From left: Ray Detter, Hugh Sonk and Christine Crockett. At the planning commission’s May 6 meeting, they all spoke against a 100-foot height limit for the 425 S. Main site. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend rezoning a large parcel at the southeast corner of Main and William – another step in a review of downtown zoning that began last year under direction from the city council. The recommendation is to rezone the site at 425 S. Main from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface), a lower-density zoning. Currently, a two-story 63,150-square-foot office building – where DTE offices are located – stands on the southern part of that site, with a surface parking lot on the north portion.

In a separate action, commissioners were split on adding new requirements to the Main Street character district, where 425 S. Main is located – but that recommendation was approved. The commission voted 6-3 to recommend changes that include setting a maximum height of 100 feet for properties in that district that are zoned D2, and requiring upper story stepbacks from any residential property lines. That maximum is 40 feet taller than the 60-foot height limit specified for D2 zoning elsewhere in the downtown. Dissenting were Sabra Briere, Ken Clein and Jeremy Peters. Briere serves as the city council’s representative to the planning commission.

During deliberations on May 6, Briere pointed out that the 60-foot maximum height had been cited specifically in the city council directive, and she opposed raising that height limit. The 425 S. Main property would be the only D2 site in the Main Street character district, if the city council approves the rezoning recommendation. Because the requirements would apply to just one site, it seemed like spot zoning to Briere.

Neighbors and others had previously raised concerns that D1 zoning – which allows the highest level of density downtown – would result in a negative impact to that part of town, and had supported downzoning to D2. Several neighborhood advocates attended the May 6 meeting and again supported D2 rezoning, but strongly opposed the 100-foot maximum height.

Andy Klein, one of the property owners of 425 S. Main, also attended the meeting, saying that the site would be unbuildable with D2 zoning and a 60-foot height limit, and that the property’s value would be destroyed. He supported the 100-foot maximum.

Members of the commission’s ordinance revisions committee – which brought forward the proposal – defended it, saying that the combination of D2 zoning with a taller height would allow for more flexible design and less massive structures.

At this time, no new development has been proposed for this site. The recommendations approved on May 6 will be forwarded to the city council for consideration. In the coming months, the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee will tackle other aspects of the council’s downtown zoning directive.

The other major item on the May 6 agenda related to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, as part of its major initiative to upgrade the city’s public housing units by seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits. 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).

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

Two other properties were also on the agenda for rezoning: Mallett’s Creek Court, at 2670-2680 S. Main; and 805-807 W. Washington, on the southwest corner of Washington and Mulholland. About a dozen neighbors of Mallett’s Creek Court spoke about concerns that the vacant part of the parcel, adjacent to Cranbrook Park, would be sold or developed. Hall assured them that there’s no intent to sell, and in fact federal regulations that govern pubic housing prevent such a sale. She said AAHC hadn’t been aware that the vacant land, which includes a wooded area, was part of the parcel until they started the rezoning process. There are no plans to develop that side of the parcel.

Neighbors of the West Washington property are concerned about the amount of impervious surface on that site, and chronic flooding problems in that area.

Action on West Washington and Mallett’s Creek Court properties was postponed by the commission. AAHC and city staff will continue to evaluate these two properties, which will likely return to the planning commission for consideration at a later date.

In other action, planning commissioners recommended the annexation of an 0.22-acre lot at 375 Glenwood Street – currently in Scio Township – and to zone the site as R1C (single-family dwelling district), which matches the zoning of surrounding sites. It’s located on the west side of Glenwood, south of Dexter Road.

And commissioners held a public hearing on a master plan update, as part of an annual review process. Only one person – Changming Fan – spoke during the hearing, asking the commission to include his company’s technology in the master plan.

The master plan resolution that commissioners will vote on at their next meeting, on May 20, will highlight work that the commission intends to undertake in the coming year that’s related to master planning efforts. That work includes the Washtenaw Avenue and North Main corridor plans; helping the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority develop a streetscape framework; and helping implement the city’s sustainability action plan.

Downtown Zoning

Two items on the May 6 agenda related to an ongoing process of making revisions to the city’s downtown zoning. Planning commissioners were asked to consider rezoning a large parcel at the southeast corner of Main and William – at 425 S. Main – from D1 (downtown core) to D2 (downtown interface), a lower-density zoning. Currently, a two-story 63,150-square-foot office building – where DTE offices are located – stands on the southern part of that site, with a surface parking lot on the north portion. [.pdf of staff memo on 425 S. Main rezoning]

Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff, who’s been working on downtown zoning revisions.

In a separate item, commissioners weighed new requirements to the Main Street character overlay district, where 425 S. Main is located. The changes include setting a maximum height of 100 feet for properties in that district that are zoned D2, and requiring upper story setbacks from any residential property. [.pdf of staff memo on overlay district]

These recommendations had been brought forward by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC). Members are Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

In response to a council directive, the planning commission had studied and developed a broader set of eight recommendations for zoning changes in specific parts of the downtown. The overall intent was in large part to buffer near-downtown residential neighborhoods. The commission had unanimously approved those original recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting.

That set of recommendations included a proposal to rezone 425 S. Main to D2. However, those original recommendations had also called for a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street character overlay district – lower than the 100 feet put forward on May 6. The site’s current zoning allows for a maximum height of 180 feet. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, set no limits on height.

The city council voted to accept the planning commission’s recommendations on Jan. 21, 2014 – and directed the planning commission to begin implementing changes by proposing specific rezoning or ordinance revisions.

At this time, no new development has been proposed for this site.

Alexis DiLeo, a city planner who’s been working with the ORC on this effort, presented the staff report on May 6. She said the ORC met four times and approached this task “holistically,” and considered many alternatives – including the option of keeping the zoning as D1 and possibly rezoning other properties too. In the end, the recommendation is to rezone 425 S. Main to D2.

DiLeo noted that the city’s downtown plan recommends D1 zoning for that site, although the plan also has goals that address the livability of residential neighborhoods adjacent to downtown, and that encourage sensitivity to that development context.

The historic downtown area is located to the north and west of the 425 S. Main site, but to the east, separated by an alley, is a residential neighborhood zoned R4C. To the south is land that’s currently zoned public land – the site of the Baker Commons public housing complex, at the southeast corner of Packard and Main. But DiLeo noted that the planning commission had earlier that night recommended to change the Baker Commons zoning to D2. [That discussion is reported below.]

Sketch by city planner Alexis DiLeo showing proposed stepbacks for D2-zoned properties in the Main Street character district.

Separately, the ORC was recommending text amendments to the zoning ordinance – Chapter 55 of the city code – for D2 parcels in the Main Street character overlay district. The changes would result in a reduction of the allowable floor-area for this parcel from 400% (or up to 700% with premiums) to 200% (or up to 400% with premiums). [FAR, a measure of density, is the ratio of the square footage of a building divided by the size of the lot. A one-story structure built lot-line-to-lot-line with no setbacks corresponds to a FAR of 100%. A similar structure built two-stories tall would result in a FAR of 200%.]

If the site is rezoned, it would be the first D2 lot in the Main Street overlay district. The amendment would set a maximum height of 100 feet, and minimum side and rear setbacks.

DiLeo reported that the ORC evaluated several approaches to limiting the visual and shading impact on the residential district east of the 425 S. Main site. She noted that planning staff suggested an approach based on research regarding setbacks in the city code for Toronto, Canada. That city – which she pointed out is within one degree of Ann Arbor’s latitude – has a 45-degree stepback requirement. The requirement results in an angle that allows sunlight to reach the sidewalk during the seasons and times of day when people are most likely to be out walking, she said.

The stepbacks would apply to any D2 site that’s within 25 feet of residentially zoned property, and would be applied to any floors above the fourth floor of a building – which would be considered a “tower,” for purposes of the zoning code. Above the fourth floor, each additional floor would need to be set back from the edge of the floor below, based on a distance equal to the floor’s height. These upper floors could be designed like a stairstep, or could have a uniform setback – that is, with all floors above the fourth floor having the exact same setback from the edge of the fourth floor.

The ORC also recommended a 100-foot height limit. DiLeo noted that directly across Main Street to the west is the Ashley Mews building, which is about 110 feet tall. To the north, the properties are zoned D1, with a maximum height of 180 feet. The residential district to the east has a maximum height of 30 feet. The ORC’s recommendation of a 100-foot limit at 425 S. Main is roughly in the middle of the 180-foot limit to the north and the 30-foot residential limit to the east, DiLeo said.

For additional background on this downtown zoning review, see Chronicle coverage: “Feedback on Downtown Zoning Continues”; “Downtown Zoning Review Nears Final Phase”; “Priorities Emerge in Downtown Zoning Review”; “Downtown Zoning Review Moves Forward” and “Downtown Zoning Review to Wrap Up Soon.”

Downtown Zoning: Public Hearing – D2 Rezoning

Seven people spoke during the public hearing on the proposed D2 rezoning.

Eppie Potts told commissioners that rezoning the 425 S. Main site to D2 was in keeping with public input and the committee work that had been done for months leading up to the original set of recommendations. So she supported that.

Aerial view of 425 S. Main – outlined in green – between William and Packard. An alley separates the site from a residential neighborhood along South Fourth Avenue.

Ray Detter said he was speaking on behalf of the downtown area citizens advisory council. In the past few weeks, he’s gotten calls from people concerned about the rezoning of Baker Commons. He had assured them that the Baker Commons site would be rezoned D2. But now, he’s learning that it would be coupled with a character area that would allow a 100 feet height, rather than 60 feet. [Baker Commons is actually located in a different character district.]

Detter said the citizens advisory council supports D2 as an interface, and their understanding is that the city council wants the height limit to be 60 feet. He suggested that a developer could use the planned project zoning to get additional height, rather than have a 100-foot limit – that’s the approach being taken at 618 S. Main. “We don’t really know where that 100 feet came from – it was not a part of the recommendation to city council,” Detter said, adding that “D2 to us means 60 feet.” He contended that’s what the consultants advised, too.

Detter also objected that ORC meetings were not well-publicized, so people like him didn’t know about the meetings and weren’t able to provide input.

Christine Crockett reminded commissioners that the reason these downtown zoning revisions were undertaken was, at least in part, because of the community’s alarm about very tall “behemoth” buildings going up next to residential neighborhoods. She took issue with the staff report mentioning the Ashley Mews building. She pointed out that it’s not adjacent to a residential district. She said she tried to go to all the ORC meetings “but they are a deep, dark secret.” She’d gone to two of the meetings, but thought the tenor was that the planning commission would adopt what the council had directed them to do – zoning the buffer areas to D2. Crockett also contended that the public and the consultants, ENP & Associates, had recommended D2 at 60 feet.

[By way of background, ENP did not recommend rezoning 425 S. Main to D2. From the report: "...our recommendation is to keep the D1 zoning on the site but with modifications to the maximum height and the addition of diagonal requirements." The maximum height recommendation was 150 feet. .pdf of ENP & Associates report]

Saying that he supported rezoning the site to D2, Steve Kaplan expressed concerns about the overlay district. Having an overlay district that allows for a 100-foot building height fails to achieve the desired effect of protecting the smaller houses to the east, he said. Kaplan noted that he previously owned the parcels that were assembled to build Ashley Mews. That lot is more than triple the size of the 425 S. Main site, he said. The Ashley Mews development took care to ensure that the highest part of the structure was as far away from the Old West Side residential neighborhood as possible, he said. The west side of Ashley Mews, which has only four floors, should be used for comparison – not the Main Street side, which is significantly taller.

From left: Andy Klein, representing the owners of 425 S. Main, and architect Scott Bonney.

Scott Bonney introduced himself as an architect with Neumann/Smith Architects, who’ve been hired by one of the owners of 425 S. Main, Andy Klein, to review the proposed zoning revisions. He said his firm has designed Zaragon West, Zaragon Place, the YMCA and several other projects in Ann Arbor. He noted that the original A2D2 zoning process had designated density along Main Street, and the site was zoned D1 with a 180-foot height limit and up to 900% FAR with affordable housing premiums. The recommendation from ENP & Associates also was for D1, Bonney pointed out, with a height limit reduced to 150 feet, with a 50-foot diagonal requirement that would effectively reduce the size of a tower.

He thought the ORC’s recommendation might be appropriate – for D2 zoning with a 100-foot height. He noted that the D2 zoning calls for 80% maximum lot coverage, compared to 100% allowed for D1. That’s a “huge difference,” he said. D2 also requires 10% of the lot as open space. These things will protect the residential neighborhood and reduce the volume of the building, he said.

The city’s intent – reflected by allowing the Ashley Mews project – is to enhance the walkability and vitality of Main Street by continuing density south of William, Bonney said. Right across the street to the north of 425 S. Main is a vacant city-owned parking lot zoned D1, he noted, which could have a building that’s 180 feet tall. Bonney thought the ORC’s recommendation was appropriate, and provided transitional zoning while protecting the residential neighborhood.

Hugh Sonk said he wanted to address the issue of “messing with the size limitations” in D1 and D2. In the past, any changes have resulted in lowering the height, not increasing it, he said. The community has bought into the idea of D2 having a 60-foot height limit, he added. If it’s higher than that, it’s a disservice to the community. What if someone comes and wants to build a 250-foot building on a D1-zoned site? A 100-foot height in D2 throws out all the previous work that was done on these zoning revisions, he said. Regarding Ashley Mews, Sonk said the average height on that site is probably closer to 50 feet, if you look at the townhouses and the taller Main Street building.

One of the owners of 425 S. Main, Andy Klein, called it an interesting process in which “everybody and anybody seems to understand the best way to redevelop your site.” The property was developed about 30 years ago during a recession by his family and others, at substantial financial risk, he said. This parcel has been singled out because other sites that are being developed have received a negative reaction from the community, Klein said.

The 425 S. Main site is unique, Klein noted. ENP & Associates had recommended keeping it D1 because it’s part of a gateway to downtown – a special, transitional site. That’s why applying D2 with a 60-foot limitation doesn’t work, he said. But 100 feet does work, he added, and is consistent with the area. It also protects the residential neighborhood by stepping back the higher floors. Even at the 100-foot height, the D2 zoning reduces the buildable square feet by almost 60%, and significantly reduces the development of the parcel, compared to D1 zoning. “It’s not great. I don’t particularly like it,” he said. “But I can live with it and I can still in the future do something unique and valuable for the city.”

If the height limit is set at 60 feet, “I’m going to end up with a non-buildable parcel that pretty much the value’s been destroyed,” Klein concluded.

Downtown Zoning: Commission Discussion – D2 Rezoning

Jeremy Peters asked what would happen if the D2 rezoning were approved, but not the changes to the Main Street character district. Bonnie Bona, a member of the ORC, replied that there would be no height limit in that case – because the character overlay district is what sets the height maximum.

Diane Giannola.

Responding to comments at the public hearing, Bona noted that the ENP & Associates report had recommended D1 zoning for this parcel, not D2, and had recommended reducing the height limit from 180 feet to 150 feet when within 20 feet of a residentially zoned area. It was the planning commission and city council that had later recommended D2 zoning and a 60-foot height at 425 S. Main, she said.

Bona clarified with Alexis DiLeo that the site’s previous zoning was C2A, which had no height limit at 660% floor-area ratio (FAR). It’s now D1, with a by-right FAR of 400% and up to 900% FAR with premiums. The height, as specified in the overlay character district, is limited to 180 feet.

Diane Giannola asked a procedural question – because she wanted to discuss the resolution for the character overlay along with the D2 zoning, or address the overlay resolution first. “Some of our decisions might be based on how the discussion goes for both of those,” she said.

Ken Clein thought the issue of D2 was simply whether the site was a downtown interface – between the downtown core and residential neighborhoods. If it is, then it should be zoned D2, he said. It’s the character overlay district that determines factors like height, setbacks and massing, he said. Clein added that he’d be happy to discuss the two issues in any order, but to him, the D2 zoning was straightforward.

Giannola said discussing D2 separately and first makes it difficult for commissioners who are on the fence about D2, because the character overlay district is a compromise. For her, D2 zoning with a 60-foot height limit would be giving people what they don’t want – a big, massive building, lot-line-to-lot-line that would be 60 feet tall. The compromise of 100 feet is more what people want, she said. It wouldn’t be possible to build a 100-foot-tall building lot-line-to-lot-line, because FAR and setbacks would keep it in check, she said. So for her, the two items are linked and she wouldn’t support D2 unless she knew what would be in the character overlay district.

From left: Commissioners Bonnie Bona and Eleanore Adenekan.

Bona said one of the hardest parts of the city zoning code is the concept of floor-area ratio. The public commentary keeps focusing on height, but the most important issue for this site is the question of FAR. Should it be 200% FAR by right, with 400% for premiums? Or 400% by right, with a maximum of 700% for premiums? “The buildings that have caused the angst in town are at that maximum floor area,” Bona said.

Bona thought it was a question of floor area. She said it’s clear to her that in the master plan, any place that’s adjacent to a residential neighborhood should be an interface zone – that is, D2. She said she’d fight for that.

Peters moved to postpone the item about D2 zoning until after the commission considered the resolution regarding the Main Street character district.

Clein pointed out that most people during the public hearing had supported D2, including the property owner. It seemed like it would be counterproductive not to zone it D2, he said.

Outcome: The move to postpone the D2 zoning item until later in the meeting passed on a 7-2 vote, over dissent from Bona and Clein. That meant the planning commission considered the Main Street character district before acting on the zoning. 

Downtown Zoning: Public Hearing – Main Street Character District

The commission then held a public hearing about revisions to the Main Street character district. Seven people spoke, including six people who’d spoken during the previous public hearing on D2 zoning. They re-emphasized themes from their previous comments.

Ray Detter said this whole process is trying to fix mistakes of the A2D2 zoning. The D1 zoning of 425 S. Main had been a mistake, he said. The concern is that if the city starts messing with the concept of D2, making it something other than 60 feet for a height limit, where does it stop? Detter said planned projects are a good approach, rather than character overlay districts – the 618 S. Main project is a good example.

Ray Detter spoke on behalf of the downtown area citizens advisory council.

Eppie Potts thought the proposed overlay district is undercutting the work that was done in developing the proposed zoning revisions. “This is a proposal to change what D2 means,” she said. “A hundred foot height is not D2.” She didn’t think D2 should vary based on its location within the city. Potts called it an “unprecedented playing games with zoning.”

Steve Kaplan said he wasn’t sure what the character overlay concept means. If the idea is to preserve the vibrant restaurant and retail character of Main Street, he noted that most of the buildings are three or four floors. There are only a couple of exceptions to that, he said. Six stories – which would be possible with a 60-foot height limit – is a lot of density, he said, and would more than triple what’s currently on the site.

Hugh Sonk expressed concern that by having a 100-foot height limit, it would mess with buildable FAR on the site. He hoped commissioners could address that, to mitigate the fear that some people might have. He thought the community expected that D2 would have a 60-foot height limit.

