From left: Paige Morrison, Colin Smith, Bob Galardi and Graydon Krapohl before the start of the Aug. 19, 2014 Ann Arbor park advisory commission meeting. (Photos by the writer.)

Regarding feedback on Liberty Plaza and Library Lane, PAC unanimously passed a resolution to form a subcommittee to study issues related to those urban parks, and to allocate or obtain resources to oversee programming there for up to a year.

Based on that effort, the subcommittee would analyze the outcome and deliver recommendations to council next year – no later than October 2015. This resolution, drafted by PAC chair Ingrid Ault and vice chair Graydon Krapohl, had been emailed to commissioners earlier in the day but was not available to the public prior to the meeting. [.pdf of Aug. 19, 2014 Liberty Plaza resolution]

The Aug. 19 discussion also included comments from Matthew Altruda, who programs the Bank of Ann Arbor’s Sonic Lunch weekly summer concert series at Liberty Plaza. Ault had invited Altruda to the meeting to describe that effort, which is widely cited as a successful use of Liberty Plaza.

Regarding the fee waiver, PAC voted unanimously to extend the waiver through October 2015 – coordinating with the subcommittee work on Liberty Plaza and Library Lane.

Both Aug. 19 items – the feedback to city council (but with no accompanying resolution) and fee waiver – had originally appeared on PAC’s July 15, 2014 agenda, but were postponed because three commissioners were absent at that meeting.

In other action, PAC recommended approval of three three-year professional services agreements (PSAs) for engineering services in the parks and recreation unit – with SmithGroupJJR, Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc, and Tetra Tech Inc. The amount was not to exceed $150,000 annually per agreement.

The commission also elected David Santacroce as chair for the coming year, replacing Ingrid Ault in that position. Paige Morrison was elected as vice chair. Each vote was conducted by “secret ballot” as stipulated in PAC’s bylaws. The one-year terms begin Sept. 1.

One topic that did not appear on PAC’s Aug. 19 agenda was a review of the proposed four-year extension on a University of Michigan lease of three parking lots at Fuller Park. The city council – at its meeting the previous night, on Aug. 18 – had indicated an interest in having PAC take another look at the lease renewal, but parks and recreation manager Colin Smith told commissioners that he didn’t have additional details on the request.

During deliberations on Aug. 18, mayor John Hieftje had recommended postponing council action until early October, in order to give PAC two meetings during which they could reevaluate the lease agreement. PAC had already recommended approval of the lease, after discussing it at their July 15, 2014 meeting. The parliamentary option chosen by the council was to postpone, not to refer to PAC.

The two council representatives on PAC – Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) –  chose somewhat different points of emphasis in their characterizations of the council’s Aug. 18 action on the Fuller Park lease. When Anglin told commissioners that the council wanted PAC to review the lease again, Taylor stressed that the council action was “a straight postponement” – not a vote to refer the item back to PAC. He added that the council was interested in hearing if PAC has any further thoughts on the use of the site.

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane

Two items on the Aug. 19 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.

PAC chair Ingrid Ault.

Both Aug. 19 items – the feedback to city council (but with no accompanying resolution) and fee waiver – had originally appeared on PAC’s July 15, 2014 agenda, but were postponed because three commissioners were absent at that meeting.

After July 15, however, PAC called a special meeting for Aug. 5 to begin their discussion on providing feedback to the city council on Liberty Plaza. PAC’s discussion on Aug. 19 was informed in part by a packet of material provided to commissioners at that Aug. 5 special meeting, which The Chronicle was not able to attend because it was the date of primary elections. [.pdf of Aug. 5 Liberty Plaza packet] The materials included a memo with background and a bulleted list of issues related to Liberty Plaza, a list of potential ideas to address these issues, and suggestions for next steps.

Also included were PAC’s downtown parks recommendations, and a summary of previous work related to downtown parks, such as results from surveys conducted by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street study and by PAC’s downtown parks subcommittee. The packet also included case studies from downtown parks in four other communities: Director Park in Portland, Oregon; Arcadia Creek Festival Place in Kalamazoo; Campus Marius Park in Detroit; and Katz Plaza in Pittsburgh.

Commissioners continued that discussion on Aug. 19, focused on a newly crafted resolution that had been drafted by PAC chair Ingrid Ault and vice chair Graydon Krapohl. [.pdf of Liberty Plaza resolution, as amended by PAC on Aug. 19]

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Background

The PAC resolution discussed on Aug. 19 responded to a city council resolution that had been considered 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).

Liberty Plaza is highlighted in green. 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.

The original version of Taylor’s resolution 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…”

But after nearly an hour of debate on June 16, 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. Taylor’s 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.

Taylor’s 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 Taylor, Hieftje, Teall 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. PAC’s regular monthly meeting had been scheduled for June 17 – the day after the council meeting – but it was canceled.

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

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Public Commentary

Two people spoke about this topic during the first opportunity for public commentary at PAC’s Aug. 19 meeting.

Ethel Potts told commissioners that she watches their meetings on Community Television Network. “You haven’t seen me, but I see you,” she said – a comment that drew laughs. The city council has given PAC an assignment to do something with Liberty Plaza, she noted. But the council has tied PAC’s hands by limiting the planning to Liberty Plaza. She described the plaza as “orphaned public space, unconnected to anything else in that whole block.” It used to connect to the lower level of the adjacent building, owned by First Martin Corp. on East Liberty, Potts said. Now, that building seems to be mainly offices, she added, with “very little coming and going of people.”

Ray Detter at the Aug. 19, 2014 meeting of the park advisory commission.

Potts thought the plaza’s design is charming, with two features that every park should have – shade and seating. However, to be a success it needs to connect to the downtown library, to the future park on Fifth Avenue [on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure], and to the bus station. She noted that someday, there will be a building over part of the Library Lane structure.

Liberty Plaza needs to have a connection, “so that it isn’t just left out there on a corner on its own,” Potts said. “I would ask you to please disregard the limits put on your planning by council.”

The idea of connecting Liberty Plaza with the rest of that block is supported by the Ann Arbor Preservation Alliance, which is very concerned about the historic buildings on Liberty and Division in that same block, she said. Liberty Plaza itself is becoming historic, she concluded.

Ray Detter said he was speaking on behalf of the downtown citizens advisory council. Most of the July DCAC meeting was devoted to a discussion of the future of the “library block,” he said – particularly Liberty Plaza and the future park on top of the Library Lane parking structure. With the former Y lot now sold and a broker hired to explore the sale of development rights on the Library Lane site, “we should all be ready to plan a great urban space on that entire block,” Detter said.

Members of the DCAC support development of a significantly-sized public plaza on the South Fifth Avenue side of the Library Lane site, Detter said, as well as use of Library Lane all the way up to the parking structure entry for scheduled community activities. DCAC also supports pedestrian walkways. All future development should take into consideration the needs of the downtown library, possible connection to the Blake Transit Center, the University of Michigan credit union site, the former Y lot, and nearby historic properties, businesses and residents, he said.

DCAC also supports a new tax-producing private or public development on the major part of the Library Lane site – a development that would provide “eyes” on a future adjoining public plaza, Detter said. In April, he noted, the city council resolved that the city would work with the developer of the remaining portion of the Library Lane site to ensure that the design serves both spaces. A lot of work and outreach has been done to develop integrated planning, he said, “and I think it’s time we really use it.”

Detter noted that the DCAC was involved in the 1991 Luckenbach/Ziegelman study, as well as with the 2005 Calthorpe study and more recently the DDA’s Connecting William Street study. All of these studies support a vision for the entire block and area, he said. “Connecting Liberty Plaza and the proposed Library Lot plaza have always been a major part of that plan,” he said. No money should be spent on redesigning Liberty Plaza unless it’s a part of that broader vision. He hoped that any money spent would be used for programming on Liberty Plaza. Events such as Sonic Lunch and Magic Carpet Mornings have proven that with the right programming, Liberty Plaza can be a downtown asset, he said.

Saying that PAC might have forgotten it, Detter recalled that about 10 years ago a group had formed called Friends of Liberty Plaza, which raised $250,000. The DDA agreed to give $250,000 if the city parks department gave $50,000, Detter said. Ron Olson, the city’s park director at that time, agreed to that. So there were major improvements made then, he said. However, he added, “we did not eliminate the problems that the park still faces today. We think we can do that with a comprehensive plan for the entire park.”

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Commission Discussion

PAC chair Ingrid Ault began the discussion by noting that both of the city councilmembers who serve on PAC – Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor – were running late. She hoped that Taylor especially would arrive in time to participate, because he had sponsored the council resolution that PAC would be discussing. [He arrived about 30 minutes into the discussion.]

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, pointed out that the council did not vote on Taylor’s original resolution or on amendments proposed by Jane Lumm. Rather, they referred the resolution and amendments to PAC for consideration and feedback about costs and a timeline.

Ault apologized to commissioners, noting that they had not been sent her draft two-page resolution until earlier that day. It had turned out to be more complicated than she’d anticipated. She said the last page was the most important, and she then read it aloud:

Whereas, placemaking principles specifically identify the importance of dedicated and sustained programming resources as vital components of successful urban public spaces,

Whereas, dedicated and sustained programming resources have not historically been allocated in direct support of Ann Arbor urban parks, especially Liberty Plaza,

Whereas, PAC recommends the formation of a subcommittee to study and specifically address the issues associated with urban parks, especially Liberty Plaza and the Library Lot,

Whereas, PAC recommends that prior to any resource being allocated for redevelopment efforts directed at planning and redesign of either Liberty Plaza or the Library Lot, that resources, human and material, be allocated or obtained to specifically oversee the programming of Liberty Plaza and the Library Lot for a period not to exceed one year in order to answer the following questions:

1. Determine costs for on-going dedicated resources (human and material) for programming of the spaces for one year, recognizing that key element for success of any urban park is sustained and meaningful programming of the space.

2. Determine the success of programming efforts and how the currently designed spaces function in support of that programming. What worked and didn’t work?

3. Determine at the end of the study if issues long associated with Liberty Plaza are a function of design or the absence of sustained and meaningful programming, or a combination of both.

4. If shortcomings are design related, does it warrant a partial or complete redesign based on the outcomes of the study?

5. Determine what role adjacent and near by properties (public and private) have along with other downtown neighbors with regard to Liberty Plaza in determining key stakeholders for ongoing discussions.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, to reaffirm the purpose of PAC is to provide for public involvement in community park and recreation services and to provide advisory recommendations to the Manager of the Department of Parks and Recreation, City Administrator and Council regarding parks administration,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that PAC recommends that Council accept the above recommendations and direct staff and PAC to answer these questions and report their findings no later than October 2015.

Ault said that she and Krapohl had forgotten to include what funds would be designated for this purpose, so the resolution would need to be amended for that.

This would be a big undertaking, Ault said, so the timeframe was very important. It’s not something that could be done in the timeframe indicated by the council resolution – January 2015. She noted that PAC’s downtown park subcommittee had worked for nine months to complete its recommendations.

Pushing back the timeframe would allow PAC and staff to use the fall and winter to come up with ideas for programming, which could be implemented in the spring and summer, she said. The results of that programming then could be reported to the council in the fall of 2015. “You can’t make improvements unless you know how [the space] functions currently,” Ault said.

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Q&A with Matthew Altruda

Ault reported that she had asked Matthew Altruda to attend the Aug. 19 meeting and share his observations about what works or doesn’t work at Liberty Plaza, based on his experiences programming the Bank of Ann Arbor’s Sonic Lunch weekly summer concert series.

Matthew Altruda programs the Sonic Lunch summer concert series on behalf of the Bank of Ann Arbor.

Altruda briefly described the history of Sonic Lunch, saying that the bank’s president, Tim Marshall, had wanted to sponsor an event that used music to build community. “We believe music is one of the great chariots of building community. When you’re out seeing music and dancing with someone, that’s where you meet your great friends and future husbands and wives – it really brings the community together.” He pointed out that in the movie “Braveheart,” the only time the characters are enjoying themselves is when they’re dancing around the fire.

Sonic Lunch is a huge event and it takes a lot of time, Altruda said. This summer is the seventh season for this series, and any event that someone tries in a city park needs to be given a few years to get off the ground. “We are in the fruits of our labor now, with great turnouts and the city really embracing us,” he said. It’s extremely difficult to make a new Ann Arbor tradition.

A lot of people understand the “non-programming” that goes on in Liberty Plaza, Altruda said – some people talk about how it’s a place where homeless people hang out or where drug activities occur. In his experience, when the Bank of Ann Arbor staff shows up, the people who are hanging out at Liberty Plaza usually leave. First and foremost, these are people in the Ann Arbor community, Altruda said. “We treat them with respect, and when it’s time for us to do our programming in the park, they return that respect and leave.” If they don’t leave, they “act like great citizens and enjoy the music like everyone else,” he added.

Ault said that one thing PAC learned when they studied downtown parks is to focus on behavior, not on particular groups of people. She thanked Altruda for reminding them of that. “Everybody has the right to use a public space, until behavior encroaches,” she said.

Paige Morrison asked Altruda to elaborate on obstacles that Sonic Lunch has faced. Altruda replied that some of it relates to reassuring families about the safety of Liberty Plaza. Early on, there was an issue with people panhandling, he said. So some confidence had to be built to assure visitors that the park was safe.

“A lot of people fear the unknown, and when they walk by the park, they’re thinking that there’s terrible people there doing terrible things,” Altruda said. “I think that’s an unfair thought to have for these people.” There are definitely some “bad apples” who hang out at Liberty Plaza, he added. But others have started to police themselves, he said, if someone is out of line.

PAC member Paige Morrison.

Bob Galardi asked how much time is devoted to programming these concerts. Altruda said it doesn’t seem like a lot of time because he’s passionate about it, but in fact it’s his job and he does spend a lot of time on it. He works on Sonic Lunch year-round, communicating with record labels and booking agents to ensure that the series gets great performers. It’s part of the bank’s marketing effort, he said, so they spend money and time on the event.

To do other kinds of programming at Liberty Plaza, “it would take a lot of passionate people that want to do great events, and empowering them to do so. I think that passion is just gonna run wild with this community, if given the opportunity,” he said.

Graydon Krapohl asked about costs. Altruda replied that it’s a marketing opportunity for the bank, “so we’re definitely putting a lot of money and effort into it.” He indicated that although the bank is willing to spend a lot of money to bring major artists like Michelle Chamuel and ZZ Ward, that level of support isn’t necessary to have a successful event. “We just go big because it’s part of our vision, with the size of the event,” he said. If it were scaled down, Altruda thought they could still put on a great event. He added that he didn’t really know how to address the budget issue for other events.

Alan Jackson asked whether it mattered if the infrastructure of Liberty Plaza were different in some way – like eliminating the sunken aspect of the plaza. Altruda said it’s definitely been an issue, but it improved when the city trimmed and removed some bushes to create better sight lines for the bands. The bank also bought a stage that it sets up each week, which has helped. Altruda said he’s been told that people hide in the sunken parts of Liberty Plaza to do various things, but he hasn’t seen any of that.

Altruda said that if you leave Liberty Plaza alone, people will come and do whatever they want. But if you put on great events, then the people who want to participate in those events will come. There needs to be programming at Liberty Plaza, so that people will want to come there and bring their families, he said, “changing the perception to make people feel safe there.”

Altruda added that he feels safe at Liberty Plaza now, because 99% of the people who hang out there are harmless. But others might not have as much faith in people as he does, he said.

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Commission Discussion

Graydon Krapohl began the discussion by stressing the importance of programming any urban space. For Liberty Plaza, he noted, there hasn’t been a commitment to sustain programming over a period of time, to offset some of the behaviors that take place there. That’s a critical thing to explore before making recommendations about infrastructure, he said. “I’m not sure we know what needs to be redesigned or how it needs to be redesigned until we actually do programming” to see what does or doesn’t work, and how programming can be coordinated between Liberty Plaza and Library Lane.

PAC vice chair Graydon Krapohl.

Ingrid Ault highlighted some data associated with Campus Martius Park in Detroit. She was there about a month ago for lunch, and there was live music, a small farmers market, a sand beach and fountain. It’s commonly lauded as a great public space, she said, but it entails a lot of investment. It costs between $1.2 million and $1.4 million each year to operate, Ault said. “That’s pretty serious dollars – which comes back to the funding.”

So the city needs to identify sustainable funding before moving forward, she said. “That’s the one area that I’m gravely concerned about, with only $23,000 being identified at this point.”

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, clarified that the $23,577 mentioned in the council resolution was the result of a “parks fairness” budget resolution. Every year when the city council approves the city’s annual budget, adjustments are made to ensure that the parks budget is increased to match any increase in general fund expenditures in other areas, or to make sure there aren’t disproportionate cuts to the parks budget. This year, the parks budget was increased by $23,577 as a result of the budget amendments that were approved for the general fund.

Smith noted that the $23,577 isn’t currently allocated for any specific purpose. He added that if there is a desire to heavily program Liberty Plaza for a year, then “that is by no means enough.” He said he didn’t have any suggestion for where additional funding might come from within the parks and recreation budget. PAC could always suggest that the council consider using general fund reserves, he added.

Traditionally, Smith explained, the parks staff has done programming within the city’s recreation facilities – the pools, rinks, canoe liveries and golf courses. The “non-facility” parks, which comprise the majority of city parks, are unstaffed from a programming standpoint, he said.

Mike Anglin, a city councilmember and ex officio member of PAC.

But urban parks, to be successful, really do require some level of staffing, Smith said, noting that Director Park in Portland, Oregon, makes a good case study. It’s about the same size as the entire Library Lane site, and it also has underground parking. That park has fountains, public art, a cafe – and 26 businesses around the park’s perimeter. The annual operating costs are $475,000, which comes out of the city of Portland’s general fund. That funding is primarily for maintenance and staffing, Smith said, including a full-time “urban park specialist” who oversees the park.

Smith said he talked to Director Park’s specialist, who described it as “a community center without walls that requires attention every hour of the day.” Smith added that her words rang true to him. “It works really well when you work really hard at it.” For Liberty Plaza, $23,577 isn’t enough to make a difference – nor would it be a one-time investment, he said. Even if Liberty Plaza is redesigned successfully, funding would be needed on an ongoing basis.

Mike Anglin said that one way to evaluate a park is by looking at its use. That’s something to keep in mind if the city moves forward with programming. He recalled that one year there was a parade around Christmas time, and he was amazed at how many people came downtown. “We have a lot of talented people who have pent-up energy,” Anglin said. That’s something the city should tap into in a very positive way, he added. Anglin also spoke about the New York City park system, and some of its programming.

Alan Jackson wanted commissioners to keep in mind that if funding is spent on Liberty Plaza or a Library Lane park, “there may be associated economic benefits.” He suggested that when they evaluate the outcome of programming, they also evaluate benefits to adjacent businesses.

Karen Levin wondered if there were ways to partner with other entities, like the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

PAC member Karen Levin.

David Santacroce pointed out that there might be people who are willing to program the space at no cost to the city. He cited the Sunday Artisan Market at the Ann Arbor farmers market. He supported the approach reflected in Ault’s resolution. No matter how Liberty Plaza might be redesigned – other than fencing it off – without people in the park, there will continue to be “behavior that we may not want in a park.” Santacroce noted that Liberty Plaza has already been redesigned, “and it still didn’t accomplish what we wanted it to accomplish.”

Based on previous PAC discussions, Santacroce thought there was consensus that commissioners aren’t endorsing a city-funded public park versus a public space funded by a developer of the Library Lane site. “We’re not weighing in on that,” he said. That’s important to note, he added, because the process is still underway regarding development of that site.

Bob Galardi agreed. He wondered whether PAC had the purview to insert a whereas clause related to funding sources. Smith replied that since it was a recommendation to the council, adding that kind of clause would be appropriate, if that’s what PAC wanted to do. Galardi thought there might be other sources of funding, beyond just the city.

Smith said that since the programming would be for a year, it would likely be handled by hiring someone on contract to do the work. There’d need to be funding for materials and supplies as well, and possibly for security. Parks staff could come up with an estimate for the cost, he said. It’s also important to be very focused about what a contractor’s roles and responsibilities will be during that year, Smith added. He noted that it would take time to develop partnerships and other funding sources. Would that be the person’s focus? Or would the worker focus primarily on programming? He urged commissioners to keep in mind that they can’t accomplish everything immediately.

Anglin cautioned against hiring someone to “run” the programming. He wanted to make sure the community had the opportunity for input and consensus. “This is a discussion that needs buy-in first before we proceed,” Anglin said. If you have events and people show up, that means you’re on the right track, he said. But if no one comes, “you’re not moving – you don’t have the support.” Anglin thought it would take some time to do, saying that “deliverables in the public sector are very difficult, as we all know.”

PAC member Alan Jackson.

Jackson thought a one-year process would be setting it up for failure. It would probably take at least two years, he said.

Santacroce noted that there was a lot of public input when the PAC subcommittee on downtown parks did its work just last year. “I would be hesitant to re-engage the public in the identical conversation that we just did a year ago, because I think it’s a waste of time and public resources,” he said. One strategy might be to refine the request for input, he added, which would shorten the process a bit.

Krapohl agreed that one year probably isn’t enough time, but it would be the minimum amount needed. He thought the primary responsibility of a person dedicated to Liberty Plaza should be programming, and working out the metrics for how the city should measure success.

Smith drew an analogy to the city’s Give 365 volunteer program, which started a few years ago. One metric for that was to measure the number of volunteer hours per year, and gauge that in terms of hours worked by a full-time employee. The first year, the city had a goal of getting volunteer hours to equal three FTEs. So the parks and recreation staff is familiar with the need to measure a new initiative, he said. For Liberty Plaza, one measure could be the number of visitors to events.

Liberty Plaza & Library Lane: Commission Discussion – Amendments

The remainder of the discussion focused on relatively minor amendments, all of which were considered friendly – no votes were taken. Amendments included:

• Substitute “public open space” for “park” in the first whereas clause: “Whereas, the Park Advisory Commission (PAC) was asked to make recommendations for development of five city owned parcels in the downtown regarding use as a park public open space in late 2012,..”
• Eliminate “urban parks, especially” from this whereas clause: “PAC recommends the formation of a subcommittee to study and specifically address the issues associated with urban parks, especially Liberty Plaza and the Library Lot, …”
• Add “and financial” and “or obtained” in this whereas clause: “PAC recommends that prior to any resource being allocated for redevelopment efforts directed at planning and redesign of either Liberty Plaza or the Library Lot, that resources, human, material, and financial be allocated or obtained to specifically oversee the programming of Liberty Plaza and the Library Lot …”
• Add “and financial” in one of the questions to be answered: “Determine costs for on-going dedicated resources (human, material, and financial) for programming of the spaces for one year, recognizing that key element for success of any urban park is sustained and meaningful programming of the space.”
• Change “superintendent” to “manager” in this resolved clause: “… to provide advisory recommendations to the Superintendent Manager of the Department of Parks and Recreation, City Administrator and Council regarding parks administration, …”

Ault and Krapohl clarified that they intended the new subcommittee to study the space at Library Lane and Liberty Plaza as it exists now, and to determine how it might function in the future based on activities during the year of the study. That might include looking at how to coordinate activities at both locations, Krapohl said.

Jackson advocated for extending the timeframe to two years rather than just one. Ault said she’d feel more comfortable leaving it at one year, with the understanding that one of the recommendations delivered in October 2015 might be to extend the period of study another year. Santacroce agreed with Ault, saying by that time there might be more clarity about what’s happening at the Library Lane site, in terms of development.

Ault then read aloud the two-page resolution, as amended. [.pdf of Liberty Plaza resolution, as amended by PAC on Aug. 19]

Outcome: The resolution passed unanimously on a voice vote. It will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Liberty Plaza Fee Waiver

Also on Aug. 19, commissioners considered an extension of the Liberty Plaza fee waiver.

Liberty Plaza, an urban park located at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division.

By way of background, 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. 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.”

Liberty Plaza Fee Waiver: Commission Discussion

On Aug. 19, parks and recreation manager Colin Smith told commissioners that the PAC resolution passed a year ago included a resolved clause stating that PAC should review the waiver after a year and make a recommendation to council about whether it should become permanent.

Alan Jackson asked how well the fee waiver has worked. Smith replied that there’s been some use – he mentioned the Turkey Trot – but not a lot. There hasn’t been a staff person available who could promote it. Smith thought it would dovetail nicely with PAC’s study of Liberty Plaza and the Library Lane site, which had been discussed earlier in the meeting.

Responding to the possibility of a similar fee waiver at the Library Lane site, Smith said that would be a question for the Ann Arbor DDA, which oversees the city’s public parking structures – including Library Lane.

David Santacroce suggested extending the Liberty Plaza fee waiver to synch with the proposed study of Liberty Plaza and Library Lane – through October 2015.

Christopher Taylor suggested the following wording for a resolution:

WHEREAS in the past year, fees have been waived at Liberty Plaza;

WHEREAS the park advisory commission has insufficient information about whether this is wise on a permanent basis;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that PAC recommends that city council continue the fee waiver in its current form for another year.

There was no additional discussion.

Outcome: On a voice vote, PAC unanimously recommended to extend the Liberty Plaza fee waiver. The recommendation will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Election of Officers

PAC held its annual election of officers on Aug. 19. David Santacroce was nominated as chair for the coming year, to replace Ingrid Ault in that position.

Ault told commissioners that she’d be stepping down soon from PAC, as she’s 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 Ann Arbor.

David Santacroce (left) was elected chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission for a one-year term starting Sept. 1. Next to him is Alan Jackson.

Santacroce is a professor of law at the University of Michigan. Before his appointment to PAC in November 2013, he chaired the city’s North Main Huron River corridor task force, which last year delivered its report to the council on recommendations for that corridor.

There were no competing nominations.

The vote was taken by “secret ballot,” as stipulated in PAC’s bylaws. Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith passed out slips of paper for commissioners to write their vote. City councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor, who serve as ex officio members of PAC, are not allowed to vote.

Outcome: On a 6-0 vote with one abstention, David Santacroce was elected chair, for a one-year term starting Sept. 1. He received a round of applause.

Paige Morrison was nominated as vice chair.

Typically, the current vice chair is nominated and elected as chair. However, PAC’s vice chair, Graydon Krapohl, is running unopposed for a city council seat in Ward 4. He won the Aug. 5 Democratic primary, also unopposed, and will appear on the ballot for the Nov. 4 general election. Krapohl told The Chronicle that he plans to step down from PAC after the November election, but is interested in being appointed as one of the two city council ex officio members. Those positions are currently held by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Taylor won the Aug. 5 Democratic mayoral primary, and faces independent Bryan Kelly in November.

There were no competing nominations for vice chair.

Outcome: On a 6-0 vote with one abstention, Paige Morrison was elected vice chair for a one-year term starting Sept. 1.

After the vote, Smith commented that he didn’t remember any abstentions in previous years, “so that was an exciting departure from the norm.”

