The council approved a $729,879 transfer from the affordable housing trust fund to the AAHC to support the “West Arbor” portion of the AAHC’s renovation plan. And the council also took two actions in specific support of the West Arbor portion of the plan. The council gave initial support to a zoning revision for a project at 3451 Platt Road, which will entail demolishing four 5-bedroom units – because of their current placement in the floodplain – and constructing 32 townhomes and a community center. A third council action on Sept. 2 was approval of a site plan for North Maple Estates, which currently offers 19 units. All those units will be demolished and replaced with 42 townhomes.

The $729,879 transfer from the affordable housing trust fund would leave a $850,920 balance in the trust fund. The trust fund’s current balance stems largely from the council’s decision late last year – on Dec. 16, 2013 – to deposit the net proceeds of the sale of the former Y lot into the trust fund.

By way of background, in 2012 the city was accepted into a new rental assistance demonstration program, known as RAD, offered by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The program allows residents in selected housing units to receive rental assistance through long-term Section 8 subsidy vouchers that are tied to the buildings, rather than individuals. The RAD program also enables entities like the AAHC to partner with private-sector developers on housing projects – something the AAHC couldn’t previously do. The Ann Arbor city council gave necessary approvals in connection with the RAD program at its June 3, 2013 meeting. Financing for the RAD program is primarily through low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC).

According to the memo accompanying this item, out of the $16,564,370 project budget for West Arbor, low-income housing tax credits and permanent debt are expected to cover $14,091,491. That leaves a gap of $1,472,879. The AAHC has secured $50,000 from the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) and $293,000 from a Community Challenge Planning Grant. So the AAHC has requested up to $729,879 in capital funding support from the Ann Arbor housing trust fund for the West Arbor portion of the RAD conversion.

The initial approval given by the council for the Lower Platt project is from R1C (single-family dwelling district) and R2A (two-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). Final approval of the zoning, as well as the site plan approval, will come before the council at a subsequent meeting, probably in October.

The planning commission had sent the rezoning request for the 3451 Platt Road property to the city council with a recommendation of approval – in a vote taken at its Aug. 6, 2014 meeting. However, commissioners postponed consideration of the site plan for the five-building, 32-unit project, amid concerns about the site’s location in the floodplain and stormwater management. The postponement was supposed to allow time to address staff concerns regarding the impact on natural features.

Zoning and site plan approval must ultimately be given by the city council. However, the zoning approval will require two votes by the council at two separate meetings – because changes to the zoning code are actually changes to a city ordinance. So the site plan’s delay would not necessarily delay the project, as long as the site plan is put in front of the council for consideration by the time the council takes a second vote on the rezoning.

The site includes a property currently owned by AAHC, as well as an adjacent parcel that’s being purchased by the city on behalf of AAHC.

The project calls for demolishing four single-family homes and one two-family building, and constructing a 32-unit apartment complex with five buildings, 61 parking spaces, a playground, and a community building. The new apartments will include: 8 one-bedroom units; 12 two-bedroom units; 6 three-bedroom units; 2 four-bedroom units; and 4 five-bedroom units.

Two of the proposed buildings would be in the floodplain, which raised concerns from city staff. The AAHC is working to address those concerns – possibly by eliminating or reducing the number of buildings in the floodplain. It had been expected that the AAHC could address the issues raised by city staff so that the site plan could return to the planning commission at its Aug. 19 meeting – but that didn’t happen. Nor is it on the planning commission’s Sept. 3 agenda. [.pdf of planning staff report] [.pdf of June 28, 2014 citizen participation meeting report]

The AAHC Platt Road project is different from a Washtenaw County-owned property at 2260 and 2270 Platt Road, the former location of the county’s juvenile center. That site is also being considered for affordable housing.

Other AAHC-related action by the council on Sept. 2 included site plan approval for North Maple Estates. It calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes at the public housing complex on North Maple and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms.

Aerial view of North Maple Estates site, outlined in green.

The rezoning of the 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road already has been given final approval by the city council at its Aug. 18, 2014 meeting. The zoning was changed from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district).

The Ann Arbor planning commission had recommended the zoning and site plan for approval at its meeting on June 17, 2014. The council gave initial approval of the rezoning at its July 7, 2014 meeting.

The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive. [.pdf of staff report]

The units in the eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex are proposed to have a total of 138 bedrooms. The units range in size from one bedroom to five bedrooms.

The project will include a playground, community building and 73 parking spaces. According to a staff memo, the buildings will be located along a T-shaped driveway that connects to North Maple Road and Dexter Avenue. The drive extends northward toward Vine Court but does not connect with that street. There would be a new connection to Dexter Avenue through the remaining, undeveloped length of Seybold Drive.

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

A related item on the Aug. 18 agenda, which was also given approval by the council, was the vacation of a portion of the city’s right-of-way for Seybold Drive.

The Ann Arbor planning commission recommended all three items for approval at its meeting on June 17, 2014. The council gave initial approval of the rezoning at its July 7, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of North Maple Estates site, outlined in green.

The project is part of a major renovation effort by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission of several of its properties. The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive. [.pdf of staff report]

The units in the eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex are proposed to have a total of 138 bedrooms. The units range in size from one bedroom to five bedrooms.

The project will include a playground, community building and 73 parking spaces. According to a staff memo, the buildings will be located along a T-shaped driveway that connects to North Maple Road and Dexter Avenue. The drive extends northward toward Vine Court but does not connect with that street. There would be a new connection to Dexter Avenue through the remaining, undeveloped length of Seybold Drive.

The project also requires the city to vacate a portion of the right-of-way for Seybold Drive. The surrounding land is owned by the housing commission, the land will become part of the housing commission property. In a separate vote, the planning commission also recommended approving that request.

When the project was in front of the planning commission, planning staff noted three issues that need to be resolved before the project gets approval from city council:

The parcel containing two duplex buildings also owned by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission in the northeast corner of the site must be combined with the subject site, forming a single parcel as a requirement for issuance of any permits.

The legal description and comparison chart data must be confirmed to include the duplex parcel.

The northern-most parking stall, nearest the connection to Vine Court, must be relocated outside of the minimum front setback area.

According to the staff memo, after June 3 the city’s traffic engineer reviewed the proposed new connection from Seybold Drive onto Dexter Avenue, and concluded that sight distances from all approaches are acceptable. He suggested that the pavement markings on Dexter should be refreshed.

The reconstruction of North Maple Estates is part of an ongoing effort by the housing commission to upgrade the city’s housing stock for low-income residents. At the planning commission’s May 6, 2014 meeting, AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall had made a presentation about the initiative, which includes seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

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

Land use and development is set up to be a dominant theme of tonight’s meeting, as it frequently is for many of the council’s meetings. An additional highlight will be initial consideration of a change to the city’s taxicab ordinance – in response to the entry of services like Uber and Lyft into the Ann Arbor market.

A report from the city administrator on options for deer management has led to a resolution on the Aug. 18 agenda appropriating $20,000 for the development of a deer management program.

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

Among the land use items on the Aug. 18 agenda is one related to use of city-owned land – three parking lots at Fuller Park: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks; (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park; and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park. The lots are used by the University of Michigan during restricted hours.

The council will be considering a two-year lease with one additional two-year option for renewal. Annual revenue from this lease will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget. The item was forwarded to the city council from the park advisory commission with a recommendation of approval.

Private land development items on the Aug. 18 agenda include final approval of the rezoning of land for the State Street Village project at 2221-2223 S. State St. The 4.5-acre parcel is proposed to be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district). Also on the council’s agenda is the site plan for the project that will be made possible by approval of the rezoning – a $10 million development by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027-square-foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State.

Also on the agenda for final approval is the rezoning required for an Ann Arbor Housing Commission project – a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road. The zoning would change from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site plan, which is also on the council’s Aug. 18 agenda, calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. A related item on the agenda is the vacation of a portion of the city’s right-of-way for Seybold Drive.

Rezoning for 121 W. Kingsley Street for a private development is getting initial consideration by the council on Aug. 18. The project calls for rezoning the site from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface). The development would include renovating the existing two-story, 2,539-square-foot building, plus constructing two additional buildings: (1) a 3.5-story addition to the existing building; and (2) a 4.5-story structure at the southeast corner of West Kingsley and North Ashley. In total, the development would include 22 units and 40,689 square feet. The estimated cost is $6.5 million.

Getting initial consideration by the council at its Aug. 18 meeting are changes to the city’s taxicab ordinance that have been recommended by the city’s taxicab board. The recommendations come in the context of the entry of Uber and Lyft into the Ann Arbor market. The companies offer the arrangement of rides through mobile networks with drivers who operate their own vehicles. Both companies have ignored cease-and-desist orders from the city.

Uber has sent its Ann Arbor customers an email asking them to sign an online petition supporting Uber’s continued ability to operate here.

One ordinance change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall. The other ordinance would require that all drivers for hire – whether they are taxicab drivers or drivers who work for Uber or Lyft – register with the city, maintain proper insurance for their vehicles and acquire commercial plates.

The Aug. 18 agenda also includes an item to confirm the re-appointment of Bob Guenzel to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

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.

Fuller Park Parking Lease

The council will be considering a possible four-year extension on a University of Michigan lease of three parking lots at Fuller Park. The lease comes to the council with a recommendation of approval from the park advisory commission. The commission gave that recommendation at its July 15, 2014 meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Street Village

On Aug. 18, the council will consider final approval of the rezoning of land for the State Street Village project at 2221-2223 S. State St. The 4.5-acre parcel is proposed to be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district). Also on the council’s agenda for approval is the site plan for the project that will be made possible by approval of the rezoning – a $10 million development by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027 square foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State.

Aerial view of State Street Village site.

Action on the initial approval came at the city council’s July 21, 2014 meeting. A recommendation for the rezoning was given at the June 17, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

At that meeting, commissioners recommended approval of the site plan, development agreement and rezoning for the project.

The front part of the site is currently a surface parking lot, and is zoned O (office). The rear parcel – 4.5 acres – is vacant, and zoned M1 (limited industrial). Residential developments are permitted in office-zoned areas. [.pdf of staff report]

The development will include 114 parking spaces in the rear of the site and 13 spaces for the front. Another 22 spaces in the surface parking lot will be shared by the existing office building just south of the site.

In addition, 44 covered bicycle spaces and 8 enclosed bicycle spaces will be provided near the entrances of the apartment buildings and 2 hoops will be placed near the entrance of the rental office building.

Instead of making a $48,360 requested donation to the city for parks, McKinley has proposed two 8×10-foot grilling patios with picnic tables and grills.

According to the staff memo, the footing drains of 18 homes, or flow equivalent to 71.91 gallons per minute, will need to be disconnected from the city’s sanitary sewer system to mitigate flow from this proposed development.

North Maple Estates

To be considered for final approval by the council at its Aug. 18 meeting is the rezoning required for an Ann Arbor Housing Commission project – a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road. The zoning would change from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site plan, which has been shifted to the Sept. 2 agenda, calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. A related item on the agenda is the vacation of a portion of the city’s right-of-way for Seybold Drive.

The Ann Arbor planning commission recommended all three items for approval at its June 17, 2014 meeting. The council gave initial approval of the rezoning at its July 7, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of North Maple Estates site, outlined in green.

The project is part of a major renovation effort by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission of several of its properties. The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive. [.pdf of staff report]

The units in the eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex are proposed to have a total of 138 bedrooms. The units range in size from one bedroom to five bedrooms.

The project would include a playground, community building and 73 parking spaces. According to a staff memo, the buildings would be located along a T-shaped driveway that connects to North Maple Road and Dexter Avenue. The drive extends northward toward Vine Court but does not connect with that street. There would be a new connection to Dexter Avenue through the remaining, undeveloped length of Seybold Drive.

The project also requires the city to vacate a portion of the right-of-way for Seybold Drive. The surrounding land is owned by the housing commission, so if the right-of-way vacation is approved, the land would become part of the housing commission property. In a separate vote, the planning commission also recommended approving that request.

When the project was in front of the planning commission, planning staff noted three issues that need to be resolved before the project gets approval from city council:

The parcel containing two duplex buildings also owned by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission in the northeast corner of the site must be combined with the subject site, forming a single parcel as a requirement for issuance of any permits.

The legal description and comparison chart data must be confirmed to include the duplex parcel.

The northern-most parking stall, nearest the connection to Vine Court, must be relocated outside of the minimum front setback area.

According to the staff memo, after June 3 the city’s traffic engineer reviewed the proposed new connection from Seybold Drive onto Dexter Avenue, and concluded that sight distances from all approaches are acceptable. He suggested that the pavement markings on Dexter should be refreshed.

The reconstruction of North Maple Estates is part of an ongoing effort by the housing commission to upgrade the city’s housing stock for low-income residents. At the planning commission’s May 6, 2014 meeting, AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall had made a presentation about the initiative, which includes seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

121 Kingsley West

Rezoning for 121 W. Kingsley Street for a proposed new development is getting initial consideration by the council on Aug. 18. The project calls for rezoning the site from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface). The development would include renovating the existing two-story, 2,539-square-foot building, plus constructing two additional buildings: (1) a 3.5-story addition to the existing building; and (2) a 4.5-story structure at the southeast corner of West Kingsley and North Ashley. In total, the development would include 22 units and 40,689 square feet. The estimated cost is $6.5 million.

The rezoning is on the council’s agenda, but the site plan will not come before the council until the zoning is considered for a second and final vote. The Ann Arbor planning commission’s recommendation of approval for the site plan and the rezoning came at its July 15, 2014 meeting.

Rendering of 121 Kingsley West project, looking south from Kingsley. The existing building is in the left foreground.

Developers are Tom Fitzsimmons, Peter Allen and Mark Berg. The architect is Marc Rueter.

There would be 29 parking spaces below the buildings – though only two spaces are required, based on residential premiums that the project is seeking. The premiums give the project additional floor area, compare to what’s allowed by right. An elevator for each building will be accessible from the parking level. The parking level of the east building will include a bike room with 14 spaces.

According to a staff report, the project’s development agreement will address “easements for encroachments onto the City right of way by the existing building, onsite stormwater management, verification of LEED points, six required footing drain disconnects, future façade alterations, and the contribution to Parks and Recreation Services.” [.pdf of staff report]

Planning commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning, site plan and development agreement. However, only five commissioners on the nine-member body were present, and the commission’s bylaws stipulate that approval requires six votes. So the project was forwarded to city council for consideration with a recommendation of denial from the commission. Wendy Woods, the commission’s chair, assured the developers that city council would be informed that the project secured unanimous support from all commissioners who were present.

The project is on the same site as a previously proposed project by Peter Allen called Kingsley Lane. That had been envisioned as a larger development with 46 units in a complex with two “towers” – at four and nine stories. According to a 2006 Ann Arbor News article, pre-sales of the units were slower than expected because of the struggling housing market, and ultimately financing fell through. At a July 9, 2013 planning commission work session, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the developers had lost the property to the bank, but subsequently secured the land and were expected to submit a new site plan.

Taxicab Ordinances

Getting initial consideration by the council on Aug. 18 are two changes to the city’s taxicab ordinance that have been recommended by the city’s taxicab board. The recommendations come in the context of the entry of Uber and Lyft into the Ann Arbor market. The companies offer the arrangement of rides through mobile networks with drivers who operate their own vehicles. Both companies have continued to operate in Ann Arbor, despite cease-and-desist orders from the city. [.pdf of cease-and-desist sent to Lyft] [.pdf of cease-and-desist sent to Uber]

The vote to recommend the ordinance changes came at the July 24, 2014 meeting of the taxicab board.

These issues were also discussed at three monthly meetings of the taxicab board prior to that, on April 23, 2014, May 22, 2014 and June 26, 2014.

One ordinance change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall.

The current structure for fare regulation already allows for the adoption of a maximum rate to be adopted by the city council. Currently the maximum rate in Ann Arbor is $3 to get in, $2.50 per mile, and 40 cents per minute waiting time. Those maximum rates were last adjusted upwards three years ago, on May 16, 2011, in response to gas prices that had nudged past $4 per gallon. At that time, the taxicab board indicated it did not anticipate considering another rate change until the gas prices were over $5 for at least two consecutive months.

So the taxicab board’s thinking is not being driven by gas prices, which are currently between $3.75 and $4 in the Ann Arbor area. Instead, a possible increase in allowable fares is based on concern that the taxicab industry in Ann Arbor might not be able to survive unless taxis are allowed to charge more.

At its July 24 meeting, taxicab board members discussed the possibility of delaying their recommendation on the ordinance changes until the board could also make a specific recommendation on the price point for a very high maximum rate. But ultimately board members felt that a recommendation on a price point for a new maximum rate could come later – especially because ordinance changes require a first and second reading in front of the council. There would be a window of opportunity between those readings to make a recommendation on the higher maximum. The taxicab board’s next meeting is scheduled for Aug. 28 at 8:30 a.m. at city hall.

The other ordinance change to be given initial consideration would require that all drivers for hire – whether they are taxicab drivers or drivers who work for Uber or Lyft – register with the city, maintain proper insurance for their vehicles and acquire commercial plates. Commercial plates would require that the commensurate commercial insurance is carried.

And the absence of commercial plates on a vehicle that is observed to be used for picking up or dropping off passengers would provide a primary reason for a traffic stop by Ann Arbor police. At the taxicab board meetings over the last few months, representatives of the taxicab industry argued that the state statute regulating limousines already gives the city the ability to enforce against Uber and Lyft drivers.

Deer Management

Attached to the Aug. 18 city council agenda is a report from the city administrator outlining issues and options for management of the urban deer herd in Ann Arbor. Based on that report is a resolution, sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2), that would accept the report and appropriate $20,000 from the general fund for development of a “community endorsed deer management plan.” [.pdf of Aug. 14, 2014 deer management options report]

The council had directed the preparation of the report on various options in a resolution approved at its May 5, 2014 meeting. The report was to have been delivered to the council by July 31.

Fall 2015 is the earliest date identified in the report as a possible timeframe for a culling of the herd.

Before developing a specific plan – that could involve killing deer or not – input from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and the University of Michigan would be sought. And the Michigan Department of Natural Resources would need to approve any plan for deer management. The Aug. 14 report includes descriptions of deer management plans in other Michigan cities that range from ordinances prohibiting the feeding of deer to culling programs that shut down city parks and prescribe shooting lanes for archers.

City of Ann Arbor staff estimate that six months would be needed for public engagement. That public engagement could start within 45 days of city council approval to proceed.

Estimated staff time to develop the specific plan is 160 hours, according to the Aug. 14 report. Contractual public engagement and support to develop a management plan are estimated at $20,000.

Other facts included in the plan are the fact that neither city parks nor golf courses have had vegetation damage by deer. The cost to the city for disposing of deer carcasses in fiscal year 2014 was $5,850.

Estimated cost to kill 40-50 deer in the city of Ann Arbor is $25,000-$27,000 per year. That amount includes city staff administration cost in the amount of $14,000.

All deer-car accidents in Washtenaw County from 2004 through 2013 are plotted in the dynamic map below. Map is by The Chronicle with data from michigantrafficcrashfacts.org.

3:50 p.m. Agenda questions. Now available are the city staff’s written responses to questions about agenda items submitted by councilmembers. [.pdf of Aug. 18, 2014 agenda responses]

3:59 p.m. Public speaker lineup. Two speakers and one alternate are signed up to talk about the Fuller Park lease agreement: Rita Mitchell, George Gaston and Larry Baird (alternate). Two speakers and one alternate are signed up to talk about the taxicab ordinance changes: Anne Choike, Scott Sanders and Michael White (alternate). Five speakers are signed up to talk about deer management: Maurita Holland, Mary Avrakotos, Trocy Grogan, Judy Cohen and Nicholas Avrakotos. Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about electing Mark Schauer and affordable housing.

6:33 p.m. Two large groups are congregating – one outside city hall by the Dreiseitl fountain and one inside the lobby. They’re drivers for Uber and Lyft, respectively.

6:36 p.m. Two people are here in chambers so far. Both are here because they’re interested in the new taxicab ordinance revisions. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has already arrived and is sitting at the council table.

6:44 p.m. Color coding for the TV viewing audience: Pink T-shirts are for Lyft; blue is for Uber. About 40 people total so far. Two AAPD officers are also here. One of them talks with Mozhgan Savabieasfahani and Blaine Coleman about the seating.

6:53 p.m. City attorney Stephen Postema and city administrator Steve Powers are here. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) has arrived.

6:53 p.m. Chief of police John Seto and deputy chief Greg Bazick were in the hallway on the second floor, outside council chambers. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) arrived earlier.