In talking about zoning, Christine Crockett said it’s not just about a vibrant Main Street. It’s also about having a vibrant place to live. Zoning needs to work synergistically, she said, so that Ann Arbor doesn’t just have “a nice touristy atmosphere where we get the North Woodward crowd on the weekend, and the rest of the time it’s dead.” It’s about having people live and work and find their entertainment downtown. The downtown area citizens advisory council, on which she serves, recently talked about how the change to downtown – lots of restaurants, rather than a variety of other stores that used to be downtown – is posing all sorts of problems, including contributing to global warming. Everyone talks about density, like it’s “some great nirvana of urban planning paradise,” she said. Vibrancy is about the whole picture, and residential neighborhoods shouldn’t be compromised.

Scott Bonney, the architect working with the owner of 425 S. Main, said that many cities have a more stepped approach, with a gradual increase in height as you move farther away from the core urban area. In Ann Arbor, the overlay districts attempt to fine-tune that, he said. So there’s a level of granularity that exists in the overlay districts. He noted that he hasn’t been hired to design anything yet. But if he were asked to design a building there, he’d probably place emphasis on the north side of the site, with low density on the south. “It wants to be part of downtown, if it’s a tall thing,” he said. “It wants to be low if it’s to the south side.” He suggested that the stepbacks might be oriented north to south. Also, the requirement of 80% maximum lot coverage and 10% minimum open space for D2 will do a great deal to make a building with much less impact, compared to D1 zoning.

Pat Martz told commissioners she lived on South Ashley, and can see Baker Commons from her window. Looking up to Main Street, the buildings loom, she said. Even if floors are stepped back from the street, they’ll still loom over the neighborhood to the west. The Old West Side residential neighborhood is lower than Main Street. People tend to avoid walking south on Main, she said – when you reach William, you turn east or west, because the buildings are already too tall and it’s not friendly. There are no eyes on the street, and the buildings are too close to the sidewalk, she said. Character overlays will result in “planning chaos,” she said. And D2 already offers plenty of density, Martz said. “I would say to go to moderation.”

Downtown Zoning: Commission Discussion – Main Street Character District

Before turning to the specific discussion on the character district, Kirk Westphal asked staff to respond to allegations made about the ORC meetings, to review how the meetings are publicized. Planning manager Wendy Rampson replied that the meetings are posted on the city’s planning and development website, and sent to the clerk’s office for noticing. Announcements of committee meetings are not emailed out through the city’s email alert system, she said, nor are they posted on Legistar. The meetings are open to the public, although there are typically less than a quorum of commissioners present. Westphal noted that the media [The Ann Arbor Chronicle] have attended some of the committee meetings.

Kirk Westphal.

Westphal said the commissioners depend on public input, so if there are specific parts of the process that are failing, then those should be brought to the attention of the staff and commission.

Westphal also said there’d been insinuations about negotiations or behind-the-scenes dealings, “and I find those objectionable.” If there are specific instances or concerns, those should be brought to the attention of staff or the appropriate city councilmembers, he said.

Bonnie Bona addressed what she called the continuing confusion of floor-area ratio (FAR) versus height. The floor-area ratio of D2 is consistent throughout downtown. D2 has a 200% maximum FAR, 400% with premiums – that’s true for any property zoned D2. The different character areas modify how the building can be shaped, she explained. You can’t add more square footage based on the character overlay, but you can shape it differently.

The process of reviewing downtown zoning – including input from the public and the ENP & Associates report – considered stepbacks from residential neighborhoods, Bona said, with the focus primarily on East Huron. Other ideas included the use of diagonals, which would result in towers that are tall and thin, rather than buildings that are shorter and squat. But diagonals directly conflict with height limits, Bona noted.

The proposed change to the Main Street character district for D2 properties calls for a maximum base building height of four stories, with stepbacked floors allowed above that. For D2 sites in other character districts, a 60-foot building height is allowed, she noted – so a building could have a 60-foot wall without stepbacks. The Main Street character district wouldn’t allow a building to go straight up that high from the property line, she said.

It would be simple to just set a 60-foot height limit, Bona continued, but the planning commission and city council have wanted to explore the use of diagonals and stepbacks, Bona said. “So this was an opportunity to do that, to provide that nuance.” Zoning to a 60-foot height on the 425 S. Main site would probably mean a developer would use a planned project approach, similar to the 618 S. Main building, she said. [A planned project is one that seeks variations in height and setbacks.] The ORC really struggled with this issue, she added.

Sabra Briere.

Sabra Briere wondered why the ORC didn’t recommend D1, with a character district that sets the building height at 100 feet. That would be in keeping with other character districts in D1, and with the ENP & Associates report. In the past, the city has modified D1 to have shorter heights, but have never modified D2 to have taller heights, she said. “This is a jarring note,” Briere added, especially because the resolution from council that directed this work specified D2 at 60 feet.

Briere was also concerned that having only one parcel zoned D2 in the Main Street character district seems like spot zoning. Why didn’t the ORC recommend that it be part of the First Street character district, where other D2 parcels are located?

In addition, Briere wanted to know how the ordinance language would describe the 45-degree stepbacks. She’d originally thought it was intended to be east-to-west, but the architect, Scott Bonney, had indicated using the stepbacks north-to-south. If the ordinance doesn’t specify the orientation, she wasn’t sure what it would accomplish.

Responding to Briere, Westphal said the ORC didn’t include in its scope a redefinition of the character district boundaries – that’s why the 425 S. Main site remains in the Main Street character district. Setting the boundaries of the character districts had been done as part of A2D2, he noted, and people spent a couple of years looking at it.

Bona said the ORC looked at adjacent properties that might be appropriate for rezoning to D2, but “we couldn’t justify that.” She didn’t consider it spot zoning, since there were D2 properties adjacent to it. The overlay districts “are more of a nuance,” Bona added.

Regarding stepbacks, Bona said the only reason for them would be for the side that’s adjacent to residential property. For 425 S. Main, there would be no stepback requirements for the north, west or south sides. The concept of having a tower on the north side and stepbacks on the east would only work with a 100-foot height, she said – unless a developer wanted to go through a planned project, which allows for variations in height and setbacks. Bona pointed out that if the city wanted to force a developer to build a tower on the north side with stepbacks on the east side, they’d have to write that specifically into the character district requirements.

Westphal added that there’s nothing prohibiting a building from stepping back on the other sides. It’s simply required only on the east side.

Wendy Woods.

Diane Giannola, another ORC member, pointed out that a 100-foot building on a site zoned D1 would not be the same as a 100-foot building on a D2 lot. The shape and size – based on FAR – would be different. So if the 425 S. Main zoning is left as D1 yet the height is lowered to 100 feet, that could result in a bigger building than a 100-foot height with D2 zoning, she noted.

Wendy Woods, describing herself as another member of the “infamous ORC committee,” said it’s difficult to distill hours of discussion that took place during committee meetings. She apologized for those who couldn’t find the meeting times, and said the committee would try to make those meetings more visible in the future.

Responding to Briere, Woods said the reason the ORC was recommending D2 is because the site is an interface area, very near a residential neighborhood, and they were trying to be sensitive to that. She didn’t think it’s spot zoning. Although character district requirements haven’t received much attention, Woods said, they’ve been in place since A2D2 was approved in 2009. By modifying the Main Street character district, “we’re just using one of the many tools as a planning commission to really try to be sensitive to what we’re hearing,” Woods said.

Woods also stressed the need to be sensitive to the property owner of the site that’s being rezoned. “God bless him – because if people were talking about something I owned and acted as if I don’t have much of a say in it, I know I’d be sitting on my hands or zipping my lip trying to not react.”

Everyone who lives in Ann Arbor wants it to be a place where their children and grandchildren will want to live, Woods said, and no one has a corner on that attitude. As a volunteer group, the planning commission is doing the best it can, she added. They hope to get it right, Woods said, but when they don’t, “that’s why we send it on to city council – so they can then make changes. So the buck stops there.”

Paras Parekh.

Paras Parekh asked the ORC members to explain the advantages of their proposal, compared to the city council’s directive – based on previous planning commission recommendations – to pursue D2 zoning with a 60-foot height limit for this site.

Giannola replied that the main advantage is that D2 with a 100-foot height limit would result in a better-shaped building. If the height is limited to 60 feet, she said, the odds are that you’ll get a 60-foot high, blocky building.

Westphal said that the city council hasn’t encouraged planned projects, which allow for variation in height and setback. Rather, there’s a desire for a more predictable process, he added, and to encode in zoning what they’d like to see built.

Briere said that Westphal’s recollection is accurate for the time when there was still the opportunity to do a planned unit development (PUD) or planned project. The council at that time, including mayor John Hieftje, preferred PUDs over planned projects because PUDs offered more flexibility, she said.

But when A2D2 zoning changes were implemented, many councilmembers at the time felt that the creation of D1 and D2 zoning eliminated the need to have PUDs downtown, “because the zoning now allows the very types of things we were encouraging planned unit developments to produce,” she said. In that context, planned projects returned to the forefront in a positive way, she added, to allow developers to have design flexibility within D1 or D2 zoning.

Bona said she thought the city council resolution that directed the planning commission’s work had mentioned the idea of revisiting diagonals, and looking at steps to reduce shading to adjacent residential properties. That was part of the discussion at the ORC meetings, she said. The ORC felt it would be important to look at those issues downtown-wide, not on a parcel-by-parcel basis. That was especially true for diagonals, she said, because it directly conflicts with height limits. But the ORC felt that stepbacks could be tried at that location because of the narrow nature of the 425 S. Main site, she said. A building that’s 60 feet tall next to a residential neighborhood is still pretty tall, she said. So this was an opportunity to try something in one location without being disruptive.

As a designer, Bona said, she thinks a stepback is a better solution than a planned project. But you can’t really do a stepback with a 60-foot height limit. “We have to give them some flexibility to move that square footage somewhere,” Bona said.

Sabra Briere.

Briere indicated that she didn’t find any reference to diagonals in the council resolution. She said she couldn’t get past this specific statement in the council resolution: “Rezone the parcel at 425 S. Main from D1 (Downtown Core) to D2 (Downtown Interface) and establish a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street Character District.” [.pdf of full resolution, as approved by city council on Jan. 21, 2014]

“That’s the resolution,” Briere said, adding that she couldn’t “get past the fact that we don’t have that result in front of us today.”

A maximum height of 100 feet for D2 exceeds everyone’s understanding of what D2 zoning is, Briere said. So the proposed changes to the Main Street character district are inconsistent with anything else that’s been done before, she added. “It’s not predictable, it’s not consistent, it’s not reliable – it’s just not all those things we’ve said zoning needs to be.”

The community has chosen to have height limits, Briere said.

Giannola asked about the East Huron character district, which has a different height limit for D1 than for D1 sites in other character districts. How is that different than what’s being proposed for the Main Street character district? she asked.

Briere said that when D1 height limits have varied, it has varied to a lower height limit. “And here we are varying D2 up,” she said, so the difference between D1 and D2 “becomes really mushy.” She acknowledged that there was a difference in FAR, but she described that as “inside baseball.”

Giannola pointed out that zoning isn’t just about height. “I know people think that, but we don’t think that,” she said.

Briere replied that perhaps if she knew the ORC’s broader vision, it might be clear. But she was just seeing a single proposal, and “varying upward by right makes me very uncomfortable.” She would be more comfortable with D2 at 60 feet, then allowing for a planned project if a developer wanted greater height.

Eleanore Adenekan asked Briere whether she wanted to make an amendment, so that the commission could vote it up or down. “This is getting to be rather much,” Adenekan said. [It was approaching 11 p.m.] No, Briere said. She’d be more inclined to just vote no on the proposed resolution.

Bona pointed out that the council resolution had indeed mentioned diagonals and stepbacks, though not directly tied to the 425 S. Main parcel. From the resolution: “Reduce the maximum height in the East Huron 1 Character District to 120 feet, include a tower diagonal maximum and consider a step-back requirement to reduce the shading of residential properties to the north.”

Bona said the north side of East Huron is a far more sensitive area to massing and height, compared to 425 S. Main – because residential properties are north of D1 sites on East Huron, and sun comes from the south. If council would accept this for the northern side of Huron, it should only be easier to accept it for 425 S. Main, Bona said.

Ken Clein.

Westphal said there’s been dissatisfaction with the bulkiness of buildings in D1, and there’s been talk about possibly making those buildings narrower and raising the height in D1 as a way of decreasing the shading on neighbors. So this hasn’t been the only time they’ve talked about potentially revising height upward, he said.

If the planning commission believes that height limits are the problem, Briere replied, “then I would rather see all of this come back at once with that addressed, rather than doing this piecemeal.” If the planning commission is going to have a coherent discussion about height limits, it would be best to address it at one time, she said. If the intent of the current proposal is to encourage less blocky buildings, “that is a point of discussion – but not a discussion I want to have multiple times.”

Parekh asked members of the ORC whether the proposal for 425 S. Main would also be appropriate for Kerrytown or First Street character districts. He said he was trying to build a case for consistency. Westphal replied that the planning commission was directed by the city council to look at specific sites, coming on the heels of a comprehensive A2D2 rezoning just a few years ago. The planning commission could look at all character districts, Westphal said, but that wasn’t the directive from council.

Giannola pointed out that 425 S. Main was a very large lot, and one that’s fairly unique in the downtown area.

Clein agreed that it’s a unique parcel, which he said might account for why it’s so difficult to deal with. He felt that the ORC was proposing a unique solution. The challenge from a zoning perspective is that it’s not consistent with any of the surrounding Main Street properties, so it creates a situation that seems like a precedent, he said. Someone else could also argue that other properties are unique, he noted, so “it’s a slippery slope.”

Clein said there’s also concern about the zoning on the east side of Main Street, north of William – but the council hasn’t directed the planning commission to look at that, he noted. Architecturally, he didn’t think 100 feet was a terrible thing. With the D2 zoning and proposed stepbacks, it would be very difficult for anyone to build something over four stories – beyond that, it would get very expensive, he said.

In December, when the planning commission made its recommendations to the council, they’d agreed that the site should be D2 at 60 feet, Clein noted. They had not discussed the possibility of it going higher, so he was hesitant to approve a 100-foot height at this point.

Westphal wrapped up the discussion by saying that this proposal allows for flexibility while removing a significant amount of floor-area ratio that’s been assumed for this property for decades. He was pretty happy with the outcome. Everyone had anticipated that the A2D2 process would need some tweaks, he said, but not a complete overhaul. “I think it’s better than what it is now,” he said. “And sometimes better is better.”

Outcome: On a 6-3 vote, the commission recommended approval of the proposed changes to the Main Street character district, with a 100-foot height limit for D2 properties. Dissenting were Sabra Briere, Ken Clein and Jeremy Peters.

Downtown Zoning: Commission Discussion – D2 Rezoning

Commissioners then returned to the item regarding D2 rezoning for 425 S. Main, which they had voted to postpone earlier in the meeting. There was no additional discussion.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to recommend rezoning 425 S. Main to D2. Both recommendations will be forwarded to council.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties

Five properties that provide public housing were on the agenda to be considered for rezoning. The sites are part of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s major initiative to upgrade the city’s public housing units by seeking private investors through low-income housing tax credits.

All but one of the sites are currently zoned as public land, and are owned by the city of Ann Arbor. The agenda listed these five original rezoning requests:

• Baker Commons: Requested rezoning from 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: Requested rezoning from public land to R4B (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. This site was damaged by fire in January 2014, so part of it will be rebuilt. It’s in Ward 2.
• Maple Meadows: Requested rezoning from R1C (single-family dwelling district) to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site is 3.4 acres at 800-890 South Maple Road and contains 29 apartments in five buildings and a community center. It’s located in Ward 5.
• Mallett’s Creek Court: Requested rezoning of the east portion of this 2.3-acre parcel at 2670-2680 S. Main from public land to R2A (two-family dwelling district). There are three duplexes on the east side, which is in Ward 4. The west part of the site, which is vacant and in a floodway, would remain public land. The city is currently looking into the possibility of splitting the parcel and making the west section a part of Cranbrook Park.
• 805-807 W. Washington: Requested rezoning from public land to R2A (two-family dwelling district). It’s a 0.18 acre-parcel in Ward 5 that contains one duplex, with a garage that’s used for AAHC facilities storage.

Commissioners were also asked 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.”

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Staff Report

The commission was briefed by Jennifer Hall, executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission. She began by noting that Ronald Woods, AAHC’s board chair, was also attending the meeting. [Woods is married to planning commissioner Wendy Woods, though this was not mentioned during the meeting.]

Jennifer Hall, executive director of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission.

Hall provided background on this project. She noted that the housing commission is the largest provider of affordable housing in Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County, with 355 units of public housing within the city at 18 different locations. AAHC also has over 1,500 units of vouchers for low-income housing throughout the county.

Hall said that when she came to the housing commission about two years ago, one of the first things she did was examine the finances and take a tour of the AAHC properties. “As part of that process, I was a little bit disturbed by the condition of some of our units,” she said. Hall realized that there wasn’t enough money in AAHC’s budget to fix up the units, because the vast majority of funding comes from the U.S Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

There have been no new public housing units built in the U.S. since 1986, when there was a major change in HUD’s approach to public housing. The change involved more use of vouchers, as well as a focus on more privately funded affordable housing, she said. Now, the biggest form of funding is from low-income housing tax credits – an IRS program.

Public housing tenants pay 30% of their income toward rent, Hall said, but the cost of managing each unit far exceeds that amount. It costs about $600 per month to maintain a one-bedroom apartment and about $1,200 for a five-bedroom unit. HUD provides funding for capital improvements, like roof repair, but it doesn’t provide sufficient funding to cover ongoing maintenance. HUD itself recognizes that it lacks sufficient funding for public housing, Hall said.

The AAHC did a capital needs assessment, and found that they needed about $40,000 per unit of investment over 15 years. Right now, the AAHC gets about $475,000 annually from HUD for capital improvements. Just to replace an elevator at Miller Manor will cost $600,000, Hall noted.

About six months after she became executive director, HUD launched a new program called the rental assistance demonstration (RAD) project. 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 held by 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.

Ronald Woods, president of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s board. He’s married to planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Hall explained that project-based vouchers, like the those in the RAD program, differ from typical Section 8 vouchers. Traditionally, when someone is awarded a voucher, they can then find a private landlord who’ll accept the voucher. You pay 30% of your income in rent, and the voucher covers the balance – as long as your rent falls within a cap set by HUD. In contrast, project-based vouchers are awarded to AAHC and are attached to specific public housing units. So no matter who lives in that unit, that same subsidy is available from HUD. After someone lives there for a year, they can get a “portable” voucher and move out of the public housing unit.

This RAD conversion is only possible by getting investors from the private sector to fix up the properties, Hall noted. And it’s not possible to get that kind of investment unless the properties are appropriately zoned, she said.

The AAHC is a separate legal entity from the city of Ann Arbor, Hall said. But Hall and her staff are city employees, and there’s a city ordinance that requires the city to buy any property on the housing commission’s behalf. The city could transfer ownership to AAHC at any time, she noted.

