. The proposed council resolution would ask PAC and the parks staff to prepare preliminary recommendations for the park’s design, to be presented at the council’s first meeting in October of 2014.

Other aspects of the proposal include:

• asking the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to prepare for an eventual transition from parking to non-parking on the surface of the Library Lane structure;
• asking the DDA to conduct a structural analysis of the Library Lane structure to determine if any modifications are needed to safely support design features, such as soil, plantings of various sizes, water features, a skating rink, a performance stage, and play equipment;
• asking that the city’s community services and parks staff work with DDA and the Ann Arbor District Library to facilitate public programming with activities including craft fairs, book fairs, food carts, and fine arts performances;
• asking the DDA to work with the city to explore possible above-ground private and/or public development of the remaining, build-able portion of the surface level north of the central elevator and above the central exit/entrance ramp.

The proposed resolution would would specify certain conditions for development rights on the remaining surface of Library Lane, including additional public open space and pedestrian access as features of any private development. The resolution also calls for close collaboration with neighboring properties and businesses, including the Ann Arbor District Library, First Martin Corp., the University of Michigan Credit Union, the Inter-Cooperative Council, and the businesses facing Fifth Avenue and Liberty Street.

Activists have pushed for a public park or plaza on the top of the Library Lane underground parking structure for several years. Several members of the Library Green Conservancy – including former park commissioner Gwen Nystuen, and former Ann Arbor planning commissioner Eric Lipson – attended PAC’s Feb. 25 meeting.

PAC has explored the urban park issue more broadly, most formally with a downtown parks subcommittee created in 2012. The subcommittee presented a report at PAC’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting that included general recommendations, with an emphasis on “placemaking” principles that include active use, visibility and safety. The most specific recommendation also called for developing a park or open space on top of the Library Lane structure. A park or open space at that location should exceed 5,000 square feet, according to the report, and connect to Library Lane, the small mid-block cut-through that runs north of the library between Fifth and Division. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report]

The subcommittee’s report was accepted by the Ann Arbor city council on Nov. 7, 2013 over dissent from councilmember Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who serves on PAC as an ex officio member.

Hathaway’s presentation on Feb. 25 drew on recommendations from the PAC subcommittee, as well as from information in the DDA’s Connecting William Street study. He characterized this draft resolution as an initial step, and likened the process to the one that led to the Ann Arbor skatepark being built at Veterans Memorial Park.

He also noted that some people involved in the Library Green Conservancy were disappointed that this proposal isn’t calling for a park on top of the entire Library Lane site. He indicated that the current draft resolution reflects some political reality, based on feedback from city staff and councilmembers.

Hathaway wasn’t asking for PAC to take any specific action on this proposal, but asked for feedback. Several commissioners raised concerns, some of it focused on the process of bringing this resolution forward without specific direction from the council. Hathaway noted that the draft resolution is intended to start the process, with council direction, to begin working with stakeholders, PAC, the public and others in the design and development of this park.

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

Alan Haber takes notes on a draft survey about downtown parks. He was attending the May 28 meeting of a subcommittee of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, which is putting together a survey that will be released in June. The subcommittee will be making recommendations regarding downtown parks and open space. (Photos by the writer.)

In a variety of ways, the survey attempts to gauge interest in downtown parks and open space, and to identify the types of activities and features that people might want, such as playgrounds or performance space. The survey also includes questions about assessing the existing downtown parks, including the farmers market, Liberty Plaza at Liberty & Division, and Sculpture Plaza at Fourth & Catherine.

This subcommittee of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission has been meeting regularly since early February. Their work relates in part to a request that mayor John Hieftje made last summer. It’s also meant to supplement the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Parks Group To Weigh In On Downtown Need,” and “Committee Starts Downtown Parks Research,” as well as coverage included in the PAC meeting reports for March 19, 2013 and May 21, 2013.

Several leaders of the Library Green Conservancy attended the May 28 meeting, and gave input on the survey throughout the discussion. The conservancy previously has criticized a survey conducted by the DDA as part of Connecting William Street, saying that the DDA survey did not give respondents the option of supporting downtown parks and open space.

Based on feedback at the May 28 meeting, parks staff will revise the survey for final review at the subcommittee’s June 11 meeting. The intent is to launch the survey soon after that meeting. The goal is to incorporate survey results as recommendations are developed for downtown parks/open spaces, which will likely be delivered to the city council in August.

Downtown Parks Survey

During the May 28 meeting, the subcommittee worked on an 18-question draft survey that had been developed by the city’s parks & recreation staff. [.pdf of draft survey, prior to revisions made on May 28]

In addition to general questions about the respondent’s relationship to downtown Ann Arbor and demographic information, the survey attempts – in a variety of ways – to gauge interest in parks and open space. It also tries to identify the types of activities that people want in a downtown park or open space. The survey also includes questions about assessing the existing downtown parks, including the farmers market, Liberty Plaza at Liberty & Division, and Sculpture Plaza at Fourth & Catherine. Most of the questions have options for open-ended responses.

A sampling of the draft survey questions:

• How important are downtown parks/open spaces to you?
• Do you think Ann Arbor needs more downtown parks/open spaces?
• If more downtown parks/open spaces were added, do you think downtown would be better served by a large or small park/open space?
• What activities are most important to you in a downtown park/open space?
• What features are most important to you in a downtown park/open space?
• Should the city of Ann Arbor consider alternative funding sources for the maintenance and programming of downtown parks/open spaces?
• Should Ann Arbor focus more attention and resources on the existing downtown parks, including Liberty Plaza, Sculpture Plaza, and the farmers market – instead of creating new downtown parks/open spaces?
• Looking at the downtown’s existing parks, what do you like/dislike?
• Ann Arbor has many downtown street festivals and outdoor programming. Do you think these activities serve as temporary parks/open spaces?

The draft survey also asked about ideas for temporary parks/open spaces. The idea of “pop-up parks” has been mentioned at previous subcommittee meetings, as something that’s worked well in other cities. The nonprofit Project for Public Spaces has worked on this concept under the framework of “lighter, faster, cheaper” – developing engaging, temporary public places.

The draft survey also includes a map of the five city-owned properties that were examined as part of the Connecting William Street study, and asks respondents to rank the properties in terms of desirability for a downtown park or open space. Those sites are: (1) the Kline lot (on the east side of Ashley, north of William), (2) the lot next to Palio restaurant (northeast corner of Main & William), (3) the ground floor of the Fourth & William parking structure, (4) the former YMCA lot (on William between Fourth and Fifth), and (5) the top of the Library Lane underground parking garage on South Fifth, north of the downtown library.

The five city-owned sites that were the focus of the Connecting William Street project are indicated in blue.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks & recreation manager, told the subcommittee that the survey had been drafted with the mission of the subcommittee in mind. That mission is:

To determine whether and what additional parks are wanted and/or needed in downtown Ann Arbor, focusing on city-owned parcels in the DDA district while maintaining awareness of additional nearby properties, for example: Liberty Plaza, 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington. The “deliverable” will be a set of recommendations for the City Council.

David Rohr, the city’s park planning assistant, said the staff tried not to ask leading questions, and to make the survey overall as fair and balanced as possible.

The subcommittee reviewed the draft survey item-by-item. Themes of the discussion included ensuring that the survey questions were clear, eliminating terms that might be considered jargon and giving examples, where appropriate.

From left: Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner Alan Jackson and David Rohr, a park planning assistant.

Smith cited a rule of thumb he uses: Could his mother understand it? If not, he suggested revising the terms. “Passive recreation” and “programmed activities” are phrases that have meaning for parks and recreation professionals, for example, but aren’t necessarily clear for the general public. Providing examples of these terms would be helpful, he said. Programmed activities might include concerts, plays or other performances. Passive recreation could be picnics, reading or visiting with friends. Active recreation in a downtown park or open space might include Frisbee, basketball, chess or pétanque.

Mary Hathaway, with the Library Green Conservancy, joked that she was like Smith’s mother. She suggested asking whether people would be interested in having a wifi hot spot – wireless Internet access – at a downtown park or plaza.

Alan Haber, also with the conservancy, hoped to get more feedback about activities and features that families might want, like a playground. Hathaway suggested that a fountain or interactive water feature should be included as an example – it could be a place for children to play.

One question asks people to identify desired features in a downtown park or open space. The question provides a list of possibilities, like seating, art installations, landscaping, “a place that feels safe,” and “a place that sells food and beverages.” Hathaway suggested adding the option of a shade feature – not necessarily trees, she said, but perhaps awnings or arbors.

The subcommittee also discussed whether the phrase “alternative funding sources” was clear. The term was meant to indicate sources that are not based on taxpayer dollars, such as grants or other kinds of private funding. Alan Jackson, a park advisory commissioner, suggested first asking a question about whether people would support extra staffing or security at a downtown park or open space, and following that up with the question about funding sources.

Downtown Parks Survey: Next Steps

The subcommittee talked about how best to distribute the survey. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, said the goal is to reach the widest group possible, including people who live and work downtown, residents who come downtown for specific purposes – like going out to eat, to special events, or to the library – and general parks users.

Park planner Amy Kuras noted that the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority had developed an extensive email distribution list as part of its Connecting William Street project. She suggested building on that list.

Members of the downtown parks subcommittee at their May 28 meeting. From the foreground: Julie Grand, Karen Levin and Alan Jackson. At the far end is former park advisory commission Gwen Nystuen, one of several members of the Library Green Conservancy who attended the meeting. A tornado warning forced the group to relocate the second half of its meeting to the basement of city hall.

Alan Jackson wondered about sending out surveys via regular mail, noting that it would be more costly but might reach people who can’t access an online survey. Kuras advised mailing out surveys only when requested. That was the approach she took when soliciting input for the parks, recreation & open space (PROS) update. She suggested putting up posters at public locations like the library branches and parks facilities, with contact information. Julie Grand proposed providing paper copies of the survey at those locations and other spots, including the Ann Arbor senior center and the Ann Arbor community center.

Alan Haber suggested putting the survey in locations to reach a broader age demographic, like the Neutral Zone – a downtown teen center – or local schools.

The parks staff will rework the draft survey based on comments at the May 28 subcommittee meeting, as well as any additional suggestions emailed to the staff. Smith cautioned commissioners not to deliberate about the survey via email, but simply to send their ideas for additional changes.

At its next meeting on June 11, the subcommittee will review the revised draft, with the intent of releasing the survey that same week. On June 11, the subcommittee will also set dates for public forums that it intends to hold, likely starting in July.

The subcommittee plans to bring a set of recommendations forward to the full park advisory commission, which will then forward those recommendations to the city council. The goal is to deliver the recommendations to the council sometime in August.

Public Commentary

Though members of the public who attended the May 28 meeting participated throughout the session, there were also two formal opportunities for public commentary.

Mary Hathaway thanked commissioners for “making us feel welcome.”

Alan Haber gave an update on the effort to put a temporary ice-skating rink on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure. He indicated that it was on hold, awaiting the recommendations on downtown parks, as well as on the Ann Arbor DDA’s decision about funding the project. He hoped the project would be considered, possibly for the fall.

Overall, he said he was encouraged that the subcommittee was looking at options that could be more than just a traditional park. But the concept that wasn’t captured in this survey, he said, was the idea of developing a central gathering place downtown. The options in the survey are delineated, he contended, and don’t represent an integrated vision for a civic center.

Haber also suggested that when survey results are compiled, it would be good to have the results analyzed by someone who’s an expert in data analysis – for example, someone from the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. Amy Kuras replied that one of the park commissioners has already offered to contact someone at UM for this kind of analysis.

Gwen Nystuen echoed Haber’s comments, noting that the draft survey includes options for the kind of parks that already exist, but it doesn’t address the basic question of whether people want a central park. Some people want that as a focal point, she said, but the survey doesn’t quite capture it.

In response to Nystuen’s comments, park commissioner Karen Levin suggested adding the central park option to the survey, as a choice in the question about types of downtown parks that people are interested in seeing.

PAC members present: Alan Jackson, Karen Levin, Julie Grand.

Also attending: Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager, park planner Amy Kuras, and David Rohr, park planning assistant. Members of the public included Gwen Nystuen, Mary Hathaway, Will Hathaway, Alan Haber and Eppie Potts.

Next downtown park subcommittee meeting: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 from 5-6:30 p.m. at city hall’s first floor south conference room. More information about that group is on the subcommittee’s website.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. If you’re already helping The Chronicle with some financial green, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Bob Galardi was elected chair of the budget & finance committee for the Ann Arbor park advisory commission at PAC’s May 21, 2013 meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Jerry Hancock, the city’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator, described the project, which is being paid for out of the city’s stormwater utility fund – not the parks and recreation budget. It will involve regrading the perimeter of the park in the fall, then putting in native plants next spring. Soil excavated to create the rain gardens will be used to elevate the park’s central lawn area, which often has standing water following heavy rains. The work will be done prior to improvements planned for the park’s playground next year.

Later in the meeting, commissioners voted to recommend awarding a contract for roof replacement at the Mack indoor pool, located within the Ann Arbor Open school near the corner of Miller and Brooks. The recommendation is to select Pranam GlobalTech Inc., which put in the low bid of $193,000. A 10% construction contingency brings the project’s budget to $212,300, with a portion of that amount to be paid for by the public schools.

Also recommended was using $8,280 from the public market fund to upgrade a surface parking lot – known as the “sand lot” – on the Fourth Avenue side of the farmers market. The paving is viewed as a short-term solution, pending longer-term improvements expected at the market in a few years.