Agreement for Engineering Services

At the start of the Aug. 19 meeting, the agenda was amended to add a new resolution related to engineering services. The resolution, brought forward by staff, was to recommend approval of three three-year professional services agreements (PSAs) for engineering services in the parks and recreation unit. The amount was not to exceed $150,000 annually per agreement. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

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

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, explained that for the last six years, the city has maintained professional agreements for engineering services for capital projects that the parks and recreation staff oversees. The existing three-year agreements are expiring.

The staff conducted interviews earlier in August with companies that responded to a request for proposals (RFP). They made a decision on Aug. 18 – that’s why the resolution was a late addition for PAC’s Aug. 19 meeting, he said.

The engineering firms are pre-qualified so that as projects come up, it speeds up the process, Smith explained. Each project still requires that the city administrator approve a “work statement” before a contract is signed with the firm, he noted.

Ten firms submitted RFPs. The three firms that qualified were selected based on the city’s needs: SmithGroupJJR; Stantec Consulting Michigan Inc; and Tetra Tech Inc.

City park planner Amy Kuras told commissioners that this process really helps her streamline projects. Responding to a query from Mike Anglin, Kuras clarified that the $150,000 ceiling applies to each firm annually. Sometimes it’s a lot less, she said, but there are also some projects that exceed that amount.

Smith said there’s no guarantee that any of these firms would get any work – it depends on whether projects emerge that are best suited for any of the firms.

Christopher Taylor asked whether any money is paid before specific projects are proposed. No, Kuras replied – the firms aren’t on retainer, they’re just pre-qualified. Kuras also noted that before contracts are awarded for projects, the firm must provide a detailed description of the work and cost estimates, which are sometimes negotiated down, she said.

Outcome: On a voice vote, PAC recommended approval of the professional services agreements.

Communications & Commentary

During the Aug. 19 meeting there were several opportunities for communications from staff and commissioners, as well as two slots for public commentary. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report – Senior Center, Fuller Park Lease

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, noted that the city’s outdoor pools would be closing for the summer after Labor Day, and he urged commissioners to get out and enjoy them in the remaining days.

Christopher Taylor, a city councilmember and ex officio member of PAC.

Smith also gave an update on repairs to the Ann Arbor senior center, located at 1320 Baldwin Ave. near Burns Park. He described a recent story in the newspaper “that perhaps raised more questions than provided answers.” There are repairs being done to the ceiling, and it’s easier and safer for users of the center to relocate to other sites. While that work is being done, there will also be improvements made, such as adding skylights. The staff expects it to reopen at the beginning of September.

Regarding a city council resolution on renewing a lease with the University of Michigan for the Fuller Park parking lot, Smith reported that the council postponed action on it until October. That action came at council’s Aug. 18 meeting. He said he didn’t have more details on that. [PAC had discussed the lease and recommended approval of the renewal at its July 15, 2014 meeting.]

Mike Anglin – one of the two city council ex officio members of PAC – recommended that commissioners watch the Community Television Network video from the Aug. 18 council meeting, regarding the discussion of the Fuller Park parking lease. “Because I believe the council sent it back to PAC to take a second look at it – that’s how I interpreted it,” he said. [The discussion begins at roughly the 2:53:43 minute mark.]

Christopher Taylor, the other city councilmember on PAC, characterized the council action as “a straight postponement” – not a vote to refer the item back to PAC. [The parliamentary procedure used by the council contrasted with the one used by the council to deal with Taylor's June 16 Liberty Plaza resolution – which was a vote "to refer."] Taylor added that council was interested in hearing if PAC has any further thoughts on the use of the site for parking.

Anglin said he thought the council was clearly sending it back to PAC.

Smith said he’d forward the council minutes to PAC after they are approved, “because I am not clear, after today, myself.” He didn’t think there was a vote on it, but he’d rely on the minutes.

The council’s Aug. 18 deliberations lasted about five minutes. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) suggested that if the council postponed action, he’d ask that PAC review the lease’s implications on city planning documents, such as the Parks & Recreation Open Space (PROS) plan.

Mayor John Hieftje then asked what would be an appropriate amount of time for PAC to do that, and he asked when PAC met next. Taylor replied that PAC met the next day – on Aug. 19. Hieftje then said: “Ok, maybe we should give them until the first meeting in October – because then they would meet twice before our next meeting.” Taylor replied: “Fair enough.” Taylor also noted that PAC had reviewed the lease renewal already, “but certainly if there’s a particular question that council is interested in, then we can certainly address that.”

Eaton said it was his understanding that PAC’s previous discussion of the lease had been brief. Mike Anglin described PAC as having a “quite lengthy discussion” about one aspect of the lease – a section of the lease titled “Early Termination/Transportation Use.” Anglin noted that some PAC members wanted to be clear that they were not endorsing a train station in that location. He said he’d like to send it back to PAC so that they could eliminate any mention of a future use. The mention of a possible future use seemed inappropriate to him, since the council hasn’t made any decision about that.

The council then unanimously voted to postpone action on the lease renewal.

Communications & Commentary: Committee Reports

Karen Levin reported that the dog park subcommittee would be bringing its work to PAC in September. It’s a guide for establishing new dog parks and improving existing ones, she said.

David Santacroce gave an update on the subcommittee that’s developing recommendations related to smoking regulations in the park. They’ve met with an expert from the University of Michigan, he said, and their intent is to bring forward recommendations to PAC in September. The recommendations will include a list of parks in which smoking should be banned.

Communications & Commentary: World Peace Day

Alan Haber spoke about World Peace Day on Sunday, Sept. 21. It was started by the United Nations in 1982 on the third Tuesday in September, coincident with the annual opening of the UN General Assembly session. In 2001, the UN changed the day to be Sept. 21 each year. “This is celebrated all over the world and as a peace person, I would certainly want to see it celebrated here,” Haber said.

Alan Haber.

He hoped there would be a place to come together in this town to talk about what people can do to address the conflicts in our world. The day could also be used to inaugurate a park on the Library Lane lot, he said, “as a peaceful place.”

It’s within that framework, Haber said, that it seemed to him appropriate for the park advisory commission to give the idea an endorsement or imprimatur of some sort, “as indeed the DDA has.” [It's not clear what action Haber was referring to regarding the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which oversees the Library Lane underground parking structure.] He hoped the parks and recreation staff could help in some way – such as using the city’s liability insurance policy to cover the event. Whatever PAC did collectively, he hoped commissioners would come “and bring that peaceful part of yourself, and let’s elevate consciousness and activism.”

Haber also spoke on the same topic at the final opportunity for public commentary. Noting that PAC had discussed the importance of programming earlier in the meeting, Haber said this would be an example of community-initiated programming. He’d like to see World Peace Day become an ongoing part of the city’s calendar. He hoped the city would co-sponsor it, along with the DDA, and would allow the event to use the city’s omnibus liability insurance policy.

He thought a skating rink would also be a good programming idea for the Library Lane site.

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

Absent: Missy Stults.

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, Sept. 16, 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 surface of the Library Lane parking structure is highlighted in yellow.

Direction from the city council to Powers – to engage a broker for the development rights on top of the Library Lane underground parking parking garage – initially came at the council’s March 17, 2014 meeting. That was an 8-1 vote, with dissent from Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Absent was Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Margie Teall (Ward 4) departed late in the meeting but before the vote.

However, the resolution was reconsidered at the council’s April 7, 2014 meeting – with the same outcome, but a different vote tally. The vote on April 7 was 7-4, with dissent from Kailasapathy, Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who’d sponsored the resolution, nonetheless asked the council to reconsider it. He made it clear that he was bringing back the resolution for reconsideration to highlight why he had wanted the property listed for sale: He wanted definitive answers on the question of how many of the Library Lane structure parking spaces could be dedicated for private use – while still meeting the restrictions of the Build America Bonds used to finance the structure.

A partial answer to some of Kunselman’s questions came when the council voted on March 17, 2014 to waive attorney-client privilege on a memo written by outside bond counsel. [.pdf of Aug. 9, 2012 Dykema memo]

Other recent council action on Library Lane includes a resolution to allocate 50% of the proceeds of the sale of the development rights to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. That resolution was approved at the council’s April 7, 2014 meeting. Also on April 7, the council re-settled a previously decided issue, and passed a resolution that would reserve a 12,000-square-foot portion of the Library Lane surface for an urban plaza/park.

The message from the city administrator announcing the selection of CBRE cites the broker’s extensive experience in community engagement and clients that include cities, counties, universities and states. CBRE’s international, national, and regional experience is also cited in the administrator’s message. Next steps will include city staff working with CBRE  on development of  the community engagement plan, competitive disposition process, and marketing of the property, Powers wrote.

This is the second time in the past year that the city has hired a broker to explore the sale of city-owned property. A year ago, Powers selected Colliers International and local broker Jim Chaconas to handle the possible sale of the former YMCA lot, located at the corner of Fifth and William in downtown Ann Arbor – near the Library Lane site. On Nov. 18, 2013, the city council approved the sale of that site – a parcel north of William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues – to Dennis Dahlmann for $5.25 million. Of that sale, the city council voted to deposit $1.4 million into the city of Ann Arbor’s affordable housing trust fund.

The resolution considered by the council 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…” The resolution was sponsored by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

But after nearly an hour of debate, the council voted to refer the resolution to the park advisory commission 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 broaden the scope of the effort to include the Library Lane lot. [.pdf of Lumm's amendments] Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) cited the fact that under parliamentary rules, a motion to refer takes precedence over a motion to amend, so the council voted on the referral before the vote to amend.

Funding for the collaborative work on the redesign, in the amount of $23,577, was specified in the 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 comes in the context of a push by some Ann Arbor residents to establish public park space on top of the underground Library Lane parking garage, which is southwest of Liberty Plaza separated from that park by a surface parking lot owned by First Martin Corp. Related to that, the council voted at its April 7, 2014 meeting – as part of reconsidering a vote it had taken at its previous meeting on March 17 – to designate a 12,000-square-foot portion of the Library Lane surface to be reserved as an urban park.

The result of the reconsidered resolution on April 7 undid the council’s earlier decision to establish a square foot range for the urban plaza – from 6,500-12,000 square feet. That April 7 council decision was made on a 7-4 vote, with dissent from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), mayor John Hieftje, Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

Deliberations on June 16 included questions about why PAC hadn’t been consulted on this resolution. Taylor, one of the resolution’s co-sponsors, serves as an ex-officio member of PAC. Taylor indicated that it wasn’t necessary to consult PAC, as it’s the council’s prerogative to set policy.

PAC meets monthly, but its June 17 meeting has been canceled. The group had previously been directed by the council to develop a set of recommendations regarding downtown parks, which they completed last year. The council accepted the recommendations at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of 21-page PAC downtown parks report]

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

The council’s first meeting after adopting the budget for fiscal year 2015 – which was approved on May 19, 2014 – features a housekeeping adjustment for the current year’s budget, so that expenditures don’t exceed allocations.

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

But the June 2 meeting agenda is dominated by items related to the physical attributes and layout of the city. Several items deal with city-owned physical assets, while several more involve land use and planning.

Possibly one of the more controversial agenda items related to physical infrastructure – and future development in the city – is a contract extension with CDM Smith Inc. for work related to the city’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program. While the city council suspended the program in certain areas of the city in 2012, it continued in other areas, backed by the city’s ordinance under which the city can require residents to disconnect their footing drains from the sanitary sewer system.

Also not suspended was the city’s developer offset mitigation program, which requires developers to offset the increased flow from new construction into the sanitary sewer system. The vote on the CDM Smith Inc. contract extension was postponed from the council’s May 5 meeting. The dollar amount of the contract extension has been substantially reduced in the meantime – from about $750,000 to $143,000.

Part of the backdrop of the CDM Smith contract extension is a lawsuit that’s been filed against the city, challenging the legal foundation of the footing drain disconnect ordinance. The city sought to remove the case from state court to the federal system, but at a hearing on the matter this week, a federal judge indicated he’d be remanding the case back to the Washtenaw County 22nd circuit court.

City assets on the June 2 agenda include trees – as the council will be asked to approve the city’s urban and community forest management plan. The council will also consider a resolution on the city’s possibly most recognizable asset – the city hall building. The resolution would remove a $4 million renovation of city hall (a “reskinning”) from the city’s capital improvements plan for 2017 and 2018. This resolution was postponed from the council’s May 19 meeting.

Another city-owned asset on the agenda is the Library Lane underground parking garage. The council has already directed the city administrator to engage a real estate broker to test the market for the development rights for the surface of the garage. The resolution on the June 2 agenda, which was postponed at the council’s April 7 meeting, would set a policy to deposit 50% of the net proceeds from the sale of the development rights into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

Land use and planning items on the June 2 agenda include a roughly $300,000 contract for study of the State Street transportation corridor. Related to transportation infrastructure, the council will also be asked to approve resolutions that move along the process of special assessing property owners on Stone School Road for the cost of installing a sidewalk on the west side of the road in connection with a road reconstruction project.

Also related to land use, three Ann Arbor housing commission properties will be given initial consideration for rezoning. A site plan and associated rezoning for the Delta Gamma house will be given final consideration. Also up for final consideration is a revision to the ordinance regulating drive-thrus. Councilmembers will also consider the site plan for a new Ruth’s Chris restaurant to be located downtown on South Fourth Avenue.

A rate increase for Ann Arbor water, sewer and stormwater rates is on the June 2 agenda for final approval.

Two items connected to parks and recreation appear on the agenda. One is approval of the receipt of funding for a program that helps Bridge cardholders purchase local produce at the farmers market. The second item is approval of a five-year agreement with the Community Action Network to continue operating the city’s Northside and Bryant community centers.

The council will also be considering a resolution in support of the local development finance authority’s application to the Michigan Economic Development Corp. for a possible 15-year extension of the arrangement under which the LDFA captures taxes. The captured taxes are used to fund a business accelerator that’s operated by Ann Arbor SPARK through a contract with the LDFA. Without an extension, the LDFA would end in 2018.

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

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article below the preview material. Click here to skip the preview section and go directly to the live updates. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron.

Amend Current Year’s Budget

On June 2 the council will consider a resolution amending the current fiscal year’s budget (FY 2014) to ensure that expenditures do not exceed appropriated amounts. The budget amendment will ensure compliance with Public Act 621 of 1978.

The total requested general fund budget amendment is $60,000. For all other funds, the amendment to be considered by the council on June 2 totals $310,000.

The non-general fund amount will cover right-of-way maintenance and purchase of materials that were necessary to deal with the severe winter weather. The general fund amount was the city’s cost for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s special election held on May 6. That amount will eventually be reimbursed by Washtenaw County – which in turn will receive reimbursement from the AAATA to cover the roughly $100,000 cost of the election.

FDD Program Contract Extension

A contract extension with CDM Smith Inc. for continued work as part of Ann Arbor’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program appears on the June 2 agenda. It had been postponed at the council’s May 5, 2014 meeting.

In the interim, the dollar amount of the contract extension has been reduced from $748,106 to $143,440. That reflects a reduction in the scope of the work. The original May 5 resolution called for the following activities to be funded: citizen support ($36,928); FDD citizens advisory committee meetings ($24,180); information management for sump pump monitors ($93,707); developer offset mitigation (DOM) program support; ($95,213); and multi-family FDD implementation ($498,005).

No longer a part of the scope of work in the revised June 2 resolution are the FDD citizens advisory committee meetings, information management, or the multi-family FDD implementation. The revised memo describes how the funding would only provide a bridge until recommendations from a study group have been received, which will determine the future of the FDD program:

This amendment would provide the services needed to bridge the gap until the SSWWE [Sanitary Sewer Wet Weather Evaluation] Project recommendations have been made. Presently, the anticipated timeline for completion of the SSWWE Project is in the autumn of 2014. That does not allow sufficient time to issue a new RFP, collect and review proposals, award a contract, and bring a new consultant up to speed to manage the remaining FDD and DOM work outlined above. Existing City staff does not currently have the available resources or expertise to perform the inspections required for the DOM program.

By way of additional background, in 2012 the city’s program to disconnect footing drains from the sanitary sewer system was suspended by the council in some areas of the city. Specifically, it was suspended in the Glen Leven and Morehead (Lansdowne neighborhood) areas. The program was allowed to continue in other geographic areas and as part of the city’s developer offset mitigation (DOM) program. The DOM requires owners of new developments to complete a certain number of FDDs to offset the additional flow in the sanitary system caused by new construction.

The CDM contract drew scrutiny at the May 5 meeting because the city is currently undertaking a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation (SSWWE) study. It’s supposed to yield a recommendation about whether to continue with the FDD program, and if so, in what form. In addition, the city’s ordinance – which requires property owners to undertake FDDs – was challenged in a lawsuit filed earlier this year. That case is pending as the city first removed the case from state to federal court. But the result of a May 28 hearing before a federal judge will be to return the case to the Washtenaw County 22nd circuit court.

The previous three iterations of the CDM contract totaled  about $3.6 million. The money for these contracts is drawn from the city’s sewer fund.

The proposed contract extension drew criticism during public commentary on May 5 from Frank Burdick, a Ward 4 resident who urged the council to reject it. Council deliberations on this item were included as part of The Chronicle’s live updates from the May 5 meeting.

Since the FDD program’s start in 2001, about 1,834 footing drains have been disconnected through the city program and 848 footing drains have been disconnected through the developer offset mitigation program.

Animation of contrast between the pre-FDD configuration and the post-FDD configuration. (Original illustration from screenshots of YouTube video by Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, modified by The Chronicle.)

Urban Forest

The city’s first comprehensive plan for managing Ann Arbor’s urban forest will be considered at the council’s June 2 meeting. The Ann Arbor park advisory commission recommended adoption of the plan at its meeting on April 15, 2014. [.pdf of Urban & Community Forest Management Plan]

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.

Map of selected tree variety by The Chronicle from city of Ann Arbor 2009 survey. Image links to dynamic map hosted on geocommons.com

PAC had been briefed on the 135-page Urban & Community Forest Management Plan at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting by Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest & natural resources planning coordinator. The management plan includes 17 recommendations, listed in priority based on community feedback for implementation. Each of the 17 recommendations includes action tasks and implementation ideas, case studies, and resources that are needed, including funding. The recommendations are:

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.

The city council has adopted a budget for FY 2015, which starts July 1, 2014 that includes a one-time expenditure of $1 million to address the backlog in maintenance of trees in the public right of way.

Included in the focus of the effort to remove the backlog are trees classified as Priority 1 removals (red dots), Priority 2 removals (yellow dots), Priority 3 removals (blue dots) for large trees and Priority 1 prunings (green dots). [Map by The Chronicle with data from the city of Ann Arbor.]:

City Hall Reskinning

At its June 2 meeting, the council will consider a proposal to recommend to the planning commission that the capital improvements plan (CIP) for FY 2017 and FY 2018 be revised to remove the $4.4 million that is included for a city hall reskinning project. The planning commission is the body that approves the CIP. But the council has budgetary discretion to fund projects in the CIP or not – so the resolution in some sense calls on the planning commission to take an action it does not have the authority to execute. This was a point made during deliberations at the council’s May 19, 2014 meeting when the item was postponed.

According to a staff memo written in response to a councilmember question, reskinning of the Larcom City Hall building would mean replacing the existing exterior walls and windows of the building. The result would be new squared-off exterior, eliminating the inverted pyramid design. The new exterior would hang vertically from the sixth floor.

The focus of the project is on improving energy efficiency. The memo describes existing windows as mostly single-pane glass on aluminum frames, which offer little insulation value. The project would also result in an incremental gain in square footage – because the lower floors would have the same footprint as the sixth floor, which is currently the largest floor of the building. The materials used for the exterior would “blend better” with the recently constructed Justice Center, which adjoins city hall.

Library Lot Sale Proceeds

On June 2 the city council will consider a resolution setting a policy for distribution of the proceeds from the sale of development rights on the Library Lot. The proposed policy would set aside 50% of the net proceeds to the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

The council has already directed the city administrator to hire a real estate broker to explore selling the rights to develop the site – above the Library Lane underground parking structure, which was completed in 2012.

The item was postponed at the council’s April 7, 2014 meeting. The vote was 6-5 to postpone, with dissent from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), and mayor John Hieftje.

State Street Transportation Corridor Study

The June 2 agenda includes a resolution for a $299,911 contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff Michigan Inc. to conduct a study of the South State Street transportation corridor. The 1.3 mile long area of the study extends from the intersection of Ellsworth Road and South State Street north to the intersection of Oakbrook Drive and South State Street. The money to pay for the study will be drawn in equal parts from the current fiscal year and next year’s general capital fund budget. The study will take a year, starting in June 2014.

The goal of the study is focused on transportation needs in the corridor and to provide base conceptual engineering plans for the redesign of the corridor – possibly including a boulevard “Complete Street” design. The redesign would be intended to “address all modes of travel; enhance vehicle flow; improve safety; create an aesthetically pleasing entrance to the City; and, utilize sustainable concepts such as low impact design (‘LID’), and low energy use lighting.”

The study of the area as a transportation corridor comes not long after a recently completed South State Street corridor plan, adopted by the city council into the city’s master plan at its July 15, 2014 meeting. That corridor plan established planning objectives for the land use along the corridor.

Besides Parsons Brinckerhoff, the other bidder for the work was DLZ.

Stone School Road Sidewalk Special Assessment

As part of a road reconstruction project for Stone School Road, the city is planning to install a sidewalk on the west side of the road. To fund the sidewalk construction, part of the cost will come from a special assessment of property owners. The extent of the project on Stone School Road runs from I-94 to Ellsworth Road. Construction is planned for the project during the 2014 and 2015 construction seasons.

The project is being funded in part through a federal surface transportation grant, which can pay about 80% of construction costs, but not engineering, testing or inspection costs. The total project cost is roughly $128,500, of which about $55,000 will be special assessed.

The council will be asked to approve a resolution directing the city assessor to set the roll of properties to be assessed.

Rezoning: Housing Commission Properties

At its June 2 meeting, the city council will consider giving initial approval to the rezoning of three Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. The planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The current PL (public land) zoning for some of the properties is a vestige of the AAHC properties’ status as city-owned land. The city council approved the transfer of deeds to the AAHC at its June 2, 2013 meeting. The three sites to be considered on June 2 are part of the housing commission’s major initiative to upgrade the city’s public housing units by seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

Rezoning is recommended for the following public housing sites, two of which are currently zoned as public land:

• Baker Commons: Rezone public land to D2 (downtown interface). The 0.94-acre lot is located at 106 Packard Street, at the intersection with South Main, in Ward 5. It includes a 64-unit apartment building.
• Green/Baxter Court Apartments: Rezone public land to R4A (multi-family dwelling district). The 2-acre site is located at 1701-1747 Green Road and contains 23 apartments in four buildings and a community center. It’s in Ward 2.
• Maple Meadows: Currently zoned R1C (single-family dwelling district), the recommendation is to rezone it as R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site is 3.4 acres at 800-890 South Maple Road and contains 29 apartments in five buildings and a community center. It’s located in Ward 5.

At the planning commission’s May 6 meeting, AAHC director Jennifer Hall explained that PL zoning doesn’t allow housing to be built on it. As AAHC seeks private funding to rehab its properties, it needs to ensure if a building burns down, for example, it could be rebuilt. In general that’s why the rezoning is being requested. It’s also being requested to align the zoning with the current uses of the property. She stressed that the highest priority properties to be rezoned are Baker Commons, Green/Baxter and Maple Meadows, because investors have already been found to renovate those sites.

For these three sites, planning commissioners also voted to waive the area plan requirements for the AAHC rezoning petitions, because no new construction is proposed and surveys of the improvements have been provided.

For additional background on the AAHC process of renovating its properties, see Chronicle coverage: “Public Housing Conversion Takes Next Step.”

Delta Gamma Site Plan, Rezoning

The city council will be asked on June 2 to give final approval of a rezoning request for 515 Oxford, to convert a house for use as an annex to the Delta Gamma sorority. The main sorority house is located nearby at 626 Oxford. The council gave initial approval to the rezoning at its May 5, 2014 meeting. Also on the June 2 agenda is consideration of the site plan approval for the same project. The site plan was recommended for approval by planning commissioners on April 15, 2014.

Aerial view showing the location of 515 Oxford, south of Geddes and at the eastern end of South University.

The rezoning request, recommended by the planning commission on Jan. 23, 2014, is to rezone the parcel from R4A (multi-family dwelling) to R2B (two-family dwelling and student housing). Most of the surrounding parcels are zoned R2B, although the site immediately to the north is also zoned R4A. Also nearby is public land (PL) where the University of Michigan’s Oxford Houses complex is located.

The two-story house at 515 Oxford includes two one-story wings. It is currently a rental property with three units – a studio apartment, one-bedroom apartment, and four-bedroom apartment – and a maximum occupancy of 8 people. One of the units is in a former garage.

The proposal for a renovation would accommodate a maximum of 20 residents, including a required resident manager.

The building is notable because it was originally designed in 1940 by architect George Brigham, who used it as his home and architectural studio. He designed over 40 houses in Ann Arbor, including many in Arbor Hills and Barton Hills between 1936 and 1958.

Drive-Thru Ordinance: Final Approval

On the city council’s June 2 agenda is final approval of amendments to Ann Arbor’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus. Initial approval came at the council’s May 5 meeting. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code.

The proposed revisions define a drive-thru in this way: “Any building or structure, or portion thereof, that is constructed or operated for the purpose of providing goods or services to customers who remain in their vehicle during the course of the transaction.” The revisions also clarify that a drive-thru is an accessory use, not the principle use of the building. A project in which a drive-thru would be the principle use would not be allowed. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance.

In addition, the changes would require drive-thrus to obtain special exception use permits, which would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Drive-thrus would not be allowed in the C1, D1, D2, and other commercial districts.

Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

When considering whether to grant a special exception use – which does not require additional city council approval – the planning commission considers these issues:

1. Is the location, size and character of the proposed use compatible with the principal uses of the district and adjacent districts? Is it consistent with the Master Plan? Is it consistent with the surrounding area? Will it have any detrimental effects to the use or value of surrounding area, or the natural environment?

2. Is the location, size, character, layout, access and traffic generated by the use hazardous or inconvenient or conflicting with the normal traffic of the neighborhood? Is off-street parking safe for pedestrians? Do the necessary vehicular turning movements block normal traffic flow? Are any additional public services or facilities needed by the use, and will they be detrimental to the community?

3. Is the maximum density and minimum required open space at least equal to the standards normally required by the Zoning Ordinance for the district?

The planning commission recommended the changes at its April 1, 2014 meeting.

The proposed amendments were first reviewed by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee in 2007, but never moved forward to the full commission for consideration. The ORC most recently reviewed these changes in March of 2014. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed amendments]

Ruth’s Chris Site Plan

The site plan for a new Ruth’s Chris Steak House on Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor is on the June 2 agenda for consideration. The planning commission recommended approval at its April 1, 2014 meeting.

Proposed facade of Ruth’s Chris Steak House at 314 S. Fourth Ave.