HUD has provided all the funding to acquire, maintain or build new units. It gets very confusing, she said, but HUD considers the properties that the city owns on AAHC’s behalf to be HUD properties. So HUD determines what happens with these properties. The city wouldn’t be able to turn any of the public housing units into market rate apartments, for example.

AAHC was selected to be part of the RAD program, Hall said, which has allowed the housing commission to seek funding for the properties included in this first cycle. They’ve secured about $25 million so far for the first set of properties that will be part of the RAD conversion: Baker Commons, Green/Baxter Court, and Maple Meadows. Most of that is private financing, she said.

The properties need to be rezoned so that if they were to burn down or were otherwise damaged, AAHC could rebuild them based on the zoning. The properties are primarily zoned public land, and are among the AAHC’s larger properties – because that’s what investors are interested in.

Hall noted that she’d received a lot of communications from neighbors of the West Washington property in particular. She said she was willing to remove it from rezoning consideration at this time, because it wasn’t one of the critical properties to rezone in the near future.

The West Washington site will either be rehabbed or sold, she said, adding that there’s a 99% chance that AAHC will keep the property. It was one of the first properties that AAHC acquired, and was designed as a duplex with a maintenance garage for AAHC beneath it. Now, the maintenance facility is located elsewhere, so the West Washington garage is used for storage.

The design of the building isn’t an efficient use of the site, she said, so she’d like to keep the option open of selling it. However, Hall added, if there’s any way to make public housing work on that site, that’s her goal. “But I do not have investors right now for that property.”

AAHC also is exploring the possibility of replacing the current asphalt at the back of the site with a pervious surface.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Public Hearing – West Washington

Van Harrison spoke on behalf the Pumping Station Condo Association, a four-unit development on Mulholland that’s located south of the West Washington public housing property. He was pleased that the information they’d sent to AAHC had been understood. The association members supported postponement of the rezoning proposal.

After a recent storm, there was standing water at the Pumping Station Condos on Mulholland, across the street from the West Washington public housing property.

Their concern is “creeping incrementalism,” Harrison said. Several decisions have been made over the years, with each one seeming to make sense in its narrow scope but not coordinated with long-term planning, he noted.

The public housing property had originally been city property that was part of the water pumping station. When it became a public housing site, the area at the back of the lot – next to the garage – was gravel, Harrison said. But at some point, it was paved. Now, most of the property is impervious surface, so stormwater flows directly south onto the condo development. The concern is that the property will be sold without addressing these stormwater issues.

The condo association has appreciated AAHC and tried to accommodate it, but Harrison said they would pursue “legal remedies” to ensure that the stormwater management is taken care of and that their property is protected.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Public Hearing – Mallett’s Creek Court

Eleven people spoke about concerns related to the Mallett’s Creek Court rezoning. Margaret Penirian, who lives in that neighborhood, brought a petition with 60 signatures opposing the rezoning. She said she felt better now that she’d heard about plans for the property. If the vacant part of the parcel were rezoned, it would split “the woodsy part” of Cranbrook Park in half, she said. She didn’t think it could be developed, because the area is in a floodway and is often muddy and “puddley.”

Margaret Penirian.

Penirian urged commissioners to visit the park, especially the wooded park, with a steep ravine, a rushing creek, wildflowers, and mushrooms. It’s “so deep and quiet, you could be in a forest anywhere,” she said. She supported rezoning the part of the land where public housing is already located, and splitting off the other section to remain as parkland.

Bill Sharp said he lives on Kingsbrook, on a lot that backs up to the wooded part of the public housing property. He was happy to hear that the recommendation would be to only rezone the part of the property where housing is already located. He noted that Mallett’s Creek is one of the main places where water drains when it storms. The water rises almost to the edge of the floodplain. He encouraged commissioners to keep the woodsy part of the property as public land. It would be appropriate to rezone the part where the houses are, he said.

Another Kingsbrook resident, Mark Meyerhoff, said his property backs up to the east side of the parcel in question. They bought it as a place to retire because of the view overlooking an open space, with their deck facing an open field – between the public housing and the woods. If AAHC sells the property, there’s no guarantee that his view wouldn’t be blocked by additional buildings, he said.

Marsha Meyerhoff also spoke, saying that everyone who attended the meeting from the Mallett’s Creek Court neighborhood is most concerned about preserving the trees and wildlife. Is there the possibility of a developer buying the vacant property and going through the park? “I don’t know if this is paving the way for that, but that’s pretty much our concern,” she said.

Kim Schreiner, who lives on Colin Circle, said not many people in Oakbrook Villas or the surrounding neighborhood had any idea that this was happening. Ann Arbor needs trees, and needs the oxygenation from the trees, she said, because there’s a lot of building that’s happening. She said she’s a certified registered nurse who works at the University of Michigan, and development is a huge concern. Her children love to play in the park. The reason she’s still living in Ann Arbor is because of the park. “Please don’t let people buy up all the land and destroy it,” she said. “Ann Arbor needs to stay green.”

Michelle Braun lives on Galen Circle, which also backs up to the park area. She supported what her neighbors had said, noting that most people moved there because of the park and green space. “We don’t need more building in that area. It’s a great little pocket of town that has this great forest area that not a lot of people have.” She’d hate to see it developed with housing.

Nela Humm, another Colin Circle resident, said she had no idea this was happening until she ran into one of her neighbors. She asked that the city do a better job of informing residents, beyond the 500-foot radius of the project. She would be directly affected, but she hadn’t received a mailing about it. The neighborhood could be affected in many ways, including house values, “riff raff,” and other impacts, she said.

Aerial view showing location of Mallett’s Creek Court at 2670-2680 S. Main, next to Cranbrook Park.

Ron Gardner lives on Kingsbrook property that backs up to the three existing public housing structures. He encouraged the city to split the property and maintain the part that’s vacant. He hoped the existing footprint of the public housing would be preserved and not expanded.

Jeff Dvorak told commissioners that splitting the property was a good compromise. He urged them to keep it as tight as possible, to minimize future development.

Eppie Potts noted that the neighbors have been using the vacant part of the parcel as a park, and she wondered if anyone at the city was working to get that site included in the parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan. That would really protect it, she said, and it needs some official protection.

Cindy Heusel, another Oakbrook Villas resident, asked that the city “not mess around with that park at all.” She noted that it’s used by elderly people, who enjoy taking walks through it.

Jeff Gearhart introduced himself as a resident of Pine Valley Boulevard. [He's also married to AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall.] He supported the overall rezoning package. It’s important to address the neighbors’ concerns, he said, but he wanted to emphasize that “the people who live in public housing are part of our community, too.” This overall project is about improving their lives, and addressing a long-term set of defrayed issues that will “raise all boats.”

Changming Fan spoke about his company, TiniLite. Midway through his comments, planning commission chair Kirk Westphal noted that this public hearing was specifically for the rezoning resolution. Fan asked if he could talk about the master plan or transportation. Westphal noted that there would be another opportunity for public commentary at the end of the meeting.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Commission Discussion – Baker Commons

Wendy Woods moved to discuss these five properties separately. Her motion for separate consideration passed unanimously. Discussion began with Baker Commons, a rezoning request from public land to D2 (downtown interface).

Bonnie Bona.

Sabra Briere noted that the surrounding parcels around Baker Commons are also zoned D2. An item later on the commission’s agenda talks about “playing with D2 definition,” she said. [She was referring to proposed downtown zoning revisions, reported previously in this article.] Briere said some people who are avidly watching the downtown zoning revisions wonder what the D2 designation means for AAHC’s plans.

AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall replied that the AAHC needs for the zoning to be such that if a building burned down, it could be rebuilt. Beyond that, she didn’t have a preference about what that zoning should be. But public land doesn’t currently allow housing to be built on it.

Hall again noted that the three critical properties to be rezoned are Baker Commons, Green/Baxter and Maple Meadows. Those properties have investors and a deal that she hoped would close in the next couple of months.

Bonnie Bona asked planning manager Wendy Rampson to explain what character district applies to the Baker Commons site. Rampson clarified that it’s located in the First Street character district. Its boundaries roughly follow the railroad tracks and Allen Creek. It’s a different character district than the one that was being proposed as part of the downtown zoning revisions.

Bona noted that the First Street character district has a height limit of 60 feet, but Baker Commons is taller than 60 feet. She pointed out that based on allowable floor-area ratios for D2 in that character district, it would allow for a building double or triple the size of Baker Commons to be built there, even with the height limit. That’s true, Rampson said, but any new project would have to go through the city’s site plan review and approval process.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend rezoning the Baker Commons site to D2 and waive the area plan requirements for the AAHC rezoning petition. The recommendations will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Commission Discussion – Green/Baxter

Commissioners next considered the rezoning request for 1701-1747 Green Road, from public land to R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The 2-acre site – on the northwest corner of Green and Baxter roads – contains 23 apartments in four buildings and a community center.

Aerial view of Green/Baxter Court, at the northwest corner of Green and Baxter roads.

Bonnie Bona wondered why R4B was being proposed. All of the adjacent zoning is different, she noted. Bona also pointed out that a greater amount of density would be allowed if the site were to be redeveloped in the future.

Residential property on the opposite side of Green Road is zoned R4A. Bona wondered what the difference is between R4B and R4A. Wendy Rampson replied, saying R4B allows for slightly higher density. Rampson indicated that R4A would also work on that site.

Bona said she’d be more comfortable rezoning it R4A, because it more closely aligns with surrounding zoning. Otherwise, it would be the only site zoned R4B in that neighborhood.

Rampson said that as long as AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall was agreeable with the change, the planning staff would have no problem changing it.

Bona formally proposed amending the rezoning to R4A.

Outcome on amendment: It was unanimously approved.

There was no further discussion.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend rezoning 1701-1747 Green Road to R4A and waive the area plan requirements for the AAHC rezoning petition. The recommendations will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Commission Discussion – Maple Meadows

Maple Meadows – at 800-890 South Maple Road, south of Liberty – is currently zoned R1C (single-family dwelling district). The recommendation is to rezone it as R4B (multi-family dwelling district). The site contains 29 apartments in five buildings and a community center.

Wendy Woods wondered how the site got so “out of whack,” with so many multi-family units built on property that’s zoned for single-family homes. Wendy Rampson replied, saying that historically, the public housing was built where there was available land. Because it was bought by the city and funded through HUD, the development had been exempt from city zoning. The land was likely zoned in the 1960s as R1C, Rampson explained, and the public housing was built later – in the late ’60s or early ’70s.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend rezoning 800-890 South Maple as R4B and to waive the area plan requirements for the AAHC rezoning petition. The recommendations will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Commission Discussion – Mallett’s Creek Court

Jeremy Peters asked whether there are any plans to sell the property – that concern had been raised during the public hearing. AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall apologized to the neighbors, saying she had no idea that there had been concerns – she hadn’t received any emails or other communications about it until the public hearing.

Jeremy Peters wore an “I Voted” sticker during the May 6 meeting, which began an hour before the polls closed at 8 p.m. The only item on the ballot was a transit tax proposal, which voters overwhelmingly supported.

The West Washington site is the only one of these five sites that HUD has approved for sale. For the other properties, including Mallett’s Creek Court, HUD will require that AAHC sign a 20-year commitment for public housing. AAHC will be required to sign subsequent 20-year contracts in perpetuity – as long as HUD exists – to keep the sites as affordable housing.

Hall added that AAHC staff had no idea that the Mallett’s Creek Court parcel stretched into the park, until they started looking at the possibility of rezoning. That portion of the site has never been maintained or used by AAHC, she said. The city has maintained that portion as if it were part of the city’s park system, “and we just assumed it was part of the city’s park system,” she said. They had no intent to ever build on the parcel.

Hall reported that she’s already talked to the parks staff about splitting off that portion of the site, and the city attorney’s office is helping with that. AAHC doesn’t want the housing portion of the parcel to be in the floodway.

If it’s necessary to postpone this rezoning so that details can be worked out, Hall said that was fine with her.

Wendy Rampson reported that HUD might have some issues with splitting the parcel, so more work needs to be done to explore that option. She suggested postponing action indefinitely on this site, as well as the West Washington site.

Ken Clein wanted to emphasize that AAHC doesn’t have any intention of selling the property, and that even if they wanted to sell it, there would be restrictions placed on a sale by HUD.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone this item to a future meeting.

Rezoning of Public Housing Properties: Commission Discussion – West Washington

The proposal called for rezoning 805-807 W. Washington – at the southwest corner of Washington and Mulholland – from public land to R2A (two-family dwelling district). It contains one duplex, with a garage that’s used for AAHC facilities storage.

Bonnie Bona clarified with Wendy Rampson that based on the lot size and rezoning, only a single unit could be built there in the future.

Wendy Woods wanted to get some information about issues that were raised during the public hearing. She asked what happens in that area when there’s a major rainfall.

Rampson replied that this area is a very stressed section of the Allen Creek system – as the creek runs through an underground drain in that area. The pavement on the public housing site contributes to the problem, but it’s a much broader issue, she said. It’s a drainage problem that the city often deals with.

Woods said she didn’t know what it costs to return pavement to gravel, but she wondered whether AAHC has considered any ways of mitigating the runoff problem from that site. Jennifer Hall replied that the AAHC facilities manager estimates it would cost about $5,000. There are other problems with the property, she noted – for example, the roof needs to be replaced or it won’t last through next winter. They’re planning to put on a metal roof, which is a more permanent roof, she said. AAHC is also exploring whether it can break up the pavement. “I fully intend to deal with that this summer,” Hall said.

Bona thought there might be an opportunity to get grant funding for a rain garden or other way of dealing with the drainage issue.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone this item to a future meeting.

Glenwood Annexation

Planning commissioners were asked to recommend the annexation of an 0.22-acre lot at 375 Glenwood Street – currently in Scio Township – and to zone the site as R1C (single-family dwelling district), which matches the zoning of surrounding sites.

375 Glenwood is outlined in black with hashmarks.

The parcel is on the west side of Glenwood, south of Dexter Road. The owners, Kelly Anderson and Victoria Pebbles, also own the adjacent lot. They want to build a single-family home on the 375 Glenwood site, which is currently vacant. The annexation would allow the site to connect with city water and utility services.

According to a staff memo, the 2014 water improvement charges are $5,345.10 and the 2014 sanitary improvement charges are $8,667.10.

The construction would require installing a public sidewalk.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item. [.pdf of staff memo and resolution]

Glenwood Annexation: Commission Discussion

Wendy Woods asked about language in the staff memo:

There are city utilities available to service this parcel, including a 6” water main and a 12” sanitary sewer. Storm sewer is not available. Connection to the sanitary sewer may require detailed design by an engineer. No representation is made as to ability to connect.

Woods wondered about the statement “No representation is made as to the ability to connect.” She didn’t think she’d seen that kind of statement before.

Katy Ryan, an intern with the planning unit who gave the staff report, noted that Glenwood is an unpaved road. Planning manager Wendy Rampson elaborated. Because the road is gravel, the drainage is provided via ditches in that neighborhood, rather than connections to the city’s storm sewer system. Sewer and water systems are available, but the elevation of the pipes in that area might make it difficult to connect. The “no representation” statement is just the staff’s way of saying that they haven’t reviewed it, and that it’s up to the property owner to address, she said.

Woods asked about potential flooding. Rampson replied that there’s a long history to that area, where property has been annexed from Scio Township. In the past, residents have explored whether to pave the roads. Some of the lower-lying properties have experienced drainage issues, she noted. But every time the issue of paving emerges, the cost has been prohibitive to residents, she said.

Bonnie Bona followed up, noting the city’s interest in rain gardens and infiltration approaches to handling stormwater. She wondered if that “more progressive approach” had been looked at in this neighborhood. Rampson didn’t think it had been studied there, saying it had been about 10 years since the issue had been brought up. She wasn’t sure the soils are amenable to infiltration, but said it’s something that can be explored in the future.

Sabra Briere asked if there are other sidewalks in the neighborhood. Ryan indicated that this would be the first sidewalk. Briere noted that it’s a situation where the sidewalk is considered an improvement, even though it doesn’t connect to anything. Ryan replied: “We’re currently looking into that right now.”

Outcome: Planning commissioners unanimously recommended annexation and zoning. The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Master Plan Review

The planning commission’s bylaws call for an annual review of the city’s master plan, including a public hearing.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Seven documents constitute the city’s master plan: (1) the sustainability framework, adopted in 2013; (2) parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, as adopted in 2011; (3) land use element, as adopted in 2013 to add the South State corridor plan; (4) downtown plan, as adopted in 2009; (5) transportation plan update, as adopted in 2009; (6) non-motorized transportation plan, adopted in 2007 and updated in 2013; and (7) natural features master plan, adopted in 2004.

Collectively, the documents are intended to describe a vision for the city’s future and guide decisions about land use, transportation, infrastructure, environment, housing, and public facilities.

The annual review is a time for commissioners, staff or the public to suggest changes or topics that should be studied for possible inclusion in the master plan.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that within the past fiscal year, commissioners adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an element of the land use plan, and also adopted the non-motorized plan update. Now, commissioners seem to be interested in looking at the North Main corridor, Rampson said, so that’s something to consider working on this coming year. Other possibilities include a corridor plan for Washtenaw Avenue, and working with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority on a streetscape framework plan.

A resolution on the May 6 agenda laid out these topics, among others. From the resolved clauses:

Resolved, The City Planning Commission will continue the process of developing a corridor plan for Washtenaw Avenue and begin the process of developing a corridor plan for North Main Street to address land use, transportation and economic development in these areas;

Resolved, The City Planning Commission will assist the Downtown Development Authority in creating a Streetscape Framework Plan;

Resolved, The City Planning Commission will assist in the implementation of the Sustainability Action Plan, in coordination with the Energy Commission, the Environmental Commission, Park Advisory Commission, Housing Commission and Housing and Human Services Board;

A separate resolution listed 16 documents that are used as resources to support the master plan.

Rampson recommended postponing these resolutions until May 20, to give commissioners time to incorporate additional input. [.pdf of staff memo and resolutions]

Master Plan Review: Public Hearing

Last year, the master plan hearing drew six speakers on a range of topics, including development in Lowertown, a park in downtown Ann Arbor, and a push for adequate sidewalks, cleared of vegetation, so that kids can walk to school safely.

This year, only one person spoke the May 7 public hearing – Changming Fan of TiniLite World. He noted that the company was registered in 1996 in Ann Arbor and has never moved away. He said he lost his house because of the economic downturn. He wanted to use his technology to help people, especially the poor. But small businesses and innovators are ignored, he said. He urged commissioners to include this technology in the city’s master plan.

Master Plan Review: Commission Discussion

Discussion was brief. Regarding the resource documents, Bonnie Bona wanted to replace the North Main Street/Huron River Corridor Summary Land Use Policy of 1988 with the new North Main/Huron River task force report that was completed in 2013.

Bona also wondered whether the city’s climate action plan should be included as a resource document.

Rampson said she’d incorporate those changes into the resolutions that would be considered on May 20.