Commissioners also elected Bob Galardi as chair of PAC’s budget & finance committee. He replaces Tim Doyle as committee chair, following the end of Doyle’s term on PAC earlier this month. Jen Geer – Doyle’s replacement on PAC – was confirmed by the city council the previous evening but did not attend PAC’s May 21 meeting. Geer has worked with Galardi and councilmember Christopher Taylor – an ex-officio member of PAC – in another capacity, in the performing arts. Most recently, she was executive producer for the Ann Arbor in Concert production of Ragtime, performed at Michigan Theater on May 18. Both Taylor and Galardi were lead performers in that show.

Updates during PAC’s May 21 meeting covered a range of topics, including news that bids for construction of the new skatepark came in a little higher than anticipated. Parks staff and skatepark designer Wally Hollyday will be reviewing the bids to see what options are available. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith reported that at PAC’s June 18 meeting, commissioners will be presented with a resolution to award a construction contract, as well as an agreement between the city and the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark related to operating the skatepark.

Other updates from Smith included the fact that parks staff is gearing up for Memorial Day weekend, with the opening of the city’s outdoor pools. He also highlighted the completed renovations of ball fields at Veterans Memorial Park, West Park and Southeast Area Park, and improvements made at Liberty Plaza. In addition to removing some bushes there, he said, “we also removed all sorts of things that were in the bushes, which are no longer there – and I’m glad they’re not.”

Other brief reports were given regarding work of PAC’s dog park and downtown park subcommittees, and public forums for the North Main-Huron River task force. Public commentary focused on input from the Library Green Conservancy, which is advocating for a park or public space atop the city’s Library Lane parking structure.

Arbor Oaks Rain Garden

Jerry Hancock, the city’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator, was on hand to brief commissioners about a project to build rain gardens in Arbor Oaks Park. The park is located in the Bryant neighborhood, near the Bryant/Pattengill elementary schools east of Stone School Road and north of Ellsworth. The park is near the city’s Bryant Community Center, which is operated by the nonprofit Community Action Network (CAN) under contract with the city.

From left: Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith and Jerry Hancock, the city’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator.

Hancock said he got involved with the neighborhood in 2007, when CAN invited city staff to come and talk with residents about drainage problems in that area. [For some background on this issue, see Chronicle coverage: "Bryant Neighbors Dig into Drainage" and "Water Main Project Set for Bryant Area."]

Houses in the neighborhood are mostly built on clay with crawl spaces. There’s very little topography for water to drain, Hancock said, so water tends to pool under the houses.

University of Michigan students got involved too, he noted. They surveyed the neighborhood about problems with drainage and flooding. The results revealed certain areas where the problems were clustered, including the area around Arbor Oaks Park. Most of the homes that are located there reported flooding on their land adjacent to the park. [UM student Mark Zheng produced a 7-minute video on these issues that's posted on YouTube: "Bryant Drainage and Flooding Remediation – Taming the Water."]

The students came up with a concept plan about how to solve some of the problems through a variety of approaches. CAN has done a lot of work in the area, Hancock said – for example, uncovering catch basins that were covered with two or three feet of soil. CAN also got a grant from Washtenaw County to regrade some of the back yards and install storm sewers.

The area around the park, Hancock said, seemed to lend itself to putting in rain gardens, and to lower the grade a little to accommodate the drainage from adjacent properties. For the past few years, the city has partnered with Washtenaw County’s office of the water resources commissioner to do projects funded by the state’s revolving loan fund. These low-interest loans are used to fund stormwater management projects. For “green” projects, the state also offers a 50% loan forgiveness program. “So we have been chasing this money more aggressively than most communities,” Hancock said.

Residents had reported that the lawn area in the center of the park stays wet too long after a storm, and isn’t useable for much of the year. So in addition to lowering the grade around the park’s perimeter for the rain gardens, the soil from that regrading can be used to raise the grade in the center lawn area, to make it more useable, Hancock said.

After bidding out the project, the city hired InSite Design to do design work for $53,000, subcontracting with Anderson Engineering to do the survey work. Erie Construction, which did five other large rain gardens for the city last summer, had the low bid of $158,000 for building the rain gardens. Residents are aware of the project, he said, and so far the city hasn’t received any complaints about the plans.

Construction would start the day after Labor Day, Hancock said. Access through the park to the school will be maintained during construction. The regrading will be done this fall, with plantings done next spring. It’s expected that the work will be finished in early June of 2014. The contractor will be responsible for maintenance on the rain gardens for one year.

Arbor Oaks Rain Garden: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson asked about the funding source. Jerry Hancock replied that it would be funded from the city’s stormwater fund, not from the parks and recreation budget.

Jackson also wondered what the city’s liability is for flooding and drainage problems in people’s homes. Hancock replied that the drainage issues in that neighborhood are primarily on private property. In this case, the city has the opportunity to help the neighborhood. “It’s not necessarily our responsibility, but we have the funding mechanism and capability to do it, so we’re just trying to help this community out,” he said.

Map showing location of Arbor Oaks Park.

In response to another question from Jackson, Hancock said that the majority of the rain garden-related work will take place around the park’s perimeter in lawn areas, and won’t affect the playground area and basketball court. No structures will be removed and no sidewalks will be relocated. A few trees will be relocated, and additional trees will be planted.

Because of the regrading, the rain gardens will accept water from surrounding properties, Hancock explained. The root structures of native plants in the rain gardens are 1-3 feet deep and break up the soil so that water infiltration can occur more easily. There would only be ponding water for a very short period after a rainfall, he said, before it infiltrates. The area also has catch basins as part of its existing stormwater management system.

Christopher Taylor said it’s his recollection that maintenance periods are typically longer than one year. Some contracts have been up to three years, Hancock replied. But because of the funding constraints of using the state revolving loan fund, the contract had to be set up this way.

Taylor also noted that there’s been some concern about the park’s utilization. He asked Hancock to talk about outreach efforts, and about how the project might improve the park’s usability. Regarding outreach, Hancock reported that CAN holds monthly meetings for residents. A couple of years ago, the city planned to do road repairs and water main replacement in the neighborhood. City staff attended meetings to explain the work, and based on feedback, additional elements were added to the project. The city got a county grant to do some additional work, using fiber-optic cameras on private storm sewers to find out why water isn’t draining. That’s when they discovered catch basins that were buried in back yards, among other things.

The usability of the park’s center area has been cited by residents in the past, Hancock said, and this rain garden project is a good opportunity to improve that situation. It also helps the project’s budget, he said, because it eliminates the expense of hauling off soil from the site.

Most of the other rain gardens in the city have been built in areas where the soils are more porous, Hancock noted. In the Bryant neighborhood, the soil is poorer, with more clay, so the project will include bringing in topsoil. He added that the city is also willing to tackle the project because of its success with native plants and rain gardens in other areas. Staff are confident that it will work in locations with less porous soil, too, like Arbor Oaks.

Julie Grand confirmed with Hancock that efforts have been made to reach all residents who live adjacent to the park. CAN has sent out notices at various points in the overall project so far, Hancock said. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith said he thought that notices regarding construction should come directly from the city and county, rather than CAN. He wanted to make sure the mailing list is complete.

Grand said that once people understand what’s happening, they’ll be excited. It’s just the shock of seeing workers show up that might be an issue, she said.

Grand also asked how this project fits with plans for giving the Arbor Oaks Park playground a significant overhaul. Smith replied that the playground project will begin in 2014, after the rain garden is completed.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Farmers Market Parking

Plans for an upgrade to a surface parking lot at the Ann Arbor farmers market was on PAC’s May 21 agenda for consideration. The work would be paid for with $8,280 from the market fund balance.

The cordoned-off “sand lot” parking area at the Ann Arbor farmers market, with an entrance off of Fourth Avenue.

Known as the “sand lot,” it’s located on the Fourth Avenue side of the market, where a house was demolished several years ago. Jeff Straw, deputy manager of parks and recreation, said it has been used as a makeshift area for vendors, but has deteriorated over time.

The Ann Arbor public market advisory commission had recommended the work and appropriation at its April 18, 2013 meeting. According to a staff memo, the work would include “saw cutting and stripping the asphalt, grading the existing aggregate, and adding 3 inches of asphalt mix.” It’s a short-term approach intended to make the lot more useable until longer-term improvements at the market are determined.

The project is already underway so that it can be completed before the market’s busy season. Because of that, it will be paid for initially out of proceeds from the parks maintenance and capital improvement millage, to be reimbursed from the market fund balance. The total market fund balance as of Feb. 28, 2013 was $684,145.

The public market – located in Kerrytown, north of Catherine between Fourth and Fifth avenues – is part of the city’s parks and recreation unit, but operates as an enterprise fund. That means the intent is for the operation to be self-sufficient, without support from the city’s general fund. The market manager is Sarah DeWitt.

Farmers Market Parking: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson asked about the materials that would be used. Jeff Straw confirmed that the lot would be paved with asphalt. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith noted that although the lot is known informally as the “sand lot,” it’s actually built from a variety of materials, including asphalt that’s “in various states of decomposition.” To call it a sand lot is somewhat misleading, he added. “It’s not some place where you’d be playing volleyball, let’s put it that way.”

Christopher Taylor asked whether any consideration was given to using a porous surface. Straw replied that this is viewed as a 2-4 year solution, so from a cost perspective, it made more sense not to use more expensive porous pavement. The entire market area will be considered for improvements in a few years.

Jackson wondered what ideas are being considered for the broader market improvements. Straw listed several possibilities, including additional enclosures that could be used during the winter, as well as a gazebo-type building, more seating, and a way to create better flow for customers and vendors.

Outcome: PAC unanimously recommended approval of the project. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

New Roof at Mack Pool

On PAC’s May 21 agenda was a resolution regarding roof replacement for the city of Ann Arbor’s Mack indoor pool, located within the Ann Arbor Open school near the corner of Miller and Brooks. Staff had recommended awarding a contract to Pranam GlobalTech Inc. for $193,000 to cover the roof replacement and painting refurbishment. A 10% construction contingency brings the project’s budget to $212,300.

Pranam provided the lowest of two bids. The other bidder was Wm. Molnar Roofing Co. Inc., which bid $271,319 for the work. Pranam was previously selected to replace the roof at Veterans Memorial Park Ice Arena. The contract for that project was approved by the city council at its May 20, 2013 meeting.

Park advisory commissioner Graydon Krapohl.

According to parks staff, the existing roof from the early 1990s was expected to last just 15 years. There are leaks and rusted steel lintels and joists, which need to be replaced. The project also includes removing rust and painting the pool ceiling and joists.

Funding for the project is available from two sources: (1) $186,088 from the fund balance of the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage; and (2) $26,212 from the Ann Arbor Public Schools, which pays annually into a capital facilities escrow account earmarked for Mack Pool.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, described the timeframe for the project as relatively tight. Because Mack Pool is jointly used by AAPS and the parks system, the work needs to be completed this summer, while school is out of session. The timing is intended to avoid a “complete kerfuffle” in the fall, he said. The pool is not open during the summer months.

Smith also highlighted the fact that AAPS will be contributing to pay for the project. A few years ago when the city considered closing Mack Pool, a city task force was formed to explore options. There had been a lot of discussion about how the schools could contribute to operating expenses and future capital expenses, Smith said. As a result, AAPS is making annual payments into a capital escrow fund to be spent on projects like this. The schools have paid about $13,000 for each of the past two years, so this project will be using that revenue as part of its funding source.

New Roof at Mack Pool: Commission Discussion

Graydon Krapohl asked how many weeks the project would take. Jeff Straw, deputy manager for parks and recreation, estimated the work would take 6-8 weeks to complete, depending on weather.

Ingrid Ault questioned part of the resolution stating that eight votes were required: Did that refer to PAC or the city council? [Only seven PAC members were present at the May 21 meeting.] Smith confirmed that the eight-vote requirement related to the city council.

Outcome: PAC unanimously recommended awarding the Mack Pool roof replacement contract to Pranam GlobalTech. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Galardi Chosen as Budget Chair

Tim Doyle, whose term ended on May 17, had served as chair of PAC’s budget & finance committee. On May 21, PAC chair Julie Grand nominated Bob Galardi to replace Doyle in that role. Doyle had not sought reappointment to PAC.

Galardi has served on that committee since soon after being appointed to PAC in July of 2012. His term as committee chair will run until PAC’s September meeting, when the commission elects all officers.

Jen Geer – Doyle’s replacement on PAC – was confirmed by the city council the previous evening but did not attend PAC’s May 21 meeting. Grand said she’d called Geer in the morning to report that the council had acted, but Geer was not able to attend on such short notice.

Geer has worked with Galardi and councilmember Christopher Taylor – an ex-officio member of PAC – in another capacity, in the performing arts. Most recently, she was executive producer for the Ann Arbor in Concert production of Ragtime, performed at Michigan Theater on May 18. Both Taylor and Galardi were lead singers/actors in that show. Geer is also on the board of the Burns Park Players, a nonprofit in which Taylor and Galardi are also involved.

In nominating Galardi, Grand said she hoped the work wouldn’t be too strenuous, because the city’s budget for the coming fiscal year – beginning July 1 – had just been set. She confirmed with parks and recreation manager Colin Smith that in a mid-term election of this kind, PAC’s bylaws stipulate that a two-thirds majority approval is needed – or at least five votes.

Outcome: Galardi was unanimously elected chair of PAC’s budget & finance committee.

Communications & Commentary

There were several opportunities for communications from staff or commissioners during the April 16 meeting, as well as time for public commentary.

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, provided several updates. He noted that the city’s outdoor pools are opening on Memorial Day weekend, which is traditionally the kick-off date for the summer season. Staff is being trained and everything is on track for the opening, he said.