The site plan calls for renovating the single-story building at 314 S. Fourth Ave. and putting up a 1,943-square-foot second-floor mezzanine addition over the front part of the existing building. The current structure is 8,024 square feet, and most recently housed the Dream Nite Club, which closed in 2012. The project is estimated to cost $2.2 million. [.pdf of staff report on Ruth's Chris site plan]

Part of the planning commission’s discussion focused on whether there might be outdoor dining in front of the restaurant. The project’s architect indicated that at this point, outdoor seating wouldn’t be appropriate, in part because of bus traffic. The building is located near the Blake Transit Center, a hub for public transportation. The architect also indicated that the restaurant will be using valet parking, with valets positioned in front of the building.

This would be the first Ruth’s Chris Steak House in Ann Arbor. The chain is based in Florida, with locations nationwide.

Utility Rates

The council will consider giving final approval to higher utility rates – for water, sewer and stormwater. Initial approval came at the council’s May 19 meeting.

Water rates will increase across all tiers of consumption. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is will increase from $1.35 to $1.40. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.85 to $2.96 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.88 to $5.08. A unit is 100 cubic feet, which is 748 gallons.

Sewer rates will increase from $3.65 to $3.85 per unit. And stormwater fees would increase for all tiers of impervious service. For the middle tier – for more than 2,187 square feet but less than or equal to 4,175 square feet – on a quarterly basis, the increase would be from $24.85 to $26.32.

According to the staff memo accompanying this agenda item, the recommended rate changes in water, sewer, and stormwater would increase revenues to the water, sewer, and stormwater funds by $765,119, $1,171,931 and $410,235 respectively. The reason given for the rate increases is to cover maintenance and debt payments, and to maintain funding for capital improvement requirements. The city calculates the impact to be an additional $6.25 per quarter or $24.98 per year for an average consumer, which is a net increase of 4.2%.

Water consumption for a typical single family is assumed at 19 units per quarter.

History of city of Ann Arbor water rates. The city converted to a tiered system 10 years ago in 2004, based on usage. The 2015 amount is proposed.

Grant to Farmers Market for Food Stamp Recipients

At its June 2 meeting, the city council will consider approval of an agreement with the Fair Food Network to continue administering the Double Up Food Bucks program at the Ann Arbor farmer’s market. Approval would entail acceptance of $32,000 in funding.

The Double Up name stems from the fact that it provides a match of up to $20/person/day for people using SNAP (Bridge cards/EBT/food stamps) to purchase Michigan-grown produce at farmers markets in Michigan.

The city of Ann Arbor has received Double Up Food Bucks grant funding since 2010.

Partnership with Community Action Network

A proposal for a five-year partnership with the nonprofit Community Action Network is on the June 2 agenda. The partnership was recommended for approval by the Ann Arbor park advisory commission at its May 20, 2014 meeting.

The agreement would be for CAN to continue operating the city’s Bryant and Northside community centers, which the nonprofit has been managing since 2008. The proposed amount is not to exceed $130,000 annually – an increase of $25,000 from the current agreement. The higher amount is included in the FY 2015 general fund budget for parks and recreation that the city council approved on May 19. According to a staff memo, the higher amount will address increases in fixed costs and “assist in retaining quality staff that is at the core of the services that CAN provides.” [.pdf of staff memo]

The staff memo also noted that a request for proposals (RFP) was not issued for this work, because CAN has been the sole respondent to the previous two RFPs and the city is satisfied with its work.

During the May 20 PAC meeting, CAN received praise for their work from several commissioners and Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager. CAN executive director Joan Doughty and deputy director Derrick Miller were on hand to answer questions. Part of the discussion focused on CAN’s exemption from the city’s living wage requirement, which the city council granted in 2012 for a three-year period through Nov. 8, 2015. Doughty noted that the exemption was sought in part because CAN was paying a living wage to part-time employees who were high school or university students, which limited the nonprofit from paying higher wages to full-time workers. She also pointed out that the city parks and recreation unit isn’t required to pay the living wage to its seasonal workers.

LDFA Extension

On the council’s June 2 agenda is an item that would express city council support of the local development finance authority’s application to the Michigan Economic Development Corp. to extend the life of the tax capture arrangement for up to 15 years. Without an extension, the LDFA would end in 2018.

Ann Arbor’s local development finance authority is funded through a tax increment finance (TIF) district, as a “certified technology park” described under Act 281 of 1986. The Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC) solicited proposals for that designation back in 2000. The Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti “technology park” is one of 11 across the state of Michigan, which are branded by the MEDC as “SmartZones.”

The geography of the LDFA’s TIF district – in which taxes are captured from another taxing jurisdiction – is the union of the TIF districts for the Ann Arbor and the Ypsilanti downtown development authorities (DDAs). It’s worth noting that the Ypsilanti portion of the LDFA’s TIF district does not generate any actual tax capture.

The LDFA captures Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) operating millage, but those captured taxes don’t diminish the school’s budget. That’s because in Michigan, local schools levy a millage, but the proceeds are not used directly by local districts. Rather, proceeds are first forwarded to the state of Michigan’s School Aid Fund, for redistribution among school districts statewide. That redistribution is based on a per-pupil formula as determined on a specified “count day.” And the state reimburses the School Aid Fund for the taxes captured by SmartZones throughout the state.

In FY 2013, the total amount captured by the LDFA was $1,546,577, and the current fiscal year forecast is for $2,017,835. About the same amount is forecast for FY 2015.

The extension of the LDFA is made possible by Public Act 290 of 2012, which amended the Local Development Financing Act to allow a SmartZone to capture school taxes for an additional five years or an additional 15 years. The staff memo accompanying the resolution describes the five-year extension as possible “upon approval of the MEDC President and the State Treasurer, if the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti SmartZone LDFA agrees to additional reporting requirements and the LDFA requests, and the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti approve, the amendment of the LDFA tax increment financing (TIF) plan to include regional collaboration.”

A 15-year extension is possible, according to the memo, “if, in addition to the above requirements, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, as the municipalities that created the SmartZone, enter into an agreement with another LDFA [a "Satellite SmartZone"] that did not contain a certified technology park to designate a distinct geographic area, as allowed under Section 12b of the Act…”

The council’s resolution states that if the MEDC approves the extension, the city of Ann Arbor will work with the LDFA and the city of Ypsilanti to identify another LDFA – called the “Satellite SmartZone LDFA.” The arrangement will allow the Satellite SmartZone LDFA to capture local taxes in its own distinct geographic area for the maximum 15 years allowed by statute.

Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) – who sponsored the resolution on the agenda and serves as the council appointee to the LDFA board– wrote that possibilities for an LDFA satellite for Ann Arbor’s SmartZone include Adrian (Adrian College) or Brighton and Livingston County (with Cleary University).

4:07 p.m. The public speaking line-up for reserved speaking slots is now available on the agenda. Four people are signed up to talk about the policy for distributing proceeds from the sale of the development rights to the Library Lane site: Amanda Carlisle, Jean Carlberg, Jim Mogensen, and Seth Best.

Two people are signed up to talk about the routine adjustment to the city’s budget for the current fiscal year: Thomas Partridge and Jeff Hayner. Two people are signed up to talk about the resolution supporting the LDFA application for a 15-year extension: David Jsa and Gregg Hammerman.

Signed up to talk about the footing drain disconnection contract with CDM Smith is Frank Burdick. And Henry Herskovitz is signed up to talk about Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. Signed up as an alternate speaker on the topic of engine powered heating is Kermit Schlansker.

5:08 p.m. Staff responses to councilmember questions about agenda items are now available: [.pdf of staff responses]

6:33 p.m. Council chambers are set up with the dividers already moved back to create more room and about 40 additional folding chairs are set up. The item involving the policy on the proceeds from the sale of development rights for the Library Lane lot is expected to draw a large number of people. About a dozen people have already arrived.

6:42 p.m. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) is the first councilmember to arrive. Two dozen people now in the audience in support of affordable housing. They include former councilmember and planning commissioner Jean Carlberg, who has signed up to speak during public commentary. Round yellow sticker read “Homes for the Homeless Now!”

6:49 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has arrived. She’s talking to people in the audience, which now numbers about 40 people.

6:53 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) has arrived. She’s chatting with Paul Fulton of the city’s IT services staff.

6:54 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje has arrived. He’s chatting with Jack Eaton. City attorney Stephen Postema is here.

6:54 p.m. Jim Mogensen has arrived. He’s signed up to speak tonight on affordable housing.

6:54 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m.

7:01 p.m. Remaining councilmembers are starting to filter in. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is here. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) have also arrived.

7:02 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers is here, along with the city clerk, Jackie Beaudry.

7:06 p.m. Not yet here are Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

7:06 p.m. Ann Arbor SPARK CEO Paul Krutko has arrived. He’s talking to John Hieftje.

7:09 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. We’re off.

7:10 p.m. Roll call of the council. Taylor, Anglin and Margie Teall (Ward 4) are absent.

7:10 p.m. Hieftje reports that Teall and Taylor will likely be along later. Anglin, however, is sick.

7:12 p.m. Approval of the agenda Eaton moves the closed session to just before DS-1 – that’s the footing drain disconnection contract with CDM Smith.

7:12 p.m. The council has approved the evening’s agenda.

7:12 p.m. Communications from the city administrator.

7:13 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers is ticking through some upcoming events, including his favorite – Red Fish, Blue Fish, which teaches kids how to fish. It’s on June 8 from 9:30 to 11 a.m. at the Gallup Park livery.

7:13 p.m. Hieftje says Petersen represented the city well in the half-marathon of the Dexter-Ann Arbor Run that was held on Sunday, June 1. [She ran a sub-2-hour race.]

7:13 p.m. Proclamation honoring the University of Michigan International Center as volunteer of the month. The proclamation honors students, scholars and families affiliated with the center who have volunteered their service in city parks.

7:16 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Four people are signed up to talk about the policy for distribution of proceeds from the sale of the development rights to the Library Lane lot: Amanda Carlisle, Jean Carlberg, Jim Mogensen, and Seth Best.

Two people are signed up to talk about the routine adjustment to the city’s budget for the current fiscal year: Thomas Partridge and Jeff Hayner. Two people are signed up to talk about the resolution supporting the LDFA application for a 15-year extension: David Jsa and Gregg Hammerman.

Signed up to talk about the footing drain disconnection contract with CDM Smith is Frank Burdick. And Henry Herskovitz is signed up to talk about Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. Signed up as an alternate speaker on the topic of engine powered heating is Kermit Schlansker.

7:19 p.m. Amanda Carlisle is executive director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance. That’s a coalition of more than 30 organizations working to end homelessness, she says. She invites people to stand if they’re here to support affordable housing. [Just about everyone in the center section and the additional chairs set up is standing is support.]

Carlisle says she visited people living under bridges last week, not a mile away from where she’s standing – and they need housing, she says. We can’t rely on state and federal funding, she says, so we need to find local solutions. She’s calling for support of DC-1, a resolution that would allocate 50% of the proceeds from the sale of development rights for the Library Lane lot to the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

7:22 p.m. David Jsa is a web developer and chief technology officer at Seelio. About 2.5 years ago, that company was invited into SPARK’s incubator – a company of four people. They were barely going to make it, he said. But they’ve now grown to a company of 15 employees. So they’ve moved into a larger office space. They’re indebted to the LDFA SmartZone and SPARK for helping the business grow. He says they expect to add around another 20 people. They love Ann Arbor and love to tell stories about how great a place Ann Arbor is to start up a company. He refers to people to the services his company received from the LDFA. He supports the extension of the term for the LDFA SmartZone.

7:25 p.m. Jean Carlberg is a former city councilmember and former city planning commissioner. She says she’s been working on affordable housing and housing for the homeless for 30 years. It’s not often you get a chance to put a “pile of money” to put into the affordable housing trust fund, she says. Affordable housing is at best a break-even proposition, she says. There are over 4,000 who need assistance in one year, she says. Councilmembers have all said they think that affordable housing is critical to the community, she notes. Carlberg urges the council to take the step of putting the proceeds from the Library Lane development rights into the affordable housing trust fund. She calls it a rare opportunity. Their actions should match their values and the values of the community, she says.

7:28 p.m. Jim Mogensen is speaking on the Library Lane resolution. He’s speaking for Religious Action for Affordable Housing. Back in the 1990s, one of the subgroups was looking for additional funds. That’s why RAAH was set up, he explains. They’ve raised about a half-million dollars, he says. Mogensen notes that it sounds like a lot of money, but it’s not. They compete with Habitat for Humanity and other organizations, so it’s difficult to raise money, he says. It’s important to have a trust fund available when projects happen, he says. For every complex problem there’s a simple solution – and it’s wrong, he quips. Putting all the affordable housing in Ypsilanti is one such “simple” solution, he says.

7:31 p.m. Seth Best apologizes for his attire. At the house on Stone School Road, they’ve been doing some renovating work, and he didn’t have a chance to change. He’s speaking in support of the Library Lane lot resolution. For every 100 people who are searching for affordable housing in the U.S., there are 30 homes available, he says. Affordable housing takes time, he says. He suggests that some of the money should support a community center or a warming center: Where do people go tonight? he asks. It’s national LGBT month, he says – and if you send people down South, that could put people’s lives in danger.

7:34 p.m. Frank Burdick introduces himself as a Ward 4 resident. He’s encouraging the council to vote no on the contract extension for CDM Smith for footing drain disconnection work. He says the city council has for the last 13 years listened only to the city staff and the city attorney, but not their constituents. He tells the council they have “married” the consultant, CDM. He talks about unhappy and anxious citizens who have failing sump pumps and frozen, improperly installed pipes. The city’s developer offset mitigation (DOM) program should be 100% funded by developers, he says. He contends that the DOM program is in serious legal jeopardy. He suggests that developers should deposit money into an escrow account instead of continuing the DOM program. He challenges mayoral candidates to consider their vote on the resolution.

7:37 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a recent candidate for various public offices. He calls on the mayor and council to re-open the city budget to allow for more housing for affordable housing and community development for the most vulnerable residents of the city. Protections under existing city policies are not adequate, he says. He calls for a change in attitude to bring about rules changes so that the public could have greater lobbying access to city hall. He wants public participation periods during the meeting, not just at the start and at the end. He supports the resolution on the Library Land lot sale proceeds, but says that all of the money should go into the trust fund, not just 50%.

7:40 p.m. Gregg Hammerman is cofounder of Larky – a mobile, web-based service that helps people keep track of discounts and perks to which they’re entitled through professional associations, alumni associations, credit cards, health insurance, shopping clubs, community groups, museums and the like. He graduated from UM in 1994 and started his first company then, called Techstreet. At that time, Ann Arbor SPARK didn’t exist, he says. Still, they managed to persevere and Techstreet was finally purchased – and it now has $30 million in revenue and about 25 employees. Now there’s a real start-up culture here in Ann Arbor, which he attributes to LDFA and SPARK. His new company has eight employees, which had been achieved in a two-year cycle, instead of the nine years that his first company required.

7:43 p.m. Jeff Hayner is speaking against voting on the LDFA resolution tonight and encourages the council not to approve it until more information on the efficacy of SPARK’s programs is available. He’s arguing that the SmartZones statewide amount to a geographic transfer of wealth.

7:46 p.m. Henry Herskovitz begins by asking: What if you heard through the news media that fighter jets from South Korea were used to attack a U.S. ship? Our answer would be clear – that the U.S. would not tolerate an attack by an ally. South Korea has not done that, but that’s what happened in 1967 with the USS Liberty when Israel [mistakenly] attacked the ship. U.S. citizens should take it seriously when a foreign government can influence U.S. foreign policy, he says.

7:46 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) has now arrived.

7:46 p.m. Communications from the council. This is the first of two slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:47 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) says that the topic of the work session on June 9 will be ethics and council rules.

7:49 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanks everyone who has come in to license their dogs. She was here on Friday afternoon and there was a long line at the clerk’s office. Everyone wants to do the right thing, she says.

7:52 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) thanks staff for the repaving of the St. Aubin service drive near Platt Road. He announces he’ll be bringing forth a resolution at a future meeting to tender an offer on 8 acres where the Burton Commons affordable project is proposed. [The idea would be to use open space millage money.] Here’s an animated .gif of the aerial photos of the property: Burton Commons land. He’s arguing for the purchase based on climate change and the adjacency of Sylvan Park to the north. The resolution would direct staff to make an offer to purchase at fair market value.

7:53 p.m. Eaton conveys Anglin’s regrets that he can’t attend.

7:53 p.m. Appointments: Confirmation. Tonight the council is voting on nominations to city boards and commissions made at the council’s May 19 meeting. Larry Eiler was nominated to the Economic Development Corporation, replacing Daniel Blakemore. Andy Baker-White and Amanda Carlisle were nominated to the housing and human services advisory board to fill vacancies.

7:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has unanimously approved all the appointments.

7:54 p.m. Appointments: Nominations. Being nominated tonight for reappointment to the city planning commission are Wendy Woods and Eleanore Adenekan. Being nominated for reappointment to the commission on disability issues are Linda Evans and Larry Keeler. Their appointments will be voted on at the council’s next meeting.

7:54 p.m. Hieftje asks Lumm how many openings still remain on HHSAB. Lumm thinks there are still three vacancies.

7:54 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Five public hearings are scheduled tonight: PH-1 Ordinance to raise water, sewer, and stormwater rates; PH-2 Ordinance to amend drive-thru facilities and permitted uses; PH-3 Rezoning 515 Oxford (Delta Gamma); PH-4 Site plan for 515 Oxford (Delta Gamma); PH-5 Site plan for Ruth’s Chris.

7:55 p.m. PH-1 Ordinance to raise water, sewer, and stormwater rates.

7:56 p.m. Thomas Partridge asks that rates be revised so that the impact on the most vulnerable residents is ameliorated.

7:57 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) has now arrived.

8:01 p.m. Jeff Hayner says that water rates have gone up every year. He notices it as homeowner, he says. He cites some Sierra Club information that indicates that only three Michigan municipalities operate water services as a utility, including Detroit and Ann Arbor. He questions why the fourth heavy use tier has been dropped – and wonders if it resulted from an effort to accommodate the University of Michigan. He asks the council to please keep Ann Arbor affordable.

8:01 p.m. PH-2 Ordinance to amend drive-thru facilities and permitted uses. No one speaks on this hearing.

8:02 p.m. PH-3 Rezoning 515 Oxford (Delta Gamma).

8:04 p.m. Thomas Partridge says the property needs to be accessible to disabled students.

8:05 p.m. PH-4 Site plan for 515 Oxford (Delta Gamma).

8:05 p.m. No one speaks at this public hearing.

8:06 p.m. PH-5 Site plan for Ruth’s Chris. Steve Fry, who is representing Ruth’s Chris, tells the council that he’s here if there are questions.

8:07 p.m. Thomas Partridge calls on the council to require the restaurant to be truly accessible to those who are disabled and to seniors and those who need to use public transportation. He says there should be menu items that are affordable to those with lower incomes.

8:09 p.m. Approval of minutes. Outcome: The council has approved the minutes of the previous meeting.

8:09 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes …

8:09 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. Kunselman pulls out CA-4. It’s a resolution authorizing $28,444 in sanitary sewer and water improvement charges for 3980 Platt Road.

8:09 p.m. Outcome: All items on the consent agenda except for CA-4 have now been approved.

8:10 p.m. CA-4 Authorize sanitary sewer and water improvement charges for 3980 Platt Road. ($28,444). Kunselman says the property has been under construction for some time. If this resolution is approved, he wonders if the builder will be pursuing this more diligently. Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, says that he won’t comment on the builder’s intent, but this will remove one hurdle.

8:11 p.m. Outcome: All items on the consent agenda have now been approved.

8:11 p.m. B-1 Increase water, sewer, and stormwater rates. The council will consider giving final approval to higher utility rates – for water, sewer and stormwater. Initial approval came at the council’s May 19 meeting.

Water rates will increase across all tiers of consumption. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is will increase from $1.35 to $1.40. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.85 to $2.96 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.88 to $5.08. A unit is 100 cubic feet, which is 748 gallons. [For additional background, see Utility Rates above.]

8:13 p.m. Hieftje says he’s been following this for several years. And the city does a comparison with other communities. He calls the rate increases middle-of-the-pack and appropriate for a city with infrastructure the age of Ann Arbor’s. Hieftje is comparing the issue with roads – that to maintain the infrastructure, it requires money. He says the city’s departments are efficient with their use of money.

8:15 p.m. Kailasapathy asks about the four tiers of the previous approach: Why did the city move from a four-tier system to a three-tier system? Hupy says that those tiers are residential tiers. That was done in response to customers and councilmembers – and that fourth tier hit the large residential users. Powers adds that the commercial rates – including institutional uses – have a different rate structure.

8:16 p.m. Briere notes that years ago, the council used to receive the comparative analysis with other communities and asks that it be provided. Hupy will forward it to councilmembers.

8:17 p.m. Lumm reviews the elimination of the fourth pricing tier – and describes how it affected people who were watering their lawns. She describes the previous rates as involving “ungodly sums.” She notes that the rate increases will translate to $2.3 million in additional revenue. No one wants to increase prices, unless it’s absolutely necessary, and that standard is met, she says.

8:20 p.m. Kunselman asks if it will be possible to slow the rate of increase in future years. Hupy indicates he’s pessimistic that could happen for water rates, given that about half of the drinking water treatment plant might need to be replaced. Hupy expects at a minimum that water rate increases will be similar to what the city is doing for sewer rates.

8:20 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the increase in water, sewer and stormwater rates.

8:20 p.m. B-2 Ordinance to amend regulations regarding drive-thru facilities and permitted uses. On tonight’s agenda is final approval of amendments to Ann Arbor’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus. Initial approval came at the council’s May 5 meeting. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code. [For additional background, see Drive-Thru Ordinance: Final Approval above.]

8:23 p.m. Eaton asks planning manager Wendy Rampson how this change differs from the standard the city has in the code now. Rampson describes how the new standard makes it clear that all drive-thrus are subject to planning commission review for special exception use. And windows can’t face the right-of-way, she says. Eaton ventures that this means that planning commission and the council have discretion to grant the special exception use. Rampson notes that he’s correct, but adds that the planning commission has purview on the special exception use. Eaton asks what the standards are for exercise of that discretion. Rampson points to the relevant section of the code.

8:26 p.m. Eaton raises the specter of a long line of cars extending into a neighborhood. Could anything be done about that? Rampson says that the planning commission has discretion on a case-by-case basis – and the commission could deny the application. Eaton ventures that the denial would not be required. Eaton says it would be easy to write this kind of requirement into the code – to prevent that kind of impact on a neighborhood. He revises “easy” to “plausible.”

8:26 p.m. Warpehoski says he’s glad to see this going through. Changing from by-right to discretionary is a good step, he says.

8:28 p.m. Briere says that she can send councilmembers the section of the ordinance that deals with special exception uses. There’s always the risk of making one size fit all, she says. The language in the ordinance revision is flexible enough that each site can be considered on a case-by-case basis.

8:29 p.m. Eaton says he wants to send this back to the planning commission to write into the ordinance what will happen when a drive-thru window is adjacent to a residential neighborhood.

8:30 p.m. The motion in front of the council is to refer this back to the planning commission. Warpehoski says he doesn’t think this needs to be sent back to the planning commission in order for Eaton’s goal to be realized. He doesn’t want to hold up the effort now.

8:31 p.m. Hieftje says he’s siding with Warpehoski, and wants to see the council pass what is good, instead of holding it up until it is perfect.

8:33 p.m. Briere says if there are concerns about drive-thru windows operating near residential neighborhoods, they should be looked into, but says there are already a lot of protections in the code.

8:34 p.m. Outcome on Eaton’s motion to refer it back to the planning commission: It fails on a 3-7 vote with support only from Eaton, Lumm and Kailasapathy. Anglin is absent.

8:34 p.m. Taylor says he’d also like to see the additional criteria, but adds that the changes in front of the council tonight already move the ball in the right direction.

8:34 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the revised regulations on drive-thrus.

8:34 p.m. B-3 Rezone 515 Oxford (Delta Gamma). The city council is being asked tonight to give final approval of a rezoning request for 515 Oxford, to convert a house for use as an annex to the Delta Gamma sorority. The main sorority house is located nearby at 626 Oxford. The council gave initial approval to the rezoning at its May 5, 2014 meeting. Later on tonight’s agenda is consideration of the site plan approval for the same project. The site plan was recommended for approval by planning commissioners on April 15, 2014. [For additional background, see Delta Gamma Site Plan, Rezoning above.]

8:36 p.m. Briere says that for many people, this is a landmark building, designed by an architect for his home and studio.

8:36 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the rezoning required as part of the Delta Gamma project.

8:37 p.m. Recess. We’re in recess.

8:45 p.m. We’re back.

8:45 p.m. C-1 Rezone Green/Baxter (AAHC).  At tonight’s meeting, the council will consider giving initial approval to the rezoning of three Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. The planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The current PL (public land) zoning for some of the properties is a vestige of the AAHC properties’ status as city-owned land.

The three sites to be considered are part of the housing commission’s major initiative to upgrade the city’s public housing units by seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits. [For additional background, see Rezoning: Housing Commission Properties above.] First up is the AAHC property at Green/Baxter Court Apartments from PL (public land) to R4A (multi-family dwelling district). The 2-acre site is located at 1701-1747 Green Road and contains 23 apartments in four buildings and a community center. It’s in Ward 2.

8:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to give initial approval of the rezoning of the AAHC property at Green/Baxter.

8:46 p.m. C-2 Rezone Baker Commons (AAHC). This would rezone the property from PL (public land) to D2 (downtown interface). The 0.94-acre lot is located at 106 Packard Street, at the intersection with South Main, in Ward 5. It includes a 64-unit apartment building.

8:48 p.m. Kunselman has a question. Rampson comes to the podium. He ventures that Baker Commons would exceed the 60-foot height limit in D2. Rampson says they don’t have an official height of the building, but agrees that it could be taller than 60 feet. She says that this would be a non-conforming structure. AAHC has been notified, and she says it’s not an issue as far as she understands. There’s not really a viable alternative zoning, she says. There was not a planning commission discussion of the possible non-conformance, Rampson tells Kunselman.

8:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the rezoning of the AAHC property at Baker Commons.

8:49 p.m. C-3 Rezone Maple Meadows (AAHC). This item would rezone the property from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site is 3.4 acres at 800-890 South Maple Road and contains 29 apartments in five buildings and a community center. It’s located in Ward 5.

8:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the rezoning of the AAHC property at Maple Meadows.

8:49 p.m. DC-1 Establish policy for distribution of proceeds from sale of Library Lane lot development rights. Tonight the city council will consider a resolution setting a policy for distribution of the proceeds from the sale of development rights on the Library Lane lot. The proposed policy would set aside 50% of the net proceeds to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. [For additional background, see Library Lot Sale Proceeds above.]

8:52 p.m. Hieftje says he wants to talk about some history. Several years ago, Michael Appel of Avalon Housing had come and talked with him about a pot of money that was available from the feds. [Appel was here earlier, but has departed.] That effort by Avalon had led to a partnership with the nonprofit Food Gatherers and the creation of Carrot Way on Dhu Varren Road.