6:57 p.m. One guy in the back row has both pink and blue T-shirts draped over his shoulders. He drives for both Uber and Lyft.

6:59 p.m. Savabieasfahani calls supporters of the “Boycott Israel” contingent to sit on the north side of the chambers. Thomas Partridge responds by saying, “This is a city council meeting, not a rally!”

7:01 p.m. Chants of “Boycott Israel” begin. The council meeting has not yet been convened.

7:01 p.m. And we’re off.

7:01 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance.

7:02 p.m. Roll call of council. Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Margie Teall (Ward 4), and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) are absent at the rollcall.

7:02 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:03 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the evening’s agenda without amendment.

7:05 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers is talking about the closing of the Ann Arbor senior center for safety reasons. It will be open again in early September. Applications for the city fire chief position will be accepted through Sept. 15. The city’s bond rating has been confirmed as AA+.

Powers doesn’t mention the deer management report that has been submitted to the council. It’s attached to the council’s agenda as a communication. [.pdf of Aug. 18, 2014 deer management options report]

7:05 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.]

Two speakers and one alternate are signed up to talk about the Fuller Park lease agreement: Rita Mitchell, George Gaston and Larry Baird (alternate). Two speakers and one alternate are signed up to talk about the taxicab ordinance changes: Anne Choike, Scott Sanders and Michael White (alternate). Five speakers are signed up to talk about deer management: Maurita Holland, Mary Avrakotos, Trocy Grogan, Judy Cohen and Nicholas Avrakotos. Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about electing Mark Schauer and affordable housing.

Mayor John Hieftje is reviewing the rules about how many people can speak at a time and where signs can be held.

7:05 p.m. Rita Mitchell tells Hieftje that she is electing not to speak.

7:08 p.m. George Gaston is addressing the council on the topic of the Fuller Park lot leases. In an email sent to council members over the weekend, he explained how he’s calculated revenue to the University of Michigan from the Yellow and Blue permits issued for the lots. Gaston’s calculations put the UM’s revenue at a total of $521,956 annually, compared to the $78,665 amount in the lease. [.pdf of Gaston's Aug. 15 and Aug. 17, 2014 emails]

He tells the council that he’d spoken to the park advisory commission [at its July 15, 2014 meeting]. He asks the council to delay approval of the lease until they’ve reviewed the figures. Lot A was supposed to be a temporary lot, 20 years ago, he says. The lots are Yellow and Blue lots in the UM parking system, he says. Yellow permits are much cheaper, he says. The council should insist on compensation from the UM based at least on the cost of Yellow Blue permits. Gaston is reciting the history of the leasing of the lots, which involved an interest in preserving bur oak trees. [Briere has now arrived at the table. So has Warpehoski.]

7:12 p.m. Anne Choike tells the council she recently moved to Ann Arbor to teach at the law school. She is speaking in her personal interest in support of Uber and Lyft. She’s arguing for the services based on an interest in less reliance on car ownership. She relies on the bus system, Uber and Lyft, and shared rides with friends. She recites reasons why taxicab service is inadequate. She describes how she is able to spend money on local businesses, instead of on car ownership.

7:16 p.m. Scott Sanders says he’s a homeowner, with two kids and the husband of a professor. Two kids means that it’s a challenge to find a way to earn extra money. Driving in a ride-sharing service is a way to do that. He describes this as an opportunity to grow the transportation business. Instead of fighting for a smaller piece of the pie, people should be thinking about growing the size of the pie: “Coopetition.” This makes transportation more efficient and more accessible, he says. Every time he picks up riders, they express the attitude that: What did we ever do before this? He asks the council not to use a heavy hand. His remarks conclude with applause from the audience, like the previous speaker did.

7:18 p.m. Maurita Holland is speaking for various plants that have been harmed by deer. She’s also speaking for the Washtenaw Citizens for Ecological Balance. She calls for immediate action because the problem is doubling every year, she contends. The deer population in Washtenaw County is 12.5 times the recommended density, she says. “We have to do something,” she says.

7:19 p.m. Mary Avrakotos is speaking as a homeowner on the problem of deer management. She calls deer an increasing menace. She wants the council to decide quickly on a deer management plan and to insist that the city administrator adhere to a timeline on implementation.

7:22 p.m. Tracy Grogan says that spending money on a deer management plan would be money well spent. He likes deer, but deer in urban areas are nervous and tentative, he says. The problem is complex and subject to debate. Ann Arborites are thoughtful, peaceful and caring, he says. But the deer situation is brutal and costly. He wants the discussion to be elevated aggressively. The resolution tonight is an important step forward, he says. He allows that the general fund balance is a precious resource, but we owe it to ourselves to develop a plan that reflects the values of the city. His remarks draw applause.

7:25 p.m. Judy Cohen is also here to talk about the deer issue. It’s not just a matter of whether the deer are eating lilies and decimating your garden. The dollar value of the damage is high, she says. She says that Matthaei Botanical Gardens has cages around the trees to protect them from the deer, but most people don’t want cages around their own trees. She’s describing her personal close calls with deer in her car and actual accidents in her car.

7:27 p.m. Nicholas Avrakotos tells the council that we do have a problem with deer. The most severe winter in many years has not diminished the deer population, he says. He’s describing overpopulation of rabbits on an island – which has become a refuge for rabbits. He says that’s what’s happening here with respect to deer. He wants the council to acknowledge there is a problem.

7:29 p.m. Thomas Partridge calls for the election of Mark Schauer as governor and Gary Peters as U.S. Senator. Hieftje tells Partridge that he had signed to talk about agenda item F-5 and wants him to do that. Peters would have a platform that would help eliminate homelessness and provide affordable housing, Partridge responds.

7:30 p.m. Hieftje disallows Baird as an alternate speaker, saying that Mitchell was here but chose not to speak.

7:30 p.m. Communications from 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.

7:32 p.m. Taylor conveys regrets from Teall, who is caring for older family members. Eaton announces a neighborhood meeting for the Packard Square development on Sept. 4.

7:33 p.m. MC-1 Confirmations. The council is being asked tonight to confirm nominations made at the council’s Aug. 7, 2014 meeting: Bob Guenzel as a reappointment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; Stephen Raiman to the energy commission to replace Dina Kurz; and Nora Lee Wright to a vacancy on the housing and human services advisory board.

7:33 p.m. Outcome: All nominations have been confirmed without discussion.

7:33 p.m. MC-2 Nominations. Anna Ercoli-Schnitzer is being nominated to fill a vacancy on the Commission on Disability Issues. Tamara Burns and Dick Mitchell are being nominated to be reappointed to the design review board. Sofia Franciscus is being nominated to fill the vacancy on the planning commission due to Paras Parekh’s resignation. And John Splitt is being nominated for reappointment to the Downtown Development Authority board. Votes on their confirmation will take place at the council’s next meeting.

7:35 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Four public hearings are scheduled tonight. Two of them relate to an Ann Arbor Housing Commission project on North Maple that involves demolishing some units and re-building them. [For additional background see North Maple Estates above] The other two public hearings relate to the McKinley project on State Street called State Street Village. [For additional background see State Street Village above]

Hieftje tells the Boycott Israel contingent to hold their signs over to the sides. They respond by exiting. In leaving some make statements: “You care more about deer than people.”

7:35 p.m. PH-1 Ann Arbor Housing Commission North Maple Road.

7:37 p.m. Thomas Partridge calls for more affordable housing.

7:37 p.m. PH-2 Seybold Drive street vacation.

7:38 p.m. No one speaks on this public hearing.

7:38 p.m. PH-3 State Street Village rezoning.

7:40 p.m. Thomas Partridge calls for more consideration of the most vulnerable.

7:40 p.m. PH-4 State Street Village site plan.

7:42 p.m. Thomas Partridge calls for public access by everyone, including seniors and the disabled.

7:42 p.m. Approval of minutes. Outcome: The minutes of the council’s previous meeting have been approved.

7:42 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Approve the member services agreement into the Keenan Pharmacy Purchasing Coalition ($60,000 for 2014 and $60,000 for 2015).
• CA-2 Approve July 24, 2014 recommendations of the Board of Insurance Administration.
• CA-3 Street Closure: Maynard Street on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 for the Barracuda Networks BBQ.
• CA-4 Approve agreement with the Washtenaw County Road Commission for the resurfacing of Newport Road (City Limits to Bird Road) ($90,000).

7:43 p.m. Councilmembers can pull out any item on the consent agenda for separate consideration. Briere pulls out CA-4.

7:43 p.m. Outcome: The consent agenda has been approved except for CA-4.

7:43 p.m. CA-4 Approve agreement with the Washtenaw County Road Commission for the resurfacing of Newport Road (City Limits to Bird Road) ($90,000).

7:44 p.m. Briere is thanking staff for working with the Washtenaw County Road Commission to make this happen.

7:44 p.m. Outcome: CA-4 has now been approved from the consent agenda.

7:44 p.m. B-1 Ann Arbor Housing Commission North Maple Road Rezoning. The council is considering for final approval the rezoning required for an Ann Arbor Housing Commission project – a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road. The zoning would change from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site plan, which has been shifted to the Sept. 2 agenda, calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. A related item on the agenda is the vacation of a portion of the city’s right-of-way for Seybold Drive. [For additional background see North Maple Estates above]

7:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the North Maple Estates rezoning.

7:45 p.m. B-2 State Street Village rezoning. The council is considering the rezoning of land for the State Street Village project at 2221-2223 S. State St. The 4.5-acre parcel is proposed to be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district). Also on the council’s agenda for approval is the site plan for the project that will be made possible by approval of the rezoning – a $10 million development by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027 square foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State. [For additional background see State Street Village above]

7:45 p.m. Briere notes that office (O) zoning was the most flexible zoning for this site. She assures members of the public that every site plan is vetted for access to transit by all users.

7:46 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give final approval to the State Street Village rezoning.

7:46 p.m. C-1 121 Kingsley West rezoning. This is the initial consideration of the 121 W. Kingsley Street project. The project calls for rezoning the site from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface). The development would include renovating the existing two-story, 2,539-square-foot building, plus constructing two additional buildings: (1) a 3.5-story addition to the existing building; and (2) a 4.5-story structure at the southeast corner of West Kingsley and North Ashley. In total, the development would include 22 units and 40,689 square feet. The estimated cost is $6.5 million. The rezoning is on the council’s agenda, but the site plan will not come before the council until the zoning is considered for a second and final vote. [For additional background see 121 Kingsley West above]

7:46 p.m. Outcome: Without discussion, the council has voted to give initial approval to the rezoning for 121 Kingsley West.

7:46 p.m. C-2 Taxicab ordinance amendment: Rates. Getting initial consideration tonight are two changes to the city’s taxicab ordinance that have been recommended by the city’s taxicab board. The recommendations come in the context of the entry of Uber and Lyft into the Ann Arbor market. This ordinance change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall. [For additional background see Taxicab Ordinances above]

7:47 p.m. Outcome: Without discussion, the council has voted to give initial approval of the taxicab ordinance change on the maximum rate.

7:47 p.m. C-3 Taxicab ordinance amendment: Register drivers for hire. This is the second item recommended by the taxicab board. It would require the registration with the city by all drivers for hire, including those who work for Uber and Lyft. Key requirements are the affixing of commercial license plates to a vehicle and maintaining commensurate insurance. [For additional background see Taxicab Ordinances above]

7:50 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is noting that he sits on the taxicab board. The board has been working to bring up the city’s laws up to date with the changes to the marketplace. The speakers tonight have not addressed the issue of public safety, he says. This ordinance will require insurance of vehicles as commercial vehicles, he notes. This will make all drivers comply with the same rules, Kunselman says. He notes that this is the first reading of the ordinance. Some items might need to be removed, but he would like that to happen at the second reading.

7:51 p.m. Kunselman compares the issue to Selma Cafe. Everyone thought it was great, and then came the annoyances from all the neighbors because of the parking in the neighborhood. Relying on personal insurance won’t work, Kunselman says, because that puts the consumer at risk.

7:52 p.m. Hieftje is reviewing the two-step process for changes to ordinances – first reading, followed by second reading with a public hearing at a later date. Lumm is thanking the city attorney’s staff for their work.

7:54 p.m. Lumm asks about the division of responsibility between the state and local municipalities with respect to taxicabs and limos. Assistant city attorney Kristen Larcom tells Lumm that her understanding of the state of Michigan’s position is that Uber and Lyft services meet the definition of a limo. There’s movement among legislators to make amendments to the state limo act, she thinks.

7:57 p.m. City CFO Tom Crawford, who serves on the taxicab board in an ex officio capacity, responds to a question from Lumm about mechanics and inspections.

7:59 p.m. Briere wants to know what the financial impact will be on drivers for Uber and Lyft. Crawford says that there’s a distinction between a limo company, the drivers and the vehicle. He says that the drivers for Uber and Lyft are 1099 workers. Briere says that this is not what she’s concerned about. She wants to know who bears the cost. How does the proposed change share responsibility? she asks.

8:03 p.m. Kailasapathy ventures that answering the cost question is challenging, and Crawford agrees. Petersen says that the real hurdle is the insurance, not the chauffeur’s license.

8:06 p.m. Anglin agrees that it’s important to understand the cost. Kunselman responds by saying the reason that Lyft and Uber can make a profit is that they are “cheating” the law. What about the companies that are complying with the law? Kunselman asks – like Ann Arbor’s taxicab companies. The reason Uber and Lyft can charge less because they aren’t carrying the associated cost of business, he says. About the use of a family car for a ride-sharing business, Kunselman says: “Lord help us all if that family vehicle gets in a wreck,” and the family goes into bankruptcy.

8:07 p.m. Anglin doesn’t want to jump into anything rapidly.

8:10 p.m. Taylor says that the solution proposed is for a problem that does not exist. Uber and Lyft provide safe service, he says. They allow Ann Arborites to maintain a carless lifestyle. These business models provide for full insurance, he contends. Drivers are taken care of by the insurance of Uber and Lyft when they’re driving. He’ll vote against this, he says. Instead he’ll be working with Briere to bring forward a resolution directing the city administrator to develop an operating agreement with Uber and Lyft. His remarks are met with applause. Hieftje says “Applause is not appropriate during the body of the meeting.”

8:13 p.m. Eaton asks a question of the city attorney’s office. He asks if there’s anything about the state limo act that prevents the city from asserting control over the same subject matter. Warpehoski gets clarification that Ann Arbor does not limit the number of taxicab licenses. He’s comparing Ann Arbor to New York, and its taxicab “cartel.” He says it’s a matter of threading the needle, balancing the right amount of regulation.

8:15 p.m. Warpehoski says he’ll vote for this at first reading, but if the text is the same by the time the ordinance comes back for second reading, he’ll vote against it at that time.

8:15 p.m. Petersen says she’ll take Warpehoski’s advice from a couple of meetings ago: If you’re going to vote against it at second reading, vote against it at first reading. She wants to support Taylor’s efforts to develop an operating agreement.

8:19 p.m. Kunselman notes that the Detroit operating agreement is for a short time, while the law is worked out. All this ordinance does is make everyone follow the same laws, he says. If councilmembers think that Uber and Lyft can self-regulate public safety, then they should vote this down and let it be a free-for-all, he says. They’re making money because they’re not paying the full cost of the business model. They’re using public streets to make a buck, he says. With Selma Cafe, everyone was having a great time going to breakfast at someone’s house, he says, but then it had to be shut down.

8:19 p.m. Kunselman says he doesn’t use Lyft and Uber because he doesn’t feel they’re safe.

8:21 p.m. Briere is describing how many cities are developing operating agreements while the state laws are sorted out. The operating agreements can address who pays for what, she says. The agreement being considered in Lansing would define an amount for which the company is responsible for insuring, she says.

8:23 p.m. Briere ventures that such operating agreements could eventually be extended to standard limo companies. She doesn’t imagine ever needing to know who every driver is, but thinks it’s rational to expect that a list be maintained – so it’s fine if Lyft and Uber maintain that list.

8:26 p.m. Lumm says the ship has left the dock and there’s no stopping it now. Even though there’s a cease-and-desist order, Uber and Lyft are continuing to do business, she says. It’s about ensuring safety for passengers, she adds. Detroit had left undefined who the “third party” is who can inspect vehicles. Lumm is talking about the fact that Uber and Lyft drivers are rated by customers, but she wonders what happens if there’s a series of bad ratings. Lumm asks that Taylor and Briere work with the taxicab board, if the ordinance revision doesn’t pass at first reading. She notes that the chair of the taxicab board [Michael Benson] had sent the council an email asking the council to support the changes.

8:29 p.m. Crawford describes himself as conflicted about the ordinance. He says that he doesn’t see Uber and Lyft as competing with taxicabs so much as with limos. The Uber and Lyft business models are designed for those who have smartphones, he notes. They have ways to rate passengers and drivers, he says, so if you have give drivers a bad experience, you might not be able to get a ride.

8:32 p.m. Kailasapathy is drawing an analogy to renting a house. If a landlord was skirting requirements on fire inspections, would the city opt to come up with operating agreements with them? Is the city council there to revise ordinance that apply to everybody, or when people break the rules, do we scramble to create operating agreements to fit their business models? For her it’s a governance issue.

8:35 p.m. Eaton says he’ll support the ordinance change. He notes that Kunselman has stated he’s willing to compromise on some of the language. Eaton says that he is sensitive to the idea that a company will self-regulate for safety. He says that the same offer of an operating agreement would need to be offered to taxicab companies. Eaton can’t imagine letting an entire industry arise under the guise of self-regulation.

8:36 p.m. Petersen says she’s not opposed to ordinance amendments, but she doesn’t think that these are the right set of amendments. She says that Kunselman should go back to the drawing board. Public safety, health and welfare is paramount, but she doesn’t think that these are insurmountable barriers.

8:39 p.m. Anglin is talking about the transportation that the AAATA’s shared taxi service provides. Briere moves to waive the council’s rules on speaking times, which the council agrees to.

8:40 p.m. Kunselman is going through the requirements in the ordinance change and asks other councilmembers if they have objections to each of them. “Does anybody have a problem with that?” is the question he poses for each requirement.

8:42 p.m. Kunselman comes to “the one that probably scares Uber and Lyft the most,” which is that they would have to comply with state limo act. He asks if councilmembers are willing to allow a company to operate in violation of state law. If so, then “have at it,” he says.

8:44 p.m. Briere calls Kailasapathy’s comparison to renting a house interesting. She extends that to the hotel industry and bed and breakfasts, and is now talking about Airbnb-type models.

8:47 p.m. Briere says she wants the company to bear the burden. The city would be adding an incredible burden to something that is a casual relationship. She thinks the city can be more creative in regulating this issue. Since April, she’s been convinced that an operating agreement is the way to go.

8:49 p.m. Lumm thinks that the requirements in the ordinance are really basic. She asks for the representative from Uber, Michael White, to explain which elements of the ordinance he objects to.

8:52 p.m. White says that there’s no need for commercial insurance on a vehicle that’s being used for three hours a week for this service, he says. Uber’s insurance covers those vehicles when they’re being used to drive for Uber, he says. If there were a safety issue, he says, it wouldn’t be just a national issue, it would be an international issue, he says.

8:54 p.m. Eaton asks which requirements White objects to. He objects to each driver having to complete the requirements.

8:55 p.m. Kailasapathy is asking about the insurance policy. It’s a liability policy, White explains.

8:57 p.m. Briere asks if White can share data about safety. Not today, he says. Briere asks if he can get it. Complaints come in as a stream, he says. Briere wants to know about percentages – out of 20 vehicles, how many complaints are there?

9:00 p.m. White says that their drivers have an average star rating of 4.6 stars out of 5.0. Briere says she’s not asking about satisfaction, but about safety. Petersen wants to know how that data is used by Uber. White is providing the standard Uber marketing message to the council.

9:01 p.m. Petersen asks if Uber can suspend a driver before they discover that people aren’t requesting rides from them. Based on White’s response, it’s not clear.

9:02 p.m. Lumm is following up with questions about the rating system.

9:05 p.m. White is taking the opportunity to explain the various advantages that Uber offers to riders.

9:07 p.m. Lumm is going back and forth with White about what he’d be willing to put in an operating agreement. He’d be willing to put a requirement in an Ann Arbor operating agreement that required the vehicle inspection to be done by a licensed mechanic.

9:12 p.m. Warpehoski has some back-and-forth with White.

9:12 p.m. Kunselman asks White if Uber would be willing to accept six points as a maximum. White says that they evaluate the nature of the violations. He’d be happy to discuss various issues. Kunselman says White has been vague. Kunselman asks if Uber would allow a felon to be a driver. No, White says. The city council had recently approved a policy on that, Kunselman notes. [Earlier this year, the city eliminated the requirement that job applicants disclose past criminal records – except for police and fire department applicants.]