Outcome: Planning commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on the item until the May 20 meeting.

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 May 6.

Communications & Commentary: City Council Update

Sabra Briere, who serves as the city council’s representative on the planning commission, reported that the only council action on May 5 that directly affected the planning commission was the reappointment of Kirk Westphal to the environmental commission, as the planning commission’s representative to that group. She noted that the council will be voting on the fiscal 2015 budget at its May 19 meeting, and she encouraged everyone to review it and let her know what they thought.

Briere did not mention that his reappointment came on a 7-4 vote after 20 minutes of debate. Dissenting were Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). The controversy on the appointment stemmed from a decision by mayor John Hieftje last year not to nominate Jeff Hayner to the public art commission – because Hayner was running for Ward 1 city council against Sabra Briere. Those who dissented on Westphal’s appointment argued in part that the same principle should be applied to Westphal, a Democrat who is running for the Ward 2 city council seat this year.

Communications & Commentary: DDA Streetscape Framework

Ken Clein, who represents the planning commission on the partnerships committee of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, reported that the DDA held its first advisory committee meeting for the streetscape framework project on May 1, which included a walking tour. He’s representing the planning commission as part of that effort. [The DDA board authorized a $200,000 contract for development of a streetscape framework plan at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting.] Clein said it was exciting to walk around town and see things in a new light.

Communications & Commentary: Written Communications

Bonnie Bona addressed a written communication that had been received from Rod Sorge, president of the Earhart Village Homes Association. [.pdf of Sorge's email] His email referred to an Ann Arbor Chronicle report about comments made by planning commissioners at a March 4, 2014 meeting. From Sorge’s email:

In [Mary Morgan's] article about the commission’s consideration of a proposal from Concordia University,” Concordia Takes Step in Campus Upgrade” in the Ann Arbor Chronicle, March 8, 2014, she reports some comments she attributes to commission members. Among these comments about the Concordia University’s expansion plans and the neighborhood she reported that a commissioner [Clein] wondered whether the city should talk to the university about rezoning the entire site, rather than having to grant a special exception use for each project. Her article continued quoting a commissioner [Bona] as stating, “There’s not a lot of development in that area.”

Some confusion arose from the vagueness of the phrase “a commissioner” in Sorge’s email.

Bona noted that she was the commissioner who had been quoted as saying “There’s not a lot of development in that area.” She said that the only thing stated in the minutes is that the city is interested in the university’s overall master plan, and that it’s important to incorporate the neighborhood into that conversation. She wanted to clarify that rezoning was never mentioned. She said she was bringing it up because there hadn’t been a lot of public input at the March 4 meeting, and her desire was “to have [Concordia] have a more comprehensive plan that we could look at, instead of just a knee-jerk reaction every time they wanted to do something.”

She wanted to assure Sorge that the city had no intention of rezoning the Concordia property.

By way of background, it’s true that Bona did not mention rezoning during her comments at the March 4 meeting. However, Sorge’s email is likely referring to a comment by commissioner Ken Clein, who did bring up the rezoning issue, which was reported in The Chronicle:

Ken Clein wondered whether the city should talk to the university about rezoning the site, rather than having to grant a special exception use for each project. City planner Jeff Kahan replied that this is how the city handles private colleges. Such uses are allowed by special exception in office districts and single-family residential districts. Kahan said the city staff believes the existing zoning is reasonable, and it’s reasonable to require that the university request a special exception use for each project.

The March 4, 2014 meeting minutes – which the planning commission approved on May 6 – also reflect that exchange about rezoning. From the minutes:

Clein asked staff if the City would rather have the University rezone their site for future development rather than have them return before the Commission requesting Special Exception Use.

Kahan explained that the City handles all private colleges in this manner, through Special Exception Uses, when they are located in single-family and office zoning districts. He stated that staff believes the parcel is zoned appropriately for this type of use and is reasonable, given the size of their site.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

During public commentary at the start of the meeting, a resident of Green Brier Boulevard spoke to commissioners, noting that he lived across the street from the public housing complex on Green Road. He’d called the city because his apartment was at 80 degrees, and someone from the city told him it would be inspected in June, he said.

Changming Fan, who has frequently addressed the planning commission and other public bodies over the past few months, spoke about his company, TiniLite World Inc. He said he appreciated the democratic system. Ann Arbor is the first city that used LED lighting. He said he’d like to contribute his firm’s technology, called TiniLite. It’s a lighting display using LED lights, cell phones, and wireless Internet. He hoped it could be used to interconnect people socially, spiritually and emotionally to help Ann Arbor. He thought that the technology should be included in the city’s master plan.

Fan also spoke during public commentary at the end of the meeting, stressing the same themes.

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

Next meeting: Tuesday, May 20, 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.

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

It’s possible that the council might be briefed at the meeting on proposals received by the Oct. 18 deadline for the purchase of the city-owned parcel on William Street between Fourth and Fifth avenues (the former Y lot), but that’s not yet clear. The property had been listed for $4.2 million.

Many of the Oct. 21 items already on the agenda can be divided into three main categories: transportation, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, and the city’s energy commission.

The council held a work session about transportation on Oct. 14, 2013. Transportation-related items on the Oct. 21 agenda include a resolution that would admit Ypsilanti Township as a member of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. The specific question to be considered is a revision to the AAATA’s articles of incorporation – which would also expand the number of board members from nine to 10.

A second transportation-related agenda item is a city-led initiative to develop a new train station, with the location to be determined. The existing location, as well as one on Fuller Road near the University of Michigan medical campus, would be among the possibilities. On the council’s agenda is a contract with URS Corp. to conduct an environmental review that would include public engagement, site selection and conceptual design. The council’s authorization would be $824,875, an amount that includes a $63,083 contingency. The city would pay 20% of that, or about $165,000, with the rest covered by a federal grant that has already been awarded by the Federal Rail Authority.

To the extent that pedestrian infrastructure is also part of the city’s transportation system, a transportation-related pair of items would alter the definition of “sidewalk” to include cross-lot walkways. Affected by the change, for example, would be walkways that connect streets with parks or school property. The change would allow for use of sidewalk repair millage funds to repair cross-lot walkways, without triggering the winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners.

Finally, the city council will be asked to approve an annual resolution related to wintertime transportation – the purchase of ice control salt for city streets.

Related to the Ann Arbor DDA are three items: (1) reconsideration of the appointment of Al McWilliams to the board of that authority – likely to be confirmed on a re-vote, if reconsideration is approved; (2) final consideration of a change to the city ordinance regulating the DDA’s TIF (tax increment financing) capture – likely to be postponed yet again; and (3) a budget allocation of $280,000 to cover costs associated with replacement of downtown ornamental, pedestrian-scale light poles. The DDA is contributing $300,000 to the cost of the $580,000 project. Some councilmembers think the DDA should pay for the full amount, so the eight-vote majority required for the budget amendment might not be achieved.

The specific size of the majority vote required could also be a factor in one of two agenda items related to the city’s energy commission – the re-appointment of Wayne Appleyard to the commission. The confirmation will need a seven-vote majority under the city charter, because he’s not a city resident. The other energy-related item is an energy commission-recommended resolution – which was previously rejected, reconsidered and postponed by the city council. The resolution would call upon the city’s employee retirement board to divest from fossil fuel companies.

This article includes a more detailed preview of each of these agenda items. More details on other meeting agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings Monday evening on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

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

Transportation

Three transportation-related issues appear on the agenda.

Transportation: Ypsilanti Township Membership in AAATA

The council will be asked to approve revised articles of incorporation for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, so that Ypsilanti Township is admitted as a member of the authority. The board would be expanded from nine to 10 members, with the additional member to be appointed by Ypsilanti Township. At its Sept. 26, 2013 meeting, the AAATA board already approved the membership of Ypsilanti Township. That action was contingent on approval by the Ann Arbor city council.

Ypsilanti Township is now a member of the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, pending consideration by the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti city councils. (Green indicates the geographic area included by the AAATA.)

An earlier expansion in membership was given final approval by the AAATA board at its June 20, 2013 meeting. That’s when the city of Ypsilanti was admitted as a member of the AAATA and its board was increased from seven to nine members, one of whom is appointed by the city of Ypsilanti. The name of the authority was also changed at that time to add the word “area” – making it the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority. [Amendment 3 of the AAATA articles of incorporation]

The expansion of the AAATA’s geographic footprint to include some jurisdictions geographically close to the city of Ann Arbor – and with whom the AAATA has historically had purchase-of-service agreements (POSAs) – sets the stage for a possible request of voters in the expanded geographic area. That request would be to approve additional transportation funding to pay for increased service frequencies and times.

The AAATA could place a millage request on the ballot in May 2014, probably at the level of 0.7 mills, to support a 5-year service improvement plan that the AAATA has developed. A schedule of public meetings to introduce that plan runs through mid-November. A decision to place a millage on the ballot would first need AAATA board approval – a question that has not yet appeared before the board.

Transportation: Ann Arbor Station

Appearing on the Oct. 21 agenda is a contract with URS Corp. Inc. (URS) to carry out an environmental review of the Ann Arbor Station project. This rail station project relates most immediately to the prospect that Amtrak will be offering improved inter-city service on the Chicago-Detroit Amtrak line.

Amtrak train arrival in Ann Arbor. (Chronicle file photo from September 2013)

An improved intercity rail station also has implications for the way that a different type of service – commuter rail service between Ann Arbor and Detroit – might be created and offered in the future. The total budgeted for the Ann Arbor Station contract on the Oct. 21 agenda – which will cover public engagement, site selection and conceptual design – is $824,875, an amount that includes a $63,083 contingency. The city would pay 20% of that, or about $165,000. A transfer of $550,000 to the city’s major grant fund was approved a year ago by the city council at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting for the total project budget.

The federal grant that will cover 80% of the project cost, up to $2.8 million for the federal share, had been accepted by the council at its June 4, 2012 meeting. So for the contract on the Oct. 21 agenda, the city’s share works out to approximately $165,000 with the Federal Rail Authority covering the remaining $660,000.

The funding approved by the city council a year ago came after the city learned that previous expenditures – which were made in connection with the now demised Fuller Road Station project – would not be considered as eligible local matching funds under the federal grant. Fuller Road Station had been a joint venture with the University of Michigan, and called for UM to build a parking structure on the same site as the proposed rail station at a location on Fuller Road.

The preliminary work that URS would do under the contract on the Oct. 21 agenda does not presuppose a preferred location for a new passenger rail station. The existing Amtrak station on Depot Street would be among the alternatives considered, in addition to the location identified for the Fuller Road Station, which is on city-owned land between Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive adjacent to the UM medical center. The Fuller Park land is designated by the city in planning documents as parkland, and is zoned as public land. A 2009 appraisal commissioned by the city put the value of the land at $4.25 million.

Transportation: Sidewalks

The ordinance change in front of the council for final approval on Oct. 21 would revise the definition of “sidewalk” so that cross-lot walkways could be repaired using sidewalk repair millage funds, but not trigger the ordinary winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners. Cross-lot walkways include those that connect streets to parks or school property, or connect two parallel streets.

At the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting, councilmembers were set to give final approval of a different version of the ordinance revision, which would have still placed the responsibility of sidewalk shoveling in the winter on owners of property adjacent to cross-lot walkways. But the council took a different approach after hearing objections from the owners of adjoining property.

A companion resolution later on the agenda completes the necessary council action to allow the definitional change to have an actual impact: The definition makes a walkway a “sidewalk” if the council formally accepts the walkway for public use.  So the companion resolution accepts 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

This cross-lot path was described by John Ohanian at the city council’s July 1, 2013 meeting as one that he’d become responsible for shoveling if the city adopted the change in the definition of sidewalk.

This is the path – looking east from Frederick and Middleton into Greenbrier Park – that abuts Ohanian’s property.

Transportation: Ice Control Salt

The request to be considered by the council is for the purchase of bulk salt, for ice control, and seasonal back-up supplies to be sourced from the Detroit Salt Company for $245,143 (2,800 tons of “early fill” at $34.50 a ton and 4,100 tons of “seasonal backup” at $36.23 a ton).

Winter use of ice control salt on roadways by the city of Ann Arbor (in tons). Data from the city of Ann Arbor. Chart by The Chronicle. This year the council is being asked to authorize the purchase of a total of 6,900 tons of ice control salt.

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority

Three items on the Oct. 21 agenda relate to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

Ann Arbor DDA: Al McWilliams

The item on the council’s Oct. 21 agenda is a reconsideration of the council’s vote that appointed Al McWilliams to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. That original vote was taken on Sept. 16, and resulted in a 6-5 tally in favor.

Al McWilliams attended the Oct. 2, 2013 meeting of the DDA board and voted on the one agenda item. This photo is from Chronicle coverage of that meeting.

The Sept. 16 vote came after mayor John Hieftje stated during deliberations on Sept. 3 – as McWilliams’ confirmation that night appeared to have insufficient support on the short-handed council – that he was withdrawing the nomination.

That gave rise to a technical procedural issue – because Hieftje’s request for confirmation on Sept. 16 appeared to be a fresh nomination. So it should have been subjected to the council’s rule that applies when the vote comes at the same council meeting as the nomination – namely, that the confirmation achieve an eight-vote majority. For detailed analysis of the procedural issue, see “Column: How to Count to 8, Stopping at 6.”

City attorney Stephen Postema was then directed by the council at its Oct. 7 meeting to produce a written opinion on the legal validity of the 6-5 vote, which he subsequently did. Later in the Oct. 7 meeting, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) convinced his council colleagues to re-open the agenda to consider a motion to reconsider the Sept. 16 vote on McWilliams. Warpehoski could do that as someone who voted on the prevailing side.

That motion for reconsideration was immediately postponed until the Oct. 21 meeting. Even if successful, Warpehoski’s motion is unlikely to result in a change of any councilmember’s vote, but would serve to eliminate the procedural question about McWilliams’ appointment. On Oct 21, the first vote to be taken will be on the motion to reconsider. If at least six councilmembers vote to reconsider, then the question of the appointment itself will be in front of the council.

Ann Arbor DDA: DDA TIF Ordinance

An ordinance revision to Chapter 7 that’s in front of the council for final approval on Oct. 21 would clarify the existing language of the ordinance, which regulates the DDA’s TIF capture. The clarification would disallow the DDA’s preferred interpretation of a restriction on TIF revenue that’s already expressed in the ordinance language. This ordinance revision was first considered by the council in February of this year. It received initial approval in April and has been in front of the council several times since then, but always postponed. Another postponement is likely on Oct 21.

A joint committee of councilmembers and DDA board members has been meeting, most recently on Oct. 16, and appear headed toward an alternative that would enact a “cap” on DDA TIF revenue – that could be set at a high enough level that it might not have a substantive impact on actual TIF revenue. When that alternative is finalized, it would be brought forward as a substitute proposal. But based on the Oct. 16 committee meeting, that won’t be ready for the Oct. 21 council meeting.

Ann Arbor DDA: Main Street Light Poles

The city council will be asked to approve $280,000 to be spent replacing 81 light poles in downtown Ann Arbor. The light poles will be purchased from Spring City Electrical Manufacturing at a cost of $173,307, with additional costs for installation and labor bringing the total to $280,000.

Downtown Ann Arbor Main Street light pole on the northeast corner of Main & William. Photograph is from the city of Ann Arbor, taken in April 2012.

The expenditure would amount to the city’s portion of a $580,000 project to replace 81 light poles – with the other portion of the cost borne by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

The $280,000 for the city’s share still needs to be allocated from the general fund to the field operation unit’s FY 2014 street lighting budget. As a budget amendment, the resolution needs eight votes under the city charter. It might not achieve that number, because of the ongoing political wrangling between the Ann Arbor DDA and the city council.

By way of additional background, in April 2013 when the council gave initial approval of the change to the city ordinance that regulates the DDA’s TIF capture, an argument against that move was that it would leave the DDA without sufficient revenue to pay for the roughly $580,000 cost of replacing the decorative light poles, which are described by some as an iconic feature of Main Street.

Replacement was characterized as an urgent public safety issue, because the bases of some of the poles are rusting. Various statements were made about the number of light poles that had failed, but responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle earlier this year, city of Ann Arbor staff indicated that in early 2012 two of the light poles fell – due to a structural failure at the base of the poles caused by rust. After inspection of all the poles, two additional light poles were deemed to be in immediate risk of falling and were also replaced. As a part of the council’s FY 2014 budget deliberations, the council altered the DDA’s budget and directed the DDA to allocate $300,000 toward the replacement of the Main Street light poles.

The council’s specific action on May 20, 2013 was to alter the DDA’s budget by recognizing additional TIF revenues of more than $568,000, and shifting $300,000 of that revenue from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund. The council’s budget resolution also recommended that the DDA spend $300,000 of its TIF fund on the Main Street light pole replacement. Earlier this year, in response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city administrator Steve Powers indicated that the city council was expected to be asked to act on the matter either at its July 15 or Aug. 8 meeting. But the issue was not placed before the council until Oct. 21.

City Energy Commission

Two items on the Oct. 21 agenda relate to the city’s energy commission.

City Energy Commission: Appleyard Appointment

On the agenda as of Friday, Oct. 18 was just one appointment – that of Wayne Appleyard to the city’s energy commission.

Wayne Appleyard at an April 2010 joint meeting of the city’s energy, environmental and planning commissions. Next to Appleyard is Bonnie Bona, who at that time chaired the planning commission. (Chronicle file photo.)

Appleyard’s nomination was put forward at the council’s Sept. 16 meeting, but his confirmation was not requested at the council’s following meeting on Oct. 7. Even though the nomination was not put forward at the Oct. 7 meeting, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) registered his concerns about the nomination of a non-city resident.

So the confirmation request is pending clarification of some concerns that Anglin and other councilmembers have raised about Appleyard’s status as a non-city resident and his long tenure on the commission – since 2002.

As a non-city resident, Appleyard’s confirmation needs seven votes, which it would likely not have received on Oct. 7 given the short-handed council that night. [Only eight out of 11 councilmembers attended.]

The seven-vote majority, instead of the typical six, is required by the city charter for non-city residents: [emphasis added]:

Section 12.2. Except as otherwise provided in this charter, a person is eligible to hold a City office if the person has been a registered elector of the City, or of territory annexed to the City or both, and, in the case of a Council Member, a resident of the ward from which elected, for at least one year immediately preceding election or appointment. This requirement may be waived as to appointive officers by resolution concurred in by not less than seven members of the Council.