But the funding landscape has changed a lot since then, Hieftje says. He doesn’t think anything can get done without a “pot of money” here locally. The community’s plans were set back during the Great Recession, he says. Now is an opportunity to create that pot of money, he says, but the exact way the money will be spent can be decided later.

8:55 p.m. As one example, Hieftje floats the idea of creating something like a Carrot Way – that could be located on Platt Road, where Washtenaw County’s former juvenile court facility was located. Hieftje says that the number of people in attendance reflects how well the proposal has been received. He ventures that the sale price might be around $8-10 million, which would mean the city’s general fund would receive several million dollars.

8:59 p.m. Kailasapathy says she’s heard from constituents that they’d like to see an “Arrowwood Part II” and calls it a worthy goal. But she says that there needs to be criteria set for the use of the affordable housing trust fund. It’s there to create new capital assets, she says. It’s not for recurring expenses. She wants to protect this fund for capital assets and says it shouldn’t be used as a slush fund.

Kailasapathy also has mixed feelings about the Library Lane lot. She was the one vote in the 10-1 vote on the hiring of a real estate broker to sell the development rights. She says she’ll support this resolution, and she knows millions of dollars are needed and this is just a start. She’d support 100% of a Palio Lot sale going to affordable housing, she says.

9:00 p.m. Petersen agrees with Kailasapathy that this doesn’t end the conversation about the Library Lane lot. She looks forward to the conversation. It’s more than a great cause, she says – it’s one of the council’s budget priorities and supports economic development.

9:05 p.m. Kunselman says it’s nothing more than a “teaser” resolution, as it’s non-binding. The number of $8-10 million is different from the number that Jim Chaconas had given, he notes – it seems inflated. The same people who sponsored this resolution are the same people who voted to bond for a $50 million underground parking structure, he says. “We’ve spent more money housing cars than housing people.” He points toward a June 4, 2007 vote when the council had rescinded a previous affordable housing policy as part of a land sale – because the council needed the money from the sale of the First & Washington property to build the police/courts facility. When the sale is actually done, he’ll support putting that money into affordable housing.

9:06 p.m. Taylor says he’s delighted to be a co-sponsor. He says the resolution is a moral commitment to use the money for an important community need. Local government can’t wave a magic wand to make things affordable, he says.

9:09 p.m. Briere says that after Kunselman brought forward the resolution to sell the development rights, she’s had a conversation with Hieftje about what percentage should go to affordable housing. The council’s budget committee had recommended 10% at a minimum. She cautioned that she didn’t want to see the community benefit of affordable housing used as an argument for a project on the top of the Library Lane lot that might not be a community benefit. She’s recounting the contributions that the council has made to the affordable housing trust fund – including from the former Y lot and from a strip of land associated with that parcel, as well as general fund contributions.

9:11 p.m. Briere asks if it’s political or if it’s good policy – and she concludes it’s not a political circus, saying that it’s an attempt to make good policy.

9:14 p.m. Lumm is concerned about the percentage and the timing of the decision. She’d supported the minimum 10% of the council’s budget committee, she says. This was first brought up on April 7, she says. The 50% amount is not unreasonable, she adds. But she says that the city’s general fund reserves are currently on the low side. She wouldn’t support any more than 50%. Chaconas’ estimate of $6-7 million would go down as chunks were taken away for public space, she says. Lumm is also concerned about other needs the city might have. She ventures that it might make sense to postpone again.

9:14 p.m. Lumm says she could go either way on this.

9:17 p.m. Eaton says this decision is premature. He notes that it’s not clear that the council has decided that the Library Lane lot development rights will be sold. This would put pressure on the council to sell those development rights, and cautions that it would possibly taint a decision to sell those rights. He’s also concerned about a lack of clear criteria for use of money in the affordable housing trust fund. It should be restricted to capital investments, he says. So he resists the idea of accumulating such large sums. He’d expressed those concerns when the council had sold the former Y lot. So he won’t support the resolution, he says.

9:19 p.m. Kunselman said he’d detailed some problems at a previous meeting about the bonding used for the construction of the underground parking garage. [The issue relates to how many spaces can be dedicated to private use.] He wants to know if staff now has an analysis of how many spaces are available for private use. Powers says that some of that information is still being compiled, but notes that some of the issues were addressed in a confidential memo to councilmembers from the city attorney. Powers allows that the answer to the question probably affects how valuable the property is.

9:23 p.m. Warpehoski notes that some councilmembers have wanted to lock down the amount of space designated as public open space before moving forward – and didn’t feel that it was premature to make that determination. Similarly, he doesn’t think that locking down a percentage for affordable housing is premature. Warpehoski will support the resolution.

9:23 p.m. Lumm says that her point is that things do change and that she wants to see how much money the sale actually generates.

9:24 p.m. Lumm is reviewing the changing in funding strategies by MSHDA – the Michigan State Housing Development Authority.

9:26 p.m. Kunselman proposes an amendment, saying that the Ann Arbor Housing Commission is the largest affordable housing provider in the city. He wants to stipulate that 25% of all proceeds go to the AAHC – in addition to the 50% that would go to the affordable housing trust fund.

9:28 p.m. Briere gets clarification that Kunselman that he’s not confining the AAHC allocation to just downtown AAHC properties. She notes that money from the affordable housing trust fund has been used in the past for AAHC properties. She doesn’t think this amendment is necessary.

9:30 p.m. Briere says she’s heard the concern that too much money would be used for the AAHC. Kunselman says it’s important that the AAHC be given money “straight up” without having to come ask. He doesn’t think they should have to go through hoops – saying that AAHC shouldn’t have to go before the HHSAB.

9:32 p.m. Kunselman says the council has neglected the AAHC for so many years, trying to engage in speculative development. He cites the former Y lot, Near North and Burton Commons. He points out that AAHC is also looking to increase their number of units.

9:33 p.m. Teall appreciates Kunselman’s concern for the AAHC, but doesn’t think that AAHC has been neglected. It’s good for the process that when the AAHC needs funds, they come and request the funds and explain what the funds are needed for, she says.

9:37 p.m. Hieftje agrees with Teall and Briere that the AAHC can come and ask for money when they need it.

9:37 p.m. Outcome on the amendment: The council has voted to reject Kunselman’s amendment with support only from Kunselman, Kailasapathy and Eaton.

9:39 p.m. Briere speaks in support of the resolution, saying she’ll carry the concerns she’s heard back to HHSAB. Kunselman says he won’t support this for reasons he’s already described. He noted that he’d been the one to push forward the Y lot sale and he’d also been the one to push for the sale of Library Lane lot development rights. The resolution tonight is premature. He wants the council to have concrete information instead of making “grand gestures” to appease people.

9:42 p.m. Hieftje is now unable to resist responding to Kunselman’s remarks about using public TIF (tax increment finance) dollars to support parking – saying it’s an important economic development tool. He’s giving others on the council credit for some of the good things that have happened – reacting to Kunselman’s previous remarks about his own role.

9:43 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the policy on designating proceeds from sale of development rights on the Library Lane lot. Voting for it were Taylor, Teall, Warpehoski, Hieftje, Kailasapathy, Briere and Petersen. Anglin was absent. Kunselman, Lumm and Eaton voted against it.

9:43 p.m. DC-2 Remove funding for Larcom reskin. This is a proposal to recommend to the planning commission that the capital improvements plan (CIP) for FY 2017 and FY 2018 be revised to remove the $4.4 million that is included for a city hall reskinning project. The council postponed this item from its May 19, 2014 meeting. According to a staff memo written in response to a councilmember question, reskinning of the Larcom City Hall building would mean replacing the existing exterior walls and windows of the building. The result would be new squared-off exterior, eliminating the inverted pyramid design. The new exterior would hang vertically from the sixth floor. [For additional background, see City Hall Reskinning above.]

9:45 p.m. Lumm is reading aloud a prepared statement about other capital needs in the city. She describes the reskin of the Larcom building as being something that “might be nice” and expresses skepticism that the energy savings would translate to a positive business case.

9:48 p.m. Briere says that she has a bureaucratic problem with the resolution: The council can remove the funding, but the planning commission approves the content. The resolution asks the planning commission to remove the funding. So she had to ask what would happen if the planning commission removed the Larcom reskin from the CIP. Briere wants to remove the reference to the $4.4 million, but Petersen says that it’s merely an adjectival modifier of the project.

9:50 p.m. Petersen says that the council isn’t voting on the bureaucratic issue – and she’s going to support this resolution. She’s urging the council to explore the energy improvements. Hieftje says that he’ll support this resolution, because the city doesn’t have $4.4 million lying around. He recalls efforts the city had made to find federal dollars for the energy improvements.

9:52 p.m. Kailasapathy says that she doesn’t believe that there’s “free money” even if it comes from the federal or state government, because it’s all taxpayer money. She wants the cosmetic components of the project removed. “I just want to see this gone,” she says.

9:53 p.m. Teall won’t support this tonight. Energy efficiency is and should be a priority, she says. She recognizes that she’s fighting a losing battle. She’s concerned not just about the windows, but also about the insulation in the walls. Having the project in the CIP doesn’t mean we’re spending the money, Teall notes. She’s citing a common sentiment of Kunselman that the council shouldn’t tie the hands of future councils.

9:56 p.m. Kunselman says it’s ironic that he’d tried to fight the airport runway extension by removing it from the CIP, but he wasn’t sure he wanted to adopt that approach here. He wants to know more about the windows: Did they date from the 1960s? Powers notes that this is a project in the 2017 year of the CIP. Hupy confirms that it’s a very conceptual budget at this point. He confirms that the windows are original. Kunselman ventures that the title of the project can be changed from “reskinning” to something involving energy efficiency. He doesn’t think this resolution will do anything, but now suggests an additional resolved clause to address a title that will be more limiting in scope.

9:57 p.m. Hieftje suggests a recess to craft the language Kunselman is trying to come up with.

9:57 p.m. Recess.

10:05 p.m. Samuel McMullen, Ward 3 candidate for council, has arrived at the meeting.

10:05 p.m. We’re back.

10:09 p.m. Kunselman reads aloud the additional “resolved” clause that expresses a council desire that an energy-efficiency project be developed for city hall. Lumm is now arguing against the amendment based on skepticism that there’d be adequate payback. Kunselman allows that window replacements don’t pay back in energy savings, but it does affect the comfort for building occupants. It’s also a strain on the HVAC system, he ventures.

10:12 p.m. Kunselman says that if the building is going to be around for a few more decades, it might be worth putting in some new windows. Petersen says that she’ll support Kunselman’s amendment, characterizing it as formally asking what councilmembers have been talking about. Briere says that Kunselman’s amendment suggests a more cost-effective approach to the problems with the walls and windows. Briere notes that the building has historic status now that it is older than 50 years. She’s not particularly fond of the building, though.

10:14 p.m. Eaton says that the message to the planning commission is that the council won’t support anything that has the scope of a $4.4 million project. Teall says she’ll support the amendment, but not necessarily the main question. Hieftje reiterates his support for the main question and for the amendment as well.

10:15 p.m. Outcome on the amendment: The council has voted to approve the amendment.

10:16 p.m. Lumm is happy that it appears this will pass.

10:16 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve this resolution, over the dissent of Teall.

10:16 p.m. DC-3 Approve a five-year partnership agreement with Community Action Network for Operation of Bryant and Northside community centers. This is proposal for a five-year partnership between the city and the nonprofit Community Action Network. The partnership was recommended for approval by the Ann Arbor park advisory commission at its May 20, 2014 meeting. [For additional background, see Partnership with Community Action Network above.]

10:18 p.m. Taylor is reviewing the resolution. [Taylor is a council appointee to the park advisory commission.] Taylor says that CAN is uniquely qualified to provide this service. He encourages support of the resolution.

10:18 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the operating agreement with CAN for Northside and Bryant community centers.

10:18 p.m. DC-4 Approve application to MEDC for extension of LDFA term. This resolution would support the LDFA’s application to the MEDC for an extension of its current 15-year term, ending in 2018. The length of the extension would be for at least five years, and possibly as long as 15 years. [For additional background, see LDFA Extension above.]

10:21 p.m. Petersen is reviewing some points in a letter from the LDFA board to the council. First is that LDFA SmartZones are enabled by state statute. Second is that the LDFA has had its contract with SPARK audited. SPARK’s financials are now on SPARK’s website, she says. She notes that the LDFA has heard the council’s interest in high-speed telecommunications networks.

10:22 p.m. Carrie Leahy, chair of the LDFA board, has come to the podium to answer questions. She tells Lumm that the most serious conversations about who might be the satellite are Adrian and Brighton. She says that Flint is no longer on the table. She’s explaining that a satellite LDFA would set up its own TIF capture.

10:24 p.m. Lumm wants to know what the impact would be on the Ann Arbor Ypsi SmartZone. Leahy says the Ann Arbor Ypsi SmartZone funds wouldn’t be spent outside of Ann Arbor and Ypsi.

10:27 p.m. Hieftje ventures that Lumm is raising a good question: Why does the MEDC want to do this? SPARK CEO Paul Krutko says that MEDC worked with the legislature to see how to allow the LDFA program to continue. Currently there are 15 SmartZones, each with an opportunity to extend for five years. Three of the 15 have the chance to extend for 15 years. One of the three is already decided – Marquette. There’s a deadline set by the state, Krutko says, of June 30 and Sept. 30. The effort reflects the state’s emphasis on regional cooperation.

10:29 p.m. Leahy stresses that tonight’s resolution is just the first step. The application will then go to the MEDC. Then it will come back to the council. Krutko says that the LDFA wanted to come to the council early, because the other communities have a lot of steps to complete. Both of the communities still on the table are very interested, Krutko says.

10:32 p.m. Kailasapathy is returning to the topic of “windfall” gains that the LDFA had realized due to increased valuation in the TIF district. She’d proposed a budget amendment on May 19, when the council adopted next year’s budget, that would have reserved some of that windfall for construction of a high-speed telecommunications network. That amendment hadn’t succeeded. Kailasapathy wants to know if the LDFA can provide audited job creation numbers.

10:34 p.m. Leahy tells Kailasapathy that the LDFA has heard the council’s interest in infrastructure improvements and has begun to reach out to other communities and the MEDC to get more information about that.

10:35 p.m. Leahy says that the LDFA does not ask an independent party to verify the job creation numbers in an audit. “Why don’t you just do it?” Kailasapathy asks. Leahy says that the LDFA board has not had a meeting since the last council meeting.

10:37 p.m. Eaton is getting clarification from Leahy about the council’s options for denying an extension in the future. It sounds like the council could opt to extend only for five years, even if the MEDC approved an extension for 15 years.

10:38 p.m. Lumm says she doesn’t see any justification not to apply, because it would mean sending money elsewhere in the state.

10:42 p.m. Hieftje says he’s fully in support of this. He says that the city is interested in the best performance it can get out of Ann Arbor SPARK. Hieftje says that if the LDFA were to cease to exist, it would have no impact on the School Aid Fund.

Taylor is delighted to support this resolution. Both Ann Arbor SPARK and the LDFA do an excellent job, he says. About the drive for metrics, he says it’s the council’s obligation to oversee the money that is spent. It’s important to note, he says, that job creation statistics are not a science. It’s multivariable, he says.

10:46 p.m. Kunselman says he’s sitting on the fence. He doesn’t understand why the five-year extension is being discussed now five years ahead of the expiration of the LDFA. Kunselman expresses skepticism about the state’s reimbursement of the School Aid Fund, saying that the state has consistently underfunded the School Aid Fund. Powers quips that CFO Tom Crawford can’t speak for the governor except for the fact he’s not wearing a tie. Krutko corrects Kunselman’s understanding – pointing out that we’re only three years away from the expiration of the current LDFA.

10:47 p.m. Crawford is clarifying for Kunselman how the state reimburses the School Aid Fund.

10:47 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to support the LDFA’s application for the extension of its term, over dissent from Kailasapathy.

10:47 p.m. DC-5 Approve Bravo Brio Restaurant Group Inc. for a new Resort Class C liquor license. The restaurant is located at 760 Briarwood Circle.

10:49 p.m. Lumm is reporting out the liquor license review committee’s work on considering these license applications.

10:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recommend approval of Bravo Brio’s application for a liquor license.

10:49 p.m. DC-6 Approve P.F. Chang’s China Bistro Inc. for a new Resort Class C liquor license. The restaurant is located at 720 Briarwood Circle.

10:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recommend approval of P.F. Chang’s application for a liquor license.

10:50 p.m. Closed Session. The council has voted to go into closed session to discuss pending litigation.

11:30 p.m. We’re back.

11:30 p.m. Recess. The council immediately takes a break.

11:36 p.m. We’re back.

11:38 p.m. DC-7 Community Events Fund Disbursements. This allocates $1,972 from the FY 2014 Community Events Fund to the African-American Downtown Festival scheduled for June 7, 2014.

11:38 p.m. Outcome: The council has unanimously approved the allocation.

11:39 p.m. DB-1 Approve 515 Oxford (Delta Gamma) site plan. This is the same project for which the zoning was given final approval earlier in the meeting.

11:39 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Delta Gamma site plan.

11:39 p.m. DB-2 Approve Ruth’s Chris Site Plan This is the site plan for a new Ruth’s Chris Steak House on Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The planning commission recommended approval at its April 1, 2014 meeting. The site plan calls for renovating the single-story building at 314 S. Fourth Ave. and putting up a 1,943-square-foot second-floor mezzanine addition over the front part of the existing building. The current structure is 8,024 square feet, and most recently housed the Dream Nite Club, which closed in 2012. The project is estimated to cost $2.2 million. [.pdf of staff report on Ruth's Chris site plan] [For additional background, see Ruth’s Chris Site Plan above.]

11:39 p.m. Outcome: Without discussion, the council has voted to approve the Ruth’s Chris site plan.

11:39 p.m. DS-1 Approve amendment No. 4 to the contract with CDM Smith Michigan Inc. for the footing drain disconnect (FDD) program. This item is an extension of a contract with CDM Smith Inc. for continued work as part of Ann Arbor’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program. It had been postponed at the council’s May 5, 2014 meeting.

In the interim, the dollar amount of the contract extension has been reduced from $748,106 to $143,440. That reflects a reduction in the scope of the work. The original May 5 resolution called for the following activities to be funded: citizen support ($36,928); FDD citizens advisory committee meetings ($24,180); information management for sump pump monitors ($93,707); developer offset mitigation (DOM) program support; ($95,213); and multi-family FDD implementation ($498,005). No longer a part of the scope of work in the revised June 2 resolution are the FDD citizens advisory committee meetings, information management, or the multi-family FDD implementation. [For additional background, see FDD Program Contract Extension above.]

11:41 p.m. Eaton says he’s glad to see that the amount in the contract has been pared down. But he does not think the city should be spending money on the DOM, saying that the DOM should be funded by the developers. Residents in Ward 4 have expressed concern about the quality of work done by CDM Smith, Eaton says. When the work isn’t done right, water can freeze, he adds.

11:43 p.m. Eaton contends that about 1/3 of the houses that have had FDDs done don’t have a proper air gap in the discharge pipe. Eaton doesn’t think the city should continue to spend money to this consultant, when it should be funded by the developers, not taxpayers.

11:43 p.m. Teall says she doesn’t share the same level of distrust of the consultant that Eaton does. She allows that she’s heard from constituents who’ve had these issues. She says that the council hears a lot from only a few constituents.

11:46 p.m. Hupy is now at the podium. Teall asks him to respond to Eaton’s remarks. Hupy says there are simply not 1/3 of the houses with FDDs that don’t have proper air gaps. He says that the city is working through various complaints. Out of the nearly 600 installations the city has done, only five were frozen this past winter, he says. So the issue is not as widespread as it’s been reported, Hupy says. The city is now looking at solving the root causes of any problems, he notes.

11:48 p.m. Hupy describes what CDM Smith does: When a developer identifies a candidate for an FDD, they go in and verify that it’s a viable candidate and also verify that the work was done properly. Hupy doesn’t know why the program is set up so that the city pays for the administration of the DOM program. Hupy says that going forward, that would be an obvious aspect of the program to consider changing.

11:51 p.m. Teall asks what the impact on city staff would be if the resolution were not approved. Nick Hutchison says it would require about half the time of two full-time employees – that is, one FTE. And some workloads would need to be moved around. Summer road projects would need to be managed with outside resources, he says. Teall characterizes the situation as substituting different consultancies for the consultancy with CDM Smith. Teall says she’ll support the resolution. She’s dismayed by some of the communication that the council has been receiving from some people. There hasn’t been a balance from other members of the citizens advisory committee, she says.

11:53 p.m. Eaton says that his 1/3 figure was based on the results of a survey done by the committee – Question 18. Hupy says that residents who reported that don’t understand what they’re looking at. Hupy adds that when the city inspects those situations, they don’t find 1/3 with inadequate air gaps.

11:55 p.m. Back and forth between Eaton and Hupy ensues. Eaton ventures that the survey documents a great deal of dissatisfaction. Hupy says that a question about whether you’d recommend the procedure to a neighbor had a 70% positive response.

11:57 p.m. Warpehoski says he understands and hears the concerns. He’s also a satisfied participant in the DOM program, he says. For him, it had worked well – as part of a basement renovation program. CDM Smith had answered his questions and worked with his general contractor. Warpehoski says that the council has approved site plans that have development agreements requiring FDDs, so he thinks the council needs to approve this resolution.

11:59 p.m. Lumm thanks Eaton for his work on this issue. She’s glad to see the reduced amount in the contract. The recommendation from the committee won’t be coming back until the fall, she notes. She doesn’t think it makes sense to stop all the development projects that are currently in process.

12:01 a.m. Kunselman gets confirmation that the DOM program is voluntary from the point of view of the homeowner.

12:03 a.m. Kunselman asks if there are houses in the queue for the DOM. Yes, about 13. But there are about 350 that are on the books as required. About 150-160 are at some point in the process. Kunselman asks if anyone who is paying $100 a month instead of doing an FDD. Yes, there are two.

12:04 a.m. Hieftje says he appreciates the light that Eaton’s work has shone on the issue. But the consequences of not approving this resolution would be onerous, he says.

12:06 a.m. Briere notes that the DOM program does not mandate FDDs, but rather that the flow mitigate in some way. Hupy confirms that. She wants to know if the city encourages alternatives to FDDs. Hupy says that the city reviews any ideas that developers have. He cites how some developers own enough fixtures that they can reduce flow in those and achieve the needed offset – e.g., Ann Arbor Public Schools and University of Michigan.

12:07 a.m. Briere asks if there’d be a benefit to having developers pay cash in lieu. Hupy isn’t sure.

12:08 a.m. Briere notes that some alternatives will need to be found, because there’s only a finite number of footing drains. Hupy agrees that there will be a point of diminishing returns.

12:09 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the CDM Smith contract for FDD work, over dissent from Eaton and Kailasapathy.

12:09 a.m. DS-2 Resolution No. 2 for special assessment district for Stone School Road reconstruction project. As part of a road reconstruction project for Stone School Road, the city is planning to install a sidewalk on the west side of the road. To fund the sidewalk construction, part of the cost will come from a special assessment of property owners. This resolution sets the roll of properties to be special assessed. [For additional background, see Stone School Road Sidewalk Special Assessment above.]

12:10 a.m. Kunselman says he’s very excited that this project is moving forward. He’s also excited that about 80% of the cost of the special assessment is being covered by public dollars.

12:10 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set the assessment roll for the Stone School sidewalk special assessment.

12:10 a.m. DS-3 Approve contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff Michigan Inc. South State Street transportation corridor study. This item would approve a $299,911 contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff Michigan Inc. to conduct a study of the South State Street transportation corridor. The 1.3 mile long area of the study extends from the intersection of Ellsworth Road and South State Street north to the intersection of Oakbrook Drive and South State Street. [For additional background, see State Street Transportation Corridor Study above.]

12:10 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff for the State Street transportation corridor study.

12:10 a.m. DS-4 Adopt the City of Ann Arbor urban and community forest management plan. This item would adopt the first comprehensive plan for managing Ann Arbor’s urban forest. The Ann Arbor park advisory commission recommended adoption of the plan at its meeting on April 15, 2014. [.pdf of Urban & Community Forest Management Plan] [For additional background, see Urban Forest above.]

12:12 a.m. Lumm says that it represents a huge amount of work. She’s thanking those who were responsible for its development. She says she agrees that the urban forest is a defining and highly-valued characteristic of the community.

12:14 a.m. Taylor says that the plan was presented to the park advisory commission a while ago. [He's a council appointee to the PAC.] PAC was extremely impressed with the plan, he says.

12:14 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to adopt the urban forestry plan.

12:14 a.m. DS-5 Accept a Fair Food Network grant for the Ann Arbor Farmer’s Market. This item would approve an agreement with the Fair Food Network to continue administering the Double Up Food Bucks program at the Ann Arbor farmer’s market. Approval would entail acceptance of $32,000 in funding. [For additional background, see Grant to Farmers Market for Food Stamp Recipients above.]

12:14 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to accept the Fair Food Network grant.

12:15 a.m. DS-6 Amend Ann Arbor City budget for fiscal year 2014. This resolution would amend the current fiscal year’s budget (FY 2014) to ensure that expenditures do not exceed appropriated amounts. The budget amendment will ensure compliance with Public Act 621 of 1978. The total requested general fund budget amendment is $60,000. For all other funds, the amendment to be considered by the council on June 2 totals $310,000. [For additional background, see Amend Current Year's Budget above.]

12:15 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to amend the FY 2014 budget.

12:15 a.m. Communications from council. Teall notes that Cinetopia is starting. It runs from June 4-8 at the Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor and also in Detroit.

12:16 a.m. Hieftje notes that the Ozone House celebrated its 45th anniversary, and there was a recent celebration for the 50th anniversary of the city’s Elizabeth Dean trust fund.

12:16 a.m. Clerk’s report. Outcome: The clerk’s report has been received.

12:16 a.m. Public comment. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:18 a.m. Thomas Partridge salutes the council for passing the resolution on the distribution of proceeds from the sale of development rights for the Library Lot. It would have been better to have dedicated 100% of the money to affordable housing instead of 50%, he adds. Partridge says we need a new governor. He calls for the election of Democrat Mark Schauer.

12:22 a.m. Mark Koroi says he’s here to address the “debacle” that had occurred in the Bob Dascola lawsuit. The judge had excoriated the city in his opinion, and the city would now be paying tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees, he notes. Koroi says that Jack Eaton has stated publicly that the council had not given authorization for the city attorney’s action, so who did? Koroi says he’s endorsing McMullen in the race, but felt that Dascola should not have been denied access to the ballot.

12:25 a.m. Caleb Poirier is addressing the council on the challenge of dealing with the homeless population and those who are living under bridges. There are some unmet needs: toileting and trash removal. It’s the desire of his nonprofit to deal with the trash. He has a two-part request – to get trash into city dumpsters and to keep fecal matter out of the river. So he’d support port-a-potties at those locations.