White says that an English requirement would effectively arise from having to be able to go through the application system. And if they did manage to be activated as a driver, their ability to deliver quality service would be hampered by a lack of English. And that would show up in the feedback the driver would get.

9:14 p.m. Kunselman asks about possible discrimination against riders with disabilities and about red-lining. White says that studies have been done that show in Chicago, undesirable and underserved areas are much better served by Uber than by existing transportation options. Kunselman asks: Do you think that we should disband the taxicab industry in Ann Arbor?

9:20 p.m. Hieftje says there have been a lot of good comments. He mentions pipelines as a self-regulated industry, in some ways. It’s long been a goal of his to make it possible for people to live without owning a car, he says. The bike lane system has been expanded, he says. The bus system has been expanded. Ride-sharing apps are a way to expand ride-share options. So he won’t support the ordinance change tonight. He doesn’t think there’s any reason to think that Uber and Lyft aren’t concerned with safety.

9:24 p.m. Outcome: The council has rejected the ordinance at first reading on a 5-5 vote. Voting against it were Hieftje, Briere, Petersen, Lumm and Taylor.

9:24 p.m. Recess. We’re now in recess.

9:37 p.m. We’re back.

9:37 p.m. DC-1 Appropriate $20,000 to develop a community-endorsed deer management plan. This item is based on the Aug. 14 report from the city administrator on options for managing the deer population. Before developing a specific plan – that could involve killing deer or not – input from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and the University of Michigan would be sought. And the Michigan Department of Natural Resources would need to approve any plan for deer management.

The Aug. 14 report includes descriptions of deer management plans in other Michigan cities that range from ordinances prohibiting the feeding of deer to culling programs that shut down city parks and prescribe shooting lanes for archers. City of Ann Arbor staff estimate that six months would be needed for public engagement. That public engagement could start within 45 days of city council approval to proceed. Estimated staff time to develop the specific plan is 160 hours, according to the Aug. 14 report. Contractual public engagement and support to develop a management plan are estimated at $20,000. The report indicates that to cull 40-50 deer per year, the cost to the city would be about $25,000. According to Michigan Department of Natural Resources records 6,608 deer were taken by hunters in Washtenaw County. [For additional background see Deer Management above]

9:39 p.m. Lumm is thanking city administrator Steve Powers and community services administrator Sumedh Bahl. Lumm is reading aloud a written statement. The plan to be developed is supposed to include metrics for success, she says. The MDNR is the critical partner, she says.

9:42 p.m. Lumm allows that the problem might be concentrated in Ward 1 and Ward 2, but she hopes that the council will support it. Briere says that the problem is growing in Ward 5 as well. Briere says she doesn’t have an interest in seeing the deer slaughtered, but there are few ways to control the deer population. The problem might not be only the overpopulation of deer, she allows. She supports moving the process forward.

9:44 p.m. Hieftje says his central concern is that it be a comprehensive solution. He reports that he saw a buck walk past his front porch, even though there are no natural areas in the area.

9:47 p.m. Lumm asks Bahl to come to the podium. Powers responds first. He notes that the partners involved “aren’t quite there yet,” and the DNR has recommended that there be a community process. That comment comes in response to some public input to the effect that the city was not moving fast enough.

9:50 p.m. Lumm asks if there will be more data collected on environmental data. That will take some time, Bahl says.

9:51 p.m. Lumm is now reading aloud an email from a NAP volunteer. Young oak trees don’t survive unless the volunteer fences the trees, the email states.

9:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to appropriate $20,000 to develop a deer management plan.

9:52 p.m. DC-2 Community Events Fund Disbursements. This item was added late to the agenda by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). The council rule on the subject reads as follows: “Council members may add items to the agenda at any time, but will use best efforts to do so prior to 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the next Council meeting.” The two constitute the council committee for distribution of community events funding. They met at 10 a.m. today (Monday) for a meeting that was announced through the city’s notification system at 4:06 p.m. last Friday.

About half of the events to receive funding this year have already taken place. The disbursements are for a total of $55,000, including $10,000 for the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair and $25,000 for the Summer Festival.

9:54 p.m. Warpehoski apologizes for the late addition to the agenda. Some of the events that been allocated funding turned out not to be happening and so adjustments needed to be made late. The full amount is not being allocated, he says, so that late applications might be accommodated.

9:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the disbursements from the community events fund.

9:54 p.m. DB-1 Seybold Drive vacation. This item is related to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s North Maple Estates project the zoning for which the council voted on earlier in the meeting. [For additional background see North Maple Estates above]

9:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the vacation of Seybold Drive.

9:54 p.m. DB-2 State Street Village site plan. The council voted on the rezoning for the project earlier in the meeting. [For additional background see State Street Village above]

9:54 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the State Street Village site plan.

9:54 p.m. DS-1 Approve extended policy with EyeMed Vision Care ($305,828). The policy period is four years. The policy requires the city to pay a set monthly premium. The monthly premiums are $4.53 for single, $8.61 for two people, and $12.64 for a family from July 1, 2014 through Dec. 31, 2014. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, due to the fees imposed onto insurers under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the premiums will be adjusted upward on January 1, 2015. The new monthly premiums will be $4.67 for single, $8.87, for two people, and $13.02 for a family from Jan. 1, 2015 through Dec. 31, 2018.

9:55 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the extension with EyeMed.

9:55 p.m. DS-2 Approve Fuller Lot lease with University of Michigan. This item would extend the lease by the city to the University of Michigan for three parking lots at Fuller Park: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks; (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park; and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park. The lots are used by the University of Michigan during restricted hours. Annual revenue from this lease will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget. The item was forwarded to the city council from the park advisory commission with a recommendation of approval. [For additional background see Fuller Park Parking Lease above.]

9:57 p.m. Hieftje says that he thinks it would be useful to postpone the question.

9:58 p.m. Eaton asks that if this is sent back to the park advisory commission (PAC), then he wants the commission to review the relevant planning documents.

10:00 p.m. Briere moves to postpone until October. Lumm asks what happens, given the expiration of the current lease. Hieftje ventures that this is coming to the council later than it should have.

10:01 p.m. Anglin is concerned about the inclusion of a mention of future uses of the property.

10:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the Fuller Park lot lease with the University of Michigan until the first meeting in October.

10:01 p.m. DS-3 Appropriate emergency management performance ($42,582) This item will accept $42,582 in grant funding from the state for emergency management. It will pay for part of the salary for the city’s emergency manager.

10:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the acceptance of the emergency program grant funds.

10:02 p.m. Communications from the council.

10:05 p.m. Kailasapathy is pointing out that the council rule regarding public commentary is that if someone vacates their reserved time, it shall be assigned to the alternate speakers. Larry Baird was the alternate who was denied an opportunity to speak. Hieftje says that he will take a look at that. But he says that the rules are under a great deal of scrutiny to make sure that the rules are followed. “Maybe I was too careful.” He was concerned that someone might bring that up to the council. Kailasapathy reiterates the point of the rule. Hieftje says he’ll look into that. Warpehoski notes that everyone has a responsibility to note the error at the time it’s made.

10:06 p.m. Clerk’s Report. Warpehoski says he’s happy to see the inclusion of accessory dwelling units in the planning commission’s work plan, which is part of the clerk’s report of communications.

10:08 p.m. Warpehoski says that if the council wants to see things move forward, they need to make the necessary resources available.

10:08 p.m. Outcome: The council has now accepted the clerk’s report.

10:08 p.m. Public comment. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:10 p.m. Thomas Partridge says that despite the council’s vote on the taxicab ordinance, the city still needs assurances that transportation will be safety. He says the city is not making the kind of progress it needs to on affordable housing.

10:13 p.m. Kai Petainen is addressing the council on the topic of Ann Arbor SPARK. Here’s a .pdf of his remarks: [.pdf of Petainen Aug. 18, 2014]

10:16 p.m. A Lyft driver is addressing the council. He says he’s been living here for 14 years. He says that the council makes the city better and better every day. He wants them to continue to make Ann Arbor’s transportation system better.

10:18 p.m. A second Lyft driver, who’s been working with that service since May 8, is now addressing the council. Ann Arbor deserves ride-sharing in the city, he says. About 80% of riders he picks up are college students. When he picks up students who are drunk, he knows that he is saving their lives. It takes 45 minutes to an hour for other services, he says. Lyft covers him with a $1 million policy, he says.

10:21 p.m. Ed Vielmetti is addressing the council. He’s a Ward 4 resident. Two years ago, The Chronicle’s Stopped.Watched feature recorded a vehicle in storage by the city of Ann Arbor – it’s a Washtenaw County APC with a battering ram. He alludes to events in Ferguson. He hopes and prays that if something happens in this city and county, their public officials will support them in cases where injustices have been done.

10:23 p.m. Rita Mitchell says that she is choosing to speak now, although she chose not to speak earlier. She appreciates the rule that calls for speakers to speak on agenda items at the start of the meeting. She thanks the council for their action to postpone the item on leasing Fuller Park lots to UM. She hopes that the parks can be funded without leasing parkland for non-park uses. She also objects to inclusion of language in the lease about possible future use of the area as a train station. She wants the city to check into the condition of the trees that were supposed to be saved through the lease so many years ago.

10:25 p.m. Jeff Hayner says he hopes the city can get a better deal from the University of Michigan. He delivers a theatrical reading with a deer skull.

10:26 p.m. An Uber driver is now addressing the council in support of Uber and other ride-sharing services.

10:27 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

A report from the city administrator on options for deer management has led to a resolution on the Aug. 18 agenda appropriating $20,000 for the development of a deer management program.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the Aug. 18, 2014 meeting agenda.

Among the land use items on the Aug. 18 agenda is one related to use of city-owned land – three parking lots at Fuller Park: (1) the parking lot south of Fuller Road, next to the railroad tracks; (2) the paved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park; and (3) the unpaved parking lot north of Fuller Road at Fuller Park. The lots are used by the University of Michigan during restricted hours.

The council will be considering a two-year lease with one additional two-year option for renewal. Annual revenue from this lease will be $78,665, and will be included as part of the parks and recreation general fund budget. The item was forwarded to the city council from the park advisory commission with a recommendation of approval.

Private land development items on the Aug. 18 agenda include final approval of the rezoning of land for the State Street Village project at 2221-2223 S. State St. The 4.5-acre parcel is proposed to be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district). Also on the council’s agenda for approval is the site plan for the project that will be made possible by approval of the rezoning – a $10 million development by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027-square-foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State.

Also on the agenda for final approval is the rezoning required for an Ann Arbor Housing Commission project – a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road. The zoning would change from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site plan, which is also on the council’s Aug. 18 agenda, calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. A related item on the agenda is the vacation of a portion of the city’s right-of-way for Seybold Drive.

Rezoning for 121 W. Kingsley Street for a private development is getting initial consideration by the council on Aug. 18. The project calls for rezoning the site from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface). The development would include renovating the existing two-story, 2,539-square-foot building, plus constructing two additional buildings: (1) a 3.5-story addition to the existing building; and (2) a 4.5-story structure at the southeast corner of West Kingsley and North Ashley. In total, the development would include 22 units and 40,689 square feet. The estimated cost is $6.5 million.

Getting initial consideration by the council at its Aug. 18 meeting are changes to the city’s taxicab ordinance that have been recommended by the city’s taxicab board. The recommendations come in the context of the entry of Uber and Lyft into the Ann Arbor market. The companies offer the arrangement of rides through mobile networks with drivers who operate their own vehicles. Both companies have ignored cease-and-desist orders from the city.

Uber has sent its Ann Arbor customers an email asking them to sign an online petition supporting Uber’s continued ability to operate here.

One ordinance change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall. The other ordinance would require that all drivers for hire – whether they are taxicab drivers or drivers who work for Uber or Lyft – register with the city, maintain proper insurance for their vehicles and acquire commercial plates.

In other significant business at its Aug. 18 meeting, the council will also be asked to confirm the re-appointment of Bob Guenzel to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

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.

Fuller Park Parking Lease

The council will be considering a possible four-year extension on a University of Michigan lease of three parking lots at Fuller Park. The lease comes to the council with a recommendation of approval from the park advisory commission. The commission gave that recommendation at its July 15, 2014 meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Street Village

On Aug. 18, the council will consider final approval of the rezoning of land for the State Street Village project at 2221-2223 S. State St. The 4.5-acre parcel is proposed to be rezoned from M1 (limited industrial district) to O (office district). Also on the council’s agenda for approval is the site plan for the project that will be made possible by approval of the rezoning – a $10 million development by Ann Arbor-based McKinley Inc. The plan calls for constructing two 4-story apartment buildings at the rear of the site, totaling 112,262 square feet, with 38 units each. Another 2,027 square foot building – for a leasing office with two apartments above it – would be built on the front of the parcel, on South State.

Aerial view of State Street Village site.

Action on the initial approval came at the city council’s July 21, 2014 meeting. A recommendation for the rezoning was given at the June 17, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

At that meeting, commissioners recommended approval of the site plan, development agreement and rezoning for the project.

The front part of the site is currently a surface parking lot, and is zoned O (office). The rear parcel – 4.5 acres – is vacant, and zoned M1 (limited industrial). Residential developments are permitted in office-zoned areas. [.pdf of staff report]

The development will include 114 parking spaces in the rear of the site and 13 spaces for the front. Another 22 spaces in the surface parking lot will be shared by the existing office building just south of the site.

In addition, 44 covered bicycle spaces and 8 enclosed bicycle spaces will be provided near the entrances of the apartment buildings and 2 hoops will be placed near the entrance of the rental office building.

Instead of making a $48,360 requested donation to the city for parks, McKinley has proposed two 8×10-foot grilling patios with picnic tables and grills.

According to the staff memo, the footing drains of 18 homes, or flow equivalent to 71.91 gallons per minute, will need to be disconnected from the city’s sanitary sewer system to mitigate flow from this proposed development.

North Maple Road

To be considered for final approval by the council at its Aug. 18 meeting is the rezoning required for an Ann Arbor Housing Commission project – a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road. The zoning would change from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site plan, which is also on the council’s Aug. 18 has been shifted to the Sept. 2 agenda, calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. A related item on the agenda is the vacation of a portion of the city’s right-of-way for Seybold Drive.

The Ann Arbor planning commission recommended all three items for approval at its June 17, 2014 meeting. The council gave initial approval of the rezoning at its July 7, 2014 meeting.

Aerial view of North Maple Estates site, outlined in green.

The project is part of a major renovation effort by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission of several of its properties. The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive. [.pdf of staff report]

The units in the eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex are proposed to have a total of 138 bedrooms. The units range in size from one bedroom to five bedrooms.

The project would include a playground, community building and 73 parking spaces. According to a staff memo, the buildings would be located along a T-shaped driveway that connects to North Maple Road and Dexter Avenue. The drive extends northward toward Vine Court but does not connect with that street. There would be a new connection to Dexter Avenue through the remaining, undeveloped length of Seybold Drive.

The project also requires the city to vacate a portion of the right-of-way for Seybold Drive. The surrounding land is owned by the housing commission, so if the right-of-way vacation is approved, the land would become part of the housing commission property. In a separate vote, the planning commission also recommended approving that request.

When the project was in front of the planning commission, planning staff noted three issues that need to be resolved before the project gets approval from city council:

The parcel containing two duplex buildings also owned by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission in the northeast corner of the site must be combined with the subject site, forming a single parcel as a requirement for issuance of any permits.

The legal description and comparison chart data must be confirmed to include the duplex parcel.

The northern-most parking stall, nearest the connection to Vine Court, must be relocated outside of the minimum front setback area.

According to the staff memo, after June 3 the city’s traffic engineer reviewed the proposed new connection from Seybold Drive onto Dexter Avenue, and concluded that sight distances from all approaches are acceptable. He suggested that the pavement markings on Dexter should be refreshed.

The reconstruction of North Maple Estates is part of an ongoing effort by the housing commission to upgrade the city’s housing stock for low-income residents. At the planning commission’s May 6, 2014 meeting, AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall had made a presentation about the initiative, which includes seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

121 Kingsley West

Rezoning for 121 W. Kingsley Street for a proposed new development is getting initial consideration by the council on Aug. 18. The project calls for rezoning the site from a planned unit development (PUD) to D2 (downtown interface). The development would include renovating the existing two-story, 2,539-square-foot building, plus constructing two additional buildings: (1) a 3.5-story addition to the existing building; and (2) a 4.5-story structure at the southeast corner of West Kingsley and North Ashley. In total, the development would include 22 units and 40,689 square feet. The estimated cost is $6.5 million.

The rezoning will be on the council’s agenda, but the site plan will not come before the council until the zoning is considered for a second and final vote. The Ann Arbor planning commission’s recommendation of approval for the site plan and the rezoning came at its July 15, 2014 meeting.

Rendering of 121 Kingsley West project, looking south from Kingsley. The existing building is in the left foreground.

Developers are Tom Fitzsimmons, Peter Allen and Mark Berg. The architect is Marc Rueter.

There would be 29 parking spaces below the buildings – though only two spaces are required, based on residential premiums that the project is seeking. The premiums give the project additional floor area, compare to what’s allowed by right. An elevator for each building will be accessible from the parking level. The parking level of the east building will include a bike room with 14 spaces.

According to a staff report, the project’s development agreement will address “easements for encroachments onto the City right of way by the existing building, onsite stormwater management, verification of LEED points, six required footing drain disconnects, future façade alterations, and the contribution to Parks and Recreation Services.” [.pdf of staff report]

Planning commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning, site plan and development agreement. However, only five commissioners on the nine-member body were present, and the commission’s bylaws stipulate that approval requires six votes. So the project was forwarded to city council for consideration with a recommendation of denial from the commission. Wendy Woods, the commission’s chair, assured the developers that city council would be informed that the project secured unanimous support from all commissioners who were present.

The project is on the same site as a previously proposed project by Peter Allen called Kingsley Lane. That had been envisioned as a larger development with 46 units in a complex with two “towers” – at four and nine stories. According to a 2006 Ann Arbor News article, pre-sales of the units were slower than expected because of the struggling housing market, and ultimately financing fell through. At a July 9, 2013 planning commission work session, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the developers had lost the property to the bank, but subsequently secured the land and were expected to submit a new site plan.

Taxicab Ordinances

Getting initial consideration by the council on Aug. 18 are two changes to the city’s taxicab ordinance that have been recommended by the city’s taxicab board. The recommendations come in the context of the entry of Uber and Lyft into the Ann Arbor market. The companies offer the arrangement of rides through mobile networks with drivers who operate their own vehicles. Both companies have continued to operate in Ann Arbor, despite cease-and-desist orders from the city. [.pdf of cease-and-desist sent to Lyft] [.pdf of cease-and-desist sent to Uber]

The vote to recommend the ordinance changes came at the July 24, 2014 meeting of the taxicab board.

These issues were also discussed at three monthly meetings of the taxicab board prior to that, on April 23, 2014, May 22, 2014 and June 26, 2014.

One ordinance change would establish certain parameters to mitigate possible negative consequences to the setting of a very high maximum allowable taxicab rate, under which taxicab companies might eventually compete. Those parameters include a requirement that a taxicab company commit to a single rate annually and that the rate be advertised in a vehicle with signage in letters one-inch tall.

The current structure for fare regulation already allows for the adoption of a maximum rate to be adopted by the city council. Currently the maximum rate in Ann Arbor is $3 to get in, $2.50 per mile, and 40 cents per minute waiting time. Those maximum rates were last adjusted upwards three years ago, on May 16, 2011, in response to gas prices that had nudged past $4 per gallon. At that time, the taxicab board indicated it did not anticipate considering another rate change until the gas prices were over $5 for at least two consecutive months.

So the taxicab board’s thinking is not being driven by gas prices, which are currently between $3.75 and $4 in the Ann Arbor area. Instead, a possible increase in allowable fares is based on concern that the taxicab industry in Ann Arbor might not be able to survive unless taxis are allowed to charge more.

At its July 24 meeting, taxicab board members discussed the possibility of delaying their recommendation on the ordinance changes until the board could also make a specific recommendation on the price point for a very high maximum rate. But ultimately board members felt that a recommendation on a price point for a new maximum rate could come later – especially because ordinance changes require a first and second reading in front of the council. There would be a window of opportunity between those readings to make a recommendation on the higher maximum. The taxicab board’s next meeting is scheduled for Aug. 28 at 8:30 a.m. at city hall.

The other ordinance change to be given initial consideration would require that all drivers for hire – whether they are taxicab drivers or drivers who work for Uber or Lyft – register with the city, maintain proper insurance for their vehicles and acquire commercial plates. Commercial plates would require that the commensurate commercial insurance is carried.