Appleyard lives in Grass Lake, Mich. With respect to Appleyard’s long tenure, a city charter requirement on city boards and commissions has been analyzed as not applicable to the city’s energy commission. The charter requirement limits continuous service on some kinds of boards and commissions to six years, after which a three-year lapse is required:

Boards and Commissions SECTION 5.17.
(a) The Council may create citizen boards for each of the following departments: Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Public Works, Utilities Department, Department of Parks and Recreation, and Department of Building and Safety Engineering. It may, in addition, create such a board for any department established pursuant to this charter. The Council shall prescribe the number of persons on each such board, the terms of office, the method of appointment of members, the board officers and the method of their selection, and provisions concerning the holding of regular and special meetings. No person serving on such board continuously for six years shall be eligible to reappointment, until the lapse of three years. …

The city energy commission was established in 1985 by a council resolution to “oversee City policies and regulations in areas of energy efficiency concerns and make periodic public reports and recommendations to the City Council.” So it’s not analyzed as corresponding to any particular city department. Under special qualifications, the online Legistar description states: “wide spread representation; interest in energy.” Terms of appointment for energy commissioners are three years.

When Appleyard was up for reappointment in 2010, no objections were raised. On that occasion, mayor John Hieftje separated out Appleyard’s confirmation for a separate vote to ensure it was clear that he’d specifically received adequate support from the council, despite not being a city resident.

Appleyard is principal with Sunstructures Architects, with a focus in renewable energy and sustainable architecture. Appleyard designed the house of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

City Energy Commission: Fossil Fuel Divestment

A resolution on divestment from fossil fuel companies is back in front of the council for the third time. When it was initially considered on Sept. 3, 2013, the council voted it down. But on Sept. 16, 2013 the resolution was brought back for reconsideration, then postponed until Oct. 21.

It’s based on an energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013. The resolution recommended that the city council urge the city’s employee retirement system board to cease new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest current investments in fossil fuel companies within five years. The resolution defines a “fossil fuel company” to be any of the top 100 coal companies or top 100 gas and oil extraction companies.

The top three coal companies on the list are: Severstal JSC; Anglo American PLC; and BHP Billiton. The top three gas and oil companies on the list are: Lukoil Holdings; Exxon Mobil Corp.; and BP PLC. The basic consideration of the resolution is the importance of the role that greenhouse gas emissions play in global warming.

The resolution cites the city of Ann Arbor’s climate action plan, which has a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2025 and 90% by 2050. The resolution warns that fossil fuel companies have enough fossil fuel reserves that, if burned, would release about 2,795 gigatons of CO2. That’s five times the amount that can be released without causing more than 2°C global warming, according to the resolution.

Nancy Walker, executive director of the city’s employee retirement system, has reviewed for the council at its meetings the implications of fossil fuel divestment on the retirement fund. Walker had told the council that moving to separately managed accounts from the system’s preferred strategy – of using co-mingled funds, mutual funds, and particularly indexed funds – would cost 30-40 basis points more in fees, independent of any difference in the return on investment.

Live updates from the meeting will appear starting here a few minutes before the scheduled meeting start time of 7 p.m.

6:42 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers has arrived. Responding to a Chronicle query, he indicates that bids on the old Y lot will not be reported out or discussed tonight – because Colliers is still analyzing the responses.

6:49 p.m. Several attendees are here for the Diwali proclamation. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) is wearing a sari for the occasion.

7:07 p.m. Thomas Partridge is using the time before the meeting to quiz Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) about the DDA ordinance. And we’re off.

7:08 p.m. Pledge of allegiance, moment of silence and the roll call of council. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) is absent. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) is absent for roll call, but he’s here. Higgins’ absence will have implications for vote tallies.

7:12 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wants the McWilliams reconsideration moved up on the agenda, right after the mayor’s communications. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) points out that Higgins is absent and that one condition on the reconsideration was that all councilmembers be present for the reconsideration. Mayor John Hieftje says Higgins is on her way. Warpehoski ventures that he could re-open the agenda in case Higgins has not arrived when the council considers the item.

7:14 p.m. City administrator communications. City administrator Steve Powers reports on a “feel-good” story – 400 trick-or-treaters during the city’s trick-or-treating on the Huron River. Community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl introduces some guests from Thailand and China who have been visiting Ann Arbor.

7:14 p.m. Proclamations. The proclamation on the agenda tonight is for Diwali – a five-day Hindu festival, the “festival of lights.” It declares Nov. 3, 2013, as Diwali in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

7:23 p.m. Speakers are in turn explaining the religious and cultural significance of Diwali.

7:23 p.m. Higgins has just arrived.

7:25 p.m. Buddhism is now being explained. Previous speakers explained Jainism and Sikhism.

7:27 p.m. We’re now receiving a chanted blessing. The blessing earns applause from the audience.

7:29 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Four people are signed up to speak on the topic of the contract with URS for the environmental review for the Ann Arbor Station project: Rita Mitchell, Nancy Shiffler, Clark Charnetski, and Jeff Hayner. One of the two alternate speaker slots is also filled with a speaker who wants to address the council on the topic of the URS contract – Drew Waller. [More background above on Ann Arbor Station].

Four people are also signed up to talk about the addition of Ypsilanti Township to the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority: Martha Valadez, Matt Vanauker, Marko Arizankoski, and Abishek Thiagaraj. Alternate speaker Emmanuel Jones is also signed up to talk about adding Ypsilanti Township to the AAATA. [More background on Ypsilanti Township membership in AAATA]

Ann Arbor energy commissioner Mike Shriberg is signed up to speak in support of the resolution urging the employee retirement system to divest from fossil fuels companies. This resolution is back in front of the council for the third time. When it was initially considered on Sept. 3, 2013 the council voted it down. But on Sept. 16, 2013 the resolution was brought back for reconsideration, then postponed until tonight. It’s based on an energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013 recommending that the city council urge the city’s employee retirement system board to cease new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest current investments in fossil fuel companies within five years. [More background on fossil fuel divestment]

Tom Partridge is signed up to speak in favor of his Ward 5 city council write-in candidacy.

7:36 p.m. Tom Partridge introduces himself as an advocate for all members of the community, including the middle class. He’s here as a candidate for city council and asks voters in Ward 5 to write in his name when they vote. He calls for the ending of homelessness, more access to affordable transportation, and health care. He recalls the demonstration several years ago at city hall by the KKK, which he says mayor John Hieftje authorized. [Hieftje was not mayor at the time.] Partridge complains that the planned redesign of the city’s website doesn’t go far enough.

7:40 p.m. Rita Mitchell says the community has not yet agreed on whether the city should take responsibility for a new train station. She pegs the total amount of money invested in study of a site at $1.7 million. She questions whether URS can be an objective consultant given some work done in connection with previous Fuller Station and the connector study. Mitchell questions the amount of funding in the contract just for the public engagement process, which she thinks is too much, compared to the amount for the environmental assessment per se.

7:42 p.m. Martha Valadez is transit organizer for the Ecology Center and Partners for Transit. She says access to public transportation is crucial for her personally and for her community. She supports the urban core transit program. She supports the membership of Ypsilanti Township in the AAATA. It will give the township a chance to participate in future funding requests, not just participation in governance, she says.

7:44 p.m. Matt Vanauker introduces himself as a Ward 5 resident and high school classmate of Kunselman. He’s surprised that the council didn’t support the countywide initiative last year. He can’t imagine a reason why Ypsilanti Township would not be included as a member in the AAATA. He relies on public transportation to accomplish basic life functions, like grocery shopping and medical appointments.

7:46 p.m. Nancy Shiffler is chair of the Huron Valley Group of the Sierra Club. She thinks the public involvement component is a strength of the proposal. She’s looking forward to a well-publicized schedule. She cautions against self-selected participants in online surveys. Task 4 of the contract, she says, is problematic, because it could result in a categorical exclusion for an FRA requirement with respect to parkland – and exclusion that would come too early in the process.

7:49 p.m. Mike Shriberg is an energy commission member. He’s spoken to the council twice previously. He’s conveying some of the information in this document: [Divestment: Response from Energy Commission] He asks that the council not be fixated on the question of fees. He asks the council to focus on what can be done now – by focusing on the investments that are not in indexed funds.

7:53 p.m. Clark Charnetski recalls the 30-year history of the study of different sites of a new rail station. That was the era when the Amtrak station was still located within the building where the Gandy Dancer restaurant is currently located. He invites the council to think about rail transportation from the passenger’s point of view. He notes a number of assumptions that were in place 30 years ago that have not proven to be correct. He says that even with current levels of ridership, an improvement to the station is needed. Responding to the idea that the current location could be used to improve the station, he says that the study will examine that option.

7:56 p.m. Abishek Thiagaraj is a junior at UM in biomedical engineering, volunteering with Partners for Transit. He sees transit as a priority. The student perspective is that they’re grateful for the current service AAATA provides. He talks about the need to improve transportation services to off-campus locations. He talks about the ability to integrate students more completely into the community through public transportation.

7:59 p.m. Jeff Hayner is running for Ward 1 city council as an independent. He’s just come from the PTO launch council. He draws an analogy to the trust we have in educators and elected representatives. He thinks community engagement is the key – in improving schools as well as in local government. He calls the redesign of the city webpages that’s on the agenda tonight long overdue. He’s glad to see it – one of the tabs will be “Democracy in Ann Arbor.” He disagrees with Tom Partridge that it’s difficult to get to the website. On the train station contract, he says the public engagement component is very heavy, but wonders if that will be used to shape public opinion or to listen to it.

8:01 p.m. Drew Waller works at Michigan Theater. He’s excited about the prospect of Al McWilliams being appointed to the DDA. [A single hiss comes from the audience.] We should focus on what McWilliams can do for the community, he says.

8:01 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three 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.

8:04 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) says she’s been meeting with constituents about a city ethics policy. She’s not sure there’s appetite for it, but is preparing a resolution for the next meeting to instruct the city attorney to provide training for public officials on Act 196 of 1973 and to the city administrator to provide information on the city’s website. She announces the re-launch of a customer satisfaction survey she conducted previously. The Huron High School tennis team has won a championship, that she’s reporting tonight at the council table.

8:12 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) expresses his appreciation for city administrator Steve Powers’ work. He’s seen Powers show up to community meetings, he says.

8:12 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) give a shout-out to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission for a national level recognition. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) echoes Anglin’s remarks about Powers. She refers to a meeting on the Dhu Varren, Green, Nixon intersection as an example of his work. “Our taxes are well-invested,” said one resident, according to Lumm.

8:12 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) mentions an Oct. 30 meeting on a public improvement project in Springbrook subdivision, near his neighborhood. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) thanks Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) for bringing forward the Diwali proclamation. He also announces that he’s working with staff on an outdoor smoking ordinance that would mirror the county ordinance. He’s looking to empower the city administrator to designate some areas of parkland as non-smoking areas. He says at least playgrounds should be non-smoking. He’ll be asking the park advisory commission for input, as well.

He announces that he and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) are working on a framework to establish a pedestrian safety citizens advisory committee. He thinks the committee would be seated at the second council meeting in November. The effort is not designed to determine or preempt the outcome of the effort to repeal the pedestrian crosswalk ordinance.

8:16 p.m. Briere follows up on Warpehoski’s remarks by saying they want first to identify the broad categories of people or groups who might serve on such a pedestrian safety committee.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) announces that he’s working with Teall on a resolution asking that the University of Michigan decommission the large billboard outside Michigan football stadium on Stadium Boulevard. If it won’t be decommissioned, he says, the resolution will ask that the university operate the billboard only just before large events. Taylor also alerts the council to the recommendations of the park advisory commission‘s subcommittee on downtown parks. That will be on the next meeting’s agenda for formal acceptance, he says.

8:17 p.m. Nominations. Being nominated to fill the remaining vacancy on the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board – due to the resignation of Nader Nassif – is Cyndi Clark, owner of Lily Grace. The business is described on its website as a luxury cosmetics boutique in downtown Ann Arbor.

To fill a vacancy left by Leigh Greden on the Ann Arbor housing commission board, Tim Colenback is being nominated tonight. Greden’s nomination had been made, but was never put forward for a confirmation vote. Colenback also serves on the city’s housing and human services advisory board. Colenback has told Hieftje that he can’t serve on both bodies.

A replacement for Julie Grand on the park advisory commission is being nominated tonight – David Santacroce. He’s a professor of law at the University of Michigan, and chaired the North Main Huron River corridor task force, which worked for a year and delivered its report recently to the council on recommendations to the corridor. Grand finished her term on PAC, completing her maximum two terms of service at PAC’s Oct. 15, 2013 meeting.

Amy Shepherd is being nominated to serve on the city’s commission on disability issues. On the energy commission, Shoshannah Lenski is nominated to replace Mike Delaney, and Mike Shriberg is being nominated for reappointment.

8:17 p.m. Appointments. On the agenda as of Friday, Oct. 18 was just one appointment – that of Wayne Appleyard to the city’s energy commission. Appleyard’s nomination was put forward at the council’s Sept. 16 meeting, but his confirmation was not requested at the council’s following meeting on Oct. 7 – pending clarification of some concerns that councilmembers have raised about Appleyard’s status as a non-city resident and his long tenure on the commission, since 2002. [More background on Appleyard appointment]

8:21 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje begins by saying he can’t imagine anyone who’s more knowledgeable or qualified to serve on the energy commission.

8:21 p.m. Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) says Appleyard is highly qualified, and thanks him for his service. But local government is about local governance, she says. It’s not personal, she says, and she values his service. She thinks that among the 115,000 residents of Ann Arbor, other qualified commissioners could be found. If the energy commission recommends measures that could have an effect on the city’s financial well-being (like the fossil fuel divestment resolution), the recommendations should be made by people who will live with the consequences.

8:24 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) says Appleyard is abundantly qualified. But she’s concerned about the length of his service – as a non-city resident. Reasonable term limits are a good government practice. So Lumm and Kailasapathy won’t support the appointment. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) says that service in the community leads to more service in the community. There needs to be a kind of welcome mat put out to residents. Watching the energy commission, Anglin says, he thinks that residential solar and geothermal initiatives should have received more attention. Going outside the community shouldn’t be necessary, he concludes.

8:30 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) says it’s not Appleyard’s fault that there are no term limits. She’s going to support the appointment. She reminds the council that non-city resident Alison Stroud was unanimously approved by the council as an appointee to the city’s commission on disability issues, because of her unique qualifications.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) says he’s delighted to support Appleyard, who exemplifies excellence. Hieftje reiterates that Appleyard has tremendous expertise. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) points out that Appleyard also serves on the environmental commission as the energy commission’s representative. She says he represents a valuable background and voice that would be otherwise unrepresented. She calls his explanations cogent and patient. His style is non-aggressive but firm, she says. She supports his appointment. Hieftje points out that Appleyard is a taxpayer as a business owner.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) recalls his relationship with Appleyard. Appleyard designed Kunselman’s house and Kunselman served on the energy commission back when Kunselman was the planning commission’s representative to that body. He says he’ll support Appleyard’s appointment.

8:31 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 8-3 to approve the reappointment of Wayne Appleyard to the city energy commission. Dissenting were Lumm, Anglin and Kailasapathy.

8:31 p.m. Reconsider: Appointment of Al McWilliams to DDA (postponed from Oct. 7). The council’s vote on Al McWilliams’ appointment to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority was taken on Sept. 16, and was approved on a 6-5 vote in favor – but appears to have required eight votes under the council’s rules. That vote resulted in a procedural controversy. Late in the Oct. 7 meeting, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) convinced his council colleagues to re-open the agenda to consider a motion to reconsider the Sept. 16 vote on McWilliams. Warpehoski could do that as someone who voted on the prevailing side. That motion for reconsideration was immediately postponed until tonight’s meeting.

The point of Warpehoski’s motion is unlikely to result in a change of any councilmember’s vote, but would serve to eliminate the procedural question about McWilliams’ appointment. Tonight, the first vote to be taken will be on the motion to reconsider. If at least six councilmembers vote to reconsider, then the question of the appointment itself will be in front of the council. [More background on Al McWilliams appointment]

8:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 8-3 to reconsider the vote on McWilliams’ appointment. Voting against reconsideration were Hieftje, Taylor and Teall.

8:34 p.m. Anglin reviews the conflict of interest issue. He says that more important than that was the reaction some of the female councilmembers had had to the material on McWilliams’ website. McWilliams might be very talented, but Anglin feels that he erred in his judgment to post some of that material. It was a 6-5 vote, he says, adding that it’s the first time he’s opposed a mayoral nomination.

8:37 p.m. Lumm thanks Warpehoski for his action to reconsider the vote. She says it was honorable. She thanks city attorney Stephen Postema for writing the opinion that the council had requested. She’ll vote against the appointment. It’s not hard to find qualified applicants for the DDA board, she says. She wants someone who has the maturity to serve on the board. It’s an issue of judgment and respect, she says.

Taylor says he’ll support the nomination, noting that the council has received many communications from people who know McWilliams well in a professional context. Business leaders are universal in their support of him, he says.

8:41 p.m. Warpehoski reviews some of the objections: (1) conflict of interest; (2) misogyny; and (3) judgment. He thinks that (1) could be addressed with timely recusal. As far as the misogyny, he felt the material McWilliams had posted was a media critique, not an invitation to “Hey, check out this hottie!” He said he didn’t see any basis for the claim of misogyny. On (3) he echoes Taylor’s remarks.

8:46 p.m. Kunselman thanks Warpehoski for his effort. “The man insulted me,” Kunselman says. And for that reason he’ll be voting against McWilliams. Kunselman says he won’t repeat the insult because it wouldn’t be appropriate decorum. Kunselman says that “third-grade potty humor” is not appropriate for a public official. He cautions that someone else at the table could be the next person that McWilliams insults.

Kailasapathy says we all curse, but cursing with women’s body parts is unacceptable.

8:52 p.m. Teall says that she wishes the council wouldn’t spend time on this agenda item, but will “pipe up as well.” She says that someone who could bring great life to the DDA should be supported.

Petersen says she wasn’t planning on saying anything. The fact that the word “misogyny” is being used indicates that the appointment isn’t appropriate. She recalls her interaction with McWilliams on the phone. She’d told him he’d watered down his message with the images and the language. He’d told her he disagreed and said it was appropriate vernacular. The recommendations the council had received were from people she respected, she said, but they did not know about the conversation she’d had with him. At this point, she’s not ready to appoint him to the DDA. “We need the highest caliber people” on the DDA board, she says.

Lumm thanks Petersen. She says it’s a core demonstration of poor judgment to defame her colleagues in the way that McWilliams did.

8:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has again voted 6-5 to appoint McWilliams to the DDA board.

8:52 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. The first is on a change to the definition of sidewalks – the effect of which will allow sidewalk millage repair funds to be used to fix cross-lot walkways, but not trigger a winter maintenance requirement.

The second and third hearings are fairly straightforward rezoning issues – one involving an annexation into the city from an adjoining township and the other a rezoning from residential to public land (because the city acquired the land). The fourth public hearing is on site plan for U-Haul on South State Street.

8:53 p.m. PH: Sidewalk ordinance. No one speaks at this public hearing.

8:57 p.m. PH: Rezoning of Kocher property. Thomas Partridge says that items like this should have amendments attached requiring accessibility to public transportation and affordable housing.

8:57 p.m. PH: Rezoning of 3875 East Huron River Drive. No one speaks at this public hearing.