12:28 a.m. Elizabeth Kurtz says she’s presentable because she just got her hair cut. Having lived on the streets for about 14 months, she’d been able to get into temporary housing. Generally she has little access to laundry and bathing facilities, she says. Despite the council’s resolution tonight, there’s little attention to immediate needs, she says. She describes herself as living a Third World existence. She was part of a Detroit Public Schools layoff – up until then, she was part of the middle class. We’ve got to get our priorities straight, she says.

12:31 a.m. Judy Bonnell-Wenzel is lamenting the fact that a friend of hers, Alan Haber, is away for the summer and is not here to speak in favor of a public commons on the Library Lot. She also says that people who have no place to sleep and unmet basic needs have no democracy. She worries about gentrification – pushing people out. She and her husband pay $527 a month for their housing, she says.

12:31 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the June 2, 2014 meeting agenda.

But the June 2 meeting agenda is dominated by items related to the physical attributes and layout of the city. Several items deal with city-owned physical assets, while several more involve land use and planning.

Possibly one of the more controversial agenda items related to physical infrastructure – and future development in the city – is a contract extension with CDM Smith Inc. for work related to the city’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program. While the city council suspended the program in certain areas of the city in 2012, it continued in other areas, backed by the city’s ordinance under which the city can require residents to disconnect their footing drains from the sanitary sewer system.

Also not suspended was the city’s developer offset mitigation program, which requires developers to offset the increased flow from new construction into the sanitary sewer system. The vote on the CDM Smith Inc. contract extension was postponed from the council’s May 5 meeting. The dollar amount of the contract extension has been substantially reduced in the meantime – from about $750,000 to $143,000.

Part of the backdrop of the CDM Smith contract extension is a lawsuit that’s been filed against the city, challenging the legal foundation of the footing drain disconnect ordinance. The city sought to remove the case from state court to the federal system, but at a hearing on the matter this week, a federal judge indicated he’d be remanding the case back to the Washtenaw County 22nd circuit court.

City assets on the June 2 agenda include trees – as the council will be asked to approve the city’s urban and community forest management plan. The council will also consider a resolution on the city’s possibly most recognizable asset – the city hall building. The resolution would remove a $4 million renovation of city hall (a “reskinning”) from the city’s capital improvements plan for 2017 and 2018. This resolution was postponed from the council’s May 19 meeting.

Another city-owned asset on the agenda is the Library Lane underground parking garage. The council has already directed the city administrator to engage a real estate broker to test the market for the development rights for the surface of the garage. The resolution on the June 2 agenda, which was postponed at the council’s April 7 meeting, would set a policy to deposit 50% of the net proceeds from the sale of the development rights into the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

Land use and planning items on the June 2 agenda include a roughly $300,000 contract for study of the State Street transportation corridor. Related to transportation infrastructure, the council will also be asked to approve resolutions that move along the process of special assessing property owners on Stone School Road for the cost of installing a sidewalk on the west side of the road in connection with a road reconstruction project.

Also related to land use, three Ann Arbor housing commission properties will be given initial consideration for rezoning. A site plan and associated rezoning for the Delta Gamma house will be given final consideration. Also up for final consideration is a revision to the ordinance regulating drive-thrus. And the site plan for a new Ruth’s Chris restaurant to be located downtown on South Fourth Avenue will be given consideration.

A rate increase for Ann Arbor water, sewer and stormwater rates is on the June 2 agenda for final approval.

Two items connected to parks and recreation appear on the agenda. One is approval of the receipt of funding for a program that helps Bridge cardholders purchase local produce at the farmers market. The second item is approval of a five-year agreement with the Community Action Network to continue operating the city’s Northside and Bryant community centers.

The council will also be considering a resolution in support of the local development finance authority’s application to the Michigan Economic Development Corp. for a possible 15-year extension of the arrangement under which the LDFA captures taxes. The captured taxes are used to fund a business accelerator that’s operated by Ann Arbor SPARK through a contract with the LDFA. Without an extension, the LDFA would end in 2018.

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

Amend Current Year’s Budget

On June 2 the council will consider a resolution amending the current fiscal year’s budget (FY 2014) to ensure that expenditures do not exceed appropriated amounts. The budget amendment will ensure compliance with Public Act 621 of 1978.

The total requested general fund budget amendment is $60,000. For all other funds, the amendment to be considered by the council on June 2 totals $310,000.

The non-general fund amount will cover right-of-way maintenance and purchase of materials that were necessary to deal with the severe winter weather. The general fund amount was the city’s cost for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority’s special election held on May 6. That amount will eventually be reimbursed by Washtenaw County – which in turn will receive reimbursement from the AAATA to cover the roughly $100,000 cost of the election.

FDD Program Contract Extension

A contract extension with CDM Smith Inc. for continued work as part of Ann Arbor’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program appears on the June 2 agenda. It had been postponed at the council’s May 5, 2014 meeting.

In the interim, the dollar amount of the contract extension has been reduced from $748,106 to $143,440. That reflects a reduction in the scope of the work. The original May 5 resolution called for the following activities to be funded: citizen support ($36,928); FDD citizens advisory committee meetings ($24,180); information management for sump pump monitors ($93,707); developer offset mitigation (DOM) program support; ($95,213); and multi-family FDD implementation ($498,005).

No longer a part of the scope of work in the revised June 2 resolution are the FDD citizens advisory committee meetings, information management, or the multi-family FDD implementation. The revised memo describes how the funding would only provide a bridge until recommendations from a study group have been received, which will determine the future of the FDD program:

This amendment would provide the services needed to bridge the gap until the SSWWE [Sanitary Sewer Wet Weather Evaluation] Project recommendations have been made. Presently, the anticipated timeline for completion of the SSWWE Project is in the autumn of 2014. That does not allow sufficient time to issue a new RFP, collect and review proposals, award a contract, and bring a new consultant up to speed to manage the remaining FDD and DOM work outlined above. Existing City staff does not currently have the available resources or expertise to perform the inspections required for the DOM program.

By way of additional background, in 2012 the city’s program to disconnect footing drains from the sanitary sewer system was suspended by the council in some areas of the city. Specifically, it was suspended in the Glen Leven and Morehead (Lansdowne neighborhood) areas. The program was allowed to continue in other geographic areas and as part of the city’s developer offset mitigation (DOM) program. The DOM requires owners of new developments to complete a certain number of FDDs to offset the additional flow in the sanitary system caused by new construction.

The CDM contract drew scrutiny at the May 5 meeting because the city is currently undertaking a sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation (SSWWE) study. It’s supposed to yield a recommendation about whether to continue with the FDD program, and if so, in what form. In addition, the city’s ordinance – which requires property owners to undertake FDDs – was challenged in a lawsuit filed earlier this year. That case is pending as the city first removed the case from state to federal court. But the result of a May 28 hearing before a federal judge will be to return the case to the Washtenaw County 22nd circuit court.

The previous three iterations of the CDM contract totaled  about $3.6 million. The money for these contracts is drawn from the city’s sewer fund.

The proposed contract extension drew criticism during public commentary on May 5 from Frank Burdick, a Ward 4 resident who urged the council to reject it. Council deliberations on this item were included as part of The Chronicle’s live updates from the May 5 meeting.

Since the FDD program’s start in 2001, about 1,834 footing drains have been disconnected through the city program and 848 footing drains have been disconnected through the developer offset mitigation program.

Animation of contrast between the pre-FDD configuration and the post-FDD configuration. (Original illustration from screenshots of YouTube video by Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, modified by The Chronicle.)

Urban Forest

The city’s first comprehensive plan for managing Ann Arbor’s urban forest will be considered at the council’s June 2 meeting. The Ann Arbor park advisory commission recommended adoption of the plan at its meeting on April 15, 2014. [.pdf of Urban & Community Forest Management Plan]

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.

Map of selected tree variety by The Chronicle from city of Ann Arbor 2009 survey. Image links to dynamic map hosted on geocommons.com

PAC had been briefed on the 135-page Urban & Community Forest Management Plan at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting by Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest & natural resources planning coordinator. The management plan includes 17 recommendations, listed in priority based on community feedback for implementation. Each of the 17 recommendations includes action tasks and implementation ideas, case studies, and resources that are needed, including funding. The recommendations are:

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.

City Hall Reskinning

At its June 2 meeting, the council will consider a proposal to recommend to the planning commission that the capital improvements plan (CIP) for FY 2017 and FY 2018 be revised to remove the $4.4 million that is included for a city hall reskinning project. The planning commission is the body that approves the CIP. But the council has budgetary discretion to fund projects in the CIP or not – so the resolution in some sense calls on the planning commission to take an action it does not have the authority to execute. This was a point made during deliberations at the council’s May 19, 2014 meeting when the item was postponed.

According to a staff memo written in response to a councilmember question, reskinning of the Larcom City Hall building would mean replacing the existing exterior walls and windows of the building. The result would be new squared-off exterior, eliminating the inverted pyramid design. The new exterior would hang vertically from the sixth floor.

The focus of the project is on improving energy efficiency. The memo describes existing windows as mostly single-pane glass on aluminum frames, which offer little insulation value. The project would also result in an incremental gain in square footage – because the lower floors would have the same footprint as the sixth floor, which is currently the largest floor of the building. The materials used for the exterior would “blend better” with the recently constructed Justice Center, which adjoins city hall.

Library Lot Sale Proceeds

On June 2 the city council will consider a resolution setting a policy for distribution of the proceeds from the sale of development rights on the Library Lot. The proposed policy would set aside 50% of the net proceeds to the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

The council has already directed the city administrator to hire a real estate broker to explore selling the rights to develop the site – above the Library Lane underground parking structure, which was completed in 2012.

The item was postponed at the council’s April 7, 2014 meeting. The vote was 6-5 to postpone, with dissent from Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), and mayor John Hieftje.

State Street Transportation Corridor Study

The June 2 agenda includes a resolution for a $299,911 contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff Michigan Inc. to conduct a study of the South State Street transportation corridor. The 1.3 mile long area of the study extends from the intersection of Ellsworth Road and South State Street north to the intersection of Oakbrook Drive and South State Street. The money to pay for the study will be drawn in equal parts from the current fiscal year and next year’s general capital fund budget. The study will take a year, starting in June 2014.

The goal of the study is focused on transportation needs in the corridor and to provide base conceptual engineering plans for the redesign of the corridor – possibly including a boulevard “Complete Street” design. The redesign would be intended to “address all modes of travel; enhance vehicle flow; improve safety; create an aesthetically pleasing entrance to the City; and, utilize sustainable concepts such as low impact design (‘LID’), and low energy use lighting.”

The study of the area as a transportation corridor comes not long after a recently completed South State Street corridor plan, adopted by the city council into the city’s master plan at its July 15, 2014 meeting. That corridor plan established planning objectives for the land use along the corridor.

Besides Parsons Brinckerhoff, the other bidder for the work was DLZ.

Stone School Road Sidewalk Special Assessment

As part of a road reconstruction project for Stone School Road, the city is planning to install a sidewalk on the west side of the road. To fund the sidewalk construction, part of the cost will come from a special assessment of property owners. The extent of the project on Stone School Road runs from I-94 to Ellsworth Road. Construction is planned for the project during the 2014 and 2015 construction seasons.

The project is being funded in part through a federal surface transportation grant, which can pay about 80% of construction costs, but not engineering, testing or inspection costs. The total project cost is roughly $128,500, of which about $55,000 will be special assessed.

The council will be asked to approve a resolution directing the city assessor to set the roll of properties to be assessed.

Rezoning: Housing Commission Properties

At its June 2 meeting, the city council will consider giving initial approval to the rezoning of three Ann Arbor Housing Commission properties. The planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The current PL (public land) zoning for some of the properties is a vestige of the AAHC properties’ status as city-owned land. The city council approved the transfer of deeds to the AAHC at its June 2, 2013 meeting. The three sites to be considered on June 2 are part of the housing commission’s major initiative to upgrade the city’s public housing units by seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

Rezoning is recommended for the following public housing sites, two of which are currently zoned as public land:

• Baker Commons: Rezone public land to D2 (downtown interface). The 0.94-acre lot is located at 106 Packard Street, at the intersection with South Main, in Ward 5. It includes a 64-unit apartment building.
• Green/Baxter Court Apartments: Rezone public land to R4A (multi-family dwelling district). The 2-acre site is located at 1701-1747 Green Road and contains 23 apartments in four buildings and a community center. It’s in Ward 2.
• Maple Meadows: Currently zoned R1C (single-family dwelling district), the recommendation is to rezone it as R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site is 3.4 acres at 800-890 South Maple Road and contains 29 apartments in five buildings and a community center. It’s located in Ward 5.

At the planning commission’s May 6 meeting, AAHC director Jennifer Hall explained that PL zoning doesn’t allow housing to be built on it. As AAHC seeks private funding to rehab its properties, it needs to ensure if a building burns down, for example, it could be rebuilt. In general that’s why the rezoning is being requested. It’s also being requested to align the zoning with the current uses of the property. She stressed that the highest priority properties to be rezoned are Baker Commons, Green/Baxter and Maple Meadows, because investors have already been found to renovate those sites.

For these three sites, planning commissioners also voted to waive the area plan requirements for the AAHC rezoning petitions, because no new construction is proposed and surveys of the improvements have been provided.

For additional background on the AAHC process of renovating its properties, see Chronicle coverage: “Public Housing Conversion Takes Next Step.”

Delta Gamma Site Plan, Rezoning

The city council will be asked on June 2 to give final approval of a rezoning request for 515 Oxford, to convert a house for use as an annex to the Delta Gamma sorority. The main sorority house is located nearby at 626 Oxford. The council gave initial approval to the rezoning at its May 5, 2014 meeting. Also on the June 2 agenda is consideration of the site plan approval for the same project. The site plan was recommended for approval by planning commissioners on April 15, 2014.

Aerial view showing the location of 515 Oxford, south of Geddes and at the eastern end of South University.

The rezoning request, recommended by the planning commission on Jan. 23, 2014, is to rezone the parcel from R4A (multi-family dwelling) to R2B (two-family dwelling and student housing). Most of the surrounding parcels are zoned R2B, although the site immediately to the north is also zoned R4A. Also nearby is public land (PL) where the University of Michigan’s Oxford Houses complex is located.

The two-story house at 515 Oxford includes two one-story wings. It is currently a rental property with three units – a studio apartment, one-bedroom apartment, and four-bedroom apartment – and a maximum occupancy of 8 people. One of the units is in a former garage.

The proposal for a renovation would accommodate a maximum of 20 residents, including a required resident manager.

The building is notable because it was originally designed in 1940 by architect George Brigham, who used it as his home and architectural studio. He designed over 40 houses in Ann Arbor, including many in Arbor Hills and Barton Hills between 1936 and 1958.

Drive-Thru Ordinance: Final Approval

On the city council’s June 2 agenda is final approval of amendments to Ann Arbor’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus. Initial approval came at the council’s May 5 meeting. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code.

The proposed revisions define a drive-thru in this way: “Any building or structure, or portion thereof, that is constructed or operated for the purpose of providing goods or services to customers who remain in their vehicle during the course of the transaction.” The revisions also clarify that a drive-thru is an accessory use, not the principle use of the building. A project in which a drive-thru would be the principle use would not be allowed. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance.

In addition, the changes would require drive-thrus to obtain special exception use permits, which would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Drive-thrus would not be allowed in the C1, D1, D2, and other commercial districts.

Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

When considering whether to grant a special exception use – which does not require additional city council approval – the planning commission considers these issues:

1. Is the location, size and character of the proposed use compatible with the principal uses of the district and adjacent districts? Is it consistent with the Master Plan? Is it consistent with the surrounding area? Will it have any detrimental effects to the use or value of surrounding area, or the natural environment?

2. Is the location, size, character, layout, access and traffic generated by the use hazardous or inconvenient or conflicting with the normal traffic of the neighborhood? Is off-street parking safe for pedestrians? Do the necessary vehicular turning movements block normal traffic flow? Are any additional public services or facilities needed by the use, and will they be detrimental to the community?

3. Is the maximum density and minimum required open space at least equal to the standards normally required by the Zoning Ordinance for the district?

The planning commission recommended the changes at its April 1, 2014 meeting.

The proposed amendments were first reviewed by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee in 2007, but never moved forward to the full commission for consideration. The ORC most recently reviewed these changes in March of 2014. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed amendments]

Ruth’s Chris Site Plan

The site plan for a new Ruth’s Chris Steak House on Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor is on the June 2 agenda for consideration. The planning commission recommended approval at its April 1, 2014 meeting.

Proposed facade of Ruth’s Chris Steak House at 314 S. Fourth Ave.

The site plan calls for renovating the single-story building at 314 S. Fourth Ave. and putting up a 1,943-square-foot second-floor mezzanine addition over the front part of the existing building. The current structure is 8,024 square feet, and most recently housed the Dream Nite Club, which closed in 2012. The project is estimated to cost $2.2 million. [.pdf of staff report on Ruth's Chris site plan]

Part of the planning commission’s discussion focused on whether there might be outdoor dining in front of the restaurant. The project’s architect indicated that at this point, outdoor seating wouldn’t be appropriate, in part because of bus traffic. The building is located near the Blake Transit Center, a hub for public transportation. The architect also indicated that the restaurant will be using valet parking, with valets positioned in front of the building.

This would be the first Ruth’s Chris Steak House in Ann Arbor. The chain is based in Florida, with locations nationwide.

Utility Rates

The council will consider giving final approval to higher utility rates – for water, sewer and stormwater. Initial approval came at the council’s May 19 meeting.

Water rates will increase across all tiers of consumption. For the first 7 “units” of water, the charge is will increase from $1.35 to $1.40. For the next 21 units, the charge is proposed to increase from $2.85 to $2.96 per unit. And for the 17 units after that, the increase is proposed to be from $4.88 to $5.08. A unit is 100 cubic feet, which is 748 gallons.

Sewer rates will increase from $3.65 to $3.85 per unit. And stormwater fees would increase for all tiers of impervious service. For the middle tier – for more than 2,187 square feet but less than or equal to 4,175 square feet – on a quarterly basis, the increase would be from $24.85 to $26.32.

According to the staff memo accompanying this agenda item, the recommended rate changes in water, sewer, and stormwater would increase revenues to the water, sewer, and stormwater funds by $765,119, $1,171,931 and $410,235 respectively. The reason given for the rate increases is to cover maintenance and debt payments, and to maintain funding for capital improvement requirements. The city calculates the impact to be an additional $6.25 per quarter or $24.98 per year for an average consumer, which is a net increase of 4.2%.

Water consumption for a typical single family is assumed at 19 units per quarter.

History of city of Ann Arbor water rates. The city converted to a tiered system 10 years ago in 2004, based on usage. The 2015 amount is proposed.

Grant to Farmers Market for Food Stamp Recipients

At its June 2 meeting, the city council will consider approval of an agreement with the Fair Food Network to continue administering the Double Up Food Bucks program at the Ann Arbor farmer’s market. Approval would entail acceptance of $32,000 in funding.

The Double Up name stems from the fact that it provides a match of up to $20/person/day for people using SNAP (Bridge cards/EBT/food stamps) to purchase Michigan-grown produce at farmers markets in Michigan.

The city of Ann Arbor has received Double Up Food Bucks grant funding since 2010.

Partnership with Community Action Network

A proposal for a five-year partnership with the nonprofit Community Action Network is on the June 2 agenda. The partnership was recommended for approval by the Ann Arbor park advisory commission at its May 20, 2014 meeting.

The agreement would be for CAN to continue operating the city’s Bryant and Northside community centers, which the nonprofit has been managing since 2008. The proposed amount is not to exceed $130,000 annually – an increase of $25,000 from the current agreement. The higher amount is included in the FY 2015 general fund budget for parks and recreation that the city council approved on May 19. According to a staff memo, the higher amount will address increases in fixed costs and “assist in retaining quality staff that is at the core of the services that CAN provides.” [.pdf of staff memo]

The staff memo also noted that a request for proposals (RFP) was not issued for this work, because CAN has been the sole respondent to the previous two RFPs and the city is satisfied with its work.

During the May 20 PAC meeting, CAN received praise for their work from several commissioners and Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager. CAN executive director Joan Doughty and deputy director Derrick Miller were on hand to answer questions. Part of the discussion focused on CAN’s exemption from the city’s living wage requirement, which the city council granted in 2012 for a three-year period through Nov. 8, 2015. Doughty noted that the exemption was sought in part because CAN was paying a living wage to part-time employees who were high school or university students, which limited the nonprofit from paying higher wages to full-time workers. She also pointed out that the city parks and recreation unit isn’t required to pay the living wage to its seasonal workers.

LDFA Extension

On the council’s June 2 agenda is an item that would express city council support of the local development finance authority’s application to the Michigan Economic Development Corp. to extend the life of the tax capture arrangement for up to 15 years. Without an extension, the LDFA would end in 2018.

Ann Arbor’s local development finance authority is funded through a tax increment finance (TIF) district, as a “certified technology park” described under Act 281 of 1986. The Michigan Economic Development Corp. (MEDC) solicited proposals for that designation back in 2000. The Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti “technology park” is one of 11 across the state of Michigan, which are branded by the MEDC as “SmartZones.”

The geography of the LDFA’s TIF district – in which taxes are captured from another taxing jurisdiction – is the union of the TIF districts for the Ann Arbor and the Ypsilanti downtown development authorities (DDAs). It’s worth noting that the Ypsilanti portion of the LDFA’s TIF district does not generate any actual tax capture.

The LDFA captures Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) operating millage, but those captured taxes don’t diminish the school’s budget. That’s because in Michigan, local schools levy a millage, but the proceeds are not used directly by local districts. Rather, proceeds are first forwarded to the state of Michigan’s School Aid Fund, for redistribution among school districts statewide. That redistribution is based on a per-pupil formula as determined on a specified “count day.” And the state reimburses the School Aid Fund for the taxes captured by SmartZones throughout the state.

In FY 2013, the total amount captured by the LDFA was $1,546,577, and the current fiscal year forecast is for $2,017,835. About the same amount is forecast for FY 2015.

The extension of the LDFA is made possible by Public Act 290 of 2012, which amended the Local Development Financing Act to allow a SmartZone to capture school taxes for an additional five years or an additional 15 years. The staff memo accompanying the resolution describes the five-year extension as possible “upon approval of the MEDC President and the State Treasurer, if the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti SmartZone LDFA agrees to additional reporting requirements and the LDFA requests, and the city councils of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti approve, the amendment of the LDFA tax increment financing (TIF) plan to include regional collaboration.”

A 15-year extension is possible, according to the memo, “if, in addition to the above requirements, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, as the municipalities that created the SmartZone, enter into an agreement with another LDFA [a "Satellite SmartZone"] that did not contain a certified technology park to designate a distinct geographic area, as allowed under Section 12b of the Act…”

The council’s resolution states that if the MEDC approves the extension, the city of Ann Arbor will work with the LDFA and the city of Ypsilanti to identify another LDFA – called the “Satellite SmartZone LDFA.” The arrangement will allow the Satellite SmartZone LDFA to capture local taxes in its own distinct geographic area for the maximum 15 years allowed by statute.

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

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioners Wendy Woods, Jeremy Peters and Paras Parekh. (Photos by the writer.)

One day after the Ann Arbor city council took action related to the Library Lane site, planning commissioners made recommendations to the council about how to develop that South Fifth Avenue property. The council’s action on March 17 included asking the city administrator to hire a brokerage service to sell development rights to the Library Lane surface, on top of an underground parking structure. The council also voted, after a long debate, to designate part of the surface for an urban public park.

On March 18, the commission’s advice focused on conditions for developing the site that would garner economic benefits to the city, such as a mixed-use development that generates foot traffic, with an entry plaza or open space and a design that “creates an iconic addition to the skyline.” The recommendations drew on material in several existing documents, including the Connecting William Street report that was completed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority about a year ago.

After the vote, Sabra Briere – who serves on both the planning commission and the city council – noted that many members of council don’t believe that the Connecting William Street project was successful in its public outreach. She also said that many councilmembers “do not believe that maximizing density, scale and mass of a building on that site is in the public interest.” Briere said she hadn’t raised these issues during the commission’s deliberations because she didn’t want anyone to feel that she was trying to tell the planning commission what to do.

In separate action on March 18, commissioners passed a resolution with recommendations on uses for the Edwards Brothers site on South State Street, which the University of Michigan is acquiring. The intent is to encourage representatives from the city and UM to discuss their mutual interests in that area – weighing the university’s need to expand its facilities against the city’s interest in strengthening its tax base. Issues include the possible private development of the section that fronts South State, impact on the park-and-ride lot in that area, and the extension of Oakbrook Drive from South State to South Main, through UM property. The city council is expected to consider the same resolution at its April 7 meeting.

Further south on the State Street corridor, at the intersection with Eisenhower Parkway, a proposal to renovate the Shell station, tear down the car wash, and add a drive-thru restaurant was recommended for approval by the commission on March 18. The existing convenience store and gas station would remain open during construction. The specific drive-thru restaurant to be located there is still being negotiated, according to the owner.

Some of the discussion on this project related to upcoming ordinance revisions that the commission will consider on April 1 regulating drive-thru restaurants.

Also recommended for approval on March 18 were an expansion to an office on Collingwood near West Stadium Boulevard, and an easement related to a new Belle Tire on West Ellsworth.

Library Lane Site

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

The resolved clauses from the city council resolution passed on March 17 are:

RESOLVED, That City Council approve the reservation of the site for an urban public park of between approximately 6,500 and 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, with the northern boundary to be determined at a future date;

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.

The following night at the March 18 planning commission meeting, commissioners Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona brought forward a resolution that gave guidance to the council about the Library Lane site. It’s similar in intent to the recommendations that the commission gave to the council last year regarding the use of the former Y lot. Those recommendations were approved at the commission’s Aug. 20, 2013 meeting.

The planning commission resolution on the Library Lane structure makes recommendations about elements to include if the city sells the Library Lane development rights. [.pdf of advice resolution at start of March 18 meeting] [.pdf of advice resolution, as amended during March 18 meeting] The two resolved clauses, as amended during the March 18 meeting, are:

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

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

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

The March 18 planning commission meeting included a public hearing on this item, but no one appeared at the public hearing to speak.

Library Lane: Report from Council

At the start of the March 18 meeting, Sabra Briere – who serves on the planning commission as the representative from city council – gave an update to commissioners about council action. She reported that the council approved designating a section of the Library Lane site as an urban park, bordered by Fifth Avenue on the west, Library Lane on the south, and the elevator stacks on the east. The northern border isn’t defined at this point, she noted. The council resolution states that the park will be between 6,500 and 12,000 square feet.

Paras Parekh and Sabra Briere.

The council also directed the city administrator to hire a broker to put up for sale the right to partner in a condominium arrangement on the remainder of the site, Briere said, rather than an outright sale of the land. It would allow a condominium partner to build there. It’s also possible that the successful respondent will design or construct or provide security or program the park, she noted.