And the absence of commercial plates on a vehicle that is observed to be used for picking up or dropping off passengers would provide a primary reason for a traffic stop by Ann Arbor police. At the taxicab board meetings over the last few months, representatives of the taxicab industry argued that the state statute regulating limousines already gives the city the ability to enforce against Uber and Lyft drivers.

Deer Management

Attached to the Aug. 18 city council agenda is a report from the city administrator outlining issues and options for management of the urban deer herd in Ann Arbor. Based on that report is a resolution, sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2), that would accept the report and appropriate $20,000 from the general fund for development of a “community endorsed deer management plan.” [.pdf of Aug. 14, 2014 deer management options report]

The council had directed the preparation of the report on various options in a resolution approved at its May 5, 2014 meeting. The report was to have been delivered to the council by July 31.

Fall 2015 is the earliest date identified in the report as a possible timeframe for a culling of the herd.

Before developing a specific plan – that could involve killing deer or not – input from Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation and the University of Michigan would be sought. And the Michigan Department of Natural Resources would need to approve any plan for deer management. The Aug. 14 report includes descriptions of deer management plans in other Michigan cities that range from ordinances prohibiting the feeding of deer to culling programs that shut down city parks and prescribe shooting lanes for archers.

City of Ann Arbor staff estimate that six months would be needed for public engagement. That public engagement could start within 45 days of city council approval to proceed.

Estimated staff time to develop the specific plan is 160 hours, according to the Aug. 14 report. Contractual public engagement and support to develop a management plan are estimated at $20,000.

Other facts included in the plan are the fact that neither city parks nor golf courses have had vegetation damage by deer. The cost to the city for disposing of deer carcasses in fiscal year 2014 was $5,850.

Estimated cost to kill 40-50 deer in the city of Ann Arbor is $25,000-$27,000 per year. That amount includes city staff administration cost in the amount of $14,000.

All deer-car accidents in Washtenaw County from 2004 through 2013 are plotted in the dynamic map below. Map is by The Chronicle with data from michigantrafficcrashfacts.org

From left: Scott Betzoldt of Midwestern Consulting, Ann Arbor housing commission executive director Jennifer Hall, and John Mouat, project architect for AAHC’s proposed development at 3451 Platt Road.

They sent the rezoning request for the 3451 Platt Road property – R1C (single-family dwelling district) and R2A (two-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district) – to the city council with a recommendation of approval. However, commissioners postponed consideration of the site plan for the five-building, 32-unit project, amid concerns about the site’s location in the floodplain and stormwater management.

Zoning and site plan approval must ultimately be given by the city council. However, the zoning approval will require two votes by the council at two separate meetings – because changes to the zoning code are actually changes to a city ordinance. So the delay on the approval of the site plan would not necessarily delay the project, as long at the site plan is put in front of the council for consideration by the time the council takes a second vote on the rezoning.

AAHC is hoping that the zoning and site plan approval can be obtained from the city council by sometime in mid-October, because that will help support a grant application.

Several residents who live near the proposed site spoke against the project during the public hearing on Aug. 6, while advocates for more affordable housing spoke in support of it. That public hearing will be continued when the site plan is next taken up by the commission.

The question of whether those speakers will be allowed to speak again at that same public hearing is the type of issue that was addressed in a different item handled by the commission at its Aug. 6 meeting. The commission approved revisions to its bylaws, including one stipulating that people who have already spoken at a public hearing can speak at a continuation of that public hearing only at the discretion of the planning commission chair – or if a proposal has changed in a material way between the initial portion of the hearing and the continued portion.

Revisions to the planning commission bylaws will be forwarded to the city council for approval.

AAHC Platt Road Project

At its Aug. 6 meeting, the Ann Arbor planning commission considered two actions related to an Ann Arbor housing commission project at 3451 Platt Road.

Aerial view of 3451 Platt.

The first was a rezoning proposal on 3.1 acres – from R1C (single-family dwelling district) and R2A (two-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site includes a property currently owned by AAHC, as well as an adjacent parcel that’s being purchased by the city on behalf of AAHC. The rezoning request needs approval from the city council, in a two-step process.

In a separate item, the commission considered a recommendation on a proposed site plan for the low-income housing development, to allow AAHC time to address staff concerns regarding the impact on natural features. The site plan will also need city council approval. AAHC hopes to have a decision on the zoning and the site plan from the city council by mid-October, to enhance a grant application.

The project calls for demolishing four single-family homes and one two-family building, and constructing a 32-unit apartment complex with five buildings, 61 parking spaces, a playground, and a community building. The new apartments will include: 8 one-bedroom units; 12 two-bedroom units; 6 three-bedroom units; 2 four-bedroom units; and 4 five-bedroom units.

Two of the proposed buildings would be in the floodplain, which raised concerns from city staff. The AAHC is working to address those concerns – possibly by eliminating or reducing the number of buildings in the floodplain. It’s expected that the AAHC can address the issues raised by city staff so that the site plan can return to the planning commission at its Aug. 19 meeting. [.pdf of planning staff report] [.pdf of June 28, 2014 citizen participation meeting report]

This project is part of major renovations and improvements the commission is making to its low-income housing inventory. For background on the AAHC process of renovating its properties, see Chronicle coverage: “Public Housing Conversion Takes Next Step.”

Alexis DiLeo of the city planning staff.

This project is not the same site as a county-owned property on Platt Road, which is also being considered for affordable housing.

City planner Alexis DiLeo gave the staff report on the project. She described how staff had considered how modifications might be made under a “planned project” designation – to allow a single mid-rise building 6-9 stories tall, or to allow decreased side setbacks and building spacing. But those decreased setbacks might not be desirable to neighbors, she said. DiLeo’s remarks on those “planned project” modifications were met with headshaking from some in the audience.

On the rezoning issue, DiLeo commented that the R4B zoning district allows for every type of dwelling unit and noted that the parcel is big enough to be zoned with its own zoning designation. The city staff from various departments are providing feedback on the site plan proposal, DiLeo said, and the systems planning department had just completed its comments – so the AAHC has not had time to examine those comments. The city’s floodplain coordinator [Jerry Hancock] does not support the existing design, she noted.

The staff were making a split recommendation – to recommend the rezoning, but to delay the site plan. Given the two-step approval process that the council must follow for changes to zoning regulations – with an initial and final vote taken at two separate meetings – the site plan should be able to catch up and could go to council for action at the same time the zoning is considered for final approval, DiLeo thought. That would be in mid-October, she said, “if all the stars align.”

Planning commission chair Wendy Woods indicated that Ron Woods, her husband, serves on the AAHC board. She had no financial interest in the project, but said that she could recuse herself at the pleasure of the commission. None of the other commissioners objected to Woods’ participation in the deliberations and vote on the project.

AAHC Platt Road Project: Public Hearing

The public hearing on this project drew 17 speakers.

Sarah McCallum told the commission she lives within 1,000 feet of the project. She’s been a homeowner for 10 years. She had several concerns, she said. One concern was that she’d attended a citizens participation meeting in February held at the Malletts Creek branch of the Ann Arbor District Library. The site plan presented at that meeting was drastically different from the one now being presented. The current plan has a scope that is exponentially larger, she said – up to 78 bedrooms. She also had concerns about the floodplain. The fact that the buildings won’t have basements means that if there were a storm or tornado, residents would have nowhere to seek shelter.

From left: Joan Doughty, executive director of the nonprofit Community Action Network (CAN), and housing commission executive director Jennifer Hall.

McCallum also told the commission that traffic in the morning is very congested – because the road had been reduced to two lanes and two bike lanes. The project would result in additional congestion, she said. Property values since she purchased her home started off nice, then decreased but have started to recover. She was concerned about the negative impact of the project on surrounding property values. She questioned why affordable housing projects were being “pushed on” that neighborhood? The neighborhood already had the Hikone project [also operated by AAHC].

She was not opposed to affordable housing – but the proposed project was too dense. She noted that 60% of students at the nearby Mitchell Elementary and Scarlett Middle School qualified for free or reduced lunches. She wondered if the neighborhood could afford additional affordable housing units. She reiterated that she was not opposed to affordable housing. She asked the commission to postpone action, saying that half the people who would have attended a July 28 public meeting weren’t in town.

Julie Steiner, former executive director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, spoke in support of the project. While previous speaker, Sarah McCallum, thought the project was dense, Steiner called the 32 units acceptable. A different developer could build more units than that, she pointed out. This project is a chance to put in more affordable housing – in a neighborhood with good schools and transportation. The project is recommended to be built to “green” standards, with the possibility that solar panels will be installed, Steiner said. AAHC is also thinking of adding a community center so services can be provided on-site and children have somewhere go and something to do. No matter where we try to put affordable housing, neighborhoods will object, Steiner ventured. But the city only has a limited amount of land.

Flo Burke told the commission that the Aug. 6 meeting was the third one she’d attended on this project. She contended that the notes about those meetings that the AACH had provided to the planning commission had not reflected a lot of the comments made at the meetings. There were a lot of people who’d attend the meetings who didn’t think the project was a good idea, she said – like Sarah McCallum, who’d led off the public hearing. Burke told the commission that she lived on Springbrook. Neighbors on Springbrook are not opposed to public housing or low-income housing, she said. And in fact many of them are low-income residents themselves. She noted that she’d received money from a community development block grant to renovate her house. She pointed out that public housing at Hikone is located not far from the proposed project. She asked the commission to pay attention to residents and not to affordable housing advocates.

Paul Zsenyuk told the commission that he lived across the street from the proposed project. He’d lived there for 27 years and paid taxes. He’d put money into his house fixing it up, he said. Things had reached a point where he had a hard time going to retrieve his mail from the mailbox on Platt Road because there is so much traffic. He told the commission that he was 61 and would be retiring. He didn’t want to sit on his porch and look at that development. He liked the peace and quiet of the property now, and he didn’t want that changed, concluding, “This is not acceptable to me at all.”

Tracy Williams introduced himself as a member of Camp Take Notice, MISSION and Camp Misfit. He understood that there’s a lot of need for affordable housing, he told the commission. Affordable housing should stay affordable and not go up, he said. About the development of the land, he said, this is Ann Arbor and we all knew it was going to grow.

Wendy Woods, chair of the planning commission.

Peg Ball addressed the commission from her wheelchair. She told the commission she was really excited about this development. She’d spoken with the architect before the meeting [John Mouat]. Many new developments are built with 8-10 or 20-step stairs. But this proposed development includes “visitability” – and that means that every unit will be enterable by people with disabilities. That’s something that’s needed, she said: People with disabilities want to be a part of the community and be able to visit neighbors, just like able-bodied people do.

Seth Best told the commission that he lived at the corner of Packard and Platt. As someone who needs affordable housing, he was very excited about the proposed project. The proposed design makes it looks like a residential community as opposed to an apartment complex, he said. As far as the concern that during a tornado, a house with no basement would have no place to offer shelter, Best told the commission that people down South live in houses built on slabs and they survive bad weather. The 78 bedrooms that would be built as a part of this project should be considered in the context of the 500 units that are needed, he said. Some people have to choose between sleeping on the street or visiting the shelter, he said. He relied on disability payments, which were $1,000 a month and he was paying $690 a month for a one-bedroom apartment. He thanked god he had a Section 8 voucher. He’d come to Ann Arbor because it was safe, and he was also staying because he expected it would stay that way. Best concluded his remarks by congratulating Sabra Briere on her run for mayor, saying he was sorry that it didn’t work out – but she’d run a wonderful campaign. [Briere is a city councilmember who also serves on the planning commission.]

Greg Pratt addressed the issue of the floodplain by telling the commission that Swift Run ran behind his house. His house is built on a slab, because that’s the way it needs to be built given that the Swift Run drain is that close. He’s a member of MISSION, and that group works with hundreds of people who have no place to go at night. He was in support of the AAHC project.

Tom Snoblen said he’s in favor of Section 8 housing. But he’d bought his house as an investment. And he really didn’t want to see a big building like that across the street from him. He wanted to see the zoning stay the same.

Abdul Al-Samadi told the commission that he and my family would be affected as they live at 3451 Platt, one of the houses that is proposed to be demolished.  They love their neighborhood and  they have a strong sense of community, he said. The proposal will construct a big building in a field, he said – where they enjoy playing soccer. He felt the project is not going to be feasible, because it’s going to be overcrowded. Platt Road is crowded as it is, he said.

Judy Shapiro told the commission she lived right across the street from the proposed project. She and her husband had bought the house they live in 13 years ago, and they knew that the AAHC property was located across the street from theirs. But they thought it would keep the same zoning. Right across the street the zoning is for single family. There is supposed to be a process for changing the zoning, she said. There were a lot of angry people at the citizens participation meeting – but she didn’t see that reflected in the AAHC’s report on that meeting.

Caleb Poirier told the commission that his nonprofit owns a property on Stone School Road about 1 mile from the location of the proposed AAHC project. He ventured that those who live near a property tend to “mentally lay ownership beyond their property lines.” If you want to maintain a low-density environment, then you move into a subdivision to secure that type of density, he said. The R4B zoning allows for 15 units per acres – so 45 units. But only 32 units are proposed to be built. He also wanted to draw the commission’s attention to the people who were not at the meeting that night – those who would be living in this project.

Tim Colenback, a member of the AAHC board.

Joan Doughty allowed that she lived nowhere near the project, but she works for Community Action Network (CAN), which is the service provider for Hikone. [Doughty is CAN's executive director.] She was there of her own volition. The AAHC Platt Road proposal is exactly the kind of proposal that would work, she said. Hikone has 29 units and Green Baxter has 23 units. At that size, there is a challenge achieving a critical mass for programs, she said. But 32 units is a perfect size. She also liked the variable sizes of the apartments that are proposed. Sometimes a family gets larger and smaller – so it’s awesome for kids if they don’t have to move to a different community as the family grows. AAHC is an excellent steward, she said. Doughty also highlighted the proposed community center as a benefit.

Tim Colenback, who serves on the AAHC board, told commissioners there are a lot of reasons to support this project. It is only a small development, he said, and it’ll be an improvement over what’s there now. The buildings will have high quality construction with green standards beyond what is required by the city.

But real reason he wanted to support the project is because of the people who will be served. The community has had a crisis for some time, he said. People who do the difficult jobs in the city can’t live here – those who clean our buildings and serve our food. Some of our low-income housing has been converted to market rate, he noted. His polling location for elections is at Arrowwood Hills Cooperative housing. It’s just a stone’s throw – because he lives near there, he said. He has many great friends who live at Arrowwood. He was very glad they didn’t go market rate because there is a large group of low- and moderate-income people there. He asked planning commissioners to please meet the needs of 32 families who need this kind of housing.

AAHC executive director  Jennifer Hall noted that the property had been owned by the city of Ann Arbor for over 40 years – and it was purchased to be affordable housing. It never went through the process of zoning, she said. She didn’t know why only four units were built there. About the citizen participation meeting, Hall allowed that there’d been a lot of yelling and anger. She characterized most of the opposition as being against developing the property on the west side of Platt, which was not part of site plan. The reason the proposal had been increased from 26 to 32 units was because the AAHC had been approached by the owner of the adjoining parcel with a duplex, so the project now comprises three parcels instead of two. The density of the three-parcel project, she explained, is actually less than the density was as a two-parcel project. It’s less density than Colonial Square, she noted.

Scott Betzoldt of Midwestern Consulting and John Mouat of Mitchell and Mouat Architects wrapped up the public hearing with a description of the site plan.

AAHC Platt Road Project: Commission Discussion – Rezoning

Diane Giannola asked for clarification about the staff preference to delay on the site plan, but to send the rezoning proposal to the city council with a recommendation of approval.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

DiLeo explained that the city planning staff is doing the best it can to set the AAHC up for a possible city council approval by mid-October. AAHC is applying for a grant, and if the site plan and zoning approval is completed by mid-October, the AAHC gets additional points on its grant application. There’s “automatic dead time” between the first and the second readings of the zoning change in front of the city council, DiLeo explained.

Giannola expressed some concern that the site plan might be completely different by the time it reached the city council, and might not be compatible with the R4B zoning. DiLeo explained that R4B allows for a lot of flexibility and would likely be consistent with anything that AAHC might propose.

Eleanore Adenekan asked some questions about the proposed detention pond. It was proposed to be about four feet deep.

On the specific question of the rezoning, Jeremy Peters stated his support for the rezoning, saying that it would allow the development of additional affordable housing, which was a community goal – as reflected in the sustainability framework. He also said the rezoning would provide site improvements that would benefit the broader neighborhood.

Ken Clein asked DiLeo what criteria are used to evaluate whether the rezoning would have a negative impact on the area. DiLeo clarified that the claim in the report about a lack of any negative impact was the AAHC’s response on the application for rezoning, not the planning staff’s conclusion. But she gave a hypothetical example of a proposed rezoning to allow manufacturing. Her professional planning opinion would be that rezoning to manufacturing would have a negative impact on public welfare and property rights. Or if it were rezoned to commercial, which would allow a Target to be built there, then the traffic and intensity of land use would be impactful on the area.

Clein concluded that the proposed AAHC project was a little different from what the neighbors are accustomed to, allowing that it’s a little more dense than what it is now. Clein cautioned against thinking of this as “poor people housing.” Some back-and-forth between Clein and AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall clarified how residents of AAHC units are screened.

Sabra Briere asked for the maximum number of units could be built under the existing zoning. Hall indicated that Midwestern Consulting’s Scott Betzoldt had calculated that number to be 20. Briere concluded that it would be an increase in density. Briere asked about turf pavers that were mentioned in the site plan – which were explained to be there to allow fire trucks to have access. Briere said she continued to be hopeful that more open space could be provided on the site. She said that according to the description of R4B, it is supposed to be suitable for infill development for moderate density – which she concluded the AAHC project seemed to be.

Outcome: The planning commission voted unanimously to recommend rezoning of the parcel to R4B.

AAHC Platt Road Project: Commission Discussion – Site Plan

The discussion by planning commissioners about the site plan focused on the natural features and the floodplain.

Planning commissioner Ken Clein.

Giannola asked how anything could be built in the floodplain. DiLeo explained that buildings can be constructed in the floodplain, if they are elevated. She noted that the city’s floodplain coordinator does not support this project as proposed.

Briere was concerned about the amount of impervious surface and increased runoff. She also expressed some concerns on an aesthetic level – saying there was not enough distinction between one unit and another. In an allusion to her mayoral campaign, she said after spending a lot of time in the last few months walking through residential neighborhoods, she’d observed that there were always ways that people had made their homes their own. She encouraged the architects to look for opportunities to make the units more human and less consistent in pattern and design to the point that when they deteriorate they’ll all deteriorate the same. She also encouraged that AAHC heed the concern about soccer-playing families and that there be space to run around.

Clein questioned why 61 parking spaces are being proposed when only 48 spaces are required. Hall explained that there are complaints at other AAHC sites about the lack of parking, and pointed out that there is no on-street parking at the site.

After some additional discussion, the commission moved towards a vote to postpone. Peters wanted to be sure that the public hearing would be continued, whenever the site plan was back in front of the planning commission, noting that it was not certain when that might be.

Outcome: The commission voted unanimously to postpone consideration of the site plan.

Revision to Bylaws

At its Aug. 6 meeting, the Ann Arbor planning commission considered revisions to its bylaws related to public hearings.

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters.

At the commission’s July 15, 2014 meeting, planning manager Wendy Rampson had introduced staff recommendations for changes to the bylaws, which had also been discussed at a July 8 working session. She noted that when revisions to bylaws are being considered, the commission must provide notice at a meeting before that potential action. That public notice happened on July 15.

Planning commissioners had originally adopted similar revisions to their bylaws at a Feb. 20, 2014 meeting. Such revisions require city council approval. However, the city attorney’s office did not forward the Feb. 20 changes to the council for consideration. There was no action until July, when assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald provided suggested revisions to the bylaws related to public hearings. Those were the changes that were presented to commissioners at their July 15 meeting, and considered on Aug. 6. [.pdf of revised bylaws regarding public hearings] [.pdf of bylaws staff memo]

The main changes considered on Aug. 6 are in Sections 3 and 5 of Article 5 – Public Hearings. In Section 3, the changes eliminate the ability of the commission’s chair to modify or waive the speaking time limitations. Instead, the changes stipulate that the entire commission would have to make that decision via a majority vote.