9:00 p.m. PH: U-Haul site plan. Thomas Partridge again calls for an amendment requiring access to public transportation on the site. He says the site plan should be referred back to the planning commission.

9:01 p.m. Minutes and 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 just two items. One is a contract with Keystone Media ($26,900) to redesign the basic templates for the city’s website. The other is the acceptance of the board of insurance review minutes from Sept. 19.

9:01 p.m. Councilmembers can opt to select out any items for separate consideration. No one does tonight.

9:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has now approved the consent agenda.

9:01 p.m. DDA ordinance. The ordinance revision (to Chapter 7) in front of the council for final approval tonight would clarify the existing language of the ordinance. The clarification would disallow the DDA’s preferred interpretation of a restriction on TIF (tax increment financing) revenue that’s expressed in the ordinance language. This ordinance revision was first considered by the council in February of this year. A joint committee of councilmembers and DDA board members has been meeting, most recently on Oct. 16, to develop a substitute proposal. But based on the Oct. 16 committee meeting, that won’t be ready for tonight’s meeting. The item is likely to be postponed. [More background on DDA TIF ordinance]

9:03 p.m. Kunselman reports that a joint committee meeting of DDA board members and councilmembers has not yet settled on the details of an alternative approach. Kunselman wants the ordinance postponed again until Nov. 7, so that the council can weigh the current proposal and the alternative that the committee puts forward.

9:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to postpone the DDA ordinance changes until its Nov. 7 meeting. That’s the last council meeting before the new composition of council is seated, following the Nov. 5 election.

9:04 p.m. Sidewalk Ordinance. This ordinance change in front of the council for final approval would revise the definition of “sidewalk” so that cross-lot walkways could be repaired using sidewalk repair millage funds, but not trigger the ordinary winter maintenance requirement on adjacent property owners. The definition makes a walkway a “sidewalk” if the council formally accepts the walkway for public use; so the companion resolution accepts 34 specific cross-lot walkways for public use. [More background above on cross-lot paths]

9:05 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) thanks staff for their work.

9:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the change to the sidewalk ordinance.

9:05 p.m. Accept 34 sidewalks for public use. This is the companion resolution to the sidewalk ordinance change. The definition makes a walkway a “sidewalk” if the council formally accepts the walkway for public use; so the companion resolution accepts 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

9:06 p.m. Lumm thanks staff for being responsive to concerns from specific neighborhoods.

9:06 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to accept the 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

9:06 p.m. Zoning: Kocher parcel. This is a typical rezoning after annexation from a township into the city. The 2925 Devonshire parcel is 0.66 acres and will be rezoned to R1A (single-family dwelling district).

9:06 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the zoning of the Kocher property.

9:06 p.m. Zoning: 3875 East Huron River Drive. The council is being asked to give final approval of a rezoning request for 3875 E. Huron River Drive from R1A (single-family dwelling) to PL (public land). The council had given initial approval of the rezoning at its Sept. 16, 2013 meeting. The site, which is adjacent to the city’s South Pond park, will be used as parkland.

Aerial view of 3875 E. Huron River Drive.

The property was acquired by the city in 2010, but a “life estate” was in place until earlier this year, according to a staff memo. The two-acre site – located on the north side of E. Huron River Drive and west of west of Thorn Oaks Drive – includes a single-family home. The land overlooks South Pond. City assessor records show that the property was previously owned by the Elizabeth Kaufman and Wes Vivian trust.

9:07 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) calls it a generous gift.

9:07 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the zoning of the 3875 East Huron property.

9:09 p.m. Recess. The council is now in recess. The next item up on the agenda is the Ypsilanti Township membership in the AAATA. Township clerk Karen Lovejoy Rowe and supervisor Brenda Stumbo were here previously, but it appears they have departed from the meeting.

9:20 p.m. And we’re back.

9:20 p.m. Admit Ypsilanti Township to AAATA. The council is being asked to approve revised articles of incorporation for the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority, so that Ypsilanti Township is admitted as a member of the authority. The board would be expanded from nine to 10 members. [More background on Ypsilanti Township membership in AAATA]

9:21 p.m. Brenda Stumbo is actually still here.

9:25 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) says it’s been over a year since he was out opposing the countywide initiative. But he’d told Stumbo at the time that he’d do whatever he could as a city councilmember to get Ypsilanti Township into the authority. He’ll support Ypsilanti Township as a member, he says, but it’s important to understand what the significance is. It’s a matter of governance, not of finances. However, if there are questions that still need to be answered, he’d be content to wait. Putting Ypsilanti Township at the table will bind the community together better, he says.

9:25 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) says she thinks it’s a bit premature to vote on it tonight, given that AAATA has just now started its public engagement campaign on the 5-year plan. She floats the idea of postponing until the second meeting in November. [That will be after the new composition of the council is seated, post-election.]

9:29 p.m. Michael Ford, CEO of the AAATA, is now at the podium. He notes that Ypsilanti Township leadership is here. [Both Stumbo and Lovejoy Rowe are still here.] Ford says that all that’s being asked is for Ypsilanti Township to be admitted as a member.

Stumbo says township residents support this move. She recalls her long career in public service in the township, joking that she started when she was 12. It’s a long-term financial commitment. Currently the route the township pays for is $340,000 annually, she says. It’s imperative that the township have transportation. “We need to lift people up,” she says, and the way to do that is to provide transportation. It will help with congestion in Ann Arbor. She’s proud to be there tonight and says that the township board supports the move.

9:32 p.m. Kailasapathy confirms with Ford that Ypsilanti Township currently has a purchase-of-service agreement (POSA). She said that although meetings were held in the township about this, she’s supposed to represent Ann Arbor. She characterizes this timetable as rushing it. Just because concerns weren’t raised when Ypsilanti city was added doesn’t mean that she can’t raise concerns now.

Ford responds by saying that it’s not being rushed, and that the AAATA had followed the Ann Arbor city council’s direction to work with the urban core to develop service, the financial structure, and governance.

9:33 p.m. Kailasapathy counters by saying that it’s not required that Ypsilanti Township be handled the same way as Ypsilanti city.

9:37 p.m. Petersen says that it just so happens that the 5-year service plan meetings are being scheduled over the next few weeks. Petersen said her understanding was that it would be a give-and-take exchange. The meetings are already set up. And her constituents have asked that the meetings be used to hear what everybody has to say. That would slide the schedule forward only four weeks, she says, until the middle of November.

Teall says that just because the meetings happen to be planned, they shouldn’t be used to divert the focus. She says the process has been exhaustive. It’s been years, she said. Ford notes that he’s met with individual councilmembers and it’s not a surprise. He points out that five of the councilmembers have participated in the urban core discussions.

9:42 p.m. Ford says that some of the questions posed by the councilmembers were received by the AAATA at noon today. Lumm says some of them weren’t answered. Ford and Lumm engaged in spirited back-and-forth. Lumm takes the position that admitting Ypsilanti Township into the AAATA is not a stand-alone decision.

Ford reviews the point of the 5-year service plan meetings – to go over the service improvements. Lumm says she’s trying to weigh the cost-benefit of a possible 0.7 mill tax. It’s difficult to assess it without more information. Hieftje says he doesn’t see how the funding mechanism affects the decision tonight. Admitting Ypsilanti Township is something that should have happened 30 years ago. Anyone who was paying attention to transportation issues would have known this was coming, he says. Any funding decision would need to be approved by voters. Ann Arbor needs to work with communities around it, to realize its great promise as a city, Hieftje says.

9:46 p.m. Briere says the question is to allow Ypsilanti Township a seat at the table. Briere asks Stumbo what she sees as a benefit to membership. Stumbo talks about the Washtenaw connection, and the long-term commitment as benefits. Instead of a year-to-year POSA agreement, there would be a longer-term agreement. She says she’s trying not to take it personally, but she can’t understand why the council wouldn’t vote to allow Ypsilanti Township to join the AAATA.

9:49 p.m. Briere asks Ford if residents will be presented with a menu of improvements and their costs so that residents can choose what services they’d like. Ford described it as a very engaged process that would include adjustments based on what people say at the engagement meetings. Briere asks when the dollar amounts will be broken down for each element of the service improvement plan. Ford says that about a month after the meetings are concluded, those exact costs will be available.

9:53 p.m. Kunselman reiterates that he’s committed to Ypsilanti Township having a seat at the table. That seat at the table does nothing to change the financing, he says. The city of Ann Arbor will still have eight out of 10 seats, which can control the board. He says that transportation services would only be “given away” to Ypsilanti Township if Ann Arbor’s own representatives on the AAATA board approved it. A discussion about the finances isn’t the one the council should be having right now. That’s possibly even a year away, he says. [That means Kunselman is thinking a May 2014 millage vote is probably too soon.]

Kunselman said he’d been against the countywide transportation authority initiative based on the board composition [8 out of 15 board seats on that now-demised proposal]. He didn’t think the council needed to worry about board control. It’s just approving a seat at the table so the township can have a voice, he says.

9:56 p.m. Warpehoski starts by saying that he was wrong earlier – when the council had decided to “bail” on the countywide proposal, he’d been angry and allowed that he might have said some things about Kunselman that might have been insulting. He now took it very seriously when Kunselman says that Ypsilanti Township should have a seat on the table. It’s important to be a good regional partner, Warpehoski says.

On the finances, Warpehoski says it’s a chicken-and-egg problem. To get a solid financial foundation, you need a solid governance structure, he said. The step of finalizing governance needs to be taken before establishing the funding and service plan.

10:00 p.m. Warpehoski asks under the various permutations of Ypsilanti Township being in or out, or whether the millage passes or not: Is there any threat to Ann Arbor services? No, says Ford. What’s the mechanism for funding Ypsilanti Township service as a member of AAATA if the millage doesn’t pass? Stumbo says it’d be paid for out of the township general fund. Ford explains that a similar arrangement to the one the city of Ypsilanti had recently made would also be made with the township.

10:03 p.m. Taylor says it’s a pretty simple process. After the countywide transportation initiative was turned down, the council had said to the AATA: Go away and come back with an urban core plan. Now the question is whether the council meant what the council said back then. Taylor is now ticking through the general benefits of public transportation – congestion reduction and economic development.

Kailasapathy is asking Stumbo and Ford questions. She wants a copy of the MOU (memorandum of understanding) for the township. Ford says that the MOU will follow the membership. Kailasapathy wants it now. She references Taylor’s comments about the urban core – saying that the council had not given the AAATA a blank check.

10:06 p.m. Anglin calls Ford one of the most patient people he knows. He says the strong minority has asked for something specific, a strong minority that could put the AAATA over the top someday. Some councilmembers are asking for more time to answer questions of their constituents. Ann Arbor residents have paid the millage for many years, so if some councilmembers want some more time, they should be listened to.

Ford says that everyone is hung up on the idea of the millage. The AAATA had done what the council had asked it to do and that’s what this is about, Ford said.

10:10 p.m. Higgins says that the discussion is about whether the board should be expanded, and that’s what residents want to weigh in on. People get very concerned without giving them a chance to provide input. On the question of expanding the board, people should have a chance to weigh in on that, she says – during the meetings the AAATA has scheduled over the next few weeks. Higgins is not against having residents have a say.

Ford says that this is the same process used with the city of Ypsilanti. Higgins shuts down Ford saying, “I didn’t ask you a question.” Higgins moves for postponement.

10:12 p.m. Teall says she’ll oppose postponement. Warpehoski asks Ford what the impact of a postponement would be. Ford says the AAATA has been at this a long time. Treating the township differently from the city of Ypsilanti is a problem, he says. It’s not the first time the AATAA has talked with the council about it, he notes. Ford says it would slow the process down and not send a good message.

10:17 p.m. Hieftje says that Ypsilanti Township has been a “good citizen” for many years. He says he doesn’t understand why the city of Ypsilanti should “breeze through” and then there’d be a pause with the township. Briere picks up on a concern expressed by Teall – that the meetings scheduled for the next few weeks would re-focus from the 5-year service plan to the expansion of the board. Ford says that it would put the AAATA behind on making any improvements to service. Briere asks how many meetings. Thirteen, says Ford, running through Nov. 14.

Briere ventures that Lumm wants dollar amounts attached to each improvement, to be able to choose Chinese-menu style. Briere asks Ford if that information can be assembled in mid-November. Ford says that it’ll take about a month after the meetings conclude.

AAATA legal counsel Jerry Lax has joined Stumbo and Ford at the podium, but he hasn’t spoken yet.

10:27 p.m. Briere ventures that without membership on the board, Ypsilanti Township will continue with its year-to-year POSA. She asks if it will be possible to have productive conversations at the scheduled public meetings without the governance question settled. Lax says Ypsilanti Township is prepared to make the longer-term POSA commitment, if it has a seat at the table. Lax says that if the township did not commit to a longer-term arrangement, the AAATA would still have leverage in the negotiation of the year-to-year POSA.

Lumm disagrees with Ford that it’s inappropriate to treat the city and the township differently – citing the city’s dedicated millage versus the township’s POSA. Lumm says it sets a bad precedent that to be eligible for membership in the AAATA, all you need is a POSA. She wants to see the long-term MOU. [Lax has basically explained earlier that the willingness on Ypsilanti Township's part to enter into the long-term MOU is based on having a seat at the table.]

Lumm says that with so many unanswered questions, she thinks it’s important to postpone. Ford asks to respond. Hieftje says no. Teall makes some remarks and gives Ford the floor. Ford reiterates that the issue before the council is governance – that is, adding Ypsilanti Township to the board. He adds: “The rest is noise.” Petersen says that governance and funding are inextricable linked. Petersen says that based on constituent feedback, the two issues are co-mingled. By delaying now, she says, a millage would have a better chance of passing.

10:31 p.m. Kailasapathy still wants to see the MOU before voting to add Ypsilanti Township as member. Hieftje wants to move to a vote on the postponement. Ypsilanti Township has more to risk, Hieftje says. He says that it should have been done 30 years ago.

Stumbo says that the township doesn’t have a ward system – they’re elected at large. So she understands the conversation around the table. She points to the geography of the township, which surrounds the city of Ypsilanti.

10:33 p.m. Warpehoski says he’d vote for it today or a month from now. Kunselman’s 8-2 odds for the city are pretty good, he says. But he’ll vote for postponement because he wants the final vote to have as much support as possible. He doesn’t want it to pass with a 6-5 vote. He wants a solid majority.

10:36 p.m. Kunselman says he started out saying he had unwavering support for adding Ypsilanti Township, but was open to postponement. He tells Stumbo that he’s still committed to getting it done. He’ll support the postponement. “When we get back here, I look to have everybody here unanimously supporting this,” he says. If it’s not that kind of support, a millage won’t pass. He says he’ll attend the scheduled meetings and make clear why it’s important to add Ypsilanti Township to the board. It’s important to re-build trust, he says. “Government is messy,” Kunselman says. He adds that he had almost been ready to go for the vote tonight, but now felt it was important to take the time to build trust.

10:37 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted 8-3 to postpone the revised articles of incorporation for the AAATA admitting Ypsilanti Township as a member. The item is postponed until the council’s second meeting in November. That’s after the new composition of the council is seated. Dissenting were Hieftje, Taylor and Teall.

10:37 p.m. Recess. We’re again in recess.

10:49 p.m. And we’re back.

10:49 p.m. Fossil fuel divestment resolution. This resolution is back in front of the council for the third time. When it was initially considered on Sept. 3, 2013, the council voted it down. But on Sept. 16, 2013 the resolution was brought back for reconsideration, then postponed until tonight. It’s based on an energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013 recommending that the city council urge the city’s employee retirement system board to cease new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest current investments in fossil fuel companies within five years. [More background on fossil fuel divestment]

10:50 p.m. Hieftje says he hopes the discussion can be brief, because it’s already been discussed a lot.

10:55 p.m. Taylor says that his impression is that the council is eager to express its support for divestment but concerned about interfering with the pension board. An earlier amendment had been made to try to address that tension. He’d be more comfortable with a set of requests to investigate and consider various topics.

Petersen says it makes sense to remove language that has to do with divestment. She would be more inclined to support something that is more proactive about directing investment in clean energy instead of divesting from anything.

Hieftje says that the resolution as it reads doesn’t have any “teeth” that would direct the pension board to do anything. It would send a message, however, that the city wants to align its investment strategy with its sustainability plan. He ventured it could be watered down further by saying, “maybe please could you possibly do something.” But the resolution is already soft enough as it is. He felt the council should give this an up or down vote and ask the energy commission to come up with something else.

10:59 p.m. Kunselman says it does need to be watered down further. He doesn’t want to urge another body to do something over which the council has no control. Some of the other cities that have been referenced as having a similar policy simply had mayoral directives, he says. Kunselman says it should just be very simple. The list of things that are in the resolution aren’t “neighborly,” he says.

Taylor now offers a set of amendments that he says he’s sending around by email and to the clerk.

11:01 p.m. Taylor says that “urges” will be replaced with “requests” throughout. Also the first resolved clause deletes the word “immediately.” Another piece of language from Taylor’s amendments: “… to investigate whether it can reasonably divest …” The phrase “consider ensuring” is used instead of just “ensuring.”

11:02 p.m. Taylor’s amendments are approved, with dissent from Hieftje.

11:09 p.m. Warpehoski says he’ll support the resolution. Lumm says she supports the elimination of the word “urge” and the substitution of “request.” She doesn’t know what this resolution will accomplish, however. She thanks the retirement board for its work. She points to the fees that would be incurred as a result of withdrawing investments from indexed funds.

Briere says that she can’t match Lumm’s rhetoric when it comes to investments because it’s not in her skill set. She relies on other people to guide her. There’s a concern that the staff of the pension board might not be able to distinguish between looking into things versus implementing something. Taylor’s amendments, she says, are reasonable. They provide guidance without imposing restriction.

11:12 p.m. Teall indicates she’ll support the amended resolution. Petersen says the amendments do water down the resolution, and she doesn’t want to support something that doesn’t have teeth. The council would be asking the pension board to take its eye off the ball for a while. A resolution about investment as opposed to divestment would have teeth, she says.

11:18 p.m. Kunselman wants to make sure that the title of the resolution has “urges” replaced with “requests,” along with the body of the resolution. Kunselman says he’ll support the resolution, but makes some remarks on what he wants the energy commission to focus its efforts on – energy efficiency projects, not investment strategy. Kunselman ventures that some members of the pension board are present.

City administrator Steve Powers gives some brief background, and CFO Tom Crawford takes the podium. The pension board had taken the council’s questions and deliberations seriously, Crawford says. The time it would take the board’s investment committee was a concern, he says. The volunteer board has a professional investment advisor, and the advice has been that there’s no way to very simply address the issue. Hieftje wants to move to a vote.

11:19 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the amended fossil fuel resolution on a 9-2 vote. Dissenting were Petersen and Lumm.

11:21 p.m. Resolution to accept donation of property at 3013 W. Huron River Drive. This resolution accepts and appropriates foundation funds to the parks for upkeep and maintenance of 3013 W. Huron River Drive as parkland.