What’s really important in all of this, Briere said, is that the city has opened the door to having a downtown park on the Library Lane site. The park advisory commission, the city administrator and the broker will help determine the details, she added.

Diane Giannola asked whether the council resolution stated “park” or “plaza.” The resolution states that it would be an “urban public park,” Briere replied. She noted that “those people who want to define it as trees and grass would be disappointed in this location.”

Giannola then asked what language had been deleted from the original resolution. Briere explained that the council deleted language that would have added the site to the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan and that would have required it to remain a city-owned public park. That was done because the council cannot, by fiat, add something to the PROS plan, she noted – because the PROS plan is part of the city’s master plan, which the planning commission must also approve.

The other amendment during the council’s meeting changed the definition of the site’s northern boundary, Briere said.

Kirk Westphal asked whether the council resolution designated that the park would be under city ownership. Briere replied that the city “has no choice. The city is not selling the top of the underground parking structure – that’s public land.” Rather, the city is forming a condominium arrangement and allowing someone to build, she said, in the same way that the city handled the Liberty Square (Tally Hall) parking structure and the City Apartments project at First and Washington, which includes public parking.

Bonnie Bona.

Bonnie Bona asked Briere to provide insight into any sense of urgency that exists regarding the Library Lane site. Bona noted that this council resolution had come up so quickly after the city had sold the former Y lot, which is located nearby. What’s the basis for moving so quickly?

Briere noted that people who have been advocating for a park on top of the Library Lane structure have been doing that for several years. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) worked with those advocates before he became a member of council, Briere said, and he worked with them to draft the resolution. But the city isn’t willing to commit to a public park today, she added, without also discussing how to pay for the design, maintenance, capital improvements and other things. There’s an expectation among many councilmembers, Briere said, as well as among people who advise those councilmembers, that the developer will design, construct and maintain the public park, thus providing the funding for it.

So to set aside the parkland without a funding stream means that the parkland would never get built upon, Briere said. That was the rationale behind going forward with the two resolutions. She noted that potential developers will have guidelines for what can be done on the site, and where, and the council will be able to determine which of the concepts work best, in consultation with the park advisory commission.

The question is “which comes first?” Briere said. Some people felt strongly that it made no sense for a park to be designated before there’s an opportunity to develop it. Others felt that deciding to sell to a developer made no sense. “It was an interesting discussion,” she said.

Ken Clein asked whether the portion of the site designated for a park would be rezoned. Briere responded that “it doesn’t need to be rezoned. It’s public land already. All parkland is public land.” Clein said he thought some portions weren’t zoned as public land. Briere then indicated that he was right – in fact, she said, the city had zoned that site as D1, the designation that allows the maximum density of development. So it would need to be rezoned, she said. Clein pointed out that a rezoning request would first need to be reviewed by the planning commission, before going to council.

Library Lane Site: Commission Discussion

When she introduced the planning commission resolution, Bonnie Bona noted that it’s meant to offer planning advice to the city council – and that’s the planning commission’s charge.

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

She said the second “whereas” clause was important, because it refers to the council’s direction to the planning commission to review downtown zoning. Citizens have raised concerns that are not yet incorporated into the downtown zoning, she noted.

Bona pointed out that since the city put its new downtown zoning in place in 2009, the Connecting William Street plan was completed, which included lots of public input, she said. [That project, conducted by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, looked at how the city might develop five city-owned downtown properties, including the Library Lane site.]

Other factors guiding this advice are the Midtown Character Area intent statement in the zoning ordinance, the downtown design guidelines, and the recommendations for downtown parks by the city’s park advisory commission. A lot of this isn’t yet reflected in the zoning, Bona said.

The city has only a few sites that it owns where it has the opportunity to provide some ongoing economic and aesthetic impact – beyond just the minimum requirements of the zoning code, Bona noted. So she and Diane Giannola took some of the information from these sources that aligned with what the planning commission has discussed in the past, and identified those elements as priorities.

The resolution is similar to the one that the planning commission passed regarding the former Y lot, Bona said. One major difference is the recommendation to seek an “iconic design” for the Library Lane site, because there are potentially four visible sides to a development and it is more centrally located.

Sabra Briere weighed in with what she called a “nitpick.” She commented on the use of the word “iconic” twice in the same bullet point: “To seek an iconic design for this site that is visible on all four sides and that creates an iconic addition to the skyline;…”

Ken Clein and Diane Giannola.

It’s overkill, Briere said, and she recommended that one of the instances be removed. “I felt that in drafting it, you became overly enthusiastic,” she told Bona and Giannola.

Giannola said it didn’t matter to her, but noted that the same wording was used in the Connecting William Street plan.

Bona said she’d struggled with the wording. The intent is to seek a design that is meant to be viewed from all four sides. One of the issues with buildings like Zaragon West is that two sides of the building were meant to never be exposed, she noted, because the expectation is that tall buildings will be constructed next to them in the future. So Bona preferred to remove the first mention of iconic, and revise the text to reflect the viewed-from-all-sides intent.

The bullet point was revised to state: “To seek a design for this site that is meant to be visible on all four sides and that creates an iconic addition to the skyline;…”

Jeremy Peters objected to the phrase “and public” in the following “whereas” clause:

WHEREAS the City Planning Commission requests that the City Council and public recognize the sale of “Library” Lot without an RFP may result in a development that 1) does not fulfill the overarching or site-level recommendations of the Connecting William Street Framework Plan, 2) does not meet the Intent statement for the Midtown Character Overlay Zoning District in the zoning ordinance, 3) ignores the recommendations of the Design Guidelines, and 4) ignores the recommendations of the Parks Advisory Commission (PAC) Downtown Parks Subcommittee Report;

Giannola replied that the same wording was used in the planning commission’s resolution regarding the Y lot. To her, the resolution was speaking both to the council and the public – because the public will weigh in on this, she said.

Briere’s problem with this whereas clause was that it’s an action statement, using the verb “requests.” So it shouldn’t be a “whereas” clause, she said.

Kirk Westphal recommended rephrasing the clause to make it more of a background statement: “WHEREAS the City Planning Commission recognizes the sale of ‘Library’ Lot …” Bona and Giannola accepted his suggestion as a friendly amendment.

Ken Clein said the phrase “cultural venue” gave him pause in one of the bulleted points of the final resolved clause:

A “mixed use” development with a density at around 700% FAR that takes advantage of the investment in footings and the mid-block location with active uses that have a high level of transparency fronting the plaza and at least 60% of Fifth Avenue and Library Lane frontages, while encouraging large floor plate office or lodging as a primary use, residential as a secondary use, and incorporating a cultural venue.

Bona noted that the bullet point reflected the Connecting William Street study. The idea was that it seemed like this location would provide a good opportunity to incorporate a cultural venue, she said. It wasn’t a directive to include a cultural venue, she added. Clein suggested adding the word “possibly” to the phrase – “and possibly incorporating a cultural venue” – which Bona and Giannola accepted as a friendly amendment.

Eleanore Adenekan asked what the term “generous landscaping” meant in one of the bullet points of the final resolved clause. Bona replied that “you pick a word that helps get the point across.” Bona didn’t think anyone wanted to put a percentage on the amount of landscaping a site should have. Bona was comfortable with the term “generous” because it conveyed the intent that landscaping should be noticeable, not just a couple of trees. If the resolution became too specific, Bona cautioned, “we could create unintended consequences.” Council can decide whether they want to be vague and use the power of suggestion, or if they want to be more specific, she said.

Jeremy Peters.

Wendy Woods wondered about the recommendation to use an RFP/RFQ process, pointing out that the council has already given direction to use a brokerage service – as the city did with the former Y lot. She noted that Briere had indicated the city was going to use a condominium arrangement on the site.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, noted that the issue of a condominium arrangement was brought up at the council meeting because there seemed to be some misunderstanding about how the financial arrangement would work. She indicated that the planning commission resolution might not need that level of detail.

Westphal asked Rampson to comment on the difference between an RFP/RFQ process and what occurred at the former Y lot, when the city hired a broker to find a buyer. Rampson replied that with a broker, there would still be proposals that describe what the developer would do with the site. That would be available to the public at some point, she said. An RFP/RFQ process would “bake in” additional public process, she noted. Typically a committee is formed to review the proposals, and give recommendations about the proposal that would best meet the criteria of the RFP.

Briere said that the council felt the process of hiring a broker for the former Y lot had been very successful. It was easier and more straightforward, and resulted in a variety of different proposals, she noted. They’d seen that previous RFP attempts by the city had not been successful, she added, and that experience has influenced whether the council decides to do an RFP.

Giannola thought that the resolution passed by the planning commission about the Y lot had an indirect effect, because a lot of what the commissioners had wanted was incorporated into the proposals that the city received. So even though the council isn’t likely to issue an RFP, she thought it was important for potential developers and the community to know what the planning commission would want.

Bona added that it’s not yet clear what will happen on the former Y lot. “We don’t have a building,” she said. [The agreement between the city and local hotelier Dennis Dahlmann, who has offered $5.25 million for the lot, hasn't yet closed. The current closing date is April 2.] Her caution comes from the fact that the city has a downtown zoning ordinance that “doesn’t always get us what we want, because it’s words instead of a building,” Bona said.

She thought the power of suggestion might result in something that the community wants, in spite of not being a “protracted process.” Bona noted that an additional step in the RFP process is actually writing the RFP, which can take a lot of time. “So I’m not opposed to the process that the council is taking now,” she said.

Clein agreed with Briere that hiring a broker is more expedient, and he agreed with Bona that the ultimate test is whether the outcome is what the community wants. At the former Y lot, “the jury’s out on that until we see what happens,” he said.

Woods supported the resolution. She pointed to the wording of the final resolved clause: “RESOLVED that … an RFP contain some or all of the following conditions:…” Woods said the resolution makes a wonderful case for all of the conditions, so why say “some or all”? She proposed a revision to delete “some or” – adding that obviously the decision about the Library Lane site is up to the city council.

Giannola didn’t want the resolution to come across as “all or nothing.” Woods replied: “You know they’re bright enough to know that.” Giannola thought some people might think the commission was asking for too much, saying she’d be happy if most or even some of the suggestions were taken.

When Giannola said she thought it was overreaching to say “all,” Woods pointed out that it’s overreaching to even pass the resolution. She advocated against sounding “wishy-washy.” Westphal supported Woods, and at that point Giannola and Bona agreed to delete “some or” as a friendly amendment.

Westphal then called for a vote. All other commissioners voted, but Briere hesitated. Westphal called for another vote.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the resolution, as amended, regarding the Library Lane lot.

After the vote, Briere said she hesitated because the council did not embrace the Connecting William Street report. Many councilmembers do not believe that the project was successful in public outreach, she said. Personally, Briere added, she believed that some of the advice in the planning commission’s resolution is excellent. However, she said, she’ll “take it worth a grain of salt as a member of council, because of the insistence on density as a result of having made the commitment to put footings in that could hold a dense building. Many members of council that I have spoken with do not believe that maximizing density, scale and mass of a building on that site is in the public interest.”

From left: Planning manager Wendy Rampson and Sabra Briere, who serves on both the planning commission and city council.

Briere said she was making these comments after the discussion and vote because she didn’t want other commissioners to feel that she was trying to tell the planning commission what to say or think. And despite Giannola’s belief that the planning commission’s recommendations were heeded on the Y lot, Briere wasn’t sure the recommendations were “knowingly heeded.”

Giannola noted that the council had approved the Library Lane parking structure with the additional footings, and at that time the majority of councilmembers did believe that a dense building should go on that site. There might be a change in viewpoint on council now, she added, but “we’re still going on what was in the plans back then.”

As for Connecting William Street, Giannola said it involved much public input. The majority of councilmembers at that time felt the same way, she added, and it’s the newer councilmembers who haven’t supported it. “To me, just because you have a different viewpoint and you’re a new councilmember, you can’t override everything that’s happened in the past,” she said. “History to me is important.”

Briere agreed that history is important, but noted that it’s not the past councilmembers who’ll be receiving the commission’s current resolution. People change on council, she noted, and that’s “sometimes in reaction to the very things that you’re citing.”

Briere noted that some of the documents mentioned in the commission’s resolution – the downtown plan, the design guidelines, the midtown character district – give strength to the resolution. They are documents that councilmembers can and should cite when they need to, she said.

The biggest thing that people should be talking about is what it means to have a strong frontage along South Fifth Avenue, Briere said. All of the documents cited in the commission’s resolution that refer specifically to the Library Lane site have recommended putting a public plaza along the South Fifth Avenue side. But a public plaza is not a strong frontage, she said. The structure was designed to hold at least very low or moderate intensity fronting South Fifth, she noted. “I don’t know how to reconcile those things,” Briere concluded.

Edwards Brothers Site

Planning commissioners also considered a resolution regarding the former Edwards Brothers Malloy property at 2500-2550 South State Street. The resolution recommended that the University of Michigan collaborate with the city of Ann Arbor regarding the future development of the site, immediately adjacent to existing UM athletic facilities. The university is purchasing the 16.7-acre property, following the Ann Arbor city council’s decision on Feb. 24, 2014 not to exercise its right of first refusal to buy the site.

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

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

Rampson said the city has struggled with this issue for many years, in terms of understanding the university’s need to expand its facilities weighed against the city’s interest in retaining its tax base. In the case of the Edwards Brothers site, there’s the added city desire to have redevelopment there provide a catalyst for other redevelopment in the South Street corridor, she said.

The hope is that representatives from both the city and UM will get together to talk about some of these issues, Rampson said. One question is whether there’s an opportunity for economic development along that section of the corridor. If UM would agree to “carve off” part of the site into smaller parcels fronting South State, she said, that might help to activate the corridor. Another issue is the existing park-and-ride lot, which will likely be displaced by UM’s expansion. Also of concern is the Oakbrook Drive extension that’s been planned for decades, she noted. What’s missing is a way to link from South State to South Main, through UM property.

The draft resolution at the start of the meeting had one resolved clause, which stated:

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

• Exploring the creation of one or more parcels fronting South State Street to be sold for the purpose of developing complementary uses adjacent to the South Athletic Campus;
• Discussing options for the relocation of park and ride facilities as the South Athletic Campus develops; and
• Discussing the opportunities for a future pedestrian and vehicular connection between South Main Street and South State Street via the planned Oakbrook Drive extension through the South Athletic Campus site.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item.

Edwards Brothers Site: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere began the discussion by asking whether it makes sense for the resolution to address UM president Mary Sue Coleman, given that Coleman is retiring this summer. Briere suggested addressing it instead to the new president, Mark Schlissel. Jeremy Peters recommended taking out reference to any specific name, and simply address it to the regents and president.

Kirk Westphal.

Ken Clein said he could imagine that the regents and president wouldn’t want the city to suggest how they should dispose of their property. Instead of stating that the parcels fronting South State should be sold, Clein suggested recommending how those parcel should be developed. Whether those parcels are sold or leased would be a matter for the university to decide, he said.

Peters thought the reference to selling the land was intentional, because it would add to the city’s tax base if the land were in private ownership. Clein thought the resolution might get a better reception from UM if the city didn’t try to stipulate how the university should deal with the property.

Bonnie Bona thought there’d be a taxable value to having development, even if the property remained in UM ownership. That’s because it would help motivate other development on private property elsewhere in the corridor, she noted.

Paras Parekh asked about the phrase “complementary uses.” Does that refer to uses that complement the South State corridor, or that complement activities on the UM campus? Westphal interpreted it as complementing land uses that the city would like to see in that corridor.

Rampson said both interpretations are appropriate. She’d intended it to refer to uses that would complement UM’s athletic campus, but it could also relate to the corridor too, she said.

Peters advocated for leaving in a reference to the front parcels possibly being sold. It’s been brought up frequently in community discussions, he noted. Briere pointed out that a reference to selling the land is in the fifth “whereas” clause:

WHEREAS, City Council, the Planning Commission, and concerned city residents have indicated a desire for community benefit to be incorporated into The University of Michigan’s plans for development of the Edwards Brothers site, including the possibility for frontage parcels to be created and sold for private development; …

Wendy Woods said her sense is that this resolution is intended to get some kind of a conversation started, based on the city’s goals for that area. In that regard, the resolution shouldn’t be a non-starter, she said.

Further wordsmithing resulted in this revised bullet point:

• Exploring the creation of one or more parcels fronting South State Street to be developed, preferably privately, for complementary uses adjacent to the South Athletic Campus that also follow the South State Street plan recommendations;

Westphal said he expected the city council would want to make changes to the resolution. If they do, would it come back to the planning commission, given that it’s a joint resolution? Rampson indicated that bringing it back to the commission would take more time. She suggested communicating that the commission wouldn’t object to changes that the council might make.

Briere noted that the next meeting of the planning commission, on April 1, falls before the next meeting of the council, which is on April 7. So it would be possible to take another look at this resolution, she said.

There was no particular interest among commissioners in postponing the resolution. Rampson said she’s already shared a draft of resolution with UM planner Sue Gott and Jim Kosteva, the university’s director of community relations.

The resolved clause, as amended, stated:

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

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

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously passed the resolution as amended. The resolution will be forwarded to the city council, with the understanding that changes made to the resolution by the council will be supported by the planning commission without further review.

Shell Station Site Plan

The site plan for an overhaul to the Shell station and a new drive-thru restaurant at 2991 S. State was on the March 18 agenda. The site is located at the northeast corner of the East Eisenhower Parkway and South State Street.

Aerial view of the site for a Shell station and drive-thru restaurant at the northeast corner of South State and East Eisenhower.

The plan calls for demolishing the current one-story convenience store and car wash on this site, which total 2,435 square feet. In its place, the owner – Joseph Kafi of JAK Cubed LLC – would put up a single building with a 1,250-square-foot drive-thru restaurant and 3,000-square-foot convenience store. The existing gas pump island canopy will remain in place, and two pumps will be relocated to spots under the canopy.

According to a staff memo, a single lane drive-thru would be primarily accessed from the existing East Eisenhower Parkway curb cut. Vehicles would move in an east-to-north direction before exiting onto either South State or looping back south to East Eisenhower. The drive-thru lane provides stacking for up to nine vehicles and would be screened to the west by the proposed new building. A total of 22 parking spaces are proposed for the site, including eight that are located at the four gas pump islands.

A new sidewalk connection with a striped crosswalk would connect the southern building entrance to the public sidewalk along Eisenhower.

Approval was needed to modify landscaping requirements in Chapter 62 of the city code – the landscape and screening ordinance. A minimum 10-foot right-of-way buffer is required. The owner is asking that the width of the buffer be reduced to the existing 4-foot wide right-of-way landscape buffer fronting South State Street, which contains a 30-inch-high screening wall and landscaping. That would allow for continued use of the two gas pump islands on the western portion of this site. Other landscaping would be added along South State Street and East Eisenhower Parkway to screen the vehicular use area. The site is zoned C3 (fringe commercial).

The project, located in Ward 4, is estimated to cost $800,000. The business is expected to remain open during construction. The existing convenience store will then be demolished after the new building is finished. The specific restaurant to be located there is still being negotiated, according to the owner.

Planning staff recommended approval of the plan. [.pdf of staff report]

Shell Station Site Plan: Public Hearing

Brad Cousino of Terratek Design Inc., the project’s engineer, began by noting that his older brother, Ken Cousino, had spoken to commissioners earlier in the meeting about a different project – the Collingwood office building site plan (see below). Cousino said he and the owners were on hand to answer any questions.

Shell Station Site Plan: Commission Discussion – Traffic, Parking

Eleanore Adenekan wondered if traffic would be congested coming in from the Eisenhower side. City planner Chris Cheng replied that the owner had submitted a traffic study. The city’s traffic engineer had commented that the site will capture drive-by traffic – that is, traffic that is already in the area. So the project isn’t expected to increase traffic significantly, he said. Within the site, there will be space for nine vehicles to queue up in the drive-thru lane.

From left: Joseph Kafi and Brad Cousino.

Sabra Briere wondered how the drive-thru would be accessible from State Street. Cheng noted that vehicles coming in from State Street would need to loop around the site. Briere observed that it seems vehicles from State would be routed across incoming traffic from Eisenhower.

Wendy Woods noted that 8 of the site’s 22 spaces are located at the gas pumps. She wondered if those gas pump spaces would be tied up when someone wanted to buy gas and eat in the restaurant and there were no other parking spaces available. Brad Cousino said that technically, the spots at the gas pumps do qualify as parking spaces. But he wouldn’t expect people to park there while getting food from the drive-thru.

Jeremy Peters asked about the pedestrian crosswalk that goes across South State Street, near the southern entrance into the Shell site. He noted that South State is a road with higher speeds. In discussions about traffic and pedestrian access, Peters said, was there any talk about that crosswalk and traffic flow? Cousino said he didn’t see that as a high-speed area, because vehicles would be slowing down at the intersection of State and Eisenhower.

Diane Giannola said she uses this gas station frequently, because it’s in her neighborhood. She suggested that the walkway should be well-marked to indicate that it’s a pedestrian crossing, so that cars entering from Eisenhower can see it. Cousino said they could put some kind of pedestrian crossing sign there.

Ken Clein noted that the parking along the proposed building gives him pause. Vehicles would be backing out into an area where other cars would be pulling into the pumps.

Bonnie Bona pointed out that there’s a six-foot space between the building and the parking spots, but that includes a two-foot overhang from vehicles – so there would only be four feet between a vehicle’s bumper and the building. She asked planning staff to verify that there’s enough space for the walkway. She assumed that the business wouldn’t be putting items like propane tanks on the walkway. The area looks really tight, she said.

Following up on Bona’s comments, Clein suggested that the project team look at the location of the entry doors to the convenience store, to make sure they are accessible from the parking area. He didn’t think it would meet ADA requirements, but noted that it’s not in the planning commission’s purview. Cousino described the plans as not yet finalized, so the issue that Clein raised would be addressed.

Bona asked how the 22-space parking minimum had been calculated. Cheng replied that it’s calculated by taking a combination of the requirements for the restaurant and for the convenience store. Bona said she supports less parking in general, so she’s not concerned about counting the eight spaces at the pumps. In the past, the planning commission has even discussed counting the stacked spaces in the drive-thru queue, she said.

Shell Station Site Plan: Commission Discussion – Canopy, Dumpsters

Sabra Briere noted that the canopy over the gas pumps, a chevron shape, is clearly designed for three sets of pumps, but there will only be two sets. Briere said she was curious about that. Chris Cheng noted that the entire canopy covers the pumps and the walkway to the convenience store.

Ken Clein clarified with Cheng that the dumpster enclosure on the site plan is proposed, but doesn’t currently exist. Jeremy Peters wondered if the enclosure would have room for a grease dumpster, in addition to trash and recycling. Brad Cousino said that the 20-foot-wide enclosure is generous, so there might be room for a grease container.

Shell Station Site Plan: Commission Discussion – Landscaping

Regarding the landscape buffer, Bonnie Bona said she’s very supportive of maintaining the existing plants, adding that she knows how difficult it is for plants to survive in those kinds of locations. She wondered if the trees there are growing. The owner, Joseph Kafi, replied that in the six years he’s had the site, the trees appear to be growing. He’s also planted a crabapple tree and shrubs, which are doing well, he said.

Shell Station Site Plan: Commission Discussion – Drive-Thru

Wendy Woods asked what kind of drive-thru restaurant would be located there. Brad Cousino said they’re negotiating with several different chains, but it hasn’t been decided.

Wendy Woods.

Jeremy Peters wondered where signs for the restaurant would be located. Cousino replied that he wasn’t sure what the sign ordinance would require, but the signs would be visible. Peters hoped that the signs for the Shell station and the restaurant would be put on the same signpost.

Sabra Briere asked if the proposal complies with the proposed changes to the city’s zoning ordinance regarding drive-thrus. Wendy Rampson noted that the proposed changes would limit the drive-thru lane in a site’s front open space, to make sure it’s well-screened. She said this project wouldn’t be affected by the proposed amendments to the ordinance. [.pdf of proposed ordinance amendments, to be considered by the commission on April 1.]

Kirk Westphal wondered whether this kind of project would require special exception use approval, if proposed amendments to the ordinance are passed. Yes, Cheng replied, but currently drive-thru uses are permitted in C3 zoning.

Westphal asked Cheng to comment on why drive-thrus are currently allowed in this zoning district. Cheng replied that the city’s master plan does recommend commercial uses for this particular corner, with pedestrian amenities. The site plan includes a pedestrian connection from Eisenhower and six bike hoops. Rampson noted that C3 is the only zoning district that now allows drive-thrus without requiring a special exception use permit. She reported that the commission’s ordinance revisions committee is interested in putting more restrictions on this type of use because it’s not in alignment with the city’s master plan objectives.

The planning commission’s April 1 agenda includes proposed revisions to the zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to the ordinance. Drive-thrus would need special exception use permits, which would be allowed in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance.

Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use permit. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

Wendy Woods said that given the site’s location near an expressway – the I-94 exchange is located just south of this intersection – she thought the drive-thru would make sense.

Outcome: Commissioners recommended approval of the site plan and landscape modifications for the Shell station project.

Collingwood Site Plan

A proposal to expand an office building at 278-280 Collingwood was reviewed by planning commissioners on March 18.

Aerial view indicating location of 278-280 Collingwood Drive.

The site plan calls for removing the existing second floor on the east side of the office building and constructing a 2,451-square-foot second floor over the entire building for office use. A new staircase will be added at the southwest corner of the building. The second floor will overhang the first floor along the front of the building and along part of the north side.

An existing curbcut on the north side of the property will be removed. The current 22 parking spaces on the site will be reduced to 17.

Planning commissioners were also asked to approve modifications to the city’s landscaping requirements for this site. Some of the required interior landscaping – the right-of-way screening and interior landscaping island – would be in the critical root zone of two landmark trees, so the owner requested permission to move the landscaping to other parts of the site. That change is supported by the city’s urban forester.

Total construction cost for this project is estimated at $300,000. The office building is located in Ward 4. Collingwood Drive is a street off of West Stadium Boulevard, just south of West Stadium’s convergence with South Maple Road. [.pdf of staff memo]

Planning staff had recommended approval of the site plan.

Collingwood Site Plan: Public Hearing

Ken Cousino spoke during the public hearing, and noted that the project’s two owners were attending the meeting as well to answer questions.

Ken Cousino.

Collingwood Site Plan: Commission Discussion

Jeremy Peters asked for clarification about the curbcut off of Collingwood. City planner Chris Cheng explained that after the staff report was written, it was determined that there was no need to actually increase the width of the curbcut to meet the current code. The curbcut had been installed in 1978, so it would be considered an existing, non-conforming curbcut and wouldn’t be changed.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, noted that the entire area had originally been zoned for parking. It had been intended as a buffer between the commercial corridor of West Stadium Boulevard and the office district to the east. The area was rezoned from parking to office in 1965.

Peters supported removing one of the curbcuts, saying it made things easier for pedestrians. He also supported landscaping modifications so that the landmark trees would be preserved.

Bonnie Bona clarified with Cheng that the pavement currently in place for the north curbcut would be replaced with turf and landscaping.