The changes for Section 5 relate to the continuation of a hearing, and are as follows [deletions in strike-thru, additions in bold]:

Section 5. At the discretion of the Chair, or by vote of a majority of the members present, public hearings may be continued to another date. meeting, but will not be deemed to be a new hearing but a continuation of the original. If a public hearing is continued, individuals who have not previously addressed the Commission during the public hearing may address the Commission following the requirements of Section 3. Individuals who have addressed the Commission previously during the public hearing may only address the Commission for additional time (as limited by Section 3) during the continued public hearing if the Chair, with the consultation of Planning and Development Services staff, determines that: 1) additional public feedback is necessary, or 2) a specific petition has materially changed since the date of the original public hearing date. Agendas for continued public hearings shall specify whether members of the public shall be granted additional time to speak.

There were no changes suggested for the revisions that were passed by planning commissioners on Feb. 20 related to interactions with city councilmembers. That revised section states:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission during the Councilmember’s term in office.

The revisions must be approved by the council before taking effect.

Revision to Bylaws: Commission Discussion

Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that these changes had been presented to the commission at its July 15 meeting. The bylaws changes clarified how public speaking time at public hearings is regulated. The intent is to make sure the public and commissioners understand whether someone can speak again at a public hearing if it is continued from one meeting to the next.

Rampson explained the basic rule is that there’s an opportunity for a person to speak at a public hearing for three minutes – or five minutes if the person is speaking on behalf of a neighborhood group. The planning commission can waive the time limit through a majority vote, Rampson noted. The new section, as proposed, would clarify that if a public hearing is continued to the next planning commission meeting, a person who spoke at the initial meeting’s portion of the public hearing can’t speak at the continued hearing.

However, the chair of the commission can, in consultation with the staff, determine to allow someone to speak again – if there is some compelling reason, or material changes have been made in a proposal since the initial portion of the public hearing was held.

Jeremy Peters noted that he was the one who had originally proposed this change to the bylaws. The language in the proposal now more closely meets the intent of what he had originally proposed – so he was fully in support of it.

Planning commission chair Wendy Woods got clarification that changes to the planning commission’s bylaws are subject to city council review and approval. Until the council approves the changes, the commission will operate under the current rules.

Kirk Westphal thanked Peters and everyone who pushed it through. He noted there’d been a lot of back-and-forth with the city attorney’s office on the change to the bylaws.

Outcome: The planning commission unanimously approved the changes to its bylaws.

Minutes of Previous Meeting

The usually perfunctory approval of minutes from previous meetings received some detailed discussion. Kirk Westphal asked that the minutes from the May 20, 2014 meeting be corrected, to insert the word “no” in the following passage that reported what he’d said [insertion is denoted in bold]:

Martin said they are confident that it will be extremely active and with a hotel, there will be people coming into that building all the time so the use itself is built in activity. He said he would like to have the flexibility as there are still many unknowns but he believes restaurant or retail will be on the ground floor. He asked if Westphal wanted him to commit to office use.

Westphal clarified no office or financial institution uses.

By way of background, Westphal’s disfavorable view of financial institutional uses for ground-floor, street-facing contexts is well documented.

Planning commissioner Kirk Westphal.

In 2009, as the Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown (A2D2) rezoning legislation was moving through the approval process, he wrote a guest op-ed piece for the Ann Arbor News that argued for a requirement that street-facing, ground-level land uses in the downtown should be required to be “active.” Banks and offices are not considered to be active uses. The “active use” requirement was not adopted in the final rezoning of downtown.

Consideration of the June 3, 2014 meeting minutes was postponed by the commission. They had been completed just the previous day, planning manager Wendy Rampson told the commission. So staff was requesting postponement – so that the commission could have a chance to review them.

Outcome: The commission approved the May 20, 2014 minutes as amended, and postponed approval of the June 3, 2014 minutes.

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

Absent: Bonnie Bona.

Next meeting: Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2014 at 7 p.m. in council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

Aerial view of 3451 Platt.

The commission recommended approval of a rezoning proposal on 3.1 acres – from R1C (single-family dwelling district) and R2A (two-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site includes a property currently owned by AAHC, as well as an adjacent parcel that’s being purchased by the city on behalf of AAHC. The rezoning request will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

In a separate vote, the commission postponed action on a proposed site plan for the low-income housing development, to allow AAHC time to address staff concerns regarding the impact on natural features. It’s not clear at this time when the site plan is going to be considered again by the planning commission.The site plan will also need city council approval. AAHC hopes to have a decision  on the zoning and the site plan from the city council by mid-October, to enhance a grant application.

The project calls for demolishing four single-family homes and one two-family building, and constructing a 32-unit apartment complex with five buildings, 61 parking spaces, a playground, and a community building. The new apartments will include: 8 one-bedroom units; 12 two-bedroom units; 6 three-bedroom units; 2 four-bedroom units; and 4 five-bedroom units.

Two of the proposed buildings would be in the floodplain, which raised concerns from city staff. The AAHC is working to address those concerns – possibly by eliminating or reducing the number of buildings in the floodplain. It’s expected that the AAHC can address the issues raised by city staff so that the site plan can return to the planning commission at its Aug. 19 meeting. [.pdf of planning staff report] [.pdf of June 28, 2014 citizen participation meeting report]

This project is part of major renovations and improvements the commission is making to its low-income housing inventory. For background on the AAHC process of renovating its properties, see Chronicle coverage: “Public Housing Conversion Takes Next Step.”

This project is not the same site as a county-owned property on Platt Road, which is also being considered for affordable housing.

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

Purchase of the blue-highlighted parcel could be authorized by the city council at its July 21 meeting.

The parcel is adjacent to Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) properties that AAHC is planning to reconstruct.

Four units currently stand at the location, but AAHC has previously announced plans to demolish those structures and replace them with 32 units of housing – a net gain of 28 units.

Now, however, the AAHC is interested in expanding that project, using the additional adjacent property. At the planning commission’s July 15, 2014 meeting, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that because the AAHC has decided to expand its development on Platt Road, they’ll be holding another citizen participation meeting about that on Monday, July 28 at 7 p.m. at the Ann Arbor District Library’s Malletts Creek branch, 3090 E. Eisenhower.

This is not the same site as a county-owned property on Platt Road, which is also being considered for affordable housing.

Earlier this year, at its April 21, 2014 meeting, council gave several approvals in connection with the AAHC renovations. The acquisition of the additional parcel will help the AAHC with its plans for the property.

Three of the existing four houses are in the floodway, and the water table is higher than the basements. When it rains, the properties flood. So the plan is to tear down the existing buildings, and construct new housing further north on the same site, on land that’s currently vacant.

The AAHC will be reimbursing the city for the $195,00 cost of the 1.17-acre property.

But it is the city that must execute the transaction, under Ann Arbor City Code, Chapter 8, Section 1:209(3):

All deeds, mortgages, contracts, leases, purchases, or other agreements regarding real property which is or may be put under the control of the housing commission, including agreements to acquire or dispose of real property, shall be approved and executed in the name of the City of Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor City Council may, by resolution, decide to convey or assign to the housing commission any rights of the city to a particular property owned by the City of Ann Arbor which is under the control of the housing commission and such resolution shall authorize the City Administrator, Mayor and Clerk to take all action necessary to effect such conveyance or assignment.

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

The planning commission had recommended the three rezonings at its May 6, 2014 meeting. Initial city council action came on June 2, 2014. And final action by the council came at its July 7, 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 given final rezoning approval on July 7 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.

Final approval for rezoning was given for the following three 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.

AAHC director Jennifer Hall has explained that PL zoning doesn’t allow housing to be built on a parcel. 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. 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.”

In a related action on July 7, the council gave initial approval for rezoning an AAHC site on North Maple.

Aerial view of North Maple Estates site, outlined in green.

The rezoning is for a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road – from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district).

The planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its June 17, 2014 meeting after postponing it on June 3, 2014.

The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive. [.pdf of staff report]

The site plan calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. The units range in size from one bedroom to five bedrooms. The project would include a playground, community building and 73 parking spaces. According to a staff memo, the buildings would be located along a T-shaped driveway that connects to North Maple Road and Dexter Avenue. The drive extends northward toward Vine Court but does not connect with that street. There would be a new connection to Dexter Avenue through the remaining, undeveloped length of Seybold Drive.

The project will require the city to vacate a portion of the right-of-way for Seybold Drive. The surrounding land is owned by the housing commission, so if the right-of-way vacation is approved, the land would become part of the housing commission property.

The site plan was not in front of the city council on July 7. Only the initial rezoning approval and a resolution of intent to vacate right-of-way for Seybold Drive appeared on the agenda. That resolution of intent set a public hearing for Aug. 18, 2014 – the same council meeting when a vote will be taken on the vacation’s approval. The rezoning will also need a second vote of approval from the council at a future meeting.

Planning staff noted three issues that need to be resolved before the project gets approval from city council:

The parcel containing two duplex buildings also owned by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission in the northeast corner of the site must be combined with the subject site, forming a single parcel as a requirement for issuance of any permits.

The legal description and comparison chart data must be confirmed to include the duplex parcel.

The northern-most parking stall, nearest the connection to Vine Court, must be relocated outside of the minimum front setback area.

According to the staff memo, after the planning commission’s June 3 meeting, the city’s traffic engineer reviewed the proposed new connection from Seybold Drive onto Dexter Avenue, and concluded that sight distances from all approaches are acceptable. He suggested that the pavement markings on Dexter should be refreshed.

The reconstruction of North Maple Estates is also part of the ongoing effort by the housing commission to upgrade the city’s housing stock for low-income residents. At the planning commission’s May 6, 2014 meeting, AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall had made a presentation about the initiative, which includes seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

Also at its July 7 meeting, the council confirmed the appointment of Audrey Wojtkowiak to the board of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, to fill the vacancy left by Christopher Geer. Wojtkowiak’s nomination was made at the council’s June 16 meeting. She’s controller for the Consolidation Center at Detroit Diesel.

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

Aerial view of North Maple Estates site, outlined in green.

At its meeting on June 17, planning commissioners recommended rezoning a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). Commissioners also recommended a site plan and development agreement for the project – part of a major renovation effort by the Ann Arbor housing commission. The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive. [.pdf of staff report]

The plan calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. The units range in size from one bedroom to five bedrooms.

The project would include a playground, community building and 73 parking spaces. According to a staff memo, the buildings would be located along a T-shaped driveway that connects to North Maple Road and Dexter Avenue. The drive extends northward toward Vine Court but does not connect with that street. There would be a new connection to Dexter Avenue through the remaining, undeveloped length of Seybold Drive.

The project also requires the city to vacate a portion of the right-of-way for Seybold Drive. The surrounding land is owned by the housing commission, so if the right-of-way vacation is approved, the land would become part of the housing commission property. In a separate vote, the planning commission also recommended approving that request.

On June 3, several nearby residents had raised concerns about the project, including issues with security, impact on adjacent property, and traffic exiting onto Dexter Avenue. In addition, the planning staff had recommended postponement so that the housing commission staff could address some outstanding issues with the project. On June 17, the planning staff recommended approval and noted that housing commission staff and the project’s team had talked with residents after the June 3 meeting to address concerns. Five people spoke during the June 17 public hearing, either asking questions or expressing support.

Planning staff noted three issues that need to be resolved before the project gets approval from city council:

The parcel containing two duplex buildings also owned by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission in the northeast corner of the site must be combined with the subject site, forming a single parcel as a requirement for issuance of any permits.

The legal description and comparison chart data must be confirmed to include the duplex parcel.

The northern-most parking stall, nearest the connection to Vine Court, must be relocated outside of the minimum front setback area.

According to the staff memo, after June 3 the city’s traffic engineer reviewed the proposed new connection from Seybold Drive onto Dexter Avenue, and concluded that sight distances from all approaches are acceptable. He suggested that the pavement markings on Dexter should be refreshed.

The project will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

The reconstruction of North Maple Estates is part of an ongoing effort by the housing commission to upgrade the city’s housing stock for low-income residents. At the planning commission’s May 6, 2014 meeting, AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall had made a presentation about the initiative, which includes seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

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

Dan Reim, one of the Jesuits who hopes to live at 1919 Wayne St. (Photos by the writer.)

However, at the end of the meeting – near midnight, long after supporters and opponents of the proposal had left – commissioners voted to reconsider the item, and then subsequently voted to postpone action until their next meeting on June 17.

The request – by the Ann Arbor Jesuit Community, formally known as the USA Midwest Province of the Society of Jesus – is for a special exception use to allow a “functional family” to live in a house zoned R1C (single-family dwelling). Without the special exception use, only up to four unrelated people could live there.

The code that allows this special exception use was adopted by Ann Arbor in 1991. Although the city’s ordinance has allowed for a “functional family” designation for more than two decades, this is the first time any group has requested it. The members are affiliated with the St. Mary Student Parish.

Approval required six votes, but the request initially garnered support from only five of the seven commissioners who were present. Voting against it were Diane Giannola and Kirk Westphal. Two commissioners – Sabra Briere and Paras Parekh – were absent. An attempt earlier in the meeting to postpone the vote had failed, with a majority of commissioners wanting to take action that night, apparently assuming it would pass. The final vote to postpone – taken after all other agenda items were dispatched – was 6-1, over dissent from Giannola. The planning commission has discretion to grant a special exception use, which does not require additional city council approval.

During the proposal’s public hearing, 21 people spoke – the majority of them opposed to the request, including representatives from the Oxbridge Neighborhood Association and the North Burns Park Association. Concerns included the possibility of lower property values, the chance of opening the door to student housing or cults, instability of the household because members aren’t related, and “gender housing discrimination.”

Some people directed criticism against the power, privilege and abuse of the Catholic church. Other praised the Jesuits, saying their concerns were strictly related to the zoning code, which they didn’t feel permitted this type of living arrangement in the R1C district. They suggested that the Jesuits could live in other districts – like R4C – that would allow for up to six unrelated people to live together without getting a special exception use.

Three Jesuits who plan to live there – including Ben Hawley, pastor and director of campus ministry for the St. Mary Student Parish – attended the meeting. Rev. Daniel Reim, who serves as the head of household, apologized for the controversy that this request has caused. The group currently lives in a smaller house on Ferdon, which they said they’ve outgrown. Some supporters of the request noted how the men are good neighbors on Ferdon. The former owner of that house pointed out that nearby properties he’s built or renovated had sold for over $1 million, describing the argument about hurting property values as “silly.”

The public hearing will be re-opened on June 17, to allow for additional public input. The Jesuits are encouraging supporters to attend. On June 9, Reim sent an email suggesting specific ways that people can lobby commissioners and the city council.

In voting against the request, Giannola said she didn’t think the Jesuits fit the description of a “functional family.” Westphal said he wanted to get more information from the city attorney’s office about the risk of setting a precedent, and whether there could be conditions on the special exception use that would address concerns about the turnover of residents. Planning staff reported that the city attorney’s office had already vetted the item, but they would make additional queries based on commissioners’ feedback.

There was some question about whether a delay would affect the sales contract that the Jesuits have with the current owner, who also attended the June 3 meeting. The property is listed for sale at $795,000.

In taking up the issue on June 17, one additional wrinkle might be the composition of the commission at that meeting. Two commissioners who supported the request – Jeremy Peters and Eleanore Adenekan – indicated that they would be absent, and another supporter, Ken Clein, said he might also be unable to attend. So it’s possible that there will only be six commissioners at that meeting. That would mean all six commissioners would need to vote yes in order for the request to win approval.

The property is located in Ward 2. One of the Ward 2 city councilmembers, Jane Lumm, attended the planning commission meeting, but did not formally address the commission. Westphal – the planning commission’s chair – is running for city council in the Ward 2 Democratic primary. Westphal and Nancy Kaplan are vying to fill the open seat that’s being left by Sally Petersen’s mayoral candidacy.

In other action on June 3 – a meeting that lasted over five hours – commissioners postponed a rezoning and site plan request from the Ann Arbor housing commission for a property on North Maple, part of a major overhaul of the city’s public housing sites. The project would demolish the single family homes at North Maple Estates, and build apartments that would roughly double the density of low-income housing there. Some neighbors raised concerns about the proposal, which is on the commission’s June 17 agenda for consideration.

Other items on the June 3 agenda were dispatched with little discussion: (1) a site plan for Dusty’s Collision on South Industrial; (2) an expansion at the Rudolf Steiner High School on Pontiac Trail; and (3) a rezoning and area plan request to develop property on Research Park Drive, including an indoor-outdoor tennis facility.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street

Planning commissioners were asked to consider a request that would allow up to six Jesuits to live together at 1919 Wayne St.

The request – by the Ann Arbor Jesuit Community, formally known as the USA Midwest Province of the Society of Jesus – is for a special exception use to allow a “functional family” to live in a house zoned R1C (single-family dwelling). Without the special exception use, up to four unrelated people could live there.

Aerial view of 1919 Wayne St.

The code that allows this special exception use was adopted in 1991. Before that time, most communities didn’t provide for an alternative family living arrangement in their zoning codes. In 1984, the Michigan Supreme Court determined that some provision for a living arrangement other than a traditional biological family was needed. That ruling came in the case of Delta Charter Township v. Dinolfo.

Ann Arbor adopted language that is similar to ordinances in many communities in Michigan. A group must meet all requirements in the zoning ordinance as well as in the special exception use conditions in order to be considered a “functional family.” A “functional family,” for purposes of the city’s zoning code, is defined as follows: “a group of people plus their offspring, having a relationship which is functionally equivalent to a family. The relationship must be of a permanent and distinct character with a demonstrable and recognizable bond characteristic of a cohesive unit.” The city code states that a functional family is not a social society, club, fraternity or sorority, association, lodge, organization, group of students or other unrelated persons living together temporarily.

The permit must apply only to the functional family “type” that obtains the permit – in this case, the Ann Arbor Jesuit Community. It is limited to the number of people specified in the permit, and there must be a contact person identified as head of household. This special exception use would be limited to up to six people, with Rev. Dan Reim acting as head of household.

Although the city’s ordinance has allowed for a “functional family” designation since 1991, this is the first time any group has requested it. The residents would be members of the religious order at St. Mary’s Student Parish, or pursuing degrees at the University of Michigan or other local institutions.

The group’s application describes how the Jesuits live as a “functional family.” The statement reads, in part:

As a functional family, we refer to one another, when speaking of each other collectively, as “brothers.” Our unity is based upon our religious commitment to live together as a religious family. As brothers related to one another by our common vows and commitment to service in the Church, we are, like a family, one another’s primary support system.

…

The basis of our living as a household is not temporary or dependent on the University school year or any such seasonal arrangement or pattern, as a fraternity or sorority would typically be. Jesuits living in structured households under a superior has been an integral part of the religious order for centuries, and the Jesuits who will live at 1919 Wayne will be participating in that centuries old tradition.

In addition to meeting the “functional family” requirement, this special exception use must meet with certain standards, including compatibility with the zoning district and adjacent districts. The use must also not generate an intensity that would be hazardous or inconvenient to the neighborhood, or conflict with normal traffic.

Wayne Street is located on the city’s near east side, between Washtenaw Avenue and Vinewood Boulevard, in Ward 2.

No exterior changes are planned to the structure of the house, which has about 4,000 square feet with seven bedrooms and two bathrooms. The Jesuits indicated that they’d like to reconfigure the interior to use one of the bedrooms as a guest room and to add two bathrooms.

The special exception use would be contingent on providing off-street parking spaces for each vehicle used by the residents. There are two spaces in the garage and two tandem parking spaces in the driveway. They also have received permission to park two vehicles at the lot for the First Church of Christ, Scientist, which is adjacent to the site.

In giving her staff report, city planner Alexis DiLeo pointed out that a range of questions raised by nearby residents are addressed in the staff report. [.pdf of staff memo]

The planning commission has discretion to grant a special exception use, which does not require additional city council approval.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Public Hearing

A public hearing drew 21 speakers and lasted about 45 minutes. Several speakers also wrote letters, which were included in the meeting packet. Here are some highlights.

Dan Reim introduced himself as one of the Jesuits who’s applying for the special exception use. He apologized to neighbors for the concerns that this has raised and the tensions that exist. He had hoped to attend the May 13 Oxbridge Neighborhood Association meeting to relieve these concerns. There’s a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding, he said. Reim identified several claims that neighbors have made, such as a negative impact on resale value of nearby homes, and the use of this house for UM Jesuit students. “These statements are not correct,” Reim said. “This is not student housing.”

In the foreground is Dennis Dillon, a pastoral associate at St. Mary Student Parish. Next to him is Ben Hawley, pastor and director of campus ministry. Both men would be among the Jesuits living at 1919 Wayne St.