Julie Grand, chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission.

The newly renovated softball fields are being completed on time and games are expected to start on May 31. He suggested that commissioners check out the fields at Veterans Memorial Park, West Park and Southeast Area Park, saying that the difference is like “night and day.”

The farmers market is now open on Wednesdays for the season, he noted, and the Wednesday night market will resume on June 5.

Last week, the city received bids for construction of the skatepark at the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park. The bids came in a little higher than anticipated, Smith said, so they’ll be reviewing the bids to see what options are available. At PAC’s June 18 meeting, Smith said, the commission will be presented with a resolution to award the construction contract, as well as an agreement between the city and the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, related to operating the skatepark. Smith said he’s been working with Trevor Staples of FAAS on the agreement. He characterized it as quite simple, compared to the original memorandum of intent.

Work is underway at the Gallup canoe livery, which will re-open on May 25. Construction started about six weeks ago, Smith said, but will be put on hold from Memorial Day weekend until after Labor Day. “You can certainly see a change – it looks really nice,” he said.

Summer day camp numbers are higher than they’ve been for several years, Smith reported, adding that it is encouraging news. Also, the Ann Arbor senior center was recently awarded a $4,000 grant from the Ann Arbor Kiwanis for a cultural arts & education lecture series.

Smith also highlighted the May 18 Adopt-A-Park program kickoff, which was well-attended, as well as work at Liberty Plaza as a part of the downtown Ann Arbor Blooms Day event. He said First Martin, which owns the building adjacent to Liberty Plaza, has been a great partner in maintaining and sprucing up the plaza. Smith said in addition to removing some bushes, “we also removed all sorts of things that were in the bushes, which are no longer there and I’m glad they’re not.”

Communications & Commentary: City Council Update

Christopher Taylor is one of two city councilmembers who serve as ex-officio non-voting members of PAC. He reported that on the previous night – May 20, 2013 – the council had passed the city’s budget for fiscal year 2014, which begins July 1. He noted that the amendments made to the budget resulted in an extra $22,977 coming to the parks and recreation budget, because of the “parks fairness” resolution. “So your job is slightly easier,” he said.

By policy, the general fund allocations to parks and recreation must not suffer any decrease beyond what other areas in the general fund do. So amendments to the other parts of the budget can have implications for adherence to this policy. At the end of all the amendments, financial services staff provided the council with an adjustment that needed to be made to the parks budget as an additional budget amendment, in order to comply with the policy.

Taylor also noted that the council confirmed the appointment of Jen Geer to PAC.

Communications & Commentary: Dog Park

Karen Levin reported that the dog park subcommittee met recently and went to look at possible sites for a new dog park – at Veterans Memorial Park, Wurster Park and Buhr Park. The next meeting is set for May 31, when they’ll talk about these options as well as a survey for the public to give feedback.

By way of background, two locations for a new centrally-located dog park were explored at West Park, but ultimately rejected because of protests from nearby residents as well as the New Hope Baptist Church, which is located across the street from the park.

More recently, at their May 14, 2013 meeting, the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commissioners mentioned Ann Arbor’s difficulty in finding a new dog park location. In that context, county parks commissioners discussed their desire to add another off-leash dog park in addition to Swift Run, which the county operates in partnership with the city of Ann Arbor. Some commissioners want to include a water element where dogs could play. Jan Anschuetz put it this way: “We’ve done so much to provide water recreation for people – now let’s do it for the dogs.”

Communications & Commentary: North Main-Huron River Task Force

Julie Grand reported that the city’s North Main-Huron River Vision task force would hold a public forum the following night, on May 22, to present some initial ideas and get feedback from residents about possible changes along that corridor.

Larry Baird and Gwen Nystuen at the May 22, 2013 public forum for the North Main-Huron River corridor project, held at the Ann Arbor Community Center.

[About 75 people attended that meeting, which was held at the Ann Arbor Community Center. Grand was among the task force members who made a presentation to the gathering.]

A similar public forum will be held on Wednesday, May 29 at city hall, 301 E. Huron, from 5-7 p.m. The task force then will incorporate the feedback into recommendations that will be presented to the community on Wednesday, June 12, from 6:30-8:30 p.m. at the Ann Arbor Community Center, 625 N. Main.

After that, the task force will meet again to finalize their recommendations – on Wednesday, June 19 from 5-7 p.m. at the NEW Center, 1100 N. Main. The final recommendations will be sent to the city council for consideration.

Grand also pointed out that more information is online at the task force website and A2 Open City Hall, where residents can provide feedback by responding to open-ended questions.

Communications & Commentary: Library Green

During public commentary at PAC’s May 21 meeting, Gwen Nystuen, a former park commissioner, spoke on behalf of the Library Green Conservancy. Referring to PAC’s downtown park subcommittee, she said the conservancy members realize how difficult the subcommittee’s work is and they want to help in any way they can. Last July, “on I think the hottest day of the year,” she joked, the conservancy sponsored the Imagine A Park event. It included a temporary patch of grass, a solar fountain, free lemonade and ice water, food from nearby restaurants, musicians, and a chess table. Earthen Jar in particular was helpful providing water, she said. “You wouldn’t believe, would you, that in a $55 million structure, there’s not a faucet on top of that garage.”

Nystuen reported that people attending the event generated a list of ideas for things that you could do if a park were in place at that location. The ideas were gathered from 154 surveys that included a checklist of possible activities, she said. The top five responses were:

• See water flowing or get a drink of water (115 responses)
• Safe place for children to play and parents to meet (113 responses)
• Gardens (107 responses)
• Picnic space (99 responses)
• Public art (98 responses)

Library Green members don’t want to say what should be in this urban park, Nystuen said, but they do think that the Library Lane site is the most central location. At the least, she noted, there should be a drinking fountain there. She wanted PAC to know that the Library Green is continuing to gather information, and that they appreciated the work that PAC was doing regarding downtown parks.

Communications & Commentary: Downtown Park Subcommittee

Ingrid Ault, chair of PAC’s downtown park subcommittee, reported that committee members have been meeting with various groups to get input on the issue of downtown parks. She noted that information being gathered by the committee is posted on its website.

City staff, members of the Ann Arbor downtown park subcommittee and others during a walking tour of downtown parks and plazas. This stop is on the second floor “green roof” at city hall. Clockwise from bottom left: Julie Grand, Amy Kuras, Wendy Rampson, Karen Levin, Alan Jackson, Colin Smith, Ingrid Ault, Stewart Gordon, Alice Ralph.

[In recent weeks, the committee has met with representatives of the Library Green Conservancy; with Ann Arbor District Library director Josie Parker and AADL board president Prue Rosenthal; and with members of the Allen Creek Greenway Conservancy, including Joe O'Neal, Alice Ralph and Jonathan Bulkley. PAC member Bob Galardi is president of the greenway conservancy's board.]

Ault noted that during the committee’s most recent meeting, on May 14, the group had gone on a walking tour of downtown parks, plazas and other relevant areas. They looked at places that were considered successful public gathering spaces, as well as city-owned sites that are part of the Connecting William Street study.

[The tour, which The Chronicle attended, included the second-floor green roof at city hall – which is accessible to the public and includes picnic tables – as well as Sculpture Plaza at Fourth & Catherine. Also visited were the five city-owned parcels that were the focus of Connecting William Street: the Kline lot (on the east side of Ashley, north of William); the lot next to Palio restaurant (northeast corner of Main & William); the ground floor of the Fourth & William parking structure; the former YMCA lot (on William between Fourth and Fifth); and the top of the Library Lane underground parking garage on South Fifth, north of the downtown library.]

The committee’s next meeting is on Tuesday, May 28 at 5 p.m. in the south conference room of city hall, 301 E. Huron. These meetings are open to the public.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Tim Berla, Bob Galardi, Julie Grand, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl, Karen Levin, and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Absent: Missy Stults.

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. PAC’s land acquisition committee meets on Tuesday, June 4 at 4 p.m. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

Next downtown park subcommittee meeting: Tuesday, May 28 from 5-6:30 p.m. at city hall’s first floor south conference room. More information about that group is on the subcommittee’s website.

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. If you’re already helping The Chronicle with some financial green, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Graffiti at Argo Pond. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith reported that there’s been an increase in graffiti in the parks system. (Photos by the writer.)

Park commissioners were briefed on budget details at their April meeting, and voted unanimously to recommend the budget for approval. The parks budget will be a component of the overall budget that the city council will vote on in mid-May. The public hearing on that budget will be held on May 6. “The message is status quo,” parks and recreation manager Colin Smith told commissioners.

In a separate vote, commissioners recommended raising fees – ranging between 4-9% – for rentals at the Gallup Park meeting room and Cobblestone Farm. It was the first fee increase at these facilities since 2007 and 2006, respectively.

In other action, commissioners unanimously recommended approval of a five-year contract with Coca-Cola Refreshments for cold beverage concessions. It will replace the 10-year contract with Pepsi that expires this summer. Pepsi was the only other bid received by the city for a new contract, but missed the deadline and was disqualified.

Commissioners also recommended that the city award a $535,000 contract to Pranam Global Tech Inc. to replace the nearly 40-year-old roof at Veterans Memorial Park Ice Arena. The project includes a 10% construction contingency of $53,500, bringing the total project budget to $588,500.

Public commentary included an update from advocates of an ice-skating rink at the city-owned Library Lane site, as well as a report from the Library Green Conservancy, which hopes to make the parking lot into a park. [.pdf of Library Green Conservancy report]

Updates from commissioners included ongoing efforts to find a new centrally located dog park, as well as more information-gathering work by the downtown parks subcommittee.

And in his manager’s report, Smith informed commissioners of an increase in spray-painted graffiti in the parks. The staff is collecting data on how much time they spend repairing areas that are hit with graffiti, “and it’s substantial,” he said. Even trees have been tagged, which is unusual, Smith reported. “There have been some rather inappropriate things painted on some very nice trees.” He added: “It’s extremely frustrating … We’re not in the business of providing spray-painting opportunities any more than we are in the business of providing apothecary options for people in the parks. I’ll leave it at that.”

Parks and Recreation Budget

One component of the city’s fiscal year 2014 budget – for the parks and recreation unit – was on PAC’s April 16 agenda for review. [link to the city's Legistar system, where 12 parks-related budget documents can be downloaded] FY 2014 begins on July 1, 2013.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, gave a presentation with highlights of the budget. [.pdf of budget presentation] He began by noting this is the first budget in at least a decade that hasn’t included service reductions. “So it’s a little bit of an easier message,” he said. Smith also thanked commissioners Tim Doyle and Bob Galardi for reviewing the budget in more detail, as members of PAC’s budget & finance committee.

He explained that this is the first year of a two-year budget plan. Ideally, he said, the second year is less labor-intensive to prepare, and usually requires only minor modifications. He noted that the city council has already been briefed on this budget proposal for parks and recreation at a working session earlier this year. There were very few questions from councilmembers, he said, “which is a little bit different than it’s been in the past, and I hope is reflective of the fact that there are not any significant changes in this particular budget.”

Colin Smith, Ann Arbor’s manager of parks & recreation.

Organizationally, parks and recreation operations are part of two different city units, Smith explained. Most of the parks and recreation services fall under the city’s community services area, led by Suhmed Bahl. Those operations include recreation facilities and administration, the farmers market, the natural area preservation program, capital projects, park planning, and volunteerism. Park maintenance and park forestry are part of the city’s public services area, overseen by Craig Hupy.

Smith also explained the two primary funding sources for parks and recreation. The city’s general fund supports a range of activities, including mowing, snow removal, utilities, and the daily operations of most recreational facilities and administration.

The second source is the city’s parks maintenance and capital improvements millage, which pays for capital projects and park planning, parks forestry, park maintenance, the natural area preservation program (NAP) and volunteerism.

Budgeted expenditures for the parks and recreation unit in FY 2014 – from the city’s general fund as well as from the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage – are $12,546,068. Of that, about $5.2 million will be paid from the millage, with $7.3 million from the general fund. In addition, the parks and recreation unit has responsibility for several smaller budgets, including a separate fund for the farmers market.

“The message is status quo,” Smith told commissioners. “There’s not a significant change here.”

FY 2014 Ann Arbor parks and recreation budget chart (from PAC slide presentation). The percentages do not refer to the overall pie chart, but rather to the percentage from the general fund or millage, respectively.

FY 2014 millage-funded parks budget (from PAC slide presentation).

FY 2014 general fund parks budget (from PAC slide presentation).

Smith noted that the parks system generates “a not insignificant amount of revenue” for the general fund – about $3.8 million. Expenses are higher than that, however, so the system gets additional support from the city’s general fund, too.

Among the items Smith noted in his presentation was a change in the budgeting for the city’s two golf courses at Huron Hills and Leslie Park. [PAC received a more detailed update on golf operations at its March 19, 2013 meeting.] Rather than operating as a separate golf enterprise fund, as it has in recent years, the budget for the golf courses will be part of the parks and recreation portion of the general fund. That change better mirrors how the golf courses actually operate, Smith said, and helps integrate the golf operations into the rest of the parks and recreation unit. Responding to a query from Christopher Taylor, Smith reported that the projected loss from the combined golf courses is $173,000 in FY 2014 and $133,000 in FY 2015. He described it as “middle of the pack” in terms of support required for the city’s other recreational facilities.

Smith also stressed that moving the golf operations into the general fund would not “cannibalize” other operations or facilities.