11:22 p.m. Briere and Teall make remarks in support. Kunselman adds a lighthearted remark about a junior high classmate.

11:22 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the donation.

11:22 p.m. Resolution recognizing Skyline Athletic Booster Club as a civic nonprofit organization. The purpose of the recognition is for the booster club to obtain a charitable gaming license. The booster club is hosting the Millionaire Party (a poker tournament) on eight occasions: Nov. 1, 2, 3 and 4, as well as Dec. 7, 8, 9 and 10.

11:22 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to recognize the Skyline Athletic Booster Club as a civic nonprofit organization.

11:22 p.m. Site Plan: U-Haul Moving and Storage The city planning commission recommended approving the site plan for the U-Haul expansion at its Sept. 10, 2013 meeting. The U-Haul business is located at 3655 S. State St., south of the I-94 interchange.

Aerial view of U-Haul site on South State Street, indicated with crosshatches.

The project calls for building a 1,246-square-foot addition to the front of the existing retail building. The expansion includes a new 4,994-square-foot, one-story warehouse and an 11,696-square-foot, one-story self-storage building. Both of the new buildings would be at the rear of the site and not visible from South State Street. The project is estimated to cost $1.2 million.

This site is part of the area covered in the South State Street corridor plan, which the planning commission voted to add to the city’s master plan at its May 21, 2013 meeting. That plan calls for office uses at that U-Haul location in the future.

11:22 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the U-Haul site plan.

11:23 p.m. 81 street light poles for Main Street. The light poles would be purchased from Spring City Electrical Manufacturing at a cost of $173,307, with additional costs for installation and labor bringing the total cost to $280,000. The $280,000 still needs to be allocated from the general fund to the field operation’s unit FY 2014 street lighting budget.

As a budget amendment, the resolution needs eight votes under the city charter. It might not achieve that number, because of the ongoing political wrangling between the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the city council. [More background on Main Street light poles]

11:26 p.m. Briere leads off. She asks Craig Hupy to the podium. He’s the city’s public service area administrator. She wants to know when they were installed and by whom. Hupy says that they were installed by the DDA in the late 1980s, so the poles are not quite 30 years old. They weren’t noticed to be rusting because their decorative base shields the rust from view. He says the bases might have contributed to water not draining away. The new light poles would have a gap between the pole and the base, he explains.

11:31 p.m. Kunselman asks why the appropriation was not included in the budget. Hupy says that at that time, the DDA was proposing to cover the entire cost. Kunselman won’t support this resolution.

Lumm points out that the council’s budget resolution was to spend at least $300,000. She asks DDA executive director Susan Pollay if the DDA had considered making a greater contribution. Pollay reviews the history of the council’s budget resolution. Lumm inquires about the council resolution requesting the DDA to fund downtown police officers. Pollay says the DDA is looking at ambassadors, not police officers. She notes that some DDA board members will be traveling to Grand Rapids to learn more about that city’s ambassador program.

Kailasapathy asks where the $300,000 came from that the DDA had granted to Washtenaw County for its Annex renovation.

11:32 p.m. “C’mon, we knew this was coming,” Warpehoski says. Hieftje says he remembers it the same way as Warpehoski. Petersen asks if there is other money besides general fund money that could be used. No, says Hupy.

11:34 p.m. Kunselman presses Hupy on the question of the appropriation of the funds. The DDA had said that the DDA would step up and cover the expense. It was not in the city’s budget after discussion with the DDA. Kunselman says that the council had not made a commitment to pay for the light poles. The DDA had spent money for other things, like the Washtenaw County Annex building.

11:37 p.m. Taylor says that Kunselman has made a “flat-out misrepresentation” of what had happened. The council had been told that the council would need to spend the general fund money to do it. It was the council’s ill-advised interference with the DDA’s budget earlier in the year that has caused this situation, Taylor says. The council had made the budget adjustments in May, “knowing full well that we’d be on the hook for the balance.” He calls this a “self-inflicted wound.”

11:44 p.m. Briere says she appreciates what Taylor and Kunselman both said. Briere is now telling the council how she explained the difference between the city and the DDA’s budget to a constituent. Briere says that the city council had told the DDA how to spend its money, and the DDA has done that. She was filled with regret that the council had done that. When the DDA said it would step up and make that investment, she’d been relieved.

Petersen asks what the level of risk is for the light poles falling down. What kind of health and safety risk is posed? Hupy says those that were in immediate danger have been removed. If the light poles were not all going to be replaced in the near term, the city would go out and replace a few more poles, he says. Petersen says that she sees the DDA and the city’s budgets as “fungible.” She would like to see the DDA to find the money to complete this project. The DDA would not be funding police, she noted. She didn’t regret giving direction. She says that she thinks the DDA should find the money.

11:48 p.m. Lumm says that the allocation resolution is consistent with the council’s earlier budget resolution, so she’ll support it. Warpehoski asks if the overall cost of replacement changes, if the poles are replaced in stages as compared to doing it all in one phase. Hupy says that labor costs would go up. There would also be a mismatch between the globes.

11:48 p.m. Kailasapathy relates a vignette about a neighborhood where there’s no streetlight and no sidewalk – and a meeting that the city staff and she had attended about it. She had no regrets about changing the DDA’s budget earlier in the year to allocate $300,000 for affordable housing.

11:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has rejected the resolution on a 7-4 vote. It failed because it needed 8 votes to pass on the 11-member council. Voting against the resolution were Kailasapathy, Petersen, Kunselman and Anglin.

11:49 p.m. Ann Arbor Station. The request in front of the council is to approve a contract with URS Corp. Inc. (URS) for the Ann Arbor Station project environmental review. The total budgeted for the Ann Arbor Station contract on tonight’s agenda – which will cover public engagement, site selection and conceptual design – is $824,875, an amount that includes a $63,083 contingency. The city would pay 20% of that, or about $165,000. A Federal Rail Authority grant awarded to the city will cover the remaining $660,000. [More background on Ann Arbor Station]

11:50 p.m. Kunselman wants city transportation program manager Eli Cooper to clarify how much of the contract would use city funds. Cooper says it’s about $165,000. Kunselman notes that the money has been appropriated and does not presuppose a particular site. He’s going to support the contract.

11:57 p.m. Kailasapathy wants to know who decides the location of the site. Cooper notes that public commenters had pointed out that a third of the contract was for public engagement. The council could participate in the process, he says. Kailasapathy asks if there would be one preferred site at the end. Cooper says that as the sites are winnowed down, the criteria to be used would also be subject to public review and input.

Briere notes that most of the suggested sites are in Ward 1. She confirms that the goal of a previous process was to present the federal government with a preferred site. Cooper indicates that she’s right – it’s a requirement of the NEPA project. The emphasis on the previous project was based on the intermodal character of that facility. How does this proposal differ from that [Fuller Road Station] proposal? Cooper says that one difference is that there’s no initially preferred alternative for the location.

12:00 a.m. Briere asks: What is an environmental assessment? Cooper says it’s an analysis of the direct, indirect and cumulative effect of human action. It’s a qualitative descriptor about the impact of a project. That contrasts with an environmental impact statement, which is quantitative.

12:03 a.m. Lumm says she hasn’t heard Cooper say the word “parkland.” Cooper says that any project on parkland would not be eligible for categorical exclusion. If the preferred site were parkland, then it would be subject to Section 4F review, Cooper says. Lumm asks for confirmation that as a part of the process, it would be possible to see the “arc” of the selection process.

12:06 a.m. Cooper says that the public engagement process is not meant to tell people what the plan already is – he’s reacting to concerns expressed during public commentary. Lumm asks who Cooper sees as the stakeholders? Cooper says that will be clearer after the project kickoff. Power Marketing Research will be doing the public engagement. Cooper allows that some of the stakeholders will be the usual suspects. Stakeholders are only one part of the public engagement process, he says. There will be site tours to “walk the ground together,” he says.

12:08 a.m. Cooper notes that the no-build alternative is required to be included in the set of alternatives. The intent is to do this in an open and transparent and participatory process, he says. Lumm tells Cooper some people have zero confidence that the outcome has not been determined to be Fuller Road. She says the existing site is a “sweet spot” in terms of engineering.

12:09 a.m. Thomas Partridge asks, “Does anybody know what time it is?” Briere points out the clock on the wall. It’s 12:08.

12:11 a.m. Kailasapathy asks what she should tell residents who wonder why the city should build a new station for Amtrak. Cooper explains that Amtrak’s focus is on the operations – the trains themselves. It’s a discretionary decision, he allows. The idea is to meet the needs of residents and businesses to provide the kind of transportation facility they’d expect arriving in Ann Arbor.

12:14 a.m. Anglin says he’s happy to see that this project seems different from the previous approach. He says it seems like this process will actually consider alternate locations besides the Fuller Road site. He calls for all the public process meetings to be videotaped. Some of the previous money that’s been spent was “foolishness,” he says. He’ll vote to support this. The public is tired of bad dialogue, he says. Cooper responds by saying they’ll do their best to facilitate good dialogue.

12:16 a.m. Kunselman poses a hypothetical: If the site across the track, owned by Amtrak, is the preferred site, how would that work? Cooper explains that the federal dollars would come from the FRA. If the Amtrak property were the preferred location, there would be MOUs and legal instruments to bind the parties together.

12:17 a.m. Clark Charnetski from the audience explains that Amtrak owns the parking lot. The place where the tracks had been and were removed are now owned by MDOT. Amtrak owns the station, the property on which it sits and the metered parking lot, he says.

12:21 a.m. Lumm says that there’s no guarantee there’ll be federal money for eventual construction of a train station. She says there’s no demonstrated need for a new train station. She’d reviewed the contract for the study. It’s an important study the community cares about, she says. It’s important that there be substantial public engagement. She’s now ticking through the elements of the public engagement process. She says it’s important to consider the existing site or doing nothing at all. Given that those two primary concerns are addressed, she’ll support it, even though she calls it a “tough” decision.

12:27 a.m. Taylor says that improvement to the train station is deeply important. He points to improvements in Amtrak service and possible commuter service – with railcars having been purchased. It won’t happen tomorrow, but it’s important to plan for the future, he says. He calls the sewer reconstruction done at the Fuller Road site – which was in the city’s capital improvement plan (CIP) – as something necessary anyway. To suggest that it wasn’t necessary is “flat-out false,” he says.

12:27 a.m. Hieftje picks up on Taylor’s defense of the sewer work. It’s important not to create myths, he says. He says he’s pleased to see planning for a new rail station moving forward, whatever the location. He notes that the governor and MDOT are very interested in commuter rail. It would only be funded through the regional transit authority (RTA), Hieftje says.

12:32 a.m. Briere also adds her comments on the sewer work that was done at the Fuller Road site. She reviews the reasons that she voted to support that work. She says that part of the issue was the fact that the line runs under the river. If a sewer line were under the river, it would be difficult to notice if there were a problem. It was not the case that the only reason for the sewer work was to allow for the foundations of the demised Fuller Road Station to be put in, she says.

12:33 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the URS contract.

12:33 a.m. Purchase of ice control salt ($245,143). The request is for the purchase of bulk salt, for ice control, and seasonal back-up supplies to be purchased from the Detroit Salt Company for $245,143 (2,800 tons of “early fill” at $34.50 a ton, and 4,100 tons of “seasonal backup” at $36.23 a ton).

12:34 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the ice control salt purchase.

12:34 a.m. Fire department mutual aid box alarm system (MABAS) Division. The resolution authorizes the city administrator to enter into the required Act 7 (interlocal) agreements necessary to establish the city of Ann Arbor Fire MABAS Division and appoint Ann Arbor’s fire chief as a representative to the MABAS executive board. According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, participation in MABAS would not replace any of the existing mutual aid agreements the city of Ann Arbor has. A MABAS approach to response by multiple jurisdictions defines a standard response package of equipment and personnel, which is automatically dispatched to a fire. That contrasts with the mutual aid approach, in which additional resources can be called if they’re deemed necessary once the initially-responding units have assessed the situation.

12:34 a.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve participation in MABAS.

12:36 a.m. Council communications. Briere recalls the 1996 visit by the KKK. She was a member of the ACLU team who worked to ensure that the peace was kept. Hieftje had not been mayor on that occasion, she said. She was referring to Thomas Partridge’s public commentary. Lumm says that she was a councilmember at the time and the KKK was definitely not invited to come to Ann Arbor.

12:43 a.m. Lumm says that she’s consulted with the city attorney to bring forward a resolution on term limits to be applied in the city charter.

Warpehoski says that Ypsilanti Township has done a tremendous amount of work. When he counts the votes around the table, he thinks there will be six votes in a month, but wants to work toward unanimity. He says that “relationships are important,” and he fears that by postponing the Ypsilanti Township vote, the council was not perceived by the township leadership as working well with its regional partners. He suggests that councilmembers reach out to the township and give the relationship a personal touch. The relationship was hurt tonight, he says, and he’d been a part of that, so he apologized. Kunselman added his support to Warpehoski’s remarks.

12:45 a.m. Public Commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:45 a.m. Thomas Partridge is holding forth. He complains about the locations where meetings of some boards and commissions are held. He asks the voters of Ward 5 for their support in his effort to win election to the council as a write-in candidate. He complains that the AAATA bus system is not adequate, yet the council is talking about the right location for a train station.

Clark Charnetski recalls how he first arrived in Ann Arbor 53 years ago on the New York Central and got off at what is now the Gandy Dancer. He thanks the council for their vote on the Ann Arbor Station study.

Kai Petainen takes the podium to thank the council for its vote on the Ann Arbor Station study. It’s the public engagement portion of the contract he supports. He says he’ll complain if the preferred location turns out to be Fuller Road Station. In a nod to his Canadian roots, Petainen notes that Winter Classic tickets go on sale soon.

Michael Benson takes the podium on behalf of the graduate student government at the University of Michigan. He announces a forum on the city’s leasing ordinance, on Wednesday, Oct. 30 at 6:30 p.m. in the fourth floor auditorium of the Rackham Building.

12:52 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Sandi Smith was elected by her colleagues as chair of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board at its July 3, 2013 annual meeting. Here she’s showing the DDA’s new website on her tablet. (Photos by the writer.)

The board also approved a $59,200 grant to support the formation of a business improvement zone in the South University area. A “trolley” for the upcoming art fairs also received $10,000 worth of support, in action taken by the board.

The capital projects included $50,000 for repair of sidewalk-related amenities that aren’t covered by the city’s sidewalk millage. In addition, the board allocated $200,000 for a streetscape framework planning project. Board action also included $300,000 for the replacement of light poles on Main Street.

The light pole replacement is one source of current friction between the city and the DDA – as the expectation of the city had been that the entire $516,000 project would be paid for by the DDA. But the result of wrangling over the DDA’s FY 2014 budget – given approval by the council on May 20 – was a transfer of $300,000 from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund. So the DDA’s position is that it can’t fund the entire light pole replacement project, because of that transfer to the housing fund.

The light pole question is related to the general issue of DDA finances and the revenue it receives through tax increment finance (TIF) capture of taxes – from entities that levy those taxes in the DDA district. Elected as chair at the annual meeting – which immediately followed the board’s monthly meeting – Sandi Smith will face the resolution of the TIF revenue issue as one of her first challenges.

The outstanding issue concerns the way that the DDA administers Chapter 7 of the city code of Ann Arbor – which regulates the DDA’s TIF capture. This spring the Ann Arbor city council gave initial approval to a revision to Chapter 7. The council’s action, if given final approval, would prevent the DDA from giving the code an interpretation that doesn’t recognize a cap on TIF revenue that is expressed in Chapter 7. The amendment to the ordinance would return several hundred thousand dollars a year to other taxing authorities from which the DDA captures taxes. Those entities include the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw Community College, Washtenaw County and the city of Ann Arbor.

The council has postponed final action on the matter until Sept. 3, 2013. Between now and then, the council’s expectation is that a joint DDA-council committee will meet and make recommendations on the Chapter 7 issue.

At its July 1 meeting, the city council appointed four members to its committee: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). And at the July 3 monthly meeting, outgoing DDA board chair Leah Gunn appointed the DDA’s committee: Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Joan Lowenstein and Sandi Smith.

Another point of recent budgetary friction between the city and the DDA was raised briefly at the July 3 board meeting. In a formal resolution, the city council had encouraged the DDA to allocate money to fund downtown beat patrol police officers. For its part, the DDA has for a few years already been mulling the question of some kind of additional security – either in the form of ambassadors, community standards officers or police officers. At the July 3 meeting, DDA board members indicated they would continue to mull that range of options, but seemed disinclined to commit to funding police officers.

The board also heard a range of routine reports on July 3, including the monthly parking revenue report. The DDA manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. In the future, it was announced, the report will be delivered only on a quarterly basis. Also related to parking policy, a tentative pilot project was announced that could change the basic approach the DDA takes to selling monthly parking permits. The idea would be to assign permit eligibility only to property owners in a defined geographic area. The number of permits would depend on the number of square feet of property – independent of uses such as office, residential, retail, etc. Currently, the DDA uses a first-come-first-served system for individuals, with a waiting list.

The DDA’s monthly meeting marked a transition on the board, as two board members were bid farewell. Newcombe Clark served one four-year term. He’s making an employment-related move to Chicago. Leah Gunn concluded nearly 22 years of service on the board. She finished out her time on the board as chair.

South University Area BIZ

The DDA board was asked to approve a $59,200 grant to support the establishment of a business improvement zone (BIZ) for the South University area of downtown. The money would be allocated only at specific milestone points.

A BIZ is a self-assessment district that can be established under Public Act 120 of 1961 by agreement of a sufficient number of property owners in the district – to generate funds to pay for additional services not provided by the city. If it’s established, the South University Area BIZ would be the second such district in downtown Ann Arbor. In 2010, a BIZ district was established for a three-block stretch of Main Street, between William and Huron streets – to provide sidewalk snow clearing, litter pickup and poster removal. [See Chronicle coverage from 2009: "Ann Arbor Main Street BIZ Clears Hurdle."]

The Ann Arbor DDA provided a grant to assist with the formation of the Main Street BIZ, voting on April 1, 2009 to award $83,270 to defray various costs associated with the formation of the BIZ. Those costs included accounting, auditing, operations and legal services.

At that time, DDA board members reflected on the fact that they did not necessarily want to be signaling – through their support of the Main Street BIZ – that the DDA would be inclined to support all other subsequent efforts to establish business improvement zones in other areas of the downtown. Partly to address that concern, the board asked that the Main Street BIZ produce a “blueprint” for the formation of a BIZ, which could be used by other groups to help navigate the lengthy required process.

At a May 29, 2013 meeting of the DDA’s operations committee, South University Area Association executive director Maggie Ladd and consultant Betsy Jackson pitched the grant to the committee. Jackson, president of The Urban Agenda Inc., told the committee that while the blueprint was a useful fill-in-the-blank document, it was important to have someone with sufficient expertise to fill in those blanks. Jackson was also the consultant hired for the Main Street BIZ.