Bona also asked if the building would require an elevator. Ken Cousino responded that it did not. Bona noted that the project is only taking about half of the allowable floor-area ratio (FAR). She said she always likes to know why a project doesn’t take full advantage of the density that’s allowed. Cousino replied that an additional floor would require that an elevator be installed.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the site plan and modifications to the city’s landscaping requirements. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Belle Tire Easement

The March 18 agenda included an easement related to a new Belle Tire at 590 W. Ellsworth.

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

Aerial view of a proposed Belle Tire site.

A 50-foot-wide right-of-way easement on the front of this site was recorded by the city as part of a previously approved land division for this parcel. That easement reduced the front setback of the Belle Tire building from 10 feet to roughly 3 feet. The minimum front setback for this site, which is zoned C3 (fringe commercial), is 10 feet.

So the property owner, who also owns the adjacent site at 3975 S. State, has proposed that the city vacate the northern 7 feet of its right-of-way easement. In exchange, the property owner has offered to convey a non-motorized use easement over the same 7 feet.

Such an easement would allow for this strip to be used by the public for future non-motorized transportation facilities, according to a staff memo. And as a non-motorized use easement, the 7-foot strip would be considered part of the required 10-foot front building setback.

The planning staff recommended approval of this proposal. No one spoke during the public hearing.

Belle Tire Easement: Commission Discussion

Ken Clein asked whether the intent is to have a future pedestrian pathway on the easement. Planner Chris Cheng, who gave the staff presentation, said there are no current plans other than the sidewalk that will be installed as part of the site plan. But if in the future there are road improvements on Ellsworth and the sidewalk must be removed, then a sidewalk or other non-motorized use could be located in the easement.

In response to another query from Clein, Cheng noted that the site plan addresses a grade change along that edge of the property by including a walkway and some steps.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of this proposal. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners, as well as two opportunities for public commentary. No one spoke during public commentary on March 18.

Communications & Commentary: Planning Commission Bylaws

Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the city council had approved some revisions to the planning commission’s bylaws – but not all of the revisions that have been recommended by planning commissioners were brought forward. The council approved the revisions that planning commissioners had passed about six months ago – at its July 16, 2013 meeting.

The changes relate to the order of agenda items, and the length of time required for special accommodations. The bylaws, as revised, call for additional lead time so that special accommodations, including a sign language interpreter, can be made for people with disabilities, when requested at least two business days in advance of a meeting. The previous bylaws specified just a one-day advance request.

Revisions that were approved by planning commissioners more recently – at their Feb. 20, 2014 meeting – have not yet been forwarded to the council. Rampson reported that assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald wanted to have some additional discussion about those revisions related to public hearings.

Wendy Woods wondered whether the city attorney’s office would work quickly, “so that we aren’t waiting a long time.” Rampson replied that she asked McDonald to draft language that he would find acceptable, and that could be forwarded to the commissioners for consideration. She said she’d communicate with him that commissioners would like to see that as quickly as possible.

One revision clarifies the limitations on a city councilmember’s interaction with the commission. The revised section states: “A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission during the Councilmember’s term in office.” The intent is to prevent undue influence on the commission, and to avoid the possibility of legal action against the city.

Other revisions affect speaking turns at public hearings. The intent is to clarify how many turns the same person can speak at a public hearing, and how public hearings are continued if an item is postponed.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Ken Clein, Diane Giannola, Jeremy Peters, Paras Parekh, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Next meeting: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 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.

From left: AADL associate director Eli Neiburger, board president Prue Rosenthal, and board treasurer Jan Barney Newman.

On a 6-1 vote, the board asked the council to reject designating a portion of that city-owned site – which is adjacent to the downtown library – as a public park or plaza at this time. Nancy Kaplan cast the lone dissenting vote.

In presenting the resolution, Rebecca Head noted that the library hasn’t objected to the concept of open space at the Library Lane site, as part of overall development of that city-owned property. But the AADL board resolution states that the council resolution “does not allocate the City resources needed to create a successful park, such as physical maintenance, programming, and monitoring unsafe behavior; and … the City has not been able to allocate resources for those purposes to the nearby Liberty Plaza park, Wheeler park, Sculpture plaza on North 4th Ave., or the Kerrytown plaza. …”

Several trustees weighed in to support the resolution. Barbara Murphy said she was conflicted, because she supports having a park or plaza on the Library Lane site at some point. But the council resolution seemed to be putting the cart before the horse, she said. She pointed out that the AADL board resolution is not advocating for tall buildings – but some kind of development is needed, she said.

In dissenting, Kaplan described the long history of efforts to put a public park or plaza on the Library Lane site. She didn’t want to cut off that process. Kaplan also raised the point that the library board would be asking the council to reject a resolution without knowing the exact content of that resolution – because the council could amend the resolution during its deliberations later in the evening. [The council did make a significant amendment to the part of the resolution addressing the amount of square footage.]

Board president Prue Rosenthal told Kaplan that “I don’t think we’re trying to cut off anything.” All that the AADL is asking, Rosenthal said, is that issues should first be addressed – like how the park would be used, who’ll take care of it, how the security will be handled – “so that behavior we’ve seen around the outside of the [downtown library] building will not increase in that space and spill over into our library.”

AADL director Josie Parker attended the city council meeting, which started at the same time as the library board meeting but didn’t adjourn until 1 a.m. Parker read aloud the board’s resolution to the council, and described some of the challenges that the downtown library faces with security.

The downtown library was the focus of another part of the March 17 AADL board meeting, as trustees were updated on renovations to the front entrance. Ken Van Tine, an architect from InForm Studio, answered questions about possible design revisions since a March 13 public forum. InForm will be presenting a revised design to the board’s facilities committee, before the design is brought to the full board for approval.

Trustees also received results from an EPIC-MRA survey that the library had commissioned. About 500 respondents were surveyed in mid-February. Bernie Porn – president of the Lansing-based firm – described the outcome as “a great news poll, in terms of results, and I think you all should be very, very proud.” There are a couple areas of concern, he said, “but they’re not the kinds of things that can’t be overcome.”

The library previously did a survey in early 2012, in part to gauge public support for financing a new downtown library. The board later put a bond proposal on the November 2012 ballot to fund a new downtown building, but it failed to receive a majority of votes. Since 2012, the positive job rating for AADL has increased by 7 points – from 81% in 2012 to 88% in 2014. That’s a significant increase, Porn said. The 2014 survey also showed that only 3 in 10 respondents knew that AADL is “an independent governmental body” funded by its own separate tax assessment. This is one area of concern, Porn noted, adding that it’s certainly something that’s “solvable.”

The current survey results are expected to help guide development of the library’s next strategic plan, which will be completed later this year.

On March 17, the board also passed a resolution authorizing the library director to enter into a bike share program license agreement with the nonprofit Clean Energy Coalition. The CEC is managing the new program called ArborBike, which is launching this spring. It would include a bike station on AADL’s downtown library property on South Fifth Avenue, as well as locations at other sites in downtown Ann Arbor and on the University of Michigan campus. There will be about 14 bikes at the downtown AADL station on the north side of its property.

Library Lane Park

The Ann Arbor city council’s March 17 agenda included two resolutions related to the city-owned Library Lane site, where an underground parking structure is located just north of the downtown library on South Fifth Avenue. A new resolution directed the city administrator to take steps toward possibly selling the development rights for the top of the Library Lane structure. Another council resolution, proposed from its March 3, 2014 meeting, would designate a portion of the surface of the Library Lane underground parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor for an urban park that would remain publicly owned.

It was the second council resolution that prompted action from the AADL board on March 17.

Rebecca Head, chair of the board’s communications committee, reported that the committee had met with Ann Arbor city councilmembers and the mayor “to open up the communications pathway between the Ann Arbor District Library board and city officials.” Committee members are Head, Margaret Leary and Prue Rosenthal.

Head said that each councilmember was asked about their vision for downtown development and for the future of the city-owned Library Lane surface. At the end of those meetings, she said, the committee drafted a resolution in response to the city council resolution that focuses on the Library Lane lot. [.pdf of AADL resolution] [.pdf of council resolution at the start of its March 17 council meeting]

Head introduced the resolution from the floor – it had not been included with the original board packet. [At the March 17 council meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) complained that he'd met with AADL board members, but that they had not indicated that they were contemplating passing a resolution.]

The resolved clause states:

That the AADL Board asks the Council to reject the Resolution until the entire site at 319 South Fifth Avenue receives a complete review by experts in zoning, land use, economic development, and others who can determine the highest and best use of the property; ensure the safety and security of AADL patrons; and consult with the owners and occupants of surrounding properties, downtown business owners, and other stakeholders Council may identify.

Library Lane Park: Board Discussion

Jan Barney Newman thought the resolution stated the board’s feelings very clearly and accurately regarding the aspects of development needed on that site for the safe, intelligent and productive use of the space. She supported the resolution.

AADL trustees Ed Surovell and Rebecca Head.

Barbara Murphy said she found herself somewhat conflicted, because she strongly supports the concept of some sort of open space there. But in some ways, she said, the cart is being put before the horse. The council resolution talks about creating a park there of a certain size without addressing the various issues of how it will be handled financially or in terms of security, she noted. Further, the council resolution makes a suggestion that the library be part of programming the site, she said, but there’s been no consultation about that.

Murphy supported the AADL resolution, but hoped that the council would take it in the spirit in which it’s intended – that the board is cautious about the council moving too quickly and approving something without full details.

Margaret Leary said the communications committee drafted the resolution very carefully. “We didn’t want to overstate AADL’s position,” she said. AADL never objected to the plans from 2007-2008 that showed a plaza on that site, Leary noted. The library board also reviewed the report that the city’s park advisory committee had passed in the fall of 2013 – which called for a plaza at Library Lane – and trustees didn’t object to that.

The intent when the Library Lane parking structure was built was to create a plaza in conjunction with development on that site, Leary said. The city went to the trouble of rezoning that property as D1 – rather than public land – so that a very large, tall building could be put there, she noted. The idea was to surround the plaza with buildings that would be filled with people as much of the day and night as possible, seven days a week, in order to activate the park or plaza. The park would be activated by the presence of the buildings, she said.

The second important piece of that approach is that the city wouldn’t have to pay for the park or maintain it, Leary said. The developer and owner of the buildings surrounding the park or plaza would see the advantage of having it, and it would be sized appropriately for the number of people who might use it. There would be activities planned on it “so that it would not become a lounging area for people who had no place else to go,” Leary said. Her hope is that the site will be developed as originally planned, and that it won’t be an expense for the city at all.

Murphy responded, pointing out that the AADL resolution doesn’t mention tall buildings or indicate support for that. Murphy said she agreed with Leary that the plaza or park should be activated by something, but not necessarily by tall buildings.

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

Nancy Kaplan said this resolution had caused her to do some homework. She noted that the proposal for a park or plaza on the Library Lane site has been on the city’s agenda for a long time. She pointed to a 1991 Luckenbach/Ziegelman report that looked at development of the entire block. [.pdf of Luckenbach/Ziegelman report] The report includes a concept drawing for a park or plaza on South Fifth Avenue, in addition to Liberty Plaza at Liberty and Division, she noted. Kaplan read from the report, which stated that a park or public open space should be developed on the South Fifth Avenue side: “Downtown is almost totally devoid of grass. There is no grass to sit on or eat lunch. No grass for young children to play on. No grass to provide a welcome change of ground plane from the concrete, brick and asphalt of downtown.”

Kaplan said she gives this report a lot of credibility because the authors included Carl Luckenbach, the architect who designed the AADL’s Malletts Creek branch as well as initial plans for a new downtown library. He was also the architect for the Library Lane underground parking structure, she noted.

The city’s park advisory commission report is another factor, Kaplan said. PAC’s report came about after the Connecting William Street study, when the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority stated that they “don’t do parks,” Kaplan said. So the city council asked PAC to study the issue. Kaplan said PAC’s process was very good, and included meeting with specific groups as well as the general public. PAC also did a survey, she said.

PAC’s recommendations state that “any new downtown park or open space should prioritize community preferences,” Kaplan noted. She read from the PAC report: “The Library Lot is large in size and has a central location that was ranked highest by survey and public meeting participants alike for potential park space.” She said PAC acknowledged that programming and maintenance would be needed.

Finally, Kaplan pointed out that the AADL board isn’t at the city council meeting, “so we do not know precisely what will be proposed, how it will be modified, whether it will be voted up or down or postponed.” There are two council resolutions that are on the agenda that night, she noted – to designate an urban park location, and to use a broker to sell the property. The library board doesn’t know how deed restrictions or premiums might be used to get commitments that would benefit both the park and the developer, she said.

Those people who support a park on the site want it to be successful and safe, Kaplan said. “I think it is not necessary to cut off all that has been done to study the Library Lot.” Rather, the process should continue with participation from all the property owners and the community, she said. Kaplan concluded by saying she wouldn’t support the resolution.

Prue Rosenthal responded, saying “I don’t think we’re trying to cut off anything.” All that the AADL is asking, she said, is that issues should first be addressed – like how the park would be used, who’ll take care of it, how the security will be handled “so that behavior we’ve seen around the outside of the [downtown library] building will not increase in that space and spill over into our library.” Rosenthal thought the council resolution actually cuts off the possibility of making the most out of that site.

From left: AADL trustees Margaret Leary and Nancy Kaplan.

Kaplan said the council resolution merely designates the space as a park. The community has supported that, she said – even architects and engineers. She noted that the resolution being brought forward by councilmember Stephen Kunselman would direct the city administrator to hire a broker to start the process of developing that site.

Head told Kaplan that she appreciated the history Kaplan had highlighted – “in particular the report from 23 years ago, though I have to say that a lot has changed in Ann Arbor in 23 years, including the use of Liberty Plaza.” Head was very concerned about what happens in Liberty Plaza, saying she knows it’s not a sustainable park. The whole point of the AADL resolution is that “we are for parks,” Head said. Although it’s the city council’s business, “it has a huge effect on the downtown library.” So the AADL resolution asks that the city do its homework first, she said, “and then let’s have a park – that would be great.”

If there’s a park at the Library Lane site, Head said she wanted it to last. “I don’t want it to be a park that isn’t used, that has problems, that is not sustainable. I want a sustainable park that we can all use.”

Murphy said Kaplan had brought up an interesting point about the uncertainty of the council’s action – because it’s not clear what the council resolution will ultimately be. She wondered if the AADL resolution should be amended, asking the council to exercise extreme caution in moving forward until the entire site receives a complete review. That might be a way of letting the council know how concerned the library board is, without opposing a specific council resolution, she said.

Newman noted that the council resolution called for a park along the entire western edge of the Library Lane site, along South Fifth Avenue. She said she’s read opinions from planners and architects who say that would be a detriment to any other development on the site.

In fact, the council resolution was amended later in the evening on March 17. Council deliberations highlighted the question of whether the public area would take up the entire Fifth Avenue frontage. The idea of a cantilevered building over the northwest corner of the site was championed by Kunselman as one approach. The city council’s key resolved clause, as adopted at the Mach 17 states:

Resolved, That City Council approve the reservation of the site for an urban public park of between approximately 6,500 and 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, with the northern boundary to be determined at a future date;

Newman said the mayor had made a very interesting proposal of connected green areas on city properties, “which would give a lot of opportunity for gathering and meeting in a public grassy area in a number of locations,” she said. [Mayor John Hieftje made that presentation at the council's March 3, 2014 meeting.] As long as those proposals are being considered, Newman added, it’s really premature to designate the Library Lane site as a park. The library is interested in careful planning of a permanent public space.

At this point, Leary called the question – a procedural move to end debate and force a vote.

Outcome: On a 6-1 vote, the board passed a resolution opposing the city council resolution about designating a portion of the Library Lane site as a park. Nancy Kaplan dissented.

Library Lane Park: City Council Action

Later in the evening, the council did amend its resolution during a lengthy and sometimes heated debate.

AADL director Josie Parker before the start of the March 17, 2014 city council meeting.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) brought forward an amendment to the first resolved clause, describing the site as a public space, publicly owned, of at least 6,500 square feet, with the northern boundary to be determined at a future time. The original resolution, developed by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) in collaboration with the Library Green Conservancy, had designated 12,000 square feet as the size, running across the entire western edge of the Library Lane site, along South Fifth Avenue.

The council’s discussion included remarks by AADL director Josie Parker, who attended the council meeting and was called upon by mayor and other councilmembers to comment. She read aloud the AADL board’s resolution.

In her initial remarks to the council, made at the invitation of mayor John Hieftje during the council’s deliberations, Parker described the current challenges faced by the library in managing its space. She rejected the idea of labeling the problem as one related to the homeless.

And I would just like to point out to all of us here tonight that the public library in Ann Arbor is actually the only public building in the community that is a park within walls. All of the conditions that exist in a public space outside every day exist every day inside the public library.

It takes a lot of money to manage that space in such a way so that everyone there is comfortable, everyone there is safe. And it isn’t about a label. You have not heard me use a word used here tonight multiple times by many of you. You’ve never heard me use that word in expressing concern of the public library board about the existence of a public park next to the public library.

It’s about behavior. Any group that tilts the balance of a public space out of proportion to anyone else in that space can cause a disruption and discomfort. A teenager. A lot of crying babies. Anyone. It is not about a condition. I will say to you this evening, because I’m compelled, some of the most obnoxious behavior exhibited at the public library in Ann Arbor is done by persons who are very well housed, very well fed, and very well educated. It is not about those things. It is just about simply behavior.

Later during the council’s March 17 meeting, Parker was asked again to take the podium by Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). In her second set of remarks, Parker was more explicit about some of the worst behavior: heroin use. She cited security concerns, and pointed out that the police are already called to the downtown library every three days or so. “We manage it, and you don’t know about it, and that makes it successful,” Parker told the council.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had characterized the AADL board’s position as “fear mongering,” and Parker’s remarks in part responded to that characterization:

There have been five heroin ODs in the public library in the three and half years – the last one in the last five months. This is your public library. Your downtown public library. This is not fear mongering. This is real. … It isn’t about adding a problem, it isn’t about making a problem worse. It’s about acknowledging reality. It’s just a reality.

Most of the issues currently in the public library are drunk and disorderly. … Right now, it’s probably every day that someone is removed from the library by the police department for drunk and disorderly, almost every day. This is your downtown public library. …

We’re not saying “no park.” We’re saying take the time to plan it properly in the context of what is truly occurring downtown. … You have heroin in your community and no one wants to talk about it. It’s being sold in the public library, it’s being used in the public library. And people are being taken out unconscious OD’d in the public library. … We are asking you to think about this again. We are asking you to make sure you have the funds to manage what you’re planning, so it is a success.

I think a park with playground equipment and fountains for the little children who come in and out of the library sounds wonderful. I can’t imagine my child playing in a playground with needles on the ground. Unless someone is cleaning them up every morning, the way they do in Liberty Plaza, that’s what will be there. … We’re asking you to plan the same way, so that if a plaza or park is near the public library, it’s successful.

After about 2.5 hours of discussion, the council voted 7-3 to pass the urban park resolution as amended. Dissenting were mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4). Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was absent.

The council also passed the resolution directing the city administrator to obtain brokerage services and to list the surface of the Library Lane deck for sale. A key “whereas” clause and two of the “resolved” clauses read as follows:

Whereas, Developing the public space at the same time the site is developed will provide for increased activity, safety, and security; limit nuisance behavior at this public space; provide potential funding for public space features and programming; and have a responsible private entity for ongoing maintenance and
…
Resolved, That the City will seek, as conditions for development rights at a minimum, public open space, private maintenance of the public space, and pedestrian access to the public space as features of any private development;

Resolved, That implementation of the conditions for development rights will be determined by City Council through selection of the purchase offer that best responds to mixed-use, density, integration with surrounding uses, and public space and through the City’s established site plan procedures and policies;

The phrase “public space” sometimes is meant to include publicly-accessible, but privately-owned space. Kunselman responded to an emailed query about his intended interpretation of “public space” by writing: “It’s meant to give the broadest interpretation so as to solicit the widest range of interest by prospective purchasers.”

A report on deliberations at the council meeting is included in The Chronicle’s live updates from city hall during the March 17 meeting.

Downtown Library Entrance

The AADL administration and board have been seriously discussing renovations to the downtown library’s front entrance since the summer of 2013, prompted by concerns about the poor condition of the entrance doors. The board’s facilities committee – Margaret Leary, Jan Barney Newman and Ed Surovell – have been taking the lead from the board’s perspective.

Revised design for a sign on the renovated entrance to the downtown AADL building. (Image from InForm Studio.)

At its Feb. 19, 2014 meeting, the full board was briefed about initial concept designs for the entrance. The project’s architect is InForm Studio, the architecture firm that previously designed AADL’s Traverwood branch.

The entrance would continue to be oriented to South Fifth Avenue, with new doors into the building. The initial plans called for replacing the existing strip of teal panels that wrap around the front of the building – above the doors and windows – with a “concrete skin” panel. Wood paneling would be used in the ceiling of the outside walkway adjacent to the building. Sloping entry walkways would be located on the north side from the Library Lane parking structure and on the south side from William Street, with steps in front leading to South Fifth Avenue. Additional elements include landscaping, a bench, handrails and other features that visually link the library to the adjacent city-owned Library Lane.

One of the most dramatic elements of the original design was a large, translucent sign – made of glass or cast resin – that would be placed between existing brick columns on the north side of the front facade, closest to Library Lane. The idea was for the sign to be lit from the inside, with additional lighting along the walkway, to create a glowing effect. Some board members expressed concerns about that sign and the potential to create security problems, since it would screen a portion of the walkway.

Subsequently, a public forum was held on March 13 to get feedback. At that meeting, new versions of the design were presented that changed the size and location of the sign. Other revisions were made to the front steps and the color of the horizontal strip on the front facade.

Downtown Library Entrance: Facilities Committee Report

At the board’s March 17 meeting, Margaret Leary, chair of the facilities committee, said she wanted to address an issue that was raised during the March 13 public forum to get input on the proposed renovations to the front entrance. Some people had advocated to move the front entrance from the building’s west side, facing South Fifth Avenue, to the north side, facing Library Lane. She said she had previously reported to the board about the facilities committee’s deliberations on that issue. From The Chronicle’s report of the Feb. 17, 2014 meeting:

The first thing that InForm was asked to do, Leary said, was to look at whether the entry should remain at its current orientation, facing South Fifth Avenue on the west, or be moved to the north of the building, facing the Library Lane underground parking structure. Leary noted that a north entrance would have been used if the library had built a new building.

But when the committee considered the consequences of moving the entrance now, in terms of the amount of usable space on the first floor, they decided against it. It would have taken all the space used by the existing teen room, she said, and the entire first floor would have been reorganized, as well as possibly some things in the basement and other floors.

People at the March 13 forum had asked about that decision, Leary noted, so she wanted to expand on the rationale for it. The idea of orienting the entrance to the north first emerged during the city’s planning for the adjacent Library Lane underground parking structure and discussion of the potential development on top of that structure, she said. That discussion was in conjunction with talks about how a potential new AADL building might mesh with whatever might be developed on the Library Lane site. Neither of those two possibilities – a new AADL building, or new buildings on top of the Library Lane structure – appear imminent, Leary said, so the reason for orienting the library’s entrance to the north no longer exists.

Will Hathaway, a member of the Library Green Conservancy, addressed the AADL board at a March 13, 2014 public forum about the downtown library front entrance. He asked the board to consider re-orienting the entrance to the north side, facing Library Lane.

Despite these circumstances, Leary continued, the AADL asked InForm Studio last fall to look at the possibility of moving the entrance to the building’s north side. The facilities committee learned that it would not be easy or inexpensive, she said. There are grade changes running in two directions on the site, she explained – from north to south, and east to west. That means that a new entrance on the north side, in order to be accessible, would require using much of the interior of the building on that side, where the teen room is now located. It would require complex structural changes instead of cosmetic changes to the west side.

In addition, putting the entrance to the north would require moving the teen room, Leary said, which would add to the cost and perhaps create a “cascading effect of moves” of other operations within the first floor and possibly the basement.

Leary also pointed out that installing a new entrance to the north would result in a disruption of operations for a significant period. The overall cost of undertaking this project would run into the millions, she said. This is based on AADL’s experience with earlier renovations and with cost estimates obtained in 2010 and 2011 for renovating the building. That compares to an estimated cost of a few hundred thousand dollars for the west entrance renovations, she said.

More importantly, Leary said, renovating the existing entrance will better serve AADL’s current patrons, who arrive from the north, south and west in about equal numbers. Putting the entrance on the north would effectively hide it from patrons arriving from the south or coming from the University of Michigan along William, she said. The improvements to the current entrance will also improve accessibility from the north, Leary said.

The current orientation to the west is appropriate for the library and for adjacent sites, Leary concluded. “An entrance on the north would be both expensive and impractical.”

Downtown Library Entrance: Revised Design

Ken Van Tine, one of the principals from InForm Studio, attended the March 17 meeting to answer questions about the updated version of the design.

Ken Van Tine of InForm Studio.

Barbara Murphy noted that the board had received several communications about the front entrance. One that struck her in particular was from a2modern, a group created to highlight mid-century modern architecture in Ann Arbor. Members of a2modern feel that any changes to the front will destroy Alden Dow’s original design concept. Her personal view, Murphy said, is that by making two large additions and various other changes over the years, “the building is not what it once was, and it doesn’t have any particular historic value.” She was curious about Van Tine’s opinion on that issue.

Van Tine replied that he had a lot of respect for Alden Dow. Dow was very innovative and progressive for his time, and was always on the forefront of architecture. “Do I think he’d want to stay set in his ways? No, I don’t think he really would,” Van Tine said.

The porcelain panels on the front facade probably aren’t what Dow would have selected if he’d had his choice, Van Tine said. Dow typically used copper, so the selection of porcelain was probably a budget issue – that was Van Tine’s speculation.

The a2modern members had also raised concerns about changing the color of those panels. Van Tine said keeping the same color would be fine. Rebecca Head said her understanding is that the colors have changed significantly over the years – the original color was teal, she said, and now it’s turquoise. Van Tine noted that exposure to the sun plays a big role in changing colors and fading.

Nancy Kaplan reported that Doug Kelbaugh – an architect and professor at the University of Michigan College of Architecture and Urban Planning – had also spoken at the March 13 forum and had been in favor of keeping the teal porcelain panels. Prue Rosenthal disputed Kaplan’s characterization of Kelbaugh’s remarks, saying it wasn’t about keeping those specific panels. Rather, she said, he objected to the possibility that a new sign would cover part of the panels.

The Chronicle attended the March 13 forum. Here’s what Kelbaugh had to say:

I think this design has a lot of very nice nuances and subtle details that really do enhance the entrance. Speaking to this question of respecting and honoring Alden Dow’s initial intentions and his design, I think people are right to say that this horizontal band is important. I think it’s a distinguishing feature. So I actually don’t think it’s a good idea to put the sign on it, to be honest with you. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s possible to replace the enamel panels in a color that would exactly match. It’s a very tricky technology and I think that to get it to match, particularly as it’s weathered so long, would be difficult. So I think maybe the whole band would have to be done, either in an enamel or some other sympathetic material. So I agree with that.