Highlighting other areas, Smith noted that the FY 2014 budget is projecting a $58,000 increase in revenues from the Cobblestone Farm facility, related to increased rentals as well as the proposed fee increases. Revenue increases are also projected for the Argo and Gallup canoe liveries – up by $106,000 – because of increased rental activity. He reminded commissioners of the presentation made at PAC’s March 19, 2013 meeting by Cheryl Saam, facility supervisor for the Argo and Gallup canoe liveries. Since the Argo Cascades opened, the liveries have increased rentals from about 35,000 people per year to nearly 50,000.

The ice arena at Veterans Memorial Park is projected to have $23,000 less in revenues for FY 2014. That figure primarily reflects fewer registrations for ice-skating lessons. Smith said it was a small decrease in the context of the roughly $475,000 in revenues that the arena brings in each year.

The farmers market, which operates as an enterprise fund, has budgeted for an increase in expenses for FY 2014 to reflect operational needs, Smith said. Three years ago, he noted, the market recorded about 1,000 transactions for Bridge Cards, which act like debit cards and have replaced food stamps, as well as for the “Double Up Food Bucks” program. In the past year, the market recorded about 6,000 transactions, or about $100,000 in revenue. To handle this increase, the market needs more staff during market hours, he said.

At the same time, the market has seen a decrease in annual parking revenue from about $30,000 to $10,000. That decrease is tied to changes in the 2011 parking contract negotiated between the city and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which manages the city’s public parking system. As part of the transition, the parks system received a one-time lump sum payment of about $100,000, Smith reported. Of that, about $70,000 was put into the market’s fund balance. Some of that fund balance will now be used in FY 2014 and FY 2015 to cover the market’s gap between expenses and revenues.

The city’s market manager, Sarah DeWitt, is already working on ways to align expenses and revenues in the future, Smith said. She’s developing recommendations with the public market advisory commission, he added, and those recommendations would then be reviewed by PAC.

PAC’s April 16 budget resolution highlighted several key elements of the fiscal 2014 parks and recreation budget:

• Increased revenue due to higher than anticipated usage at the Argo Cascades.
• Increased revenue by increasing rental fees at Cobblestone Farm and the Gallup Park meeting room.
• A continuation of the 14-day mowing cycle.
• Continued use of seasonal park supervisor positions to increase staff presence in the parks for improved maintenance and enforcement.
• A reduction in natural gas usage expenses, reflecting recent infrastructure energy improvements at various recreational facilities.
• A reduction in expenses for materials and supplies that were previously needed to maintain recreation facilities, as a result of recent improvements.
• A plan to optimize staff software use and eliminate unnecessary software installations where appropriate.

Parks and Recreation Budget: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson noted that parks maintenance expenses have dropped because personnel costs are down. He referred to survey results that had been included as part of the most recent parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, which indicated that some residents weren’t happy with the level of parks maintenance. He wondered if an increase in volunteerism has helped reduce maintenance costs.

Ann Arbor park advisory commissioners Tim Doyle and Julie Grand. Doyle has chaired PAC’s budget & finance committee. His term ends on May 17 and he will not seek reappointment.

Smith replied that when the survey was done a few years ago, the city was at a “low point” in terms of its budget, and the parks system was on a 21-day mowing cycle, compared to the typical 14-day cycle. “So that entire summer, grass was far longer than what people were used to and far longer than people cared for it to be,” he said. That dissatisfaction was reflected in the survey results, Smith added. The city has now returned to a 14-day cycle, so he thought those concerns had been addressed.

Regarding volunteerism, Smith said that in general it’s a way to improve or enhance the work of staff, not necessarily to alleviate that work. It’s also a way to engage people in the community to take ownership of their parks, he added, “but I wouldn’t identify it as a cost-saving measure.” There’s also a lot of staff time needed to run a volunteer program well, he said.

Christopher Taylor noted that it was delightful not to have service cuts in this budget cycle. “It seems like it’s been a long time, so huzzah to us all.” He noted that in the past, PAC has received a spreadsheet that provided data on per-user subsidies to the various parks and recreation facilities, along with historical data for those subsidies. It would be useful to see that information, Taylor said.

Tim Doyle thanked Smith and field operations manager Matt Warba, saying that the budget & finance committee had spent close to five hours with them reviewing the budget. More detailed financial data is available, he noted, but “it requires green eyeshades and a lot of intense effort” to digest. Doyle said he pushed hard not to include the level of detail that’s provided in PAC’s meeting packet. He preferred a less detailed briefing, but other commissioners should let Smith know how much information they’d like in the future. Doyle applauded Smith for being knowledgeable, transparent and open with PAC about these budget details.

Julie Grand noted that if Smith had stood here five years ago and said that golf operations would no longer be an enterprise fund, “we would have had people lined up down the hall and out the door because of the fear that it meant golf would go away.” It’s a credit to staff to be able to go through this transition smoothly, she said.

Grand also reported that earlier in the day, Doyle had informed her that he would not be seeking reappointment for a second term. He’s planning to spend more time in Florida. It’s sad for everyone, she said, adding that PAC was grateful that he had chaired the budget & finance committee. She said she was glad he didn’t leave mid-budget cycle. Doyle’s term ends on May 17.

Smith joked that he’d be happy to come to Florida to discuss the budget with Doyle next year.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the FY 2014 parks and recreation budget. The PAC recommendation will be forwarded to the city council, which is expected to vote on the city’s overall budget on May 20. A public hearing on the city’s budget will take place at the council’s May 6 meeting.

Fees for Cobblestone, Gallup

Commissioners were asked to recommend fee increases – ranging between 4-9% – for rentals at the Gallup Park meeting room and Cobblestone Farm. The fee increases would take effect during fiscal year 2014, which begins July 1, 2013. [.pdf of fee schedules] [.pdf of comparative fee data]

From left: Park advisory commissioners Bob Galardi and Tim Berla.

Fees haven’t been increased at Gallup Park meeting room since 2007, and the facility is undergoing major renovations this summer that were approved by the city council on April 1, 2013. As an example of the fee increases that would take effect in January of 2014, a resident of Ann Arbor could rent the meeting room for 2-10 hours at $40/hour – up from the current rate of $25/hour for 2-4 hours and $30/hour for 5-10 hours.

Jeff Straw, deputy manager of parks and recreation, told commissioners the new fees reflect the upcoming renovations, as well as comparable fees at other city-owned facilities and at similar facilities in the community.

For Cobblestone, rental fees – which were last increased in 2006 – would increase by 4%. The base rental time would also increase from 10 to 15 hours. For example, a resident of Ann Arbor who rented Cobblestone for a Saturday event during the months of May through September would pay $1,560 compared to the previous fee of $1,200. The new rates would take effect in July of 2013.

Cobblestone can be rented for larger groups, up to 150 or 200 people, and is a popular place for weddings. Straw noted that in the past, the city would charge an hourly rate if an event lasted longer than 10 hours. But more events in recent years are taking longer than 10 hours, so the staff is proposing to increase the base rental time. Straw said this would prevent customers from being “nickel and dimed,” and also give them more time so they don’t feel rushed.

Cobblestone is generally booked every Friday, Saturday and Sunday from April through November, and the facility is booked 18 months in advance. There’s high demand, and that was another factor in setting the new fees, Straw said.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, noted that as part of the budget process, the staff reviews fees at all of its facilities. In that context, this year there are very few increases being proposed. It’s somewhat of an art, he added, because you don’t want an increase to result in lower demand.

Fees for Cobblestone, Gallup: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson wondered if the use of Gallup’s meeting room was high. It is, Straw replied, and it’s expected to be booked even more after the renovations. There will be French doors that open onto a patio overlooking the Huron River, making it more attractive for wedding receptions and other events, he said. Parks and recreation also uses the room for the city’s summer day camp.

Tim Berla wondered if the staff had considered trying to book two events in one day, on Fridays and Saturdays. Would that be a plausible way to bring in more revenue?

Straw replied that the majority of people are looking to use the space for a longer period. The staff would be open to that, but he didn’t think the logistics would work in most cases. “We’d certainly try to make it work if we could.”

Missy Stults, the newest Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner.

Missy Stults noted that because the hours are increased at Cobblestone, the fees on an hourly basis aren’t actually increasing very much. She asked if the staff felt comfortable that these new fees would increase revenues. Yes, Straw replied. The staff believes these fees will cover the operational costs as well as make the facility more competitive.

Ingrid Ault wondered why the city hasn’t raised fees for so many years. The staff had evaluated a possible increase in the past, Straw said, as part of each two-year budget cycle. But until now they didn’t feel it was the right time to raise fees, given economic conditions.

Smith added that the overall economic climate is always a consideration. He also noted that in the past few years, the staff at Cobblestone have gotten more involved in helping people create and plan their events. So events have become more elaborate and take more time, and the fee increase reflects these operational changes, too, he said.

Smith also pointed out the distinction between the city and a business, which might raise its rates annually to cover higher costs. In contrast, if the city did that, it would be less “palatable” from a customer service standpoint, he said. “It is tricky.”

Ault asked whether the Tuesday evening farmers market at Cobblestone pays a fee. Yes, Straw said. They’re charged a park use fee, similar to what any group would pay to rent a field in a park or baseball diamond.

Julie Grand wrapped up the discussion by saying she was thrilled that these are the only fees the city is raising. This is the first year in a long time that there haven’t been cuts to the parks and recreation budget, she noted. “It’s refreshing that we don’t have to think about revenues on the other side.”

Outcome: PAC unanimously voted to recommend approval of the fee increases. These recommendations will be forwarded to city council for its consideration.

Coke Contract

Commissioners were asked to recommend approval of a five-year contract with Coca-Cola Refreshments for cold beverage concessions.

A 10-year contract with Pepsi Bottling Group of Michigan is set to expire in mid-June of 2013. In vying for the new contract, only two companies responded to a request for proposals (RFP). According to a staff memo, the other bidder was disqualified after failing to meet the bid deadline. The memo did not name that company, but deputy parks and recreation manager Jeff Straw told commissioners that Pepsi had missed the deadline.

The new contract will cost the city an estimated $25,000 annually for non-vending items, but the city expects to generate $47,500 in revenues from the beverage sales. In addition, Coca-Cola Refreshments will provide an annual sponsorship fee of $10,000 to the parks and recreation unit, and give a 96-cents-per-case rebate on each case that’s sold. These funds will be used to provide scholarships to low-income kids for parks and recreation programs. The case rebate is estimated to bring in $700 to $1,000 each year for scholarships, according to Straw, depending on sales.

The company also will provide 50 cases of free product each year for public special events, and will sponsor four special events annually with product sampling and free giveaways. The firm also will provide recycling containers with credit for returnables.

Concessions and vending are located at Leslie Park Golf Course, Huron Hills Golf Course, Veterans Memorial Park, Buhr Park Pool and Ice Rink, Fuller Park Pool, Mack Indoor Pool, Gallup Park Canoe Livery and Argo Canoe Livery.

Coke Contract: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson indicated that it was somewhat difficult to evaluate, because there’s only one bid – so he asked Straw to comment on how the proposed contract compares to the current one. He also asked if the city would need to purchase new equipment related to this change in vendors.

From left: Field operations manager Matt Warba and Jeff Straw, deputy manager of parks and recreation.

Straw said the city had expected to get bids from both Pepsi and Coke. He agreed it was difficult, given that one of those companies didn’t meet the deadline. However, the new contract is competitive, he said – based on comparison to the existing contract as well as checking with other entities that use a beverage vendor.

Regarding the equipment, Coke will be providing the equipment at no charge, Straw said, as well as replacing anything that breaks during the contract period.

Ingrid Ault wondered if it would be possible to get a contract with Faygo, to promote Michigan-based companies. Straw replied that if Faygo had bid on it, the city would have considered it. Ault clarified with Straw that the next opportunity would be in five years, when the contract is put out for bid again. She suggested reaching out to Faygo at that time, to make sure the company knows about it. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, noted that these bids are posted online as part of a statewide network [the Michigan Inter-governmental Trade Network (MITN) Purchasing Group]. He indicated that it’s possible Faygo saw the city’s posting but decided not to bid.

Missy Stults asked if there was a plan for the existing equipment. Straw said Coke will work with Pepsi on a transition plan so there’s no interruption of service. The old equipment would go back to Pepsi.

Smith pointed out that Coke and Pepsi both offer a lot of products other than soda, including bottled water and juice.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the contract with Coke. The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Vets Ice Arena Roof

On PAC’s April16 agenda was a resolution recommending that the city award a $535,000 contract to Pranam Global Tech Inc. to replace the roof at Veterans Memorial Park Ice Arena. The project includes a 10% construction contingency of $53,500, bringing the total project budget to $588,500.

Pranam, based in Livonia, was the lowest of five responsible bids received by the city. Other bidders were A.Z. Shmina Inc. ($612,000), Cedroni Associates Inc. ($738,000), Construction Solutions Inc. ($738,800) and Phoenix Contractors ($747,754).

From left: Park planner Amy Kuras and Ingrid Ault, a member of the city’s park advisory commission.

Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith introduced the item, noting that the roof is nearly 40 years old and has several leaks. A coating was applied 12 years ago but is no longer effective. The purlins and beams have rusted due to moisture condensation, and many need to be replaced and painted.

Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner, reported that in the past few years the roof has leaked so badly that Dennis Simon, the facility’s supervisor, has had to put out 20-30 cones on the ice to warn people who were skating. The city hired Stantec, a structural engineering firm, to evaluate the structural integrity of the roof and supporting structure. Those consultants gave the city several options, Kuras said. The option that’s being pursued is to leave the existing roof in place and put another steel roof on top of it, which will also increase the amount of insulation. That should help keep the ice arena colder, Kuras said.