In addition to Reim, other residents at the house would include Ben Hawley, pastor and director of campus ministry for the St. Mary Student Parish, and Dennis Dillon, a pastoral associate. In August, two new Jesuit priests would be arriving, both of them 33 years old. One of them will be starting a doctoral program at UM’s School of Public Health, and would be the only student in the house, Reim said. At this time, only five Jesuits are planning to live at the house. If a sixth person were to come, he would not be a student but would work at the parish, Reim said.

Reim talked about how the group would be like a family, sharing income and expenses. This would be their full-time residence. Chores, meals, recreation and prayers are shared. The head of household is the designated patient advocate, he noted. As religious brothers, they serve as each other’s primary support system. They’ve loved living in their current home on Ferdon, Reim said, where he’s lived for 10 years. But now they need a new home to accommodate more brothers. They’ll do everything they can to be good neighbors, he concluded.

Peter Nagourney told commissioners he’s co-chair of the North Burns Park Association. He was concerned about the precedent that would be set, and he didn’t believe the planning staff’s justification for granting a special exception use was valid. He highlighted a response from the Jesuits that stated the residents “will generally be members of the religious order that serve at St. Mary’s Student Parish…and/or will be pursuing degrees at the University of Michigan or other local institutions.” The term “generally” is non-specific, he said.

What’s more, the residents will be non-permanent, he added, because some residents will be students or interns, who’ll leave after they finish their studies. The occupants will continually change, Nagourney said. He also was concerned because the city doesn’t enforce its ordinances. In addition, he worried that this would set a precedent for other groups to claim similar status, which could in turn hurt property values. A charismatic leader with five followers, a cult or a commune could qualify, he said. So the city is “about to open the doors wide” to any number of other household types in residential neighborhoods. He urged commissioners to reject this request.

Scott Munzel is the attorney representing the Oxbridge Neighborhood Association to oppose the application. [.pdf of Munzel letter] Clearly the applicant is not a functional family, he said. The name of the organization includes the word “society,” he said, and a society is explicitly excluded from the city’s definition of a functional family. The Jesuits take vows, Munzel noted, but those vows are not directed to each other – they’re directed to the church. As an “ironic detour,” he joked, many families actually don’t operate in the way that the Jesuits describe. “Many families operate like a failed autocracy, subject to coup at any moment.”

Peter Nagourney, Scott Munzel and Eppie Potts all spoke against granting the special exception use request for 1919 Wayne St.

Even if the Jesuits were a functional family, Munzel continued, they’d fail to meet the standards of a special exception use, which include protecting the residential fabric of the neighborhoods and maintaining property values. He noted that other residential zoning districts – such as R4C – do allow for six unrelated residents in a home. There are thousands of structures in R4C districts, he said. Munzel also indicated his view that the decision about granting a special exception use is the purview of the zoning board of appeals

Liz Kamali lives in the Oxbridge neighborhood and supported the project. [.pdf of Kamali letter] She noted that her family had joined the Oxbridge Neighborhood Association soon after they moved into the area. But she had grave concerns about how ONA is handling this matter. She said the ONA board had violated its bylaws by not sending timely notice of a May 13 meeting, and it hadn’t been clear that the meeting would include a vote about hiring an attorney. There’s been a lack of communication between ONA and its members, she said. Specifically, the board didn’t notify all members that it was spending members’ money to hire an attorney to oppose the Jesuits’ request, which might not represent the prevailing sentiment in the neighborhood, she said. Kamali urged commissioners to grant the special exception use.

Prudence Heikkinen, who lives across from 1919 Wayne Street, said the proposed owners seem to be kind and good men, who would take responsible care of the home. But that’s not the basis on which the commission should make its decision. She’s lived there for 38 years, and said she’d focus her concern on parking. It’s already constrained, especially for overnight parking. The Jesuits state that they’ll park two cars in the driveway, but in the time she’s lived across the street, none of the other six previous owners of 1919 Wayne has consistently used the driveway. “It is simply too narrow and too crooked to do so,” she said. The addition of six cars to the neighborhood would diminish the enjoyment of her home, Heikkinen said.

Fran Youssef pointed out that a previous speaker, Liz Kamali, is a member of the St. Mary Student Parish, and said Kamali’s comments should be viewed in that light. Youssef said the ONA doesn’t function like Congress, so the fact that people weren’t notified according to the bylaws doesn’t mean the association was trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. She said she has two young children and it’s a very safe neighborhood. “I worry that with six adult males with cars and friends, the comings and goings, that it won’t be safe.” She also raised concerns about setting a precedent, saying it will affect the quality of life and resale value of homes there.

Gwen Nystuen and Ellen Ramsburgh (foreground) spoke against granting the special exception use.

Youssef said the men would be wonderful neighbors, but she doesn’t want to open a door to other religious groups. Regarding parking, she said the city doesn’t enforce parking regulations. “I’m a religious person – I’m not going to call the cops on these priests!” It’s not an appropriate neighborhood for them, she concluded. “I think there are many other places that would welcome you with open arms, and in any other circumstances, I’m sure we’d be friends and colleagues.”

Gwen Nystuen also spoke against granting the special exception use. [.pdf of Nystuen letter] A family is usually considered to be a group that owes their first allegiance to each other and that expect to be together permanently, she said. The six people who’d be living in the house at 1919 Wayne wouldn’t all stay there permanently, she said. This arrangement actually sounds like a co-op, she added.

The next speaker was Eppie Potts, who read aloud a definition of an association: “an organized body of people who have some interest, activity or purpose in common.” This is what the Jesuits are, she said, and associations can’t be granted a special exception use. If it’s approved, it sends a warning to everyone who lives in R1 districts that they might be seeing associations moving into their neighborhoods too, she said. The planning commission’s job is to uphold the city’s zoning ordinance. It’s the zoning board of appeals that interprets the ordinance, she contended.

Susan Davenport-Geer said as she tried to leave her office, a drunk, aggressive man blocked her way. This happens regularly, she added, “since a homeless shelter was foisted on a residential community by this very process and body, I believe. It’s an ugly and shameful piece of our history, and I know a lot about how it really came down.” The homeless shelter [at 312 W. Huron] resulted from money, power and privilege, she said. She told commissioners that she’s ashamed to live in a community whose elected and appointed officials would even consider this matter.

She had particular concerns about this specific special exception use. The Catholic church has enjoyed some of the longest and most expensive protection in history, she said. The question is whether Ann Arbor will hold accountable a vastly powerful, wealthy and privileged business – the Catholic church – “that has perpetrated violence throughout its long history on women and children and men,” she said. “Economic violence, political, cultural, gender, sexual violence, to name just a few of its methods.” She wanted to know what planning commissioners are going to do about this. If they don’t reject the request, they’ll be making possible the continuation of these abuses, she said.

Michael Clark lives next to 1919 Wayne, and opposes the special exception use.

Michael Clark, whose property abuts the northern border of 1919 Wayne, highlighted some of the points he’d made in a letter to commissioners. [.pdf of Clark letter] He agreed with previous speaker who opposed the request, especially as it relates to inconsistencies with the city’s master plan. He noted that the proposed owner of the property – USA Midwest Province of the Society of Jesus, Saint Ignatius Trust – is based in Chicago. “They have no ties to this neighborhood,” he said. “They transfer people in and out of Ann Arbor as they see fit.” The city has no way to monitor the number of people living there, or the temporary nature of their residency, he said.

Regarding property values, Clark said that several real estate professionals and attorneys have told residents that it would negatively affect property values. “Some recent studies have shown that property values are affected by as much as 24% when inconsistent groups have moved into the neighborhood,” he said. Clark urged commissioners to reject the request.

Marie Quinlan supported the request, saying she’s known the Jesuits for 10 years as a member of the St. Mary Student Parish. She was surprised to learn about the opposition to this request. Quinlan described how she got to know the priests when she and her son were on a walk and saw Father Dan Reim watering his yard on Ferdon. The Jesuits’ home looks just like other homes in that neighborhood. It’s a blessing to know them and share a neighborhood with them, she said. Quinlan noted that previous speakers had expressed anger at how the Catholic church handled the sexual abuse of children by priests. “Believe me, I share that anger, and I know that the Jesuits are equally appalled. But no amount of anger can justify punishing those who have not and would never commit such crimes,” she said. It would be discriminatory and unfair, Quinlan added, saying “I ask that you not make a determination based on fear.”

Karla Goldman reported that the current owners of 1919 Wayne usually had three cars parked on the street, and there were no parking problems with that. If the adjacent church parking lot is available, she didn’t think there would be an impact on street parking. She said she’s not a member of the Catholic church, but she knows about the contribution that the parish makes to this community. She supported the Jesuits’ request.

Carl Babock told commissioners that he’s a builder in town, and had sold the house on Ferdon to the Jesuits 10 years ago. He listed several other homes in the neighborhood that he’s renovated and sold. After he sold the home to the Jesuits, he sold nearby homes on Baldwin for about $1.2 million each. He thought it was a silly argument to say that property values would decline. He said he knows the Jesuits personally, calling them a group of wonderful people. He thought they would be a wonderful addition to the Oxbridge neighborhood.

Elizabeth Shadigian lives across from 1919 Wayne and opposes the special exception use.

Elizabeth Shadigian, who also submitted a letter to the planning commission, has lived at 1916 Wayne Street for 20 years, across the street from 1919 Wayne. [.pdf of Shadigian letter] She told commissioners that she loves her neighborhood and is Catholic, but she’s firmly against the request. Granting the special exception use would be the equivalent of gender housing discrimination, she said. If the owners wanted to sell the house to people who met the requirements for a special exception use but who discriminated against Germans or against black people or against blind people or LGBT people, she and her husband would be opposed to it. So if the owners want to sell to people who discriminate against women, she and many of her colleagues are also opposed to that, Shadigian said. How can Ann Arbor, which appreciates diversity and civil rights, allow discrimination against women? Gender discrimination is in the Catholic church, in the Society of Jesus, “and it’s right here in front of you,” she said. She urged commissioners to talk to the city’s attorneys and look at the request in more detail than they have so far.

David Emerson said he didn’t think the issue was about ideology in any way. It’s about zoning laws, why they were instituted, and why they should be upheld. He thinks “these are probably fine gentlemen,” but they are not family and are not permanent. They call themselves brothers, Emerson said, but so do all the fraternities. Many of the supporters of the request are affiliated with the church, he noted, which he thought should raise questions about whether they’re biased.

Ann Shields lives close to 1919 Wayne, but said her concerns go beyond just this neighborhood. It’s difficult to understand why the Jesuits qualify as a functional family, she said, because it’s not a permanent arrangement. This isn’t a personal issue, she said, but the Jesuits aren’t a family for the purposes of getting a special exception use – and that’s what she encouraged commissioners to consider. If they approve this request, it could open the door for many other groups to make similar requests and establish group living situations in single-family residential area, which would change the character of those neighborhoods.

Andrea Van Houweling said she knew Jesuits would be wonderful neighbors, but they are a society – and the city’s zoning code states that a functional family can’t be a society, she noted. The Jesuits are saying that they aren’t a social society, she added, but they are a society. If the city approves this request, then why wouldn’t a fraternity be able to get a special exception use? She’s concerned that the zoning code won’t be enforced. [.pdf of Van Houweling letter]

Cevin Taylor, an attorney representing the Jesuits who are seeking a special exception use to live at 1919 Wayne Street.

Masoud Kamali noted that he is married to a previous speaker, Elizabeth Kamali, and he also supported the request. Not everyone who supports it is Catholic, he added – he was born Muslim, and isn’t Catholic. He said he’s from Iran, describing it as a country that’s portrayed negatively by many. He’s very aware of being discriminated against because of association.

The attorney representing the Jesuits, Cevin Taylor, added verbal remarks to supplement the letter he submitted to the commission. [.pdf of Taylor letter] He thanked the planning staff for the professional way that they’ve handled this process. He and the Jesuits have heard the neighbors’ concerns and will do their best to take those concerns into account. He noted that many issues have been raised, but the planning commission’s task is to determine if the request meets the zoning code requirements. The code states that the requirements must be “substantially” met, he noted, so there’s some leeway.

Taylor also argued that a functional family shouldn’t be held to a higher standard than a biological family. In a biological family, a father might need to move to another city for a year for work reasons, Taylor said. Death, divorce, remarriage, the birth or adoption of children – all of these changes might happen in a traditional family. Regarding the word “society” in the “Society of Jesus,” the zoning ordinance doesn’t exclude any entity that has a legal name using that word, he said. Regarding the word “generally” that was used in the Jesuits’ request, Taylor said he takes blame for that. The application states that residents “will generally be members of the religious order that serve at St. Mary’s Student Parish…and/or will be pursuing degrees at the University of Michigan or other local institutions.” He said they will all be members of the order – one student, with the others serving at the parish. He concluded by asking commissioners to approve the application.

The final speaker was Ellen Ramsburgh, who serves on the city’s historic district commission. She said the objection isn’t to who is applying. Rather, it’s that the request would be granted to a group that is not a functional family. The group could find housing in several other zoning districts, she noted. The planning staff’s description of the Jesuits’ living arrangement also describes any of the co-ops that are run by the Inter-Cooperative Council, she said. Those are located in districts that allow this type of living arrangement. She also noted that the relationship among members of the Jesuits’ house is impermanent and subject to assignments from the head of the Society of Jesus. The bond is not to the family unit, but to the organization. Within a biological family, there are usually contractual or legal agreements, she added, like a marriage certificate. Those contractual agreements don’t exist in the case of the Jesuits, she concluded.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion

Planning commission chair Kirk Westphal began the discussion by thanking speakers who commented during the public hearing, saying that commissioners depend greatly on their input. However, he added, the commission’s purpose is to look at petitions as they relate to city code.

The initial discussion lasted more than an hour, followed by a vote. At the end of the meeting – around midnight – commissioners took up the issue again, and ultimately postponed action.

This report summarizes and organizes the deliberations thematically.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion – Legal Issues

Responding to a query from Kirk Westphal, planning manager Wendy Rampson explained that she’d been involved in developing the city code related to the “functional family” designation. The case of Delta Charter Township v. Dinolfo resulted from a violation of the township’s limit on the number of unrelated individuals who could live in a house. The Delta case involved a family plus six unrelated individuals of a religious organization who challenged that zoning limitation, Rampson explained. Ultimately, the Michigan Supreme Court heard the case and ruled that all communities must make accommodations for non-traditional families.

Planning commissioner Ken Clein.

The term used to refer to these kinds of situations was “functional family,” she said. That term was adopted as part of the city of Ann Arbor’s code, as well as for other municipalities nationwide. In the mid-1990s, the city of Ann Arbor’s code was challenged in a case that went to the state court of appeals, which upheld the city code, she said. But there have not been any formal applications for the functional family designation until this one, she said. It was adopted into city code in 1991.

Ken Clein quipped that if it’s been almost 25 years with only one request, “there’s not a mad rush at this point.”

Jeremy Peters asked if granting this special exception use would set any kind of legal precedent for future, if other groups – religious or not – want to apply. City planner Alexis DiLeo replied that she didn’t think so. Each petitioner would have to state their case to the planning commission, she added. By their nature, special exception uses aren’t appropriate everywhere.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion – Functional Family

Diane Giannola asked if the request was for six specific individuals, or for any Jesuit. Alexis DiLeo replied that it would allow any member of the USA Midwest Province of the Society of Jesus to live at that location. Giannola wondered if there was any stipulation about requiring members to live there for a certain period. There’s no durational requirement, DiLeo said.

DiLeo also clarified for Giannola that the special exception use (SEU) is attached to the address, not to the property owner. If the SEU is granted, it would apply as long as the residents meet the criteria of the SEU – for example, as long as the residents are Jesuits. The SEU lapses after two years, if its requirements aren’t met.

Giannola wondered how this would be different from a fraternity or sorority. DiLeo cautioned that she wasn’t as familiar with fraternities or sororities, but her understanding is that members reside in a house for one to four or five years while in school. They don’t make medical decisions for each other, or pool their income, or share their material possessions. If something happens, they’d probably call their parents, she said. DiLeo said her assumption is that co-housing works in a similar way. An SEU is made on a case-by-case basis, she noted.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

Jeremy Peters asked how this functional family designation might apply to a same-sex couple with more than two adopted kids, who under Michigan law might be technically unrelated. DiLeo said it would likely be a strong case for the functional family designation. If people like that apply, their request would be evaluated based on the ties that bind them together, she said.

Ken Clein asked whether the city attorney’s office was in agreement with the planning staff’s assessment of the functional family designation in this case. DiLeo said the planning staff as a whole discussed it, and discussed it with the city attorney’s office. The city attorney’s staff knows that planning staff is recommending approval of the SEU, “and did not find any reason to object or advise us otherwise,” she said.

Clein clarified again that if the Jesuits moved out of that house, the SEU would no longer apply and any other group would have to seek a new SEU. Yes, DiLeo said – if a different family type moved in that needed an SEU, then they would have to apply for it. The SEU doesn’t transfer to a different address or to a different family type.

Bonnie Bona pointed out that if an individual member of the Jesuit community purchased the house from the Society of Jesus, the SEU would remain in effect. DiLeo again noted that the SEU is not tied to the owner – it’s tied to the family type that’s granted the SEU.

Bona also wanted to know what options were available for six unrelated people to live, regardless of whether they were considered a functional family. DiLeo replied that the options would be to live in residences located in any R4 zoning district or in the downtown districts, zoned D1 or D2.

The city code has three residential occupancy options, DiLeo explained: (1) the functional family designation; (2) a traditional family of any size; or (3) four unrelated residents, or up to six residents in R4 districts. If there are seven unrelated residents, their only option is to seek a functional family designation, she said.

DiLeo noted that these “residential occupancy” options – outlined in Chapter 55, Section 7 of the city code – do not apply to “rooming or boarding houses, fraternity or sorority houses, student cooperatives, emergency shelters, or convalescent homes.” Those types of arrangements are allowed as special exception uses in the R2B and R4 districts.

Kirk Westphal cautioned against using the rationale that there are other places the Jesuits could live as a reason for making the planning commission’s decision.

Eleanore Adenekan asked about the word “society” in the group’s name. When the planning staff and city attorney’s office reviewed this application, what did they think about that word, given that a functional family can’t be a “social society.” DiLeo replied that the Society of Jesus is a religious order.

Planning commissioner Eleanore Adenekan.

Peters asked about the Jesuits’ commitment to each other, outside of their commitment to the religious order. Dan Reim, who would be the head of household, said there’s a long training period, when they learn a particular spirituality within the Catholic church. It focuses how they live their life, and what their mission is. All of that they share in common, he said, and their religion is lived out on a daily basis through their life together. They take vows of poverty, he said – that’s why they don’t own their own cars or homes. All salaries come into a common pot, he said, and expenses are shared.

Bona thanked them for coming forward, and for facing some harsh criticism. “I think we would all feel unfairly treated if we became suddenly responsible for every one of our distant relatives’ mistakes,” she said, referring to criticism of the Catholic church.

Bona noted that all families face conflicts, and wondered how the Jesuits dealt with that. Communication is key, Reim replied. They are focused on helping improve people’s lives. From a faith perspective, “we believe that’s through our encounter with Christ,” he said. By sharing and practicing their faith together, talking to each other and praying together, that works pretty well. He said they struggle like everyone else.

Bona said she was trying to get at the issue of family and permanence. In a co-op, if you didn’t get along with others, you could just move out. Reim replied that the Jesuits take a vow of obedience to the next-highest person in the religious order. That person is responsible for assigning you to wherever you might go. That vow means they don’t get to choose where they go or what they do, Reim explained. You have the option of leaving the order, he added, but he thought their vows encourage them to work harder on sorting things out.

Adenekan asked about their daily routine. Reim said they work morning until evening, with their most intense work at the parish occurring on weekends. Each person is assigned a day off during the week. There are other Jesuits who might visit them and stay at the house for short periods. Biological family members might also visit, he said.

Adenekan clarified with Reim that if one Jesuit brother moves out, another brother would come to take a similar role within the household. She likened it to a divorce and remarriage within a traditional household. In response to another query, Reim said he’s the official patient advocate for Ben Hawley, and Hawley is the patient advocate for Reim. That’s an important distinction between the Jesuits and a co-op housing arrangement, he said. Regarding the pooling of resources, when purchases need to be made, the brothers discuss it and reach a consensus, he said.

Adenekan wondered if the graduate student who’d be living there would be moving on after his studies. Reim said the student might move, or might stay and continue working at the parish. If the student moves, another student might come, he added – depending on if there’s a Jesuit who gets accepted into a university graduate program. Or another Jesuit who’s doing ministry at the parish might live there. In general, there won’t be more than six Jesuits living there, he said, and maybe less than five.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion – Neighborhood Impact

Kirk Westphal asked staff to respond to concerns about the stability of the neighborhood and turnover.