I too was worried … about the translucent panel blocking and making the ramp up a little too hidden from public view, and I’m wondering if that could be solved simply by making it transparent rather than translucent. Above eye level it could be translucent with a sign, and it could either bleed slowly into transparency or at a line. I think it’s possible to have the original glass pylon in a way that doesn’t interrupt the horizontal band, that is a nice feature without making it a security risk at all.

I think the bench is beautifully designed and the ramp to the south is very elegant as well. I’m wondering if the little triangular piece of grass sticking out … is going to get trampled to death. A lot of people are going to want to turn that corner to go down Library Lane. I would consider pulling that back, which makes the ramp more accessible to everybody, not just people who are physically challenged. I think it’s going to be tough to maintain. I think all of these issues could be addressed and I applaud the library for going ahead.

As for an entrance on the north side, it would be wonderful. I think that awaits a bigger renovation. This is pretty cosmetic. There probably should ultimately be an entrance on the north, but I think at this point it would be premature. It’s quite possible that the future will hold opportunities to make a really good entrance on the north, rather than a sort of compromise one.

At the March 17 AADL board meeting, Kaplan wondered if InForm had revised its design based on suggestions made at the March 13 public forum, especially regarding rails and signs in Braille. Would the board be seeing another iteration?

Margaret Leary responded, saying that the facilities committee had discussed the major items from that forum. The committee has asked AADL director Josie Parker to talk with the architects about three things in particular: (1) the addition of a second handrail; (2) signs; and (3) the front bench. The architects haven’t been specifically been asked to do anything yet, Leary said.

Van Tine said he’s aware of some of the issues but there aren’t any new designs yet. “What we’ve done so far is very conceptual,” he added. “There’s nothing written in stone.” Everything is very flexible at this point.

Murphy asked about maintaining access during construction. Would the current front entrance remain open? Van Tine replied that they’d likely close off half of the entrance, but the other half would remain open.

In terms of process, Leary said that InForm will develop a new plan after talking with Parker, and that plan will be reviewed by the facilities committee before coming to the board for approval.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

EPIC-MRA Survey Results

Bernie Porn, president of EPIC-MRA, gave a presentation to the board about results from a recent survey conducted for the library.

Bernie Porn, president of EPIC-MRA.

By way of background, at its Jan. 20, 2014 meeting, the board had approved a budget adjustment of $25,000 for a satisfaction survey of 500-600 library district residents, to be conducted by Lansing-based EPIC-MRA.

The library previously did a survey in early 2012, in part to gauge public support for financing a new downtown library. The board later put a bond proposal on the November 2012 ballot to fund a new downtown building, but it failed to receive a majority of votes.

In general, the new survey measured the public’s recognition of AADL’s products and services, the regard for AADL as a public institution in the region, and the avenues by which people obtain information about the library. Results will help inform the library’s next long-term strategic plan. The current strategic plan runs through 2015.

In presenting the summary on March 17, Porn described it as “a great news poll, in terms of results, and I think you all should be very, very proud.” There are a couple areas of concern, he added, “but they’re not the kinds of things that can’t be overcome.” [.pdf of 2014 survey results] [.pdf of 2014 results compared to 2012]

The 500-sample survey was conducted between Feb. 9-15. The process involved randomly selecting commercially listed telephone numbers as well as cell phone numbers, stratified so that each area of the district in terms of population was reflected in the sample. It’s a plus-or-minus 4.4 error rate, with a 95% confidence level. Participants were adult residents of the Ann Arbor Public Schools district, which has the same boundaries as AADL. Porn noted that the survey didn’t screen for registered voters. Of all respondents, 63% were residents of Ann Arbor, 20% were residents of Pittsfield Township, and 17% were residents of all other parts of the district.

Key survey findings include:

• Since 2012, the positive job rating for AADL providing library services increased by 7 points – from 81% in 2012 to 88% in 2014. That’s a significant increase, Porn said.
• There was a 17 point increase in the percentage of households that use AADL facilities/programs – from 61% in 2012 to 78% in 2014.
• Only 3 in 10 respondents knew that AADL is “an independent governmental body” funded by its own separate tax assessment. This is one area of concern, Porn noted, but it’s certainly something that’s solvable.
• Only 2 in 10 households had no members who use any AADL facilities or services.
• Nearly half of households with no members who used AADL said the top reason for not using it was “having the Internet at home” or “getting everything they need online.”
• Top AADL services used were: book loans (35%); DVD-video (13%); and Internet access (6%).
• Less that 3 in 10 knew that AADL subscribes to databases and online services like Brainfuse Homework Help, Ancestry.com and Reference USA Business Databases.
• More than 6 in 10 were aware of the events, exhibits and classes described to them. Among those who were aware, 3 in 4 said one or more household members attended such events or activities, and 58% offered the highest satisfaction rating.
• The best ways respondents said to communicate with them is e-mail, the AADL website, direct mail and newspapers.
• 12% said the “library” is a local government service that provides the most value for taxes paid, with “school-education” (20%) and “police-public safety” (13%) scoring higher.
• With the growth of computers and the Internet, 52% said libraries are about the same importance as before, 35% said libraries are more important, with 13% saying less important.

Porn’s presentation, which lasted about 45 minutes, reviewed these and other results in more detail, including a demographic breakdown of responses. [.pdf of EPIC-MRA presentation]

When respondents were asked about the level of taxes for all government services – a standard question in all surveys, Porn said – 29% said that taxes were too high, while 57% said taxes were “about right” and 6% indicated taxes were “too low.” He said that when “too high” responses are over 30%, it indicates that taxpayers are less persuadable for a tax increase. Taxpayers are most receptive when responses are in the teens or low-20s, he said. Tax proposals are very difficult to pass when percentages of “too high” responses are in the 40% range or higher.

Barbara Murphy said she was “flabbergasted” by the number of respondents who said taxes were about right or too low. “That’s not who comments in the newspaper,” she said.

Porn then showed responses about the level of taxes specifically for AADL. Of respondents, 16% indicated that taxes were too high for AADL, compared to 67% who said taxes were about right and 11% who said taxes for AADL were too low. “People see value clearly from the taxes they pay for their library,” he said.

Porn showed demographic breakdown for respondents who said that taxes for AADL were too high. Highlights included: 26% were age 50 or older with no college education; 35% said they didn’t use libraries or used libraries other than AADL; 37% thought taxes were too high in general for local government/schools; 22% thought AADL was part of city government, used the library few times a year, or have incomes over $100,000.

“You can target these groups and provide educational information that may help them feel less negative toward taxes,” Porn said. He added that those weren’t really negative numbers.

EPIC-MRA chart of recent survey results for a question about AADL taxes.

Porn reviewed how respondents thought AADL was funded: 30% knew that AADL was an independent governmental body with its own separate property tax assessment. But 23% thought AADL was a division of Ann Arbor city government and paid for from tax revenue received by the city, and 12% thought it was part of the Ann Arbor public schools and funded from tax dollars allocated to the local school operating budget.

“The problem that you run into because of this uncertainty is that when you do have a situation in the future … when you’re looking at renewing taxes or increasing taxes for services, if people feel that you’re competing with other levels of government and not an entity unto yourself, that can cause them to think that a vote for the library is taking something away from these other people that they inaccurately believe are a source of your funding,” Porn said. “That is probably the one thing in the survey that you need to address – and I think it can be addressed with branding and information that your communications folks can put together.”

By way of background, in 1994, Proposal A changed the state law so that public school systems could no longer operate public libraries using the school millage. When that happened, the Ann Arbor Public Schools and city of Ann Arbor moved to form the Ann Arbor District Library as a separate entity. In 1995, voters approved the establishment of the AADL with an independent governing board. At the same time, voters authorized a 2.0 mill tax in perpetuity to operate the library system – the millage does not require renewal. Due to the state’s Headlee Amendment, that 2.0 mills has been rolled back over the years to about 1.92 mills, which is now the maximum amount that AADL can levy each year. However, the library currently levies only a portion of that amount – 1.55 mills. The millage rate is authorized each year as part of the library’s budget cycle. The AADL did seek a separate 30-year millage in 2012 as part of a bond proposal to build a new downtown library. A majority of voters rejected that initiative.

Ed Surovell wondered if there was any correlation between home ownership and the understanding about how AADL is funded. Porn replied that the survey didn’t ask whether respondents were renters or homeowners. Porn said he’d be in favor of asking that question in future surveys.

Margaret Leary noted that last fall, the city of Ann Arbor had paid for a survey by an outside agency that does surveys nationwide for municipalities. It provided comparative information to other cities. [National Citizens Survey was conducted for the city in the fall of 2013 by mailing a questionnaire to a random sample of 3,000 city residents, 778 of whom completed surveys. .pdf of draft Ann Arbor National Citizens Survey report and .pdf of responses, benchmarks, methodology and questionnaire]

Porn described that type of survey as, to a large extent, a “cookie cutter survey that does not give a great deal of customization.” Leary said she understood that, but in exchange you get comparative data.

Leary asked how Porn would compare the accuracy and validity of surveys like the National Citizens Survey and the EPIC-MRA survey to a SurveyMonkey survey with self-selected respondents that didn’t monitor how many times any individual could respond, and that didn’t let the entire community know about it.

Porn replied that self-selection leads to the same phenomenon as people who write to their legislators – people who are passionate about a particular issue, either for or against it.

Leary asked a more pointed question: Can you make public policy based on a SurveyMonkey survey? Porn indicated that it was not a good idea to do that.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Bike Share Agreement

On the March 17 agenda was a resolution authorizing the library director to enter into a bike share program license agreement with the nonprofit Clean Energy Coalition. [.pdf of bike share agreement]

The CEC is managing a new bike share program called ArborBike, which is launching this spring. It would include a bike station on AADL’s downtown library property on South Fifth Avenue, as well as locations at other sites in downtown Ann Arbor and on the University of Michigan campus. There will be about 14 bikes at the downtown AADL station on the north side of its property.

The AADL board had been briefed on the program at their Aug. 19, 2013 meeting, and received an update about the agreement on Feb. 17, 2014. The library has been waiting for the University of Michigan to finalize its agreement with the CEC, before moving forward with an agreement that would require board approval.

Margaret Leary, chair of the board’s facilities committee, reported that the committee had met earlier in the day and supported the agreement. The library’s attorney has reviewed the agreement and has stated that it is fair and protects the library from liability issues, she said. The agreement also has adequate provisions for the library to get out of it if necessary, Leary noted. The bike share program seems like a good use of the downtown facility, she concluded. She added that the library’s own bike racks might be moved, but won’t be eliminated.

Rebecca Head said she’s thrilled that this is happening. UM has already signed an agreement, she noted, “and when the university feels that liability issues are taken care of, I think the Ann Arbor District Library can also feel like the liability issues have been taken care of.”

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the bike share agreement.

Committee Reports

The board has seven committees: communications, budget and finance, facilities, policy, director’s evaluation, executive, and strategic plan. Because membership on each committee consists of only three trustees, which is less than a quorum of the board, the meetings are not required to be open to the public under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The board has the option of making its committee meetings open to the public, but has chosen not to do so.

On March 17, three committee reports were given – facilities, strategic plan, and communications. The facilities and communications reports are included in other sections of this article.

Committee Reports: Strategic Plan

Nancy Kaplan, chair of the strategic plan committee, reported that the committee met on Feb. 25. Other committee members are Rebecca Head and Barbara Murphy. They discussed the history of AADL’s strategic initiatives, and the process of developing an updated strategic plan. The current strategic plan runs through 2015.

She quoted from the introduction to the 2004-2010 strategic plan, which describes it as “a guide that helps inform decisions and focus energy. It does not supercede current policies or any laws governing district library practices. It is a flexible, living document that will be visible and updated annually.”

With that in mind, Kaplan said, the committee decided to keep the current strategic initiatives. Each initiative includes goals and projects, so those will be updated with input from staff and a citizens survey, she said. The committee’s next meeting is on April 21. The committee’s charge is to finish its work by December, she noted, “and we plan to do that.”

Library Stats

Each month, the board is provided with library statistics in five categories: Collections, users, visits, usage and participation. The data is compared to year-ago figures, when available.

AADL collections data: February 2014.

AADL users data: February 2014.

AADL visits data: February 2014.

AADL usage data: February 2014.

AADL participation data: February 2014.

Financial Report

Ken Nieman – the library’s associate director of finance, HR and operations – gave a brief report on the February 2014 financial statements. [.pdf of financial report]

Through Feb. 28, the library has received 97.6% of its budgeted tax receipts. The library had $11.9 million in unrestricted cash at the end of February, with a fund balance of $8.44 million.

Three line items – purchased services, software, and copier expenses – are over budget, but are expected to come back in line by the end of AADL’s fiscal year on June 30, according to Nieman.

Nieman also noted that during February, the library received $40,000 from the nonprofit Friends of the AADL, which raises money primarily by operating a used bookshop in the basement of the downtown library.

Board discussion was brief. Margaret Leary said she wanted to underscore the generosity of FAADL. Every year, the group gives the library at least $100,000 in total, she noted. Rebecca Head agreed, saying that the board is very appreciative. Jan Barney Newman praised FAADL’s work at marketing and operating the bookshop.

Zach Steindler.

Public Commentary

Only one person spoke during public commentary on March 17. Zach Steindler told the board he was a resident of Ann Arbor, and he thanked the library for providing such excellent service.

He said he was a small business owner, and he knows that their work is often a very thankless job. [Steindler is co-founder of Olark.com.]

Steindler said he uses AADL about 4-5 times a month. “I might not be the most frequent user, but I think it’s pretty great,” he said.

Present: Rebecca Head, Nancy Kaplan, Margaret Leary, Barbara Murphy, Jan Barney Newman, Prue Rosenthal, Ed Surovell.

Next regular meeting: Monday, April 21, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor District Library board. Check out this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The resolved clause states:

That the AADL Board asks the Council to reject the Resolution until the entire site at 319 South Fifth Avenue receives a complete review by experts in zoning, land use, economic development, and others who can determine the highest and best use of the property; ensure the safety and security of AADL patrons; and consult with the owners and occupants of surrounding properties, downtown business owners, and other stakeholders Council may identify.

In introducing the resolution, Rebecca Head – who chairs the board’s communications committee – reported that the committee had met with some city councilmembers and the mayor to discuss this issue. The committee, which includes Margaret Leary and Prue Rosenthal, then drafted a resolution about the Library Lane site that she was bringing forward.

Head noted that the library hasn’t objected to the concept of open space at the Library Lane site, as part of overall development of that city-owned property. But the AADL board resolution states that the council resolution “does not allocate the City resources needed to create a successful park, such as physical maintenance, programming, and monitoring unsafe behavior; and…the City has not been able to allocate resources for those purposes to the nearby Liberty Plaza park, Wheeler park, Sculpture plaza on North 4th Ave., or the Kerrytown plaza….”

Several trustees weighed in to support the AADL board resolution. Barbara Murphy said she was conflicted, because she supports having a park or plaza on the Library Lane site at some point. But the council resolution seemed to be putting the cart before the horse, she said. She pointed out that the AADL board resolution is not advocating for tall buildings.

In dissenting, Kaplan described the long history of efforts to put some kind of a public park or plaza on the Library Lane site. She didn’t want to cut off that process. Kaplan also raised the point that the library board would be asking the council to reject a resolution without knowing the exact content of the resolution – because the council could amend the resolution during its deliberations.

In fact, the council did amend its resolution during a lengthy and sometimes heated debate. [.pdf of resolution at the start of the March 17 council meeting] Sabra Briere (Ward 1) brought forward an amendment to the first resolved clause, describing the site as a public space, publicly owned, of at least 6,500 square feet, with the northern boundary to be determined at a future time. The original resolution, developed by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) had designated 12,000 square feet as the size, running across the entire western edge of the Library Lane site, along South Fifth Avenue.

The council’s discussion included remarks by AADL director Josie Parker, who attended the council meeting and was called upon by mayor and other councilmembers to comment. She cited security concerns, and pointed out that the police are already called to the downtown library every three days or so. “We manage it, and you don’t know about it, and that makes it successful,” Parker told the council. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) characterized the AADL board’s position as “fear mongering.”

After about 2.5 hours of discussion, the council voted 7-3 to pass the resolution as amended. Dissenting were mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Margie Teall (Ward 4). Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was absent.

A report on deliberations at the council meeting is included in The Chronicle’s live updates from city hall during the March 17 meeting.

This brief was filed from the fourth-floor boardroom of the downtown library at 343 S. Fifth. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

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.

This illustration is a mashup of a photo taken on July 12, 2012, the day of the grand opening of the Library Lane parking structure, and a photograph from the author’s family archives on which an original lyric is based: “I’m an old man, and I don’t care, I’m sitting here in my rockin’ chair, watching the mean old world go by …”

And so it is that we’ll talk about the nuisance of the deer herd in 2008 … and again in 2014. We’ll talk about slush puddles in the downtown in 2009 … and again in 2014.

We talk about those things not because we suffer from community-wide senility, but rather because they are issues that remain in some way unresolved.

And that is why we are again talking about the top of the Library Lane underground parking structure in downtown Ann Arbor. The project included not just the parking deck itself, but also streetscape improvements to Fifth and Division, other pedestrian improvements, and investments in foundations and other work to support future development – a total of about $59 million worth of stuff.

The bulk of that cost was financed through Build America Bonds. What are the implications of the BAB financing for the future use of the parking structure’s spaces? That’s the question prompting me to write this column. I’d like to orient the public to the city’s analysis of how those spaces can be allocated to private uses.

Related to that, a resolution to be placed on the city council’s March 17 meeting agenda by the council audit committee is good news. The resolution would waive attorney-client privilege on a document that I think will help clarify questions associated with those bonds.

But I want to fill in some background first. Stop me if you’ve heard this before.

Library Lane: Background

The Library Lane project finished construction in the summer of 2012. At that time no specific plan was in place to take advantage of the fact that more than 700 parking spaces had been constructed underground. The spaces were consciously and deliberately constructed underground so that the area above those 700 parking spaces could be put to a greater and better use than simply parking cars. Yet that is how we’re now using the surface of the Library Lane parking structure – to park cars.

So what will go on top?

Of course, we’ve talked about this before. The conversation is documented in The Chronicle’s archives at least a half decade ago, and I’m sure the conversation stretches back years before that. At the March 4, 2009 meeting of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board, Sandi Smith introduced a resolution of support for a community-wide process to decide what the future of the top of the structure should be: “[Smith] said that [the resolution] was prompted by the dialogue about the underground parking garage, which had prompted the frequent question from residents: What goes on top?”

That DDA board resolution came just a couple of weeks after the city council voted at its Feb. 19, 2009 meeting to approve the site plan for the parking structure and the notification of intent to issue bonds to pay for it.

Fast forward through an RFP process that ended in a rejected conference center proposal, a planning effort called Connecting William Street that never was incorporated into the city’s master plan, and finally a set of recommendations from the city’s park advisory commission (PAC). The PAC report was made last year on Oct. 15, 2013, and forwarded to the city council. Three weeks later, the council formally accepted the report from PAC on Nov. 7, 2013.

Between November 2013 and February 2014, the only somewhat visible effort on the council to move the what’s-on-top issue forward was by Ward 4 councilmember Jack Eaton, who worked with the Library Green Conservancy to craft a resolution that appeared on the council’s March 3, 2013 agenda. Eaton’s resolution – his first to be put forward since his election to the council in November 2013 – incorporated elements of PAC’s recommendations.

But the fact that Eaton’s resolution was not necessarily consistent with all aspects of PAC’s recommendations was reflected in the sentiments of PAC’s current and immediately previous chair, Ingrid Ault and Julie Grand – who both addressed the council on March 3 expressing their concerns about the resolution.

Eaton’s resolution spurred mayor John Hieftje to counter at the March 3 meeting with a slide presentation sketching out a connected walk from Liberty Plaza to the planned Allen Creek greenway, linking up public open spaces at Library Lane, the corner of Fifth and William, William and Main, and First and William.

Eaton’s resolution was postponed, and will appear on the council’s March 17 agenda.

Implications of a Companion Resolution

Meanwhile, Ward 3 councilmember Stephen Kunselman will be putting forward a companion resolution on March 17 directing the city administrator to hire a real estate broker to handle the sale of the rights to build something on top of the Library Lane parking structure. That approach would be similar to the path the city council took to sell the old Y lot. That sale is now set to close on April 2 – according to city administrator Steve Powers, who responded on March 12 to an emailed query from The Chronicle.

I think Kunselman’s move has some implications for Eaton’s resolution, because part of the immediate audience for that resolution will be developers who are interested in making an offer. So one potential function of Eaton’s resolution – which it does not currently serve in an explicit way – is to lay out the universe of possibilities for elements that a rider agreement to a sales contract might include. A rider agreement – to ensure against non-development and to sketch out the amount of open space and density – was the approach the city took to the old Y lot deal with hotelier Dennis Dahlmann.

Responding on March 11 to an emailed query from The Chronicle, Eaton indicated that he was working on some modifications to the resolution for March 3 March 17, but didn’t say what the nature of those modifications would be.

Build America Bonds: Clarity on the Issue

Kunselman’s effort to move the building rights into the real estate marketplace will, I think, have a positive impact on the clarity of the information that the city will need to provide – about an issue related to the use of Build America Bonds to finance the Library Lane project.

In broad strokes, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 – also known as the stimulus act – created the Build America Bond program. BAB authorized state and local governments to issue taxable bonds to finance any capital expenditures for which they otherwise could issue tax-exempt governmental bonds. The bonds have a limitation related to how the facilities financed through such bonds can be used. Glossing over details, only up to 10% of a facility financed through BAB can be dedicated to private use.

A clear example of a private use of the Library Lane parking facility, I think, would be a hypothetical contract between the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (which manages the city of Ann Arbor’s parking system) and a downtown business – to purchase monthly parking permits in the Library Lane structure. The 48 monthly parking permits that the 624 Church Street residential project was allowed to purchase through the city’s contribution-in-lieu (CIL) program would seem to fit the criteria of “private use” of a facility. But those permits were awarded in the Forest Street structure, not Library Lane.

All other things being equal, the Ann Arbor DDA does not contract with businesses for monthly permits. Instead, the DDA contracts with individuals on a first-come-first-serve basis.

Still, for the Library Lane structure, the DDA offered introductory pricing of its monthly permits to encourage the structure’s initial use. And the nature of that introductory pricing scheme could prompt questions about whether some of those permits might properly count as “private use” of the structure. A $95 introductory rate (which reflects a $50 savings over most other structures) was offered to employees of “new to downtown businesses” and to permit holders in the Maynard or Liberty Square parking structures who were willing to transfer their permit to Library Lane. The pricing is good through August 2014.

Two years ago, Barracuda Networks was moving to downtown Ann Arbor, and therefore qualified as a “new to downtown” business. So its employees thus qualified for the discounted monthly parking permits.

In a July 13, 2012 email to Ward 2 councilmember Jane Lumm, DDA executive director Susan Pollay wrote in part:

I met with the two key individuals directing the Ann Arbor Barracuda office and told them point blank, that that there will be parking for Barracuda employees now when they move to downtown, and as they grow their employee ranks over the next few years.

To the extent that Barracuda employees (or employees of other downtown businesses) have privileged access or enjoy an economic advantage (like reduced rates), then I think it’s conceivable that the private use test could be met for those spaces. But short of a legal opinion provided by an expert in the field of private/public use issues, it’s hard to say for sure.

Four years ago, Wayne State University professor of law Noah Hall, writing on behalf of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center (GLELC), sent the city of Ann Arbor a letter on the BAB private use issue. [For more detail, see his letter: April 14, 2010 letter from Noah Hall] GLELC was a party to a lawsuit filed over the Library Lane parking structure, which eventually was settled.

The need to provide absolute clarity on this issue to any potential purchaser of building rights on top of the Library Lane structure will, I think, work to the benefit of us all. That’s because I think that same kind of information will also be provided to the public.

In the meantime, The Chronicle has appealed a partial denial of a request made under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act to the Ann Arbor city council. One of the items denied in response to the request was a memo with the file name: “BHO 1-# 1607254-v8-Ann_Arbor _ -_Memo_re_Permitted_Parking_Arrangements.docx” The request for that document was denied based on the statutory exemption allowed for items protected under attorney-client privilege. But it sure sounds like it could provide some clarity on the question of whether certain monthly parking arrangements are public or private uses.

We made the original request under the FOIA of the council as a public body, not the city of Ann Arbor as a municipality – so that our appeal would be properly made of the council itself as the head of the public body. The city attorney’s office does not appear to be persuaded by our legal theory of the proper venue of appeal – because the response to our appeal came from city administrator Steve Powers. The letter from Powers upheld the denial.

However, the members of the city council’s audit committee have placed a resolution on the council’s March 17 agenda to waive attorney-client privilege on the document in question. That’s a good thing. It will be even better if it gets the six votes it needs for approval.

The City’s Analysis: 28.69%

It’s not like the city of Ann Arbor has refused to provide any information at all about its analysis of the Build America Bond 10% limitation on private use. In fact, at the council’s audit committee meeting on March 10, CFO Tom Crawford circulated a box diagram laying out how the city arrived at the conclusion that 28.69% of the parking spaces in Library Lane could be dedicated to private use.

Image links to .pdf file.

I have a bias against boxes and arrows, so I took the same information in that chart and recast it as a series of three bar charts. Shades of red represent funding that must go into public use parts of the facilities. Shades of green represent funding that can go into private use parts of the facilities: the DDA’s cash contribution (from parking system revenue and tax increment finance revenue) plus 10% of the bond proceeds.

Key is that the DDA’s initial cash down payment can, according to the city’s analysis, be used to finance a portion of the facility that is not subject to any use conditions (i.e., can be dedicated to private use). All the sources of funds for the nearly $60 million project are laid out in Chart 1:

Chart 1: Sources of funds for Library Lane, Fifth and Division project.

Sticking with the idea that red shades correspond to funding associated with a public use requirement, while green shades correspond to funding that allows private use, the money spent on project elements are presented in Chart 2. Important here is recognizing that the project scope included far more than just a parking deck.

Chart 2: Cost of project elements for Library Lane Fifth and Division Project.

Chart 3 is just a re-presentation of Chart 2, but highlights the two parking deck portions of the project in black and gray:

Chart 3: Cost of project elements for Library Lane Fifth and Division Project. Focus on parking deck.

The pie chart was constructed using just the two parking deck portions from Chart 3:

Chart 4: Parking deck spaces by eligibility for private/public use.

The animation below just cycles through the bar charts, in case you find that easier to line things up visually. Here’s a larger version of the animation: [large animated bar charts]

Charts 1-4: Animation

Coda

Ann Arbor residents won’t hesitate to tell you what they think ought to go on top of Library Lane. I am no different. I have this idea that a grand teeter totter could be constructed on that spot. But I will stop now, because you might have heard this before.

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