The city solved the issues it was having with condensation by installing a dehumidification system several years ago, Kuras said, but the purlins and beams were already damaged by then.

There’s also a solar system on the roof, so as part of this project the city will test the system to see how well it’s functioning. If it’s still functioning well, the system will be reinstalled – but in a way that won’t pierce the roof. Kuras indicated that installing the solar system had contributed to the roof leaks.

The work will take place over the summer. Kuras noted that because the existing roof won’t be removed, there’s no reason why the facility won’t be able to open on time in the fall.

The project will be funded from the FY 2013 park maintenance and capital improvements millage proceeds.

Vets Ice Arena Roof: Commission Discussion

Christopher Taylor wondered how much height would be added by the new roof. Kuras replied that there’ll be about six inches between the old and new roofs, so overall she estimated it might add a foot to the structure. The insulation will be in the new roof, not in a separate layer between the two roofs.

Regarding the selection of the lowest responsible bid, Ingrid Ault asked how the staff determines what “responsible” is. Kuras explained that it includes whether all the requirements of the bid have been supplied, and whether the city has experienced poor performance from the bidder in the past. Pre-qualifications were also a factor in this particular bid, she said. Kuras said it’s pretty rare for the lowest bid to be rejected. The bid includes examples of other projects as well as references.

Alan Jackson asked if there was any difference in the types of roofs that different bidders offered, in terms of things like durability. Kuras replied that the city specified the type of roof system. The bidders were permitted to submit an alternative, but what the city wanted was a contractor to purchase and install the specified roof system, which had been suggested by the engineering consultant Stantec. “We rely on their expertise,” Kuras said.

Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner Alan Jackson.

Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith noted that Suhmed Bahl – Smith’s supervisor, who serves as the city’s community services area administrator – has a background in engineering. “I think he occasionally quite likes when these things come up to weigh in,” Smith said.

Jackson noted that as someone who plays ice hockey, “I have certainly witnessed directly the deterioration on the ice surfaces” as well as the rusted roof.

Jackson wondered if the existing roof contains asbestos. It’s metal, Kuras said, so there’s no asbestos, but there might be lead paint. That will be tested, she said, and if lead paint is found, it will be abated. An allowance for that is already built into the contract.

Julie Grand asked how long the new roof is expected to last. Kuras indicated that it would be a standard warranty of 20 years, but she expected it would last much longer than that.

Taylor wondered how the staff would know if the top roof developed leaks, given that the water could get trapped by the original roof. Kuras said it would be the same situation as the one that currently exists. It’s difficult to tell where the actual leak is on the top of the roof, because there’s insulation between the ceiling and the rooftop. “It’s much more difficult than a standard shingle roof,” she said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to recommend awarding the contract to Pranam Global Tech. PAC’s recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Communications & Commentary

There were several opportunities for communications from staff or commissioners during the April 16 meeting, as well as time for public commentary.

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report

Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager, reported that the weather this spring “hasn’t been anybody’s friend.” Bad weather has caused some of the park system’s construction projects to limp along, he said, and it’s been the latest opening for the golf courses in more than 20 years. He reported that the city has completed the majority of seasonal hiring for its recreation facilities, including pools and canoe liveries.

Smith also reported that there’s been an increase in spray-painted graffiti in the parks. He asked commissioners to let him know if they see any graffiti in the parks that they visit. The staff is collecting data on how much time they spend repairing areas that are hit with graffiti, “and it’s substantial,” he said. Trees are being tagged, which is unusual, Smith reported. “There have been some rather inappropriate things painted on some very nice trees.” He hopes to figure out how to reduce it or to make sure that the people who do it are made responsible for restitution. Every hour that the staff spends dealing with graffiti is an hour that they could spend doing something else, he noted. “It’s extremely frustrating … We’re not in the business of providing spray-painting opportunities any more than we are in the business of providing apothecary options for people in the parks. I’ll leave it at that.”

Communications & Commentary: Downtown Parks

Tim Berla asked for an update on the downtown parks subcommittee, hoping that PAC will have recommendations “before the council sells anything.” Christopher Taylor, an ex-officio member of PAC who also serves on the city council, indicated that there would be sufficient time before the council acted. [Berla was referring to steps that the council is taking possibly to sell the former YMCA lot, which the city now owns, at Fifth and William.]

Ingrid Ault, who chairs that subcommittee, said the group has put together a strategic plan for its work and is doing data collection and research through late May or early June. They’ll do community outreach in June, and plan to report recommendations to city council in late July or early August. She expected that the subcommittee’s April 23 meeting would include presentations from local groups that are interested in this topic. [The subcommittee's next meeting is on Tuesday, May 7 from 5-6 p.m. at the second floor council workroom in city hall, 301 E. Huron.]

Communications & Commentary: Dog Park

Berla also requested an update on the selection of a new dog park. He felt that there are two really committed groups of citizens “with very opposite opinions” about choosing a location at West Park for that purpose. Noting that the staff and dog park subcommittee had evaluated about 15 possible locations, Berla hoped they would be able to look at a much larger number of spots. “There’s no doubt that there’s a need,” Berla said. “Maybe if we widen the net we can find something better.” He also hoped there was a way to open dialogue with people who fear having a dog park near their homes, as well as with dog park advocates.

Karen Levin, who chairs the dog park subcommittee, reported that the group would be meeting the following week, on April 23, to review possible next steps. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, added that these meetings are open to the public and have opportunities for public commentary at the beginning and end of each meeting.

From left: Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner Graydon Krapohl talks with city councilmember Mike Anglin, who serves as an ex officio member of PAC.

Smith indicated that it’s time to get away from looking at West Park. It was a very long process to establish the city’s existing two dog parks, Smith noted, and both are on the outskirts of town. It’s evident that there’s a need for a dog park that’s centrally located, he said, but at the same time some people are very passionate about not having a dog park in their neighborhood. “It’s not an easy solution, but we’re not giving up on it. We will find something.”

Bob Galardi asked if the subcommittee has done any research about pollution caused by dog parks. Whenever a new site is suggested, this dialogue will start all over again, he said.

Julie Grand noted that some of the possible sites aren’t directly adjacent to people’s homes, but are still walkable from neighborhoods. At a meeting she attended regarding the future use of the city-owned 721 N. Main site, there was more overwhelming “thumbs up” for a dog park there than she’d ever heard before. That’s because it’s walkable from the nearby neighborhoods, she said, but it’s not directly next to someone’s home. Grand indicated that perhaps a more incremental approach, coupled with education, might be successful.

Tim Doyle noted that when he was in Florida recently, he’d seen a dog park located under a freeway that seemed to work well. He wondered if the city could identify a site and purchase it with funds through the open space and parkland acquisition millage.

Communications & Commentary: Library Lane

Alan Haber told commissioners that he was there to continue promoting the possibility of an ice-skating rink on part of the Library Lane site. He noted that he was wearing his “dusty shop clothes,” and one reason he knows this project would be easy to do is because he could do it himself with his own hands and his friends. It comes out of the spirit of wanting to do something nice for the city and the “love economy,” he said. “But we’re also working on the money.”

Gwen Nystuen, center, talks to Alan Haber and Mary Hathaway before the start of the April 16 PAC meeting.

He’s spoken to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s partnerships committee, and to the Ann Arbor Library District board. The common desire from both groups, he said, was that the rink organizers have a liaison with PAC. He thought this project could be an experiment that would be helpful for the commission, even though he knew they had a longer-term agenda for downtown parks. The current timeline calls for the rink to open in mid-October, and to be evaluated at the end of the year to see if it’s something worth continuing. Haber called it an “on-the-ground field research way of experimenting” about what might work on that site. He hoped PAC could identify someone to act as a liaison.

Gwen Nystuen read a statement from Will Hathaway on behalf of the Library Green Conservancy, and also passed out a report from the conservancy as part of its effort to try to make the lot into a park instead of being used for parking. [.pdf of Hathaway's letter] [.pdf of Library Green Conservancy report] The intent of the report is to provide an alternative perspective to the Connecting William Street project, which was undertaken by the Ann Arbor DDA.

From Hathaway’s letter:

While the Library Lot has been and continues to be the focus for our group, we recognize that there is a need for a variety of types of public open space throughout our downtown. We feel that this site has particular strengths as the location for a town square. Our community lost a central, public open space when the old County Courthouse was torn down over half century ago – its generous lawn paved over and filled by a new building. We’re glad that the PAC is looking at all the potential sites and thinking broadly about the needs of all the constituencies for downtown open space.

The letter praised the approach of PAC’s downtown parks subcommittee, especially for allowing public input, and highlighted some caveats about using online surveys. The conservancy will be making a presentation to the subcommittee, according to the letter.

Nystuen, a former PAC member, thanked commissioners for their work.

Stewart Gordon spoke at the end of the meeting about the proposed ice-skating rink, saying that advocates have taken very seriously the feedback they’re getting from the DDA, the library, and PAC. Both the DDA and the library – as well as rink organizers – would like some kind of ongoing connection with PAC, he said. He hoped that PAC would identify a liaison for this project. That person could receive updates about the project, as well as forward any concerns from PAC. It would be more efficient than taking up time during public commentary, he said. This project is about placemaking, Gordon added. “We’re in the business of making a place in downtown Ann Arbor that’s attractive, exciting and that will benefit both institutions and businesses.”

Chris Hewitt spoke about both a downtown park and a centrally located dog park. Both are crucial to supporting the city’s goals of building a dense core and attracting young professionals, he said. It also supports other city initiatives, like the non-motorized plan. He told commissioners that he and his wife relocated to Ann Arbor about three years ago, and seriously looked at living downtown. But there weren’t any grocery stores, dog parks or places to hang out downtown, he said. Those amenities are important, and he supported both a downtown park and a centrally located dog park.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Tim Berla, Tim Doyle, Bob Galardi, Julie Grand, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl, Karen Levin, Missy Stults, and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. PAC’s land acquisition committee meets on Tuesday, May 7 at 4 p.m., followed by a meeting of PAC’s downtown parks subcommittee at 5 p.m. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle survives in part through regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. If you’re already helping The Chronicle with some financial green, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Commissioners have been lobbied about the project during public commentary at previous meetings, most recently on Feb. 26, 2013. At that meeting, Haber – one of the organizers of the Library Green Conservancy – told commissioners that he hoped PAC could make a statement as a body or individually to the city council, urging them to give the rink a try for just two months. A written proposal presented to PAC on March 19 again states the request for PAC support, as rink organizers seek $25,000 in matching funds from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. [.pdf of rink proposal]

The proposal provided to PAC includes a list of “local supporters and consultants,” including John Fingerle of Fingerle Lumber, Mark Hodesh of Downtown Home & Garden, Carol Lopez of Peaceable Kingdom, Elaine Selo of Selo/Shevel Gallery, and Craig Forsyth of the Ann Arbor Figure Skating Club, among others. The plan calls for building a 32-foot by 72-foot temporary artificial ice rink on the northwest corner of the Library Lane lot, at an estimated cost of $50,000. An “in-kind” contribution of 15 parking spaces, which the rink would cover, is also requested.

The downtown building of the Ann Arbor District Library is adjacent to the site, although the library has no ownership of the parcel. At the AADL board’s March 18, 2013 meeting, Gordon spoke briefly during public commentary asking for the board’s support on this project. He provided a handout regarding the project that’s similar to the one presented to PAC. There was no discussion or response from library board members during the meeting.

At PAC’s March 19 meeting, Christopher Taylor – a city councilmember who serves as an ex officio member of PAC – was interested in hearing how AADL board members and staff felt about the ice rink. Gordon indicated that some individual board members are very supportive, but the board as a whole hasn’t weighed in. He said the impact on the library would be minimal – an estimated average of two people per hour using the library restroom, for example. Haber added that in general, the library is reluctant to get involved with the Library Lane site.

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

Jack Eaton talks with Sabra Briere before the start of the Ann Arbor planning commission’s March 5, 2013 meeting. Briere serves on the commission as the representative from city council. Eaton spoke during a public hearing on the Connecting William Street plan.

The Connecting William Street project was undertaken by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority at the behest of the city council. It focuses on recommendations for coordinated development of five city-own sites in the William Street area, on the south side of downtown. By becoming a resource document, the CWS plan carries less weight than it would if it were part of the city’s master plan.

Amber Miller of the DDA gave a presentation during the March 5 commission meeting, similar to those previously given to the council and the DDA board.

Much of the discussion among commissioners focused on the issue of open space. Miller noted that recommendations on that issue have been deferred to a committee of the city’s park advisory commission. That downtown parks committee is in the early stages of its work – it was scheduled to meet earlier in the day on March 5, but that meeting was canceled.

Commentary during a public hearing on the CWS plan also focused on open space, with several members of the Library Green Conservancy advocating for a centrally located park atop the Library Lane underground parking structure. They criticized the DDA’s process for developing the plan, and felt the planning commission had not adequately publicized the fact that a public hearing on Connecting William Street would be held that evening.

Additional public commentary came after the commission’s vote. Woods said her decision to ask for reconsideration of the item was prompted by concerns raised during this final public commentary. She felt it wouldn’t hurt to wait two weeks until the commission’s next meeting, so that more people could have the chance to weigh in, if they wanted.

Sabra Briere, who had expressed strong reservations before casting her original yes vote, said she supported Woods in her effort to reconsider the item, suggesting that postponement would be appropriate. She expressed concern that the commission was deciding to use the CWS plan as a future planning document – which would be referenced when the planning staff and commission make their recommendations to the city council on site plans and other planning and development actions. Given that importance, Briere – who also serves on city council – wanted to be absolutely certain before accepting it.