City planner Alexis DiLeo.

Alexis DiLeo replied that the neighborhood is predominantly owner-occupied, single-family homes of traditional families. There aren’t many rental properties or student rentals. A family of any size or four unrelated people could live at 1919 Wayne without a special exception use. There would be no requirements about the type of unrelated people who could live there – that is, residents could be four unrelated students. The city doesn’t regulate the number of cars that residents own, she noted, but there is a residential parking permit program in that neighborhood. Any household is entitled to a total of five permits.

Responding to a query from Westphal, DiLeo said the functional family designation falls under the residential occupancy section of the zoning code. That section talks about types of family arrangements and number of people. It doesn’t talk about gender, age or other characteristics. Individual or family roles are not regulated for traditional biological families, she noted. So if a functional family designation is approved, there can be different types of individuals within that family.

Responding to a query from Westphal, DiLeo explained that the planning commission could add conditions to the special exception use. Those conditions might relate to the number of parking spaces, the number of people allowed to live there, or other issues, she said.

Jeremy Peters wondered if putting restrictions on residents – like student status, gender, or age – would violate federal fair housing laws. Planning manager Wendy Rampson indicated that the staff couldn’t answer that legal question on the fly. The point of a “functional family” designation was to allow for types of living arrangements that have traditionally been kept out of single-family neighborhoods, she said. Peters noted that density would increase only by two people, compared to the four unrelated people that would be allowed to live there otherwise.

Wendy Woods asked about the issue of property values. DiLeo suggested that residents could contact a realtor or property appraiser to ask about property values. The city code does speak to the need to preserve property values, she said. But as a functional family, in the eyes of the city they would be a single-family household. She’s certain that there are six-person traditional, biological families in that neighborhood, so she didn’t think it was an unreasonable size. Other special exception uses allowed in that neighborhood are churches and childcare centers. Types of uses that are considered inappropriate for single-family neighborhoods include restaurants or a home business that’s out of character with the neighborhood.

Given the location, DiLeo didn’t think a six-person “functional family” household was out of character with the neighborhood.

Westphal asked about the experience of other communities with this type of designation, and how it worked. DiLeo didn’t have information about specific experiences, but said she’d surveyed other communities’ code. Some have definitions that are almost identical to Ann Arbor’s, while others include the phrase “religious order” explicitly as a type of functional family.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion – Parking

Kirk Westphal raised the possibility of requiring that more than two of the six cars should be parked at the adjacent church lot. Alexis DiLeo said she took the Jesuits at their word when they said they would be parking two cars in the garage and two cars in the driveway. The cars aren’t assigned to specific individuals, she noted – keys are kept in a bowl, and the person who needs to leave takes the first car at the end of the driveway. She said they indicated that they drive smaller vehicles.

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters.

Ken Clein noted that the Jesuits have lived on Ferdon for about 10 years. He wondered if the city had any complaints about parking at that location. Dan Reim, the head of household for the Jesuits, said they’ve have no complaints. He noted that the homeowner next to them asked that they not park in front of that home, and they’ve complied with that.

Eleanore Adenekan confirmed that because of the system the Jesuits use – not owning individual cars – they don’t have to deal with moving cars. They just take the one that’s most convenient to use. She asked if there would be any meetings there, or gatherings for ministry. No, Reim replied.

Jeremy Peters asked why the Jesuits had chosen this house, rather than a house located in areas that wouldn’t require a special exception use. Reim said they like their current house on Ferdon and wouldn’t leave, but it has only four bedrooms and a small guest room. They’ve outgrown it. The house on Wayne fits their lifestyle, he said. There aren’t many seven-bedroom houses, he noted, and they’ve been looking for quite some time. The bedrooms are an appropriate size.

Reim again apologized, saying he had no idea it would become such a big issue and take up so much of people’s time.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion – Zoning Board of Appeals

Jeremy Peters asked staff to clarify why the special exception use request was being handled by the planning commission, not the zoning board of appeals. He noted that the question had been raised during the public hearing.

Alexis DiLeo replied that the city code is clear – the planning commission is the entity that determines whether a group is a functional family, and also is the entity that approves special exception uses.

Bonnie Bona asked if the ZBA has any role to play if the planning commission rejects this request. Wendy Rampson said the next step would be for someone to take the issue to circuit court. There’s been some case law in Michigan that encourages all administrative remedies to be pursued before taking it to court, she said. Some courts have held that to mean taking the issue to the ZBA, even though the ZBA has no jurisdiction. Rampson said she couldn’t say definitively that the issue couldn’t be brought to the ZBA, but in the normal course of action the next step would be circuit court.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion – Enforcement

Bonnie Bona asked planning staff to explain what should be done if someone is violating the city code. Wendy Rampson confirmed that enforcement is complaint-driven. It’s very difficult in court to prove over-occupancy, because it’s the city’s word against that of the residents, she said. Enforcement for over-occupancy primarily takes place through the city’s rental housing inspection program. She’s heard there’s a concern about over-occupancy at the Vitosha Guest Haus Inn – saying that it might be that neighbors have contacted community standards about parking but planning staff haven’t been contacted about zoning issues there.

The approach would be to meet with the property owner and give them time to make corrections, she said. If they don’t, the city can write tickets for civil infractions – but then it’s up to the court. So the staff has tools, she said, but they’re not the easiest tools to administer.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion – Conclusions

Diane Giannola said that this arrangement doesn’t seem like a functional family to her. It’s more of a cross between a fraternity and co-op. Members of fraternities and sororities have bonds for life, she said – they feel like family, but live in a larger group housing. A co-op lives more like a family, but it’s more temporary, she said. Because the special exception use applies to an entire religious group – and not six specific individuals – Giannola couldn’t think of it as a functional family.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

She could see awarding the group a special exception use if there were no place else in the city. But many other zoning districts allow for six unrelated people to live.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson clarified that the code refers to functional family types, not individuals. It was clear when consulting with the city attorney’s office that the code does not require specific individuals to be designated a functional family. Giannola said there’s too much transiency, because in this case the SEU would apply to an entire religious order.

Kirk Westphal asked if there would be any way to put legal requirements on the term of residency, to regulate the transiency. Alexis DiLeo said she hadn’t seen any examples of that in other communities, and she’d need to consult with the city attorney’s office. Rampson added that it’s a very difficult question, and the federal fair housing and civil rights laws might play into it. The planning staff hadn’t explored this particular issue in depth, and they couldn’t provide an answer that evening.

Ken Clein said he respectfully disagreed with Giannola. It seems that the commission is bordering on holding the Jesuits to a higher standard than a six-member traditional family. It could quickly lead to a sense of discriminating against people like this, he said. In traditional families, there are divorces, and people leave home. To say that a traditional family is permanent might be overstated, he thought. This request meets his understanding of a functional family designation.

Regarding impact on the neighborhood, Clein didn’t think there’s any solid evidence that property values would be negatively impacted. The church next to the house probably has more impact than this group would. It’s important to handle the parking so that it won’t impact other residents, but he didn’t think it would be detrimental to the neighborhood.

Eleanore Adenekan agreed with Clein. As a realtor, she evaluates houses based on the condition of the house and the neighborhood, not on who lives there or how long they’ve lived there. Her daughter previously lived in that neighborhood, she said, and it’s a residential, family-friendly area. These Jesuits aren’t teenagers, she added. They know how to maintain a home, and she’s supporting their request. She said she’s listened to concerns and has empathy for that, but noted that the Jesuits are committed. Their vows won’t result in a transient lifestyle, she said. She reported that her son attended a Jesuit school in New York City, so she’s familiar with that order.

Planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Wendy Woods also was supportive of the request, saying it met the definition of a functional family. The main difference is that for the Jesuits, there will be a cap on the number of people living there. A traditional family doesn’t have that same constraint. She hoped that if it was approved, there would be community healing. There were some unfortunate comments during the public hearing, she noted. Woods also noted that there had been some concern about students living there, but she cautioned against making generalizations about students.

Bonnie Bona said she’d been through the same “mental gyrations” that other commissioners have gone through, taking all the comments to heart. Her view is that the definition of functional family is the Ann Arbor Jesuit community, which is listed as the family type on the SEU resolution. Like a traditional family, members will come and go. She didn’t share Giannola’s concern. Bona felt very comfortable with the group of Jesuits, and with the idea that this SEU doesn’t set a precedent. Future requests will also be based on the city’s standards and criteria, not on precedent. She thought the Jesuits could be strong neighbors.

Westphal didn’t know if this would set a precedent if any other religious group came forward with a similar request. Legal documents like health care proxies give him comfort with this particular group functioning as a permanent unit, but is that something that other religious orders have? He said he was struggling with these issues, even though he was comfortable with this particular group.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion – Initial Motion to Postpone

Kirk Westphal pointed out that this was the first time the commission had dealt with this functional family issue, and he wanted more time to research the experiences of other communities and to further consult with the city attorney’s office. He wanted to get more “comfort with making sure this fits everybody’s expectation with what we’ve agreed to hold ourselves to with the master plan and the stability of neighborhoods.” He said he felt ill-prepared to make a determination.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the planning commission.

Jeremy Peters observed that one of the main concerns is permanence. He didn’t know if language could be crafted in the SEU to deal with that, or if that would be exclusionary under federal fair housing laws.

Peters moved to postpone the item to get more information from the city attorney’s office with regard to possible restrictions on turnover of residents, and other legal issues.

Westphal asked staff how long it might take to have discussions with the city attorney’s office. “Years and years,” DiLeo quipped. [The city attorney's office generally has a reputation for taking a long time to deal with requests.] She said they could start the next day, and with the goal of bringing something forward at the commission’s June 17 meeting.

Bonnie Bona supported postponement, “so when we do vote, we’re all comfortable.”

Wendy Woods wondered what postponement would do to the Jesuits’ plans to buy the house. Dan Reim reported that the Jesuits have committed a certain amount of money, which they’d lose if they withdrew the offer or couldn’t move ahead with the deal. They have a sales contract on the house, which is listed at $795,000.

When asked to weigh in, the property’s current owner, Steffen Urbaniak, said he wasn’t going to make a decision on the spot that night. He wasn’t clear about the commission’s decision-making process, and wanted to take some time to consider what it means for him and his wife. They’d had this offer for quite some time, and are planning to move to China on July 1. They don’t have other offers at this time.

Woods pointed out that the commission’s decisions have consequences. She wasn’t in favor of postponing. Eleanore Adenekan also opposed postponement, though she noted that the sales contract could be extended if both parties agree.

Ken Clein also weighed in against postponing, noting that the city attorney’s office has already reviewed the information prepared by the planning staff and didn’t have any problem with it. He thought a postponement might be the equivalent of a vote against it, because it could possibly kill the real estate deal.

Steffen Urbaniak, current owner of 1919 Wayne St.

Clein clarified with planning staff that six votes would be required to pass the special exception use.

Bona said if it’s postponed, she’d like to see it at the next planning commission meeting on June 17.

DiLeo again stressed that the planning staff worked one-on-one with the city attorney’s office in crafting the language of the special exception use resolution. It’s very specific to this particular situation, and she noted that the resolution is significantly longer than most resolutions. “I don’t know how much more the city attorney’s office even has to offer, relative to precedent-setting,” she said. She added that she could work with the attorney’s office regarding what kind of additional conditions might be included, beyond the current resolution.

DiLeo said it would help if Westphal could clarify exactly what he’d like to see as conditions. “Going to the city attorney’s office with open-ended questions, you don’t get the level of specificity that I think you might be looking for,” she explained.

Westphal replied that he was interested in restrictions that might address the degree of turnover among residents. He also wanted time for the Jesuits to meet with the Oxbridge Neighborhood Association.

Peters said he opposed postponement. He explained that he had moved to postpone becuase Westphal, as chair, couldn’t make the motion. Peters had wanted Westphal’s concerns to be discussed.

Outcome on initial vote to postpone: It failed on a 3-4 vote, with support from Kirk Westphal, Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Commission Discussion – Additional Comments

Wendy Woods noted that the decision on the special exception use does not require city council approval. She confirmed that there would also be no recourse to take this item to the zoning board of appeals.

Outcome on granting the special exception use: It needed six votes to pass, and failed on a 5-2 vote over dissent from Kirk Westphal and Diane Giannola.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: Reconsideration

At the end of the meeting around midnight, during the agenda item for commission proposed business, Jeremy Peters said it might be worth looking at the bylaws regarding special exception use – especially considering that not all members of the planning commission were present for the vote. [Sabra Briere and Paras Parekh were absent.]

Planning commission chair Kirk Westphal noted that the commission did have the ability to take up items for reconsideration. “I sensed there was some degree of surprise with the vote,” he said.

Diane Giannola pointed out at an item can only be brought back for reconsideration by someone who voted on the prevailing side. In this case, that meant only she or Westphal could bring it back.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson read from the relevant section of the commission’s bylaws:

Section 12. After a motion has been decided, any member voting with the prevailing side may move for reconsideration of the motion at the same or the next regular meeting. No motion may be reconsidered more than once.

Bonnie Bona said she likes the fact that planning commissioners tend to vote their conscience, rather than taking a straw vote or negotiating votes, which she said feels like a political process. So it’s appropriate that they voted, and then can reconsider it if that’s what is desired.

Westphal noted that it’s rare to have two commissioners absent. He indicated interest in reconsideration. Saying that it was late – about midnight – Giannola proposed waiting two weeks until the June 17 meeting. It could be reconsidered at that time.

Bona thought the commission should act sooner, or the Jesuits might lose their sales contract for the property. Giannola pointed out that four people could live there without a special exception use – just not more. Westphal noted that the whole point of buying the house was that it would accommodate more people.

There was some discussion about another section of their bylaws, regarding acting on agenda items after 11 p.m. From the bylaws:

Article VII: Section 2. No agenda item will be taken up by the Commission after 11:00 p.m., except by the consent of five (5) Commission members present. In those cases where agenda items are not completed, they will be put forward to the next regular meeting of the Commission and placed first on the agenda.

For the previous hour, commissioners had followed this rule for other items on their agenda. Wendy Rampson noted that their current discussion was not actually an item on the agenda, but Bona wanted to go through the process so that there’d be no question that the vote to reconsider was official.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to extend the meeting to consider this item.

Westphal asked Giannola if she wanted to make a motion to reconsider. She did not. So Westphal then moved to reconsider the special exception use item for the house on 1919 Wayne St. He said even though waiting two weeks might jeopardize the sales contract, it benefited the community to have a more thorough discussion.

Ken Clein then moved to postpone the reconsideration. Rampson pointed out that commissioners hadn’t yet voted on the motion to reconsider. Clein withdrew his motion.

Outcome: Commissioners passed the motion to reconsider, over dissent from Diane Giannola.

Rampson reported that her computer had just stopped working. It was about 12:10 a.m.

Planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Jeremy Peters.

Peters moved to postpone until the June 17 meeting.

Rampson said that the planning staff would notify people who attended the meeting about the commission’s decision. She asked if commissioners wanted to re-open the public hearing.

Giannola supported re-opening the public hearing, “since nobody’s here right now to see what we’re doing.” [Other than commissioners, planning staff and The Chronicle, no other people were at the meeting at this point.]

Westphal commented that it’s possible the planning commission would add conditions to the special exception use, which might change how some residents feel about it.

Bona also supported re-opening the public hearing. She asked Rampson to encourage the Jesuits and the Oxbridge Neighborhood Association to meet before the June 17 planning commission meeting, to try to address some of the residents’ concerns.

Westphal hoped to get some guidance from the city attorney’s office before June 17. Rampson said an updated staff report can be provided. It would be available online by the end of the day on Friday, June 13, as part of the June 17 meeting packet.

Westphal suggested that the Jesuits and neighborhood association could meet sometime after the updated staff report is available, but before June 17. Bona didn’t think that adding a bit of legal information would change the dynamic between the Jesuits and the neighbors. She cautioned against constraining when those groups should meet.

Woods agreed with Bona. She wondered if someone from the city attorney’s office could attend the June 17 meeting. Rampson said she’d ask, but typically the city attorney’s staff are reluctant weigh in at meetings, other than on questions of fact.

Westphal clarified with Rampson that a simple majority was required to pass a motion to postpone.

Outcome: On a 6-1 vote, commissioners postponed the item until June 17, over dissent from Diane Giannola.

Jesuit Home on Wayne Street: June 17 Meeting

After the vote, two commissioners who supported the request – Jeremy Peters and Eleanore Adenekan – indicated that they will be absent, and another supporter, Ken Clein, said he might also be unable to attend. So it’s possible that there will only be six commissioners at that meeting – which means all commissioners would need to vote yes in order for it to pass.

On Friday, June 13, the planning staff posted a revised staff report on this item, incorporating responses based on the June 3 discussion. The staff continues to recommend approval of this request. [.pdf of June 17 staff report]

North Maple Public Housing

Planning commissioners were asked to recommend approval of rezoning a 4.8-acre site at 701 N. Maple Road from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). Commissioners were also asked to recommend a site plan and development agreement for the project – part of a major renovation effort by the Ann Arbor housing commission. The site is on the west side of North Maple, between Dexter Avenue and Hollywood Drive.

The plan calls for demolishing 20 existing single-family homes – the public housing complex known as North Maple Estates – and constructing an eight-building, 42-unit apartment complex with a total of 138 bedrooms. The units range in size from one bedroom to five bedrooms.

The project would include a playground, community building and 73 parking spaces. According to a staff memo, the buildings would be located along a T-shaped driveway that connects to North Maple Road and Dexter Avenue. The drive extends northward toward Vine Court but does not connect with that street. There would be a new connection to Dexter Avenue through the remaining, undeveloped length of Seybold Drive. [.pdf of staff memo]

The project also requires the city to vacate a portion of the right-of-way for Seybold Drive. The surrounding land is owned by the housing commission, so if the right-of-way vacation is approved, the land would become part of the housing commission property. Planning staff recommended postponement on that specific action so that the request to vacate a portion of Seybold Drive’s right-of-way can be given proper public notice.

In general, the postponement on the North Maple Estates reconstruction was recommended to allow time to address several outstanding issues related to the project, and to draft a development agreement.

Rendering of proposed Ann Arbor housing commission project at 701 N. Maple.

Proposed layout of the Ann Arbor housing commission’s development on North Maple.

The reconstruction of North Maple Estates is part of an ongoing effort by the housing commission to upgrade the city’s housing stock for low-income residents. At the planning commission’s May 6, 2014 meeting, AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall had made a presentation about the initiative, which includes seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

At that May 6 meeting, planning commissioners recommended rezoning for three AAHC properties: (1) Baker Commons, at the southeast corner of Main and Packard, from public land to D2 (downtown interface); (2) Green/Baxter Court Apartments, at the northwest corner of Green and Baxter roads, from public land to R4A (multi-family dwelling district); and (3) Maple Meadows at 800-890 S. Maple, from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The rezoning for those sites was subsequently given initial approval by city council at its meeting on June 2, with a final vote expected later this month.

North Maple Public Housing: Public Hearing

During the project’s public hearing on June 3, four neighbors voiced a variety of concerns about the proposal, including traffic related to the new curbcut on Dexter Avenue, increased density, and security.

Laura Fisher spoke during a public hearing on the North Maple Estates project.

Laura Fisher told commissioners that she wasn’t concerned about the project in general, but she did have concerns about the proposed curbcut onto Dexter Avenue. At that spot, Dexter Avenue narrows from five lanes to two. She lives near the intersection of Dexter and Valley Drive, across from the proposed curbcut. A lot of people turn left from Dexter into Valley Drive, she said, so that’s another issue, and a lot more study needs to be done regarding traffic.

Fisher also noted that the foot and bicycle traffic has increased in that area over the past 10 years, especially after the opening of Plum Market and Aldi at the corner of Maple and Dexter. People walk along Dexter Avenue to get there, and they walk in the road because there’s no sidewalk. Currently, people from North Maple Estates also cross Dexter Avenue without using the light at Maple. The staff report about the North Maple Estates didn’t address these issues, she said.

Joyce Garrett lives on Allison Drive, directly west of North Maple Estates. She said there were several residents who were not notified of the February citizens participation meeting about this project. It appears that there will be a lot more people living on that site, she noted, and that all the buildings will be significantly closer to the property lines. She was concerned about the impact of construction, and about what kind of fence or other barrier would be put up to prevent people from crossing into her property. Now, a lot of people cut through her yard. There’s also a bright light on the back of the community center that shines into the back of her house. She hoped things like that would be changed. She also thought the city’s sanitary sewer line runs along her back fence, and she wondered if that would be excavated.