Other commissioners disagreed. Kirk Westphal, the planning commission’s chair, also served on a DDA leadership outreach committee (LOC) that helped craft the Connecting William Street plan. He said he felt extremely comfortable with the public process that had led to these recommendations. Eric Mahler also argued against reopening the item for another vote, saying the commission needed to bring closure to this long process. He was satisfied that sufficient public notice had been provided.

It’s unclear whether the city council will take any action on the Connecting William Street plan. As to what happens next, Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director, told planning commissioners that the DDA will be following the council’s guidance. Councilmembers have already taken a first step related to one of the five parcels – the former YMCA lot. At their meeting on March 4, 2013, councilmembers voted to direct the city administrator to prepare an RFP (request for proposals) for brokerage services to sell the lot. A $3.5 million balloon payment on the property is due at the end of 2013.

Connecting William Street

Since the summer of 2011, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has been working on the Connecting William Street project, which was undertaken following a directive from the city council at its April 4, 2011 meeting.

Streetscape view looking down William Street toward the east from Ashley Street – a schematic rendering of the Connecting William Street recommendations.

The work focuses on future use of five city-owned parcels in the downtown area: (1) the Kline parking lot (on the east side of Ashley, north of William), (2) the parking lot next to Palio restaurant (northeast corner of Main & William), (3) the ground floor of the Fourth & William parking structure, (4) the former YMCA lot (on William between Fourth and Fifth), which is now a surface parking lot, and (5) the top of the Library Lane underground parking garage on South Fifth, north of the downtown library.

The DDA board adopted the recommendations at its Jan. 9, 2013 board meeting. The city council was briefed on the recommendations at a Jan. 7, 2013 working session, but has not taken any other action on the plan.

Amber Miller of the DDA gave a presentation during the March 5 planning commission meeting, similar to those given to the council and the DDA board. She described the public input process that the DDA had undertaken, and highlighted recommendations in the CWS report. Broadly, those recommendations are organized into eight categories: (1) adjacencies – improving the pedestrian experience and spaces between buildings; (2) streetscape and transportation; (3) parking; (4) density & massing; (5) land uses; (6) architecture; (7) street “edge” – building design that showcases active ground floor uses; and (8) sustainability.

The CWS report also includes recommendations for each of the five sites, with specific references to how those recommendations fit within the eight broader categories of the plan. [.pdf of Connecting William Street recommendations]

Miller noted that recommendations on the issue of open space have been deferred to a committee of the city’s park advisory commission. That downtown parks committee is in the early stages of its work. The committee was scheduled to meet earlier in the day on March 5, but that meeting was canceled. [For background, see Chronicle coverage: "Committee Begins Research on Downtown Parks."]

DDA executive director Susan Pollay arrived after Miller’s presentation, but was on hand to answer questions.

Connecting William Street: March 5 Meeting Logistics

The city council’s directive in April of 2011 had called for the DDA to engage in a public process with experts, stakeholders and residents, and then to develop a plan for those five parcels. The council’s resolution described a step in the process when the city council and the planning commission would adopt the recommendations on the five parcels into the city’s downtown plan. The downtown plan is one component of the city’s master plan. Other components include: the land use element, the transportation plan, the non-motorized transportation plan, parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, and the natural features master plan.

Based on the phasing described in the council’s April 2011 resolution, any request for proposals (RFP) to be made for the five parcels would come after the planning commission and the city council formally adopt recommendations on the five parcels into the downtown plan.

The original agenda item for the planning commission’s March 5, 2013 meeting – posted on the city’s online Legistar system – referenced the downtown plan: “The Planning Commission will consider whether to consider the Connecting William Street Plan as an amendment to the Downtown Plan.” Prior to the meeting, no resolution or staff memo for this item had been posted.

But the resolution handed out at the meeting did not mention the downtown plan. That resolution, recommended by staff and ultimately approved by commissioners, stated:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby approves the “City of Ann Arbor Resource Information In Support Of The City Master Plan Resolution,” dated March 5, 2013.

An attachment to the resolution included an updated resource list, with the Connecting William Street plan as one of 13 resources. The other 12 resource documents – listed on the city’s website for its master planning documents – include the downtown design guidelines, the Washtenaw Avenue corridor redevelopment strategy, and a flood mitigation plan, among others.

During the March 6 meeting, concerns were raised about the timing of adding this CWS resolution to the planning commission’s agenda. It had not been mentioned at the commission’s previous meeting, on Feb. 21. Typically, each meeting includes a notice of public hearings that will take place at the subsequent meeting. And at a meeting of the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee on Feb. 22, there was even some discussion about the possibility of canceling the March 6 meeting, for lack of any agenda items. That Feb. 22 ORC meeting had been attended by several commissioners, including chair Kirk Westphal.

But the March 6 meeting ultimately proceeded as scheduled, with consideration of the CWS plan as the only action item on the agenda when it was posted on Legistar on March 1.

The commission’s bylaws address the issue of how and when the agendas are made available. In part, the bylaws state:

Article X Agenda and Order of Business
Section 1. Agendas for all Commission meetings shall be developed by the Planning and Development Services Unit Manager and the Commission Chair. Agendas for all regular meetings of the Commission, along with reports related to matters listed on the agenda for Commission action, shall be available to concerned parties or other interested citizens the Friday preceding each regular meeting. Whenever possible, the Planning and Development Services Unit Manager shall advise persons known to be involved in a particular matter of any changes in procedure or scheduling which become necessary after preparation of the agenda. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws]

Connecting William Street: Public Hearing

The need for more open space and a centrally located downtown park was highlighted by the five people who spoke during the planning commission’s March 5 public hearing on Connecting William Street. Most of the speakers were affiliated with the Library Green Conservancy, which is advocating for a park on top of the Library Lane parking structure – one of the five sites in the Connecting William Street plan.

Ethel Potts told commissioners that the public hearing had not been well-publicized – and she presumed they would hold another one. She found the process to be very frustrating. The survey that had been conducted by the DDA was “amateurish,” she said, and didn’t even try to ask the public what they wanted to talk about. There were lots of group meetings, but “they were sort of a set-up,” Potts said. Participants were given something to respond to, she added, but the meetings weren’t designed to allow people to simply say what they wanted to say. So for her, the public outreach “was quite unsatisfactory.” If the planning commission wants to really know what the public thinks, commissioners might have to supplement the DDA’s process with public hearings and other outreach efforts. She also argued that many of the underlying documents used by the DDA to develop this plan were dated, and shouldn’t be used until they were updated.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson signed agendas for Skyline High School students as proof that they attended the March 5 planning commission meeting for a class assignment.

Jack Eaton encouraged the commission not to accept the report as a resource document. It’s the result of a fundamentally flawed process, he said. The DDA has been obstinate in its refusal to include parkland and open space uses as considered appropriate for these five parcels, even though broad public support has been expressed for such uses, he said. This set of recommendations views density as good, regardless of other factors, “and that’s just not the case.” He recommended that commissioners read the book “Made for Walking: Density & Neighborhood Form” by Julie Campoli. It states that a vibrant, walkable town requires more than just density, he said. You need a diversity of uses – open space, public uses, the ability to have privacy. “There’s more to this than just filling empty lots with tall, densely populated buildings.” Eaton said the city council had a cool reaction to the CWS presentation – and he thought that was likely the reason that it’s now being recommended only as a resource document, rather than an addition to the master plan. There isn’t significant enough support on the council or in the public to incorporate these recommendations into the master plan, he said. Eaton urged commissioners not to accept it – even as a resource document – where it would just “sit there like a time bomb.”

Eaton also contended that William Street is not the core downtown, but rather the edge of downtown. The CWS recommendations suggest putting up buildings that go right to the sidewalk, he said. That doesn’t make the area more walkable – it makes it less pedestrian friendly. The CWS plan is fundamentally flawed in its process, he concluded, and is too narrow in its recommendations. He urged commissioners not to act until they received recommendations from the city’s park advisory commission and environmental commission. After that, the planning commission should proceed from those broader views.

Will Hathaway said he’s a lifelong resident of Ann Arbor, and a member of the Library Green Conservancy. They’ve been following the process closely and trying their best to encourage people to participate, he said, but it had been frustrating and difficult to believe they were being taken seriously. In fact, it seemed like the process was preordained to end up were it did, Hathaway contended.

It was unfortunate that there was confusion about that night’s public hearing, Hathaway said, because the commission could have heard from a lot more people who had similar experiences with this process. Alluding to a reference by Amber Miller that the CWS plan reflected what the DDA heard from the public, Hathaway contended that “it’s only what the DDA allowed itself to hear.” A lot of input had been intentionally screened out, he said. The only reason there’s now a focus on open space is because “we wouldn’t go away. We had to really make ourselves a nuisance instead of just participating.” That’s because there wasn’t a good-faith effort to welcome public input and have a real dialogue, he said.

If the commission makes the CWS plan a resource document and relies on it for planning purposes, then they will be enshrining a misleading process, Hathaway said. It’s not fair to say the plan is based on legitimate public input, he said, and the underlying documents examined by the DDA were “cherry-picked.” Hathaway also felt there was a missed opportunity with the land use economist hired by the DDA on this project – an expert who helped create the High Line park in New York City [Todd Poole of 4ward Planning]. “But they didn’t even ask him for any input about how a public park in Ann Arbor’s downtown could generate benefits.” The DDA hadn’t been open to new ideas, he concluded, and this hadn’t been an honest public process.

Stephan Trendov told commissioners that he’d gotten really involved in the Library Green effort, and had analyzed different options for that property. The Library Green group has come up with different ideas for that site, such as putting buildings there that are 3-4 stories high. The DDA is now saying that there can be a small area for grass.

Trendov said some people don’t want fountains on the site. But why do people go to Rome? It’s to see fountains, he said. The DDA asked for people to get involved, but when people said the main thing they wanted was green space, the DDA “hid it underneath the table.” Trendov contended that the mayor has said people come to him and rant, but don’t offer solutions. But the Library Green group has given three or four solutions about how this space could bring the community together, Trendov said. It would soften the downtown. “We’ve given ideas,” he concluded. “I don’t know what to do anymore.”

The final speaker was Alan Haber, who said it seemed that commissioners were just looking to respond to the DDA’s work product, rather than actually discuss what should be happening downtown. He hoped that they didn’t take it on as a resource document. It’s flawed in two ways, he said. The DDA took as its mandate to put a building on every property, “but that wasn’t in the mandate.” The mandate was to look in an integrated way at how these properties can be developed to benefit the downtown, he said. That doesn’t necessarily mean a profit-making building on every property. It could be a civic building.

Haber remembered the days when Ann Arbor had a center – a courthouse and a green, a sense of having a center. That has been dissolved, he said. In its place is a vision of buildings everywhere. But there’s another vision, Haber said – a place that can be a center, that’s built by the community and is a living, vibrant focal point. And “the only place to make it is on that Library [Lane] lot.” If the commission wants a center, Haber said, then they shouldn’t accept the DDA’s report. That’s what the people want.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion

Planning commissioners had an extensive discussion about the CWS plan, covering public process, open space, density, zoning, and a range of other topics. This report organizes their remarks thematically.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Public Input

Sabra Briere began by apologizing to the public. Several people had emailed her, she said, asking if there would be a public hearing. She had relied on an email she’d received from planning staff the previous week that had described the agenda item as a “discussion,” and that’s what she communicated to others. “I did not realize it was a public hearing until tonight.” She had imagined that if the commission planned to hold a public hearing on this topic, it would be broadly noticed. Briere felt that more people would have attended, if she had responded in a different way.

Amber Miller of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

Tony Derezinski asked for more information about how the commission’s meeting had been publicized. Planning manager Wendy Rampson said the meeting was advertised in the Washtenaw Legal News, and the meeting notice had been emailed on Friday, March 1 to anyone signed up for the city’s GovDelivery system. The agenda posted on Legistar stated that the CWS item included a public hearing, but Rampson said she wasn’t sure how many people looked at the agenda in that level of detail.

Derezinski said he had had no doubt that the commission would be considering this matter at the meeting. He noted that the people who spoke during the public hearing are ones who have consistently been very “energetic” in stating their beliefs, and he’s seen them at several meetings.

He asked Amber Miller how many public hearings were held on the CWS project, saying he had attended two. Miller replied that after the initial CWS plan was drafted, there were about 30 public meetings and three public webinars. Briere noted that the term “public hearing” has a specific meaning. There have been a lot of public meetings, Briere said, but that’s different than a public hearing.

Bonnie Bona asked about the written comments that were made by the public, as part of the CWS survey. Would those be included in the report? Miller replied that the comments from the survey are on the DDA website for the CWS project.

Kirk Westphal, who served on the CWS leadership outreach committee, praised the DDA, saying he didn’t think there’s been a planning process that has reached as many individuals as this one did. “It’s been an extremely well-commented-on plan,” he said. It’s unfortunate that so much of the discussion has focused on just one site [Library Lane] and the issue of open space on that site. He said he’s comfortable that the park advisory commission is taking up the topic of open space.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Library Lane

Bonnie Bona quoted from an email that the commission had received from Kitty Kahn. The email referenced the Calthorpe report on downtown development strategies, which the city had commissioned in 2005. From the email:

The Calthorpe Plan also came to the conclusion that there should be green space downtown. In fact, the Calthorpe Plan said the perfect place for such green space would be a green roof on the Library Lane parking structure. The DDA ignores the findings of the Calthorpe Plan and ignores the wishes of the citizens of Ann Arbor. [.pdf of full email from Kitty Kahn]

Bona asked planning manager Wendy Rampson if she recalled what the Calthorpe report actually said. Rampson could not remember, but indicated that she would look it up. [When the report was completed in 2006, the site was still a surface parking lot and was not yet named Library Lane. The report does include this recommendation for the site: "Redevelop the library parking lot. This lot might be appropriate for a design competition and should include a central 'town square,' underground parking, and residential uses."]