George Dentel also lives on Allison Drive. He wondered why the residents who are most affected by this planning commission meeting – the people currently living in North Maple Estates – weren’t notified about it. He’s talked with them and they were shocked, he said. The current homes there have neat yards and playgrounds. “We’ve been living peacefully with this development for 25 or 30 years or more,” he said. Dentel didn’t understand the motivation for this project. Was it financial? “It certainly can’t be for the benefit of residents,” he said. He wanted to know if there are legal measures that residents can take to oppose the project. Most of the people who live on Allison and Hollywood oppose this project, he concluded.

Another Allison resident, Mike Kvicala, told commissioners that his house is directly behind the basketball court. He referred to the staff memo’s mention of “conflicting land use,” and asked for an explanation. His understanding was that the project would cut down the trees and scrub, and he wanted clarification of that. The biggest concern of most nearby residents is the density, he said, which will double. He wondered why there were five-bedroom units. He said he’s seen news items about immigrants “stuffing grandma and uncles and aunts” into apartments.

Jennifer Hall, executive director of the Ann Arbor housing commission.

Another concern is building materials, like using vinyl, and he wondered how it would be maintained. The housing commission historically has done a poor job of maintaining its properties, he said, with a “revolving door” of administrators. He disagreed with a previous speaker who said there hadn’t been problems with North Maple Estates. He said he’s rebuilt his fence twice after kids have knocked it down, and he’s had outbuildings destroyed. “I’m constantly having police actions, so I’m concerned about security.” With increased density, there will potentially be more problems, he said.

Three representatives of the housing commission and project team spoke during the hearing, and were on hand to answer questions. AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall told commissioners that there’s been a lot of deferred maintenance, and that’s why AAHC has taken on this overhaul of its properties. Some just need rehab, but “this particular site is not one of them” – it needs to be rebuilt.

The houses at North Maple Estates have problems with their original construction and site design, Hall said. Eight of the 20 units are located at the lowest part of the site and have problems with water infiltration. So demolishing the houses and building new units will be better for residents as well as for the surrounding neighborhood. She said there was an opportunity to increase affordable housing on the site. Currently there are 10 four-bedroom houses and 10 five-bedroom houses. The proposed site plan would have more units with fewer bedrooms, so there’s more of a mix, Hall noted.

Scott Betzel of Midwestern Consulting spoke next. He’s the project’s civil engineer. The site presents an opportunity to increase density, be connected to public transportation, and use the land in a better way than it currently is, he said. The units will be new, modern and efficient. They will be ADA compliant and alleviate flooding problems. A key feature will be stormwater management – there isn’t any on the existing site, he noted.

Regarding the new curbcut onto Dexter Avenue, Betzel reported that it was examined by the city’s traffic engineer, who thought it was safe. A new sidewalk will be added to connect with an existing sidewalk at the corner of Dexter and Maple. Regarding landscaping, he said the conflicting land use buffer is required to be a minimum of 15 feet, but it will be more than that between the adjacent residential properties to the west. The large trees will be preserved, and more evergreen trees will be added. He thought it would be a benefit to the neighborhood and to AAHC residents.

Architect John Mouat.

Architect John Mouat of the Ann Arbor firm Mitchell & Mouat began by noting that the color of the buildings as shown in the meeting packet will be different – not the olive green that’s on the rendering. He described how the apartments will be distributed in eight buildings so there won’t be one big building. The smaller units are located near the community building, while the larger units, which are intended for larger families, are closer to the playground. He noted that the site includes about a 20-foot drop from one side to the other, and a major goal for this project is to put the buildings on higher ground. The buildings will also have fairly large porches, he said, and there won’t be patios in the back. They’re trying to create a secure, friendly environment, Mouat concluded.

Hall wrapped up the commentary by adding that this project will include a community center so that AAHC will have on-site property management, which is not part of the existing complex.

North Maple Public Housing: Commission Discussion

Before discussion began, planning commissioner Wendy Woods announced that her husband, Ronald Woods, served on the housing commission board. Ronald Woods attended the June 3 meeting, but did not formally address the board. She said she personally did not benefit from the project, but would be willing to recuse herself if any planning commissioners objected. No one did.

Before the vote to postpone, discussion lasted about 35 minutes. Most of the commissioners’ questions related to issues that were raised during the public hearing.

North Maple Public Housing: Commission Discussion – Fencing, Landscaping

Diane Giannola asked about the fencing. AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall replied that the current fencing is probably inadequate in every housing commission site. It will be replaced, she said, and they can keep an eye on that to make sure it’s not torn down. Having an on-site property manager will make that easier to do.

Scott Betzel of Midwestern Consulting.

Giannola wondered if it would be possible to build a six-foot-high wood fence around the site. Hall replied that she wasn’t sure AAHC owned the fencing, but they’ll look into it. The type of replacement fencing will depend on cost. “We can only do what we have enough money to do,” Hall said.

Bonnie Bona asked staff to give an explanation of requirements for the conflicting land use buffer. City planner Alexis DiLeo explained that a buffer is required when there are different types of adjacent land uses – in this case, single-family sites abutting a proposed multi-family development. The buffer must be at least 15-feet wide, with a designated number of trees. There must also be either a hedge, berm or wall. For this project, a hedge will be used. Existing plants can be used to meet part of the requirement, DiLeo noted.

Bona said that in previous projects, construction trucks have pressed down the soil, which later causes new plants to grow very slowly. She wondered whether construction equipment can be kept away from the buffer area. Scott Betzel of Midwestern Consulting noted that on this site, the buffer will be at the bottom of a slope, so the land there likely won’t be compacted. They’ll be planting 86 trees in the buffer along the west side and 107 bushes.

Responding to another query from Bona, Betzel said a large number of trees will stay in place at the north half of the site, as well as on the southern quarter. Those are where the highest-quality of existing trees are located, he said. They’ve tried to save as much of the trees and hedgerow as possible, he added.

North Maple Public Housing: Commission Discussion – Infrastructure

Responding to a resident’s concern about the sewer line, Scott Betzel said the closest sewer line appears to be about 30 feet away from any fence.

Bonnie Bona asked about plans for lighting on the site. Alexis DiLeo reported that a photometric plan showed that no light would spill onto adjacent properties, and the pole fixtures are all “dark-sky friendly,” which have shields and downward-directed light. That compares to the current “wall pack” lighting that includes visible fixtures and bulbs. Bona said she lives near a city streetlight that’s “pretty obnoxious.” She wanted to make sure that the lamp itself is shielded on the bottom.

Ron Woods, president of the Ann Arbor housing commission’s board.

Betzel said no wall packs are proposed for this site. He wasn’t sure how tall the lights would be. Bona noted that it’s an important issue, especially since the site’s density will be increased. “When we’re asking the neighbors to live with more, I think we have to give them more,” she said.

Regarding the neighbor’s complaint about the community center light, Jennifer Hall said she’d be happy to remove it now. The proposed new lighting would all be on the street – no lighting would be placed in back of the buildings. So there would be no lights near the surrounding neighborhood, she said.

Bona also asked about sidewalks within the site, next to where cars will be parked. She said she’s always concerned about the overhang of a vehicle that might reduce the width of a sidewalk. Betzel replied all sidewalks in front of parking are seven feet wide.

Wendy Woods asked about the proposed detention pool, and wondered how deep the water would be. It concerned her, because children would be in that area. Betzel said that most of the time, the ponds would look like sloped grassy areas, with wetland plants like cattails at the bottom. It would be no deeper than five feet during a 100-year storm, he said. It’s designed to drain within 24-48 hours. John Mouat added that the playground was designed to be further away from the detention ponds.

Responding to a query from Bona, Hall noted that the existing buildings have no insulation. There are constant sewage backflows because the pipes are smaller than the ones required now. AAHC is spending thousands of dollars annually for repair and cleanup. So the houses are beyond the point where they can be rehabbed. Hall pointed out that the investors are requiring that the new buildings meet Enterprise Green Communities standards, so they will be higher energy efficiency buildings.

North Maple Public Housing: Commission Discussion – Management, Security

Wendy Woods was glad there will be an on-site manager. She asked about security on the site. Jennifer Hall replied that she gets a monthly report from the Ann Arbor police department for calls to all of the public housing sites. She doesn’t see reports about calls to surrounding neighbors, however. Hall said police chief John Seto had told her that the public housing sites don’t draw more police calls than other neighborhoods. Woods said problems from increased density aren’t necessarily tied to income or social status, and she wanted people to keep that in mind.

Hall observed that the site has a strong slope on the west side, so the design doesn’t accommodate back porches. That might help with security issues. She also noted that the west side includes the lowest-density units. The higher-density units are clustered together in an area where there aren’t any adjacent single-family neighborhoods.

Jeremy Peters asked about the role of the on-site manager. Hall explained that currently, complex managers are based out of Miller Manor, which is several miles away. They hold office hours at North Maple Estates a couple of hours each week. What’s more, the current community center is actually a converted house. The new community center will have offices and meeting space, and a manager who’ll be there every day. There will be a broad range of activities offered there for both children and adults, Hall said.

North Maple Public Housing: Commission Discussion – Density

Bonnie Bona said she’s a little uncomfortable with the rezoning to increase density on this site. She thought that the housing commission had planned to keep the density unchanged.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

She noted that the existing houses are 50 years old, but should have lasted 100 years. The city needs to know that the housing commission will take care of its properties. “The worst investment is for the city to keep doing this over and over again,” Bona said. She hoped the commission would do it right this time, even if it costs more upfront to do that.

Jennifer Hall explained that all the funding for public housing has come from HUD. The AAHC did an analysis about how much it would need to maintain its properties, and the amount is about three times more than what HUD provides, she said. Hall agreed with Bona, but said “I’m not made of magic – I can only use what funding sources are out there.” The advantage of the new financing approach, she added, is that there’s an opportunity to use private capital investment that’s not available for public housing. The private investors, including Chase Bank, want to ensure that their investment will last for the term of the agreement, which is a minimum of 20 years.

The process includes putting a portion of rent revenues into a capital reserve fund, Hall explained. That wouldn’t be possible with just 20 units, she added – there wouldn’t be enough funds to maintain the buildings, and they wouldn’t be able to get investors for the project. So the density is needed in order to make the project viable, she said.

Jeremy Peters confirmed with Hall that this would be the first addition to the city’s affordable housing stock in recent memory. Hall estimated that the city was losing 100 units of affordable housing each year. She noted that Avalon Housing recently opened an apartment complex on Pauline, but there are eight fewer units than in the previous apartment complex there.

Peters said that the city has made affordable housing a priority, yet there seems to be a struggle to add more units. That should be kept in mind when commissioners evaluate the increased density of this North Maple proposal, he said.

North Maple Public Housing: Commission Discussion – Traffic

Kirk Westphal asked about the traffic issues raised during the public hearing. Scott Betzel reiterated that he’d spoken with the city’s traffic engineer, and they both agreed that adding the Dexter Avenue curbcut seemed like a logical and conventional solution to the situation. Planning manager Wendy Rampson said that planning staff would follow up with the traffic engineer to take another look at it.

Jennifer Hall explained that the site requires a second exit for fire emergencies. One of AAHC’s concerns is that they don’t want it to be a cut-through street, so they’d be willing to look at adding speed bumps or other traffic calming measures.

North Maple Public Housing: Commission Discussion – Misc.

Ken Clein highlighted information in the meeting packet about housing costs, saying that it might be confusing. It was a sheet with rent and income data for “Maple/Platt,” which had been distributed at the citizens participation meeting in February. Jennifer Hall clarified that AAHC is also working on a project for a site on Platt Road. So this information showed a range of income levels to illustrate who would be eligible for AAHC’s housing. The information provided in this sheet also referred to 70 total units, which is the combination of proposed units on both the North Maple and Platt sites, Hall said.

Bonnie Bona directed staff to double-check the mailing addresses, to make sure all nearby residents are provided with adequate notification.

Hall offered to pass out her business card to residents who were interested in following up with her about the issues raised during the public hearing. She said she’d be willing to come out and meet with neighbors, if they wanted to set up a meeting.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone the three items related to this AAHC request: Rezoning, site plan, and street vacation. The items are on the commission’s June 17 agenda for consideration.

Rudolf Steiner Expansion

The site plan for expansion of the Rudolf Steiner High School was on the June 3 agenda. The private school is located at 2230 Pontiac Trail, north of Brookside.

The project – estimated to cost $2.5 million – involves building a one-story, 19,780-square-foot addition to the existing classroom building. The building will include a 9,990-square-foot gym, with the remaining 9,790 square feet used for classrooms and storage.

According to the staff memo, an existing Quonset hut on the east side of the site will be removed, as will a 48-inch white oak tree immediately east of the proposed addition. The school will be required to plant 12 trees for mitigation. In addition, 17 new trees will be planted as part of the project.

Parking will be increased by 31 spaces to accommodate special events and discourage parking in nearby neighborhoods, according to the staff memo. A total of 32 bicycle parking spaces will be provided near the north entry to the new addition. No additional enrollment beyond the previously approved 120 students is proposed. The school has operated at that location since 2002.

Site plan for Rudolf Steiner High School expansion. The yellow section is the existing building. The white section indicates the proposed addition.

Commissioners were also asked to approve a special exception use for the project. That’s required under Chapter 55 of the city’s zoning code because the site is zoned R1D (single family dwelling). Private schools are allowed within that zoning district, if granted a special exception use. The planning commission has discretion to grant a special exception use, which does not require additional city council approval.

The only speaker at a public hearing on this item was Dave Leclair of Livingston Engineering, the project’s site engineer. He introduced other members of the team, and said they were on hand to answer questions.

Rudolf Steiner Expansion: Commission Discussion

There was no discussion on the special exception use item.

From left: Victor Leabu, facilities manager for the Rudolf Steiner High School, and Dave Leclair of Livingston Engineering.

For the site plan resolution, city planner Jeff Kahan told commissioners it had been amended to include the phrase “subject to a modified utility easement agreement addressing the proposed bioswale located within the easement area.” A water utility line is located under the bioswale. The city needs to have access to the water main, if it needs repair. If that happens, the owners of the property would be responsible for restoring the bioswale, which is about 6 inches deep.

Responding to a query from Ken Clein, Kahan explained that the school is proposing an additional 31 parking spaces that would extend the existing parking lot to the east. The intent is to accommodate overflow parking for school functions. Currently, overflow parking is on the lawn.

Also, the fire marshal recommends that emergency access be put in place to the street that’s south of the site. The fire marshal agreed that a gate could be placed there too, to prevent the emergency access from becoming a regularly used route to the street.

Kirk Westphal asked what kind of feedback the school has received from surrounding neighbors. Victor Leabu, the school’s facilities manager, said the school has been there about 12 years, and some of the families live in the neighborhood. Most of the feedback was positive, he said. One issue was that since the gym is higher and the lights might be on at night, someone wondered what the impact on the neighborhood might be. There aren’t any houses directly in that area, however, and the school plans to use shades on the windows at night, he said.

Outcome: In separate unanimous votes, commissioners granted the special exception use and recommended approval of the site plan. The site plan will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Research Park Project

The June 3 agenda included a proposal to rezone six sites along Research Park Drive, as well as an area plan for development of the parcels.

Laith Farjo of Qubit Group.

Another item related to amendments to Chapter 55 of the city’s zoning code to allow outdoor recreation as a special exception use in the office/research/limited industrial (ORL) zoning district.

The six lots are undeveloped and total 16.6 acres. Four of the lots, on the southern end of the site, are owned by Qubit Corp. LLC; BMS Holdings LLC owns the northern two sites.

The rezoning would be from RE (research) to ORL. The proposed area plan – which is less detailed than a site plan – includes an indoor-outdoor tennis facility on one of the lots. It also includes five two-story buildings that could accommodate office, research, and limited industrial uses on the remaining lots, each with their own parking lot and access point to Research Park Drive.

Prior to construction, the project must go through the city’s site plan approval process, which might require a traffic impact study.

The text amendment to Chapter 55 would delete a current restriction that recreation sites must be within an enclosed building. The change would allow outdoor tennis courts to be built in the ORL zoning district.

Two people spoke briefly at the public hearing. Jim Barnwell of Desine Inc. and Laith Farjo, a representative of Qubit Group LLC, the site’s owner, introduced themselves and said they’d be available for questions.

Aerial view showing Research Park Drive parcels.

Area plan for four sites in a proposed development on Research Park Drive. The image is oriented with east at the top.

Research Park Project: Commission Discussion

Responding to a query from Diane Giannola, planning manager Wendy Rampson said that commissioners had been briefed on the project at a working session last year.

Kirk Westphal asked what kind of feedback had been received, and if any changes are being considered based on the feedback. Laith Farjo, one of the owners, replied that everyone was very positive. Several people from surrounding businesses had attended the citizen participation meeting, he said, and liked the idea that the project would be bringing more life into that area. The hours are also complementary to existing businesses, he added. A juniors tennis facility would be the first phase, and would mostly be used in the evenings and weekends.

Outcome: In separate unanimous votes, commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning, area plan and amendments to Chapter 55 of the city’s zoning code. The items will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Dusty’s Collision

A site plan for Dusty’s Collision at 2310 South Industrial Highway, south of Jewett, was on the June 3 agenda.

Aerial view of Dusty’s Collision site.

The proposal calls for building a 30,537-square-foot, one-story auto collision repair facility on a parcel that’s currently vacant. A previous building at that location was torn down in 2013. The new building would include 5,285 square feet for office use, a waiting area of 5,227 square feet, and 20,025 square feet for the repair area and garage. The project is estimated to cost $2 million.

The site will include 106 spaces of exterior parking, including 24 spaces that will be deferred until needed, according to the staff memo. One bicycle hoop – for 2 bike parking spaces – will be located near the front of the building.

The recommendation is contingent on the owner – Whitney’s Collision West of Ann Arbor – providing one footing drain disconnect before the city issues a certificate of occupancy. [.pdf of staff memo]

The only speaker at this item’s public hearing was Rich Henes, a principal with Cornerstone Design Inc., the project’s architect. He said he was there to answer questions.

Dusty’s Collision: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona said she couldn’t see much pedestrian access on the site – just the parking lot. She granted that it was a vehicle-centric business, but said that people might need to walk or take the bus there while their car is being repaired.

Architect Rich Henes of Cornerstone Design Inc.

Rich Henes of Cornerstone Design said pedestrians could use the driveway, adding that it’s close to the road and there will be bike parking on the north corner.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson pointed out that there’s a sidewalk connection from the building’s entrance to the public sidewalk.

Jeremy Peters asked about plans to mitigate potential runoff from any hazardous materials that might be used. Henes replied that the building will have internal trench drains, with the runoff contained and disposed of legally.

Peters also asked about a comment in the staff report from the Mallets Creek Coordinating Committee: “The MCCC recommended that the petitioner consider conducting soil borings from the detention basin in order to increase infiltration design of the storm water basin. It is also recommended that the property owner take special care to monitor and contain any dripping fluids from damaged vehicles.”

Henes said the concern related to an existing bioswale on the north side of the property. The MCCC wants the owner to install a pipe that will direct runoff from that bioswale toward the center of the site. “But the water table is so high that it would be useless to do that,” Henes said. Rampson pointed out that the site plan complies with the county water resource commissioner’s current rules.

Ken Clein confirmed with the planning staff that the project’s landscaping plan meets the city’s requirements.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the site plan, which will now be forwarded to 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. Here are some highlights from June 3.

Communications & Commentary: Affordable Housing

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters reported that he, Wendy Woods and Eleanore Adenekan met in late May with members of the city’s housing & human services advisory board and staff of the Washtenaw County office of community & economic development. It was the first in what will likely be a series of meetings regarding affordable housing. The intent is to look at issues where these three groups have similar interests, and eventually to provide some strong guidance for city and county leaders, he said.

Tentatively, Peters said, the group has identified four broad issues to discuss: (1) refining premiums offered to developers in the downtown D1 and D2 zoning districts; (2) investigating possible policy advocacy at the state level, to make the process of building or purchasing affordable housing units simpler and more predictable; (3) looking at actions to allow for workforce housing within the city in ways that are ultimately respectful of each neighborhood’s character; and (4) investigating what fee-based roadblocks might be modified or removed to make new construction of an affordable nature easier to do, in areas zoned for that type of residential development.

Communications & Commentary: Ordinance Revisions

Planning commission chair Kirk Westphal reported that the ordinance revisions committee had met immediately prior to the regular June 3 planning commission meeting, and continued discussion of possible changes to downtown zoning. No date has been set for the next ORC meeting. Members include Westphal, Bonnie Bona, Wendy Woods and Diane Giannola.

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

Absent: Sabra Briere, Paras Parekh.

Next meeting: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 at 7 p.m. in council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [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.