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Parks & Open Space

Tony Derezinski noted that the CWS report provides criteria for open space on these parcels. The report also makes a reference to Liberty Plaza, and he said it seemed like the criteria for open space is a response to problems at Liberty Plaza, located at Liberty & Division. He asked Amber Miller to talk about that.

Miller described some issues that have been raised about Liberty Plaza – that it’s not very welcoming and there aren’t ways to “activate” the site, she said. Primarily, there are no building fronts that face the site. Instead, the plaza faces the sides of two adjacent buildings – Kempf House Museum to the south, and the building that houses Ann Arbor SPARK offices to the west.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Tony Derezinski.

Miller also said the size of an urban plaza is important. Ideally, a plaza would be about the size of Sculpture Plaza (at Catherine & Fourth) or the Library Lane plaza that’s recommended by the CWS report. The smaller size forces people to be closer together, she said, which adds energy and interaction to the space.

Derezinski pointed out that the CWS recommendations call for this kind of space to be maintained primarily by private entities. That’s right, Miller said. She noted that when there are privately sponsored events at Liberty Plaza – like the summer concert series Sonic Lunch, sponsored by the Bank of Ann Arbor – it’s very active. But the city doesn’t have the budget to program it every day, she said. That’s why the CWS recommendations call for private entities to step up, and at least partner with the city.

Derezinski asked if the DDA looked at other cities for examples of successful urban plazas. Miller cited San Francisco as having several examples of publicly accessible space that’s privately owned.

Noting that he’d been a part of the DDA’s leadership outreach committee for CWS, Kirk Westphal said he knew there was a high priority placed on using existing city plans as the basis for drafting the recommendations. For the concepts of shaping buildings and open space, what did the DDA use as resource documents?

Miller replied that for massing and how a building interacts with the sidewalk, the DDA primarily referenced existing zoning and the downtown design guidelines, because those documents were most recently approved. Regarding open space and plazas, the CWS plan drew from existing zoning regulations as well as the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan.

Westphal said that in reading the PROS plan, it was hard to find a lot of information specifically about downtown open space – saying it seemed like a fairly low priority. Miller pointed out that this is why the park advisory commission is taking another look at that issue, via its downtown park subcommittee. The subcommittee will be looking at Liberty Plaza, as well as prioritizing existing park commitments and connections, she said.

Westphal wondered if that process is in conflict with adopting the CWS plan. No, Miller said – it closely aligns with the CWS recommendations. Westphal ventured that the recommendations of that subcommittee, if incorporated into the PROS plan, would take precedence over CWS because the PROS plan is part of the city’s master plan.

Ken Clein said it’s worth having more discussion about open space, and he looked forward to the park advisory commission’s report. He’s not a proponent of a central park like the one advocated by some people, because of the size. But he thinks there’s room for more open space downtown. Areas that are privately owned and maintained have worked well in other cities, he said. It’s challenging for local governments to do that, he added, because tax revenues can be unstable. Having open space amenities doesn’t just mean having a huge park, he said. Small inlet parks along the street can be wonderful places to escape, and the downtown needs a diversity of places like this.

Eric Mahler expressed several concerns regarding open space, saying the city has looked at this issue “time and again.” He’d heard these issues repeatedly when the city issued a request for proposals for developing the top of the Library Lane parking garage several years ago. [Mahler was on the advisory committee that evaluated the RFPs, but the city council eventually rejected that committee's recommendation and no project was selected.] He said there haven’t been meaningful solutions from the public about the concerns he has. For example, if open space is privatized – as the CWS plan recommends – there will be challenges in keeping it active. There will also be issues of security, he said.

Excerpt from a drawing in the Connecting William Street report, showing possible buildings on city-owned land. William Street is indicated in green. The dark purple spaces indicate the proposed location of open space. The building in the foreground is on the former Y lot. The taller building toward the top of this image is on the Library Lane site.

Mahler also noted that he’s had private conversations with other planning commissioners, who have stressed that any open space must be meticulously planned. But that won’t happen under private ownership, he said.

Mahler added that if the city starts offering premiums for open space in the CWS area – but not elsewhere in the city – then there will be a disincentive for developers to build profit-making buildings on the CWS sites. Developers will look elsewhere to build, he said.

Wendy Woods referenced an image in the CWS report, which showed a building on the former Y lot with just a small section designated for open space. Given the input that the DDA has heard from many citizens, Woods said, why isn’t that open space larger? To have a drawing with only a small amount of open space “just irritates people,” she said.

Susan Pollay responded, saying that the drawings are meant to suggest possibilities. In the case of the Y lot, the image shows an alternative to a solid rectangular building, she said. Pollay noted that students of UM professor Doug Kelbaugh had come up with other potential designs, including some with two buildings and lots of open space on that parcel. The drawings aren’t meant to be prescriptive, Pollay said, but rather are meant to show what’s possible when conforming with the city’s design guidelines.

Bonnie Bona pointed out that the city has recently adopted a sustainability framework that includes fiscal responsibility. She noted there was a recent media report about the University of Michigan buying property and taking it off the tax rolls. Bona said she’s more concerned about the city buying property for parkland and taking it off the tax rolls that way.

In addition, there are a huge number of properties in the floodway that can’t be developed, Bona said, which means the property taxes won’t be as great. The good news, she added, is that some of those properties are in the Allen Creek greenway, which fits with the city’s plan to create the greenway. As a member of the North Main Huron River task force, Bona said there’s a lot of parkland in that area, and more might be added there.

But the city needs to look at parkland in a broader context, Bona said, not just one site. “We can’t have parkland everywhere.” Bona said she’s excited that the park advisory commission is looking at the issue of downtown parks – the PROS plan has recommended that such an analysis be done for many years. She hoped they’d look at it in the context of the whole city.

Responding to Bona’s remarks, Woods noted that as a community, people in Ann Arbor talk about bringing more density downtown, while at the same time taking pride in green space and access to recreation. “Those two things are unfortunately going to be in conflict at times,” Woods said. The CWS plan calls for bringing more people downtown, so it’s incumbent on the city to provide more green space and open space for those people, Woods said. Some people think Ann Arbor has enough parks, she added, but those parks aren’t necessarily located in the downtown area.

While the city might want to develop land that will build its tax base, Woods said, it’s important for people living in these downtown areas to have access to green space, too.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Zoning & Density

Bonnie Bona referenced a recent project at 624 Church by the Pizza House owners to build a 14-story apartment building. In a previous renovation of Pizza House, she noted, they had “oversized” the foundations to allow this kind of taller building eventually to be constructed. She said she’s a strong supporter of buildings that can last for 100-plus years – so new structures must be flexible. She’d like buildings with an initial 400% FAR (floor-area ratio) to have the potential to build up to 700% FAR in the future.

By way of background, FAR – a measure of density – is the ratio of the square footage of a building divided by the size of the lot. A one-story structure built lot-line-to-lot-line with no setbacks corresponds to a FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in a FAR of 200%.

Amber Miller replied that all five sites in the CWS plan are within the D1 zoning district, and the CWS recommendations aren’t meant to override that. Rather, the recommendations reflect the community feedback, she said. Bona pointed out that it might be appropriate to achieve D1 density in phases. [D1 allows for the highest level of density in the city.]

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

Bona also stressed that she’d like all the buildings designed to be flexible, so that they could possibly be converted to different uses in the future. She pointed to the difficulties that Sloan Plaza has had in converting some of its office space to residential use. Sloan Plaza is an office and condo building at 505 E. Huron.

Sabra Briere pointed to the recommendation that there would be buildings on each of the five sites – and for some people, that sounds like it will happen immediately, she said. That’s not necessarily what some people want to do, she said, and the concept implies rapid change, in some people’s minds.

Miller said the concept of building on each parcel came from the goal of wanting to increase downtown activity – more space for people to live, work and do activities. Asked by Briere what the timeline might be for this development, Miller said the timeline would be driven by the city council and by the sale of those sites.

Briere noted  that city councilmembers had voted at their March 4, 2013 meeting to direct the city administrator to prepare an RFP (request for proposals) for brokerage services to sell the former YMCA lot. No one was referencing the CWS plan during the council discussion, she said, as they spoke about how the site should be promoted to potential buyers. It concerns her that all of this work took place on the plan, but it’s not seen by councilmembers as a reference point. Briere noted that the main part of the plan that councilmembers pulled out is the recommendation that potential developers would need to go to the design review board twice.

Briere’s final concern was that density isn’t a goal – it’s a means to an end. The end is to keep downtown vibrant. The council might decide to sell these sites rather than have the city try to plan the sites. That’s especially true for the former Y lot, she said. The council could easily decide just to sell it rather than work with prospective developers. And if it’s land on the open market, then it’s governed by the master plan.

Ken Clein said it’s good that the city is planning for the future, to see where problems and opportunities exist. In his experience, communities that plan for the future are more successful. But the reality is that if properties are just going to be sold, then its D1 zoning that really will control development. Responding to a query from Clein, Miller said that drawings of what could be built on these parcels – based on D1 zoning – are available on the DDA’s website. The drawings included in the CWS recommendations reflect community input, she said, but that doesn’t override the zoning.

Clein noted that if the city put out development proposals, they could put stipulations on what could go on these lots. But if the city simply sells the property, “then all bets are off.” He indicated that the “stir” about the 413 E. Huron project – a proposed 14-story apartment building at Huron and Division – is caused in part because people didn’t understand what could be built on that site under D1 zoning.

Clein also had concerns about the D1 zoning of the lot next to Palio restaurant, at the northeast corner of Main & William. Allowing a building of 5-8 stories would be a harsh contrast to the existing height on that street, he said.

Westphal wondered what the process would be to encourage development in the way that the CWS plan recommends. Miller replied that the land use economist hired by the DDA – Todd Poole of 4ward Planning – had looked at the recommendations and concluded that they were viable. But if the community wants something that’s not supportable by the market, then the city might need to be flexible in price, she said. The amount that a developer might pay for land to build a student high-rise apartment building wouldn’t likely be the same as for a mixed-use building with a cultural venue.

Another factor is that the DDA has created a tax increment finance (TIF) grant policy to incentivize uses that the public values, Miller said – in situations where those uses aren’t supported by the market.

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Ken Clein is an architect with Quinn Evans Architects.

Westphal noted that buildings with better architectural features or materials might better serve the community’s long-term interest, and provide greater value for the tax base, compared to lesser-quality construction that might serve a developer’s shorter-term financial interests. Miller agreed, saying the community values a longer-term return.

Bona returned to the issue of density, noted that if the city council decides to sell the Y lot and it’s zoned D1, the building could be taller than what’s depicted in the CWS plan’s images, with more open space on the lot. She asked planning manager Wendy Rampson if that’s a correct interpretation. Rampson replied that the Y lot is in the midtown character area, which sets a maximum height of 180 feet.

Bona said she wanted to warn the council about the potential for a taller building, compared to what’s suggested in the CWS plan. She also noted that if the Y lot is zoned D1, then the developer could potentially use a “super premium” – by providing affordable housing – to achieve 900% FAR, which would result in an even larger building.

Bona recommended that the council wait until the D1 zoning is reviewed before selling the lot and zoning it. [Her comment was an allusion to a proposal that the council has now postponed twice. The proposed resolution would set a six-month moratorium on the consideration of new site plans for downtown Ann Arbor. It also gives specific direction to the planning commission during the moratorium to review the D1 zoning code and to make recommendations to the city council on possible revisions to the code. The proposal is expected to be considered again at the council's March 18 meeting.]

Connecting William Street: Discussion – Pedestrian Connections

Ken Clein asked about the term “connecting,” and wondered what that implied. Amber Miller explained that the primary idea is to improve the connection between Main Street and State Street. If the city is trying to make those connections – creating pedestrian activity through some sort of development – Clein said he wasn’t sure if there was adequate space along William for streetscape developments that people will feel comfortable walking and lingering in. The sidewalks are quite narrow, and he wondered how that would impact recommendations for buildings to be constructed there.

Clein recalled that several years ago for the city’s Huron, Fifth & Division study, there was a lot of discussion about the need to encourage buildings to be set back from the property line – especially along Huron, with a high traffic volume. The idea was to create enough sidewalk space so that pedestrians would feel comfortable there.

Miller replied that a lot of the sidewalk expansion is recommended in the city’s non-motorized plan, and includes narrowing the street to accommodate broader sidewalks.

Diane Giannola asked about the image that shows a possible mid-block cut-through. Is that conceived as being on public or private land? Would it be a long park or just a walkway?

Miller replied that the image is simply meant to reflect the need for some kind of connection. The idea has been around for a long time, she noted, with the challenge of connecting Main Street to State Street. She said the CWS plan doesn’t address specifics of how this cut-through would be accomplished.

From the Connecting William Street plan: The yellow areas indicate possible locations for a mid-block cut-through from Ashley to Division.

Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director, elaborated on this issue. Some pieces are already in place, she said. Library Lane, running between Fifth and Division, is publicly owned. Also, the AATA is hopes to acquire a strip of land on the Federal Building site, to the north of Blake Transit Center. If that happens, the AATA could create a walkway between Fourth and Fifth, she said.

The other parts of the cut-through are “very conceptual,” Pollay said. For years, people have talked about using the gate by the Chinese restaurant and chocolate shop on Main Street to connect to the city-owned Kline lot on Ashley. But that Main Street frontage is private property.

Pollay noted that the Fourth & William parking structure has an exit into an alley, which could form part of a connection. So the answer to Giannola’s question is complicated, Pollay concluded, and would involve some public property, and some private. “It would take all of us working together to make it happen.”

Bona also addressed the mid-block issue, saying that the concept was mentioned in the most recent PROS plan as a downtown priority. It’s also important to think about connections between existing parks, she said.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Transportation

Bonnie Bona noted that at one point, there had been discussion of a possible bike boulevard along William Street. It was intriguing to her, because that street doesn’t have the kind of automobile traffic that Liberty or Washington have. However, she didn’t see that concept in the final CWS plan.

Amber Miller replied that the reason the report doesn’t include a bike boulevard is that more exploration is needed to see if it’s possible. Feedback from the city’s transportation staff is that William might not be wide enough and there are too many turning lanes to accommodate a bike boulevard.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Affordable Housing

Eric Mahler thought the CWS recommendations related to affordable housing were vague, especially E-6. It states:

City Planning Commission is encouraged to examine an amendment to the zoning premium available for providing affordable housing on site (See Zoning Code: Title V, Article IV, 5:65 Floor Area Premium Options, (b) in Appendix, page 11)

• To provide greater flexibility in on-site uses and affordable housing resources, strongly consider providing the premium for developments that choose to make an in-lieu payment for affordable housing; This provides resources to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and can be spent on additional units, services, and maintenance as needed.
• To ensure consistency, clearly define how the in-lieu payment will be calculated.

He said he’s in favor of premiums that result in payments to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, but it wasn’t clear to him what the goals were, other than generating money for that fund. Is the city really trying to incentivize people to build affordable housing downtown? That issue has been discussed a lot, and there are reasons why it doesn’t happen. Those goals need to be more explicit, he said.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Resource Doc or Master Plan?

Bonnie Bona addressed the issue of adding CWS as a resource document. One thing to keep in mind is that these sites are public property. For her, the master plan is helpful in dealing with zoning for private property. For city-owned land, the council can do anything it wants, she said – and it doesn’t have to follow zoning or the master plan. So she didn’t see the value in adding CWS to the master plan.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the planning commission deals primarily with private property, but the master plan includes recommendations related to a broader range of issues, including public assets like parks, the transportation system and other elements. A resource document doesn’t have the same weight as a master plan, which would guide rezoning or land acquisition. In contrast, resource documents are used as references to “fill out the question marks” when issues arise, Rampson said – but those documents don’t dictate direction.

Bona felt there are pieces of CWS that might help improve the master plan. Specifically, she cited the section on affordable housing and how to incentivize it. She also pointed to the concept of a cultural venue. “If we don’t incentivize something like that, I expect it’s not going to happen because it’s not what private developers do.”

Wendy Woods said the commission wasn’t really approving the CWS plan – but rather receiving it. “Approving” had a different meaning for her. If the commission approves the CWS plan as a resource document, she said, that takes on a different weight for the commission’s deliberations. When she served on the city council, Woods said, she and other councilmembers would often refer to documents “as if they were written in stone.” In the future, people won’t understand that this document was meant to be just a guideline. A future planning commission could look at the CWS plan and say, “On this block, this is what we as a city said we should be doing.”

Rampson explained that the main resolution is actually “approving” a second resolution. The main resolution states [emphasis added]:

RESOLVED, That the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby approves the “City of Ann Arbor Resource Information In Support Of The City Master Plan Resolution,” dated March 5, 2013.

That second resolution, referenced by the main resolution, states:

RESOLVED, The planning documents listed below shall be used by the Planning Commission and Planning staff as resource information in support of the City Master Plan: … [.pdf of full resolution and staff report]

Woods said that cleared things up for her.

Kirk Westphal noted that he had been part of the commission’s ordinance revisions committee, which had been tasked with trimming the city’s downtown plan – part of the master plan. It’s a good choice to keep that downtown plan lean and approachable, he said, so the CWS plan would be better as a valuable resource document.

Bona noted that while she would love to have her comments incorporated into the CWS plan, the commission typically accepts resource documents as they are written, and doesn’t attempt to revise them. She supported adding the CWS plan as a resource document that night, saying that there had been a robust process.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Next Steps

Sabra Briere noted that the city council resolution directing the DDA to develop these recommendations had laid out a very detailed process, in four phases. She directed her question to Susan Pollay: If the planning commission accepts this report as a resource document, would that complete the third phase? If so, would the DDA then want to move to the fourth phase of implementation?

Planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Kirk Westphal.

Pollay replied that the DDA takes its direction from the council. The previous night, for example, the council voted to develop an RFP for hiring a broker to possibly sell the former Y lot. The DDA could help by offering grants that would help the council achieve its goals. So the DDA will follow the council’s lead, she said.

Briere, who also represents Ward 1 on the city council, wondered when the DDA would be coming to the council to discuss potential implications of selling the Y lot. Pollay indicated that the DDA would do whatever is useful to the council. The DDA staff could meet with the broker to help that person understand what’s available to market the land. Developers will be asking if parking is available, for example, or whether there will be any infrastructure improvements happening in that area. The DDA could help the council in any way it wants, she said. “I see us as being on call – in the batter’s box, as it were,” Pollay said. The DDA’s partnerships committee – which includes representatives from the council and planning commission – is a good place for those discussions to occur, she said.

Westphal asked Rampson what happens procedurally if the commission approved the CWS plan as a resource document. Would that action be transmitted to the council? Rampson indicated that unless the commission directed staff to transit it to city council, the document would simply be added to the planning commission’s list of resource documents, and posted online.

Briere asked how the commission and staff actually use these resource documents. Rampson replied that the staff uses the documents in preparing staff reports for projects that are submitted to the city. They might also use it in discussions with developers prior to the submission of proposals – to give developers a sense of community sentiments.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Postponement?

Ken Clein suggested that in light of the confusion associated with the public hearing, he might propose postponement. Eric Mahler said it would only be worth postponing if the commission intended to modify the document. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, clarified that the commissioner had several options. They could approved the recommendation to accept the CWS plan as a resource document, or they could send suggestions for revision to the council. Or they could just leave it as is and not accept it.

Tony Derezinski pointed out that this CWS report comports with the city council’s directive of providing recommendations. It’s very thorough, he said, and there had been a lot of public input. No one gets everything they want, but that’s part of the democratic process. He felt that if the commission were considering whether to add the report to the master plan, then the process might be different. But it’s proposed as a reference document, and he suggested the commission vote on that proposal, rather than postpone.

Several others indicated a preference to vote that night, so toward the end of the discussion Clein said he didn’t have a problem voting, either. No motion to postpone was made.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Vote

After the discussion concluded, a vote was called on the resolution accepting the CWS plan as a resource document. All commissioners except Briere voted in favor of the resolution. Briere hesitated. She explained that she was concerned that if the park advisory commission recommends one or more of the sites to be used as open space, then that’s a conflict with the CWS plan, which shows a building on each site. She said she’d vote in support of the resolution, but was hesitant about the outcome of this process.

Outcome: The resolution to accept the CWS plan as a resource document passed unanimously on an 8-0 vote. Eleanore Adenekan was absent.

Connecting William Street: More Public Commentary

In public commentary after the commission’s vote to accept the plan as a resource document, four people spoke to criticize commissioners and the DDA for how this process has been handled.

Alan Haber told commissioners he hoped they would pull out for the city council one part of the CWS plan – the part that called for a park on the unbuildable section of the Library Lane site. That would make it possible to move forward on plans for that one space – saying there’s agreement on that. “The other stuff, no agreement at all.” He’s concerned that the CWS plan is taken as a representation of public input. The commission should also accept a citizens report done by the Library Green Conservancy and others, he said, about what should go on the Library Lane lot. That should be a reference document, too.

Haber alluded to some commissioners who had described the public input as robust. “A lot of the robustity was citizens banging on the door and saying ‘Listen to us!’” The Library Lane spot is the center of a circle, he said. While there are other parks, a town center is needed. Haber said the conservancy is looking at other sites, too. There should be some green and public space on all of these five parcels, he said. He argued that the commission should look at other views of the sites, and not just take the CWS plan as the only reference document for that area.

Stephan Trendov said he’s lived in Ann Arbor for 20 years, and he designs cities all over the world. Pointing to the unbuildable part of Library Lane, he noted that a lot of things have been carved out of it – elevator shafts, exits from the parking structure, a road. Only about 35% of the surface is left, he said. The people overwhelmingly want green space, he said, but the trees were taken out. He criticized Bonnie Bona for flip-flopping. “Some of you people vote politically – I don’t understand you!” he said. He called out Wendy Woods and Sabra Briere for voting in favor of accepting the CWS plan, even though they spoke against it. Trendov said he’d continue to fight for green spaces.

Mary Hathaway referenced Kirk Westphal’s comment that the CWS project had the most thorough study that he could recall. “You apparently weren’t here for the Calthorpe study,” she said. That process was much more thorough and many more people had participated. The commission shouldn’t have voted that night, Hathaway said, because they didn’t have all the information they needed. “I’m so sorry you did this. I think it’s very regrettable.”

The final speaker was Ethel Potts, who said it’s not just regrettable, “it’s potentially dangerous.” Now, the CWS document has official standing as a resource. There are many other plans out there, she said, yet the commission is willing to settle for this one. Potts contended that the council was presented with the CWS report without a public hearing. Now the commission had voted without an officially notified public hearing, she said. The survey that the DDA conducted was bad, she continued. It’s true there were a lot of public meetings, but it was done with a “divide-and-conquer” strategy that only provided ideas for people to react to – contending that nothing was offered as an alternative. “You don’t know what the public wanted, because none if it is in this plan,” Potts said. “You are taking a plan from the DDA. You are not taking a plan from the public.”

Connecting William Street: Motion to Reconsider

After the public commentary, Wendy Woods said she wanted to bring back the item for reconsideration. She said her decision to ask for reconsideration of the item was prompted by concerns raised during this final public commentary. Under the planning commission’s bylaws, anyone on the prevailing side of a vote can make a motion to reconsider. Woods’ comment drew applause from the half dozen or so people affiliated with the Library Green Conservancy.

Planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Sabra Briere seconded the motion. It was troubling to her because many people had left the previous planning commission meeting believing that there would be no public hearing on March 5. [Typically, public hearings are announced at the meeting two weeks prior to when the hearings are held.] Many people rely on having more notice, and she’d be much happier postponing the item. Her remarks also drew applause, which she attempted to quell.

Briere also cited concerns that the commission would be accepting this as a reference document for future planning, when the city council had been at best lukewarm to it. So she wasn’t sure she could go to the council and ask them to use it as a reference.

Diane Giannola said she looked at it in a different way. It was a council-sanctioned project that the DDA performed. It was a compilation of public input, and the commission isn’t supposed to amend it – they’re supposed to accept it. It bothered her that some people have come to this meeting and are saying their input is more important than the input reflected in the CWS report. She opposed reconsidering the vote.

Woods said the commission can never hurt itself by allowing anyone to have the opportunity to comment. She didn’t propose holding open the issue forever, because that would paralyze them. But there’s enough “cloudiness” around this issue that a two-week postponement, until the commission’s next meeting, would be valuable. She didn’t seen any harm in it. Maybe the commission’s final vote wouldn’t change, she said, but there’s enough of a question about the public process that it’s worth postponing.

Eric Mahler argued that the council isn’t being asked to use the CWS plan as a reference document – it’s being added as a resource for the planning commission and staff. He opposed postponement. He was satisfied that sufficient public notice had been provided, and said they needed closure on this project.

Briere responded, saying it’s true that the council won’t directly be using the document. But if the planning commission and staff use the CWS plan in making its recommendations to the council, then it does concern the council. That gives her pause. The DDA did what it was asked to do, she said, but the commission and council have the option of not using it.

Bonnie Bona said the main concern is whether the CWS plan includes enough open space. She noted that the plan gives the responsibility for making those kinds of recommendations back to the park advisory commission, “and that’s where it belongs.” The CWS report doesn’t contain anything that overrides the city’s master plan, which includes the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan. There’s no reason to reopen the discussion, she said, because nothing will change in two weeks. “We know what the concern and controversy is – it’s open space.” And that’s addressed by asking the park advisory commission for its input, Bona concluded.

Ken Clein agreed with Bona. While he’d like to see more open space referenced in the CWS plan, his preference is probably for less than what others would like. But the commission can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, Clein said, and this is a good reference document. Even if the report were perfect, he added, at the end of the day it’s the city council’s call. They could sell off all the properties without any regard to the CWS plan, if that’s what they wanted to do. He did not support reopening the item for reconsideration.

Kirk Westphal said normally if there’s any doubt about public input, he’d be inclined to support postponement. But given the scope and number of people involved in developing the CWS plan, he was comfortable accepting it.

Woods said she’d respect whatever her colleagues decided, but she was not convinced she’d heard everything there is to be heard about this issue. This is a massive document, she said, and there could be someone else out there who didn’t know about the public hearing and who might want to say something. “It’s two weeks,” she said. “It’s not a lifetime.” The outcome might be the same, but she’d heard enough to give her pause, and didn’t see the need to hurry. That’s why she wanted to postpone.

Outcome: The motion to reopen this agenda item for reconsideration failed 2-6, with support only from Woods and Briere. Eleanore Adenekan was absent.

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

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan.

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

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