According to the DDA board resolution, South University property owners are contributing a total of $25,000 toward the start-up costs.

South University Area BIZ: Board Deliberations

Joan Lowenstein introduced the resolution on the South University Area BIZ. Lowenstein reported that South University Area Association executive director Maggie Ladd had spoken to the partnerships committee about the grant. Lowenstein noted that something similar was already in place for an area along Main Street. In the South University area, Lowenstein said, there’s increased commercial activity, and along with that there was increased use of the sidewalks. It would be useful to take a more uniform approach to issues like cleanliness, visitor comfort, and snow removal. The initial support for the South University Area BIZ, Lowenstein said, was shown by the willingness of property owners to contribute $25,000 to the administrative start-up costs.

Lowenstein noted that one of the deliverables from the DDA’s funding of the administrative start-up costs for the Main Street BIZ was a template for creating additional business improvement zones. She reported that such a template had been created, but that creating a BIZ is not just a matter of filling in the blanks. The template or blueprint would save some legal costs – but there’s a log of legwork involved, she said. For example, the exact method of the assessment has to be calculated and its impact weighed. [For example, an assessment could be done based on lineal feet of street frontage or by square feet of property, which would give different burdens to property owners and possibly affect the willingness of a property owner to vote yes.]

Keith Orr indicated his willingness to support the resolution because a BIZ can do things that a DDA can’t do.

Russ Collins stressed that the DDA was responding to requests from businesses in the area, and that it was not a proposal about development. Businesses in the area decided they wanted additional services to make their area more appealing. Sometimes, Collin said, the general public feels the DDA’s primary purpose is to promote new building in the downtown – when the DDA doesn’t actually do much of that. But the DDA does try to support local businesses when they request support to fulfill a mission that fits with the DDA’s mission. And he felt the grant fits that dynamic.

Newcombe Clark wanted to know if there was definitely going to be a South University Area BIZ “at the end of this” or if the DDA’s grant would just support a study. Orr indicated that it’s unknown whether a BIZ would actually be established, but he said, “one hopes there’s a BIZ at the end.” It’s not a study to see if the property owners want it or not. But because it adds a new tax, the people who would be taxed have to vote on the proposal, Orr pointed out. And there are a number of milestones along the way that have to be completed, he noted. Lowenstein explained that there’s an initial vote, and if the proposal didn’t manage to get approval on the initial vote, then the DDA’s contribution would be minimal. After that initial vote, there’s additional administrative work that needs to be done.

Newcombe Clark.

Clark indicated that his recollection was that when the organizers of the Main Street BIZ had approached the DDA, they had “enough ducks in a row” that they’d been able to say: Give us this money and there will be a BIZ at the end of this. Orr responded to Clark by saying that for the Main Street BIZ, the outcome had been unknown. Orr noted that you’d have to canvass to find out who the actual property owners are, which is not always obvious. Clark responded to Orr by saying, “In South U. it’s pretty easy to get 60% [the threshold for BIZ votes of approval] … Two or three people. That’s not a $90,000 project.” Clark said that as long as there are milestones for the DDA’s payments, he was inclined to support it. “If we’re out five grand for a vote,” he said, that would be fine, but he didn’t want to “be out 90 grand to look up numbers that are in my cell phone.”

In response to Clark’s concern, Sandi Smith noted that a “whereas” clause provided for disbursement of funds at key milestone points. She ventured that the language could be modified to say “up to $59,200″ so that if the process stalls along the way, the DDA would stall on its disbursement of funds. That language was added.

Outcome: The board voted unanimously to approve the $59,200 grant to help establish a BIZ for the South University area.

Art

Art came up in several ways, in addition to the board’s resolution on funding for an art fair “trolley.”

Art: Art Fair Trolley

The board was asked to provide $10,000 worth of support for a “trolley” to operate during the upcoming art fairs. The shuttle service for the Ann Arbor art fairs – which take place from July 17-20, 2013 – would circulate to the four different fair areas. [.pdf of the "trolley" route]

The Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau is also contributing $10,000. The DDA board resolution described the annual operating cost of the art fair trolley as more than $25,000.

Art: Art Fair Trolley – Public Commentary

Max Clayton introduced herself as the executive director of the Guild of Artists and Artisans, but she was speaking on behalf of all four art fairs that make up the Ann Arbor art fairs. She characterized the art fairs as an economic driver, which had been its original mission. They had succeeded at that mission, she continued, for more than 50 years. The art fairs bring about $78 million of economic impact to the community each year, she said. But that $78 million is not revenue to the art fairs, she stressed. That’s money being spent by fairgoers, to shop in stores, eat in restaurants, park in lots and structures, and enjoy a hotel stay.

She described how the art fairs in the last few years are starting to face increased competition from fairs in other parts of the country. Ann Arbor’s art fairs can compete based on the quality of the artists and the art in the fairs, she said. A survey had been done of fairgoers to discover what they need and what they enjoy – to keep them coming back. What they’d heard from fairgoers was the importance of understanding where they were. They’d heard that the fair is too big and people don’t know how to get around. It was determined that fairgoers need to be helped to understand how to navigate the fairs better – so that the event could be enjoyed to its fullest.

So the organizers of the art fairs had decided to pay for an art fair trolley, which follows a route encircling all of the art fairs. The shuttle stops for the art fair trolley are the same as the stops for the shuttle service operated by the AAATA, she said. It costs about $25,000 a year. She pointed out that the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau had also contributed $10,000 to the effort. The support of the DDA would be recognized in various ways, including signage placed on the trolley, she said. The vehicle also has a wonderful trolley bell, she noted.

Art: Art Fair Trolley – Board Deliberations

Roger Hewitt introduced the item by saying that other organizations were also involved in supporting the trolley – the Ann Arbor Convention and Visitors Bureau as well as the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.

Outcome: Without further discussion, the board unanimously approved the $10,000 grant for the art fair trolley.

Art: East Stadium Bridges Public Art

During the public commentary segment at the start of the meeting, John Kotarski introduced himself as a member of the Ann Arbor public art commission. He updated the board on the status of the East Stadium bridges art project. He pointed board members to the art commission’s website, where they could view a 45-minute presentation on the four artist proposals for the site. He addressed two questions: Why had the East Stadium bridges location been chosen? And what had been done to include local artists?

East Stadium Boulevard as well as South State Street form a gateway into the city, Kotarski said. At the direction of the city, the public art commission had reached out to stakeholders in that general area. The money that has been allocated for the project originated with the Percent for Art program, he pointed out. And that means that the money has to be connected thematically to the funds of origin. The idea was to create a sense of place and to unify East Stadium Boulevard and South State Street, and to encourage multimodal transportation.

Ann Arbor public art commissioners Bob Miller (standing) and John Kotarski at the July 3 DDA board meeting.

Addressing the idea of local artists, he said it was the desire of the public art commission to involve local artists. But the fact of the matter is, he explained, it’s not possible to have an exclusive competition for local artists – because the city attorney has said that would be illegal. So what the public art commission has done to encourage local artists, he continued, is to do extensive outreach. He named four organizations – the Ann Arbor Art Center, the Street Art Fair, the Arts Alliance, and the Ann Arbor Women Artists – along with 45 other organizations that had been encouraged to be engaged and to submit proposals. There had been 32 submissions for this project. Of those, 10 were Michigan artists and four were Ann Arbor residents. Those 32 have been winnowed down to four.

Kotarski encouraged DDA board members to check out the proposals and to take the survey. Their feedback, he said, is important and invaluable to the public art commission. He and art commission chair Bob Miller – who accompanied Kotarski at the DDA board meeting – have been presenting the information to various groups, including the park advisory commission, the Arts Alliance, and a Ward 2 public forum. The following week they’d be appearing before the planning commission, at its July 9 working session. The public art commission really wants the community to understand what the four proposals are, he said.

You don’t always hit home runs, Kotarski cautioned, though you hope for that. But he did feel there was one proposal of the four that would work very well. So he again encouraged board members to investigate the four proposals and to take the survey.

Art: Public Commentary

Ray Detter reported out from the downtown area citizens advisory council. He said that Marsha Chamberlin, from the public art commission, had filled in the CAC on projects currently in progress. Detter said that Chamberlin had reported that the city had approved the hiring of a full-time city administrator. [The conclusion of a city council committee on public art, which made recommendations that led to the elimination of the Percent for Art funding mechanism at the council's June 3, 2013 meeting, stated: "A full-time art administrator is preferable." Chronicle inquiries about the possibility that the city has moved forward with a decision to hire a full-time administrator have not yet been answered, because of the holiday break.

[Added Monday, July 8 at 8:45 a.m.: Responding to an emailed Chronicle inquiry, public services area administrator Craig Hupy indicated no decision has been made about how to implement the recommendation for a full-time administrator. There are, he wrote, "a couple of ways to deliver that desire: a FTE as a city employee, a contract employee or a contract for services. Each option has its advantages and disadvantages." Before a "vehicle" for providing that full-time effort can be determined, the scope of needs and desires must be drafted, he indicated. "Whatever is recommended will likely have to go to city council for approval," Hupy wrote.]

Pedestrian Issues

Pedestrian issues were the subject of two board resolutions.

First, the board was asked to consider a streetscape framework plan for downtown Ann Arbor at a cost of $200,000 over the next two years. The resolution allocating the funds states that “an enjoyable pedestrian experience is one of downtown’s principal attractions.”

The $200,000 cost would not cover construction. But according to the board’s resolution, it’s a realistic budget to cover “consultants, contingency, and other related costs.” The idea cited in the resolution is to shorten the planning phases and reduce the costs associated with future streetscape projects. The resolution directs the DDA’s operations committee to create a final project budget and timeframe.

The most recent streetscape project completed by the DDA related to improvements on Fifth and Division, which included a lane reduction and bump-outs.

The second agenda item on July 3 that affected the downtown Ann Arbor pedestrian environment was a $50,000 allocation for general sidewalk maintenance. The money would cover displaced bricks, uneven sidewalk flags, and missing, dead or overgrown trees.

Pedestrian Issues: Streetscape Framework

Roger Hewitt introduced the resolution on the streetscape framework plan by saying it had been discussed for several months now. He stressed that the DDA was not looking to plunge into a specific streetscape improvement project. But in the past, when the DDA has done streetscape improvements, it has looked at a single street or a few blocks of a street and decided what it might look like. Now, it would be appropriate, Hewitt said, to take a step back and look at how all downtown streets are used by cars and pedestrians. The idea was not to identify materials or locations of where every lamppost or sign or bench should go. The idea, he said, was to determine “what sort of streets those should be.”

For example, Hewitt said: Should parking be made available on a street? Should the sidewalks be wider or narrower? Where should loading zones go? Where should taxi stands go? The idea would be to identify four or five different types of streets and which streets should be in each category. The DDA would coordinate with the city staff, as well as the University of Michigan and the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority on the project. The project would provide a blueprint for where streetscapes should go in the future, Hewitt said – and provide guidelines for what a particular improvement on a particular street should look like. The proposed budget of $200,000 would be spent over the next two fiscal years, Hewitt said. The major cost would be the cost of the consultant, Hewitt concluded.

Sandi Smith said she hoped that the streetscape framework planning process wouldn’t preclude acting on opportunities that might arise in the shorter term. As an example, she gave the 618 S. Main project, noting that part of the brownfield grant would pay for streetscape improvements. John Splitt ventured that the 618 S. Main improvements would be done in the summer of 2014, so he assumed that the framework planning wouldn’t stand in the way. Keith Orr stressed that the framework planning was not a design guideline project, but would address issues like: On this type of street, what should signage look like? Which signs should be together? How far should one parking meter be from another parking meter? Russ Collins jokingly added to Orr’s questions: Should trees be removed that block beautiful theater marquees? [Collins is executive director of the Michigan Theater.]

Smith returned to her point that she wanted to make sure the DDA remained nimble enough to be responsive when needed. Newcombe Clark responded to Smith by saying: “We never stop dancing.” Hewitt ventured that the DDA had learned how to be nimble.

Outcome: The DDA board unanimously approved the $200,000 for a streetscape planning framework.

Pedestrian Issues: Sidewalks

DDA executive director Susan Pollay described the needed work on sidewalks as issues that had been identified during two walk-throughs of the downtown. While there’s a city sidewalk millage that can address slabs of concrete that show significant deterioration, it doesn’t cover issues like the following: bricks that are coming loose, tree pits, and pruning of trees. Those are details that add up to a walkable downtown, she said. She told board members that the money is in the approved budget.

Outcome: Without discussion, the board unanimously approved the $50,000 for sidewalk repairs.

Main Street Light Poles

The board was asked to approve a resolution allocating $300,000 for the replacement of decorative light poles on Main Street. The total estimated cost of the project is $516,000 for 81 light poles.

Downtown Ann Arbor Main Street light pole on the northeast corner of Main & William. This photograph is from the city of Ann Arbor staff, taken in April 2012.

Based on the DDA board’s resolution, it’s the DDA’s expectation that the city of Ann Arbor will make up the difference of $216,000.

Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle earlier this year, city of Ann Arbor staff indicated that in early 2012 two of the light poles fell – due to a structural failure at the base of the poles caused by rust. After inspection of all the poles, two additional light poles were deemed to be in immediate risk of falling and were also replaced.

The DDA’s resolution indicates that the city of Ann Arbor’s budget approval process this year had determined that the city would allocate $216,000 for the project. What the Ann Arbor city council actually did on May 20, 2013 was to alter the DDA’s budget by recognizing additional TIF revenues of more than $568,000, and shifting $300,000 of that revenue from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund.

The council’s resolution also recommended that the DDA spend $300,000 of its TIF fund on the Main Street light pole replacement. In response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city administrator Steve Powers indicated that the city council will be asked to act on the matter either at its July 15 or Aug. 8 meeting. Public services area administrator Craig Hupy, responding to the same query, explained that it wasn’t yet clear if the council action would include an additional appropriation, or if it could be handled within the existing budget.

Main Street Light Poles: Public Comment

Reporting out from the downtown area citizens advisory council, Ray Detter indicated support for the DDA’s resolution. Combining city and DDA funds makes good sense, he said, and the light pole replacement provides an opportunity to do that. He indicated there could be an opportunity to use public art funds for that project.

Main Street Light Poles: Board Deliberations

DDA executive director Susan Pollay introduced the item by saying that there had been a problem “quietly brewing” on Main Street. One of the first installations of pedestrian-scale lighting in the DDA district, she said, was along Main Street between Huron and William. On the inside they’re rusting, she explained, because water has intruded. Last year, she said, four of them blew over in a storm. [In response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city of Ann Arbor staff stated that two light poles had fallen down in the spring of 2012. After inspection of all the poles, it was determined that two additional poles were at immediate risk of falling and were also replaced.]

According to Pollay, the city staff have been trying to find a way to pay for the replacement. As part of the city council’s budgeting process, Pollay said, the DDA was supposed to provide $300,000 for the project. If the board approved the resolution, then Pollay would communicate to the city staff, so that a resolution could be prepared for the city council, and the council would need to approve the remaining amount. Newcombe Clark drew out the fact that the money would be drawn from the DDA’s TIF fund. He asked that the point be added to the resolution.

Pollay described how the replacement would need to be coordinated with banner replacement and holiday light plug-ins.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the $300,000 grant to the city of Ann Arbor for replacement of the light poles on Main Street.

City Council, DDA Relations

The light pole question is actually related to the general issue of DDA finances and the revenue it receives through tax increment finance (TIF) capture of taxes – from entities that levy those taxes in the DDA district. Elected as chair at the annual meeting – which immediately followed the board’s monthly meeting – Sandi Smith will face the resolution of the TIF revenue issue as one of her first challenges.

City Council, DDA Relations: Background

An effort led by Ann Arbor city councilmember Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) – which has taken different forms over the last year and a half – culminated earlier this spring in initial approval by the council of a revision to Chapter 7, which regulates the DDA’s TIF capture. The council’s action, if given final approval, would prevent the DDA from giving the city code an interpretation that doesn’t recognize a cap on TIF revenue expressed in Chapter 7. The amendment to the ordinance would return several hundred thousand dollars a year to the other taxing authorities from which the DDA captures taxes. Those entities include the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw Community College, Washtenaw County and the city of Ann Arbor.

City Council, DDA Relations: Committee Not “Mutually Beneficial”

The council has postponed final action on the matter until Sept. 3, 2013. Between now and then, the council’s expectation is that a joint DDA-council committee will meet and make recommendations on the Chapter 7 issue.

Board chair Leah Gunn. One of her last acts as chair was to appoint members to the DDA-council joint committee.

At its July 1 meeting, the city council appointed four members to its committee: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

In her remarks on the appointment of the DDA members to the committee, board chair Leah Gunn indicated that the understanding going into the city council meeting was that there would be three members. But the council had appointed four members. [During the council's July 1, 2013 meeting, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) had proposed that Jane Lumm (Ward 2) be added to the list.]

The four DDA board members appointed to the committee by Gunn are: Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, Joan Lowenstein and Sandi Smith.

Newcombe Clark asked if it had to be called the “mutually beneficial” committee. He referred to the fact that history is “unfortunately … annotated and tagged with these names.”

At the council’s July 1 meeting, the council had also eschewed the label of “mutually beneficial” for the name of the committee – at the suggestion of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Sabra Briere (Ward 1) was sitting in the audience of the July 3 DDA meeting and waved to board chair Leah Gunn, who then invited Briere to the podium to explain. Briere told the DDA board that the council had settled on the idea of calling it a joint DDA-council committee. The DDA board appear amendable to that as well.

City Council, DDA Relations: More Background

By way of background on the reluctance on the part of some to call the group a “mutually beneficial committee,” that phrase in connection with the sorting out of issues between the city of Ann Arbor and the Ann Arbor DDA is not new.

The phrase was first mooted in a Jan. 20, 2009 council resolution. The main issue at that time was the contract under which the DDA administers the city’s public parking system. Subsequently, “mutually beneficial” committees for both entities were appointed, but they did not achieve any results. The following year, new committees were appointed and those committees met over the course of several months, culminating in a new parking agreement ratified in May 2011.

The council formally disbanded its “mutually beneficial” committee at the end of 2011.

City Council, DDA Relations: Housing, Light Poles

Pending the resolution of the Chapter 7 TIF issue, the city council had already altered the DDA’s FY 2014 budget in action taken at its May 20, 2013 meeting. The council’s resolution modifying the DDA’s budget involved housing and the Main Street light poles.

Touching implicitly on the housing issue at the July 3 DDA board meeting, Sandi Smith reported out from the recent meeting of the partnerships committee. The committee had received an update from representatives of various affordable housing advocates – Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) executive director Jennifer Hall, Washtenaw County office of community & economic development director Mary Jo Callan and Washtenaw Housing Alliance executive director Julie Steiner. Smith reported that the three had been given an update on “where the moving parts fit together” and about ongoing funding reductions at the federal and state levels. The partnerships committee learned about the places the DDA can “plug in,” Smith said, and had agreed to continue to learn and talk to representatives of the affordable housing community.

By way of additional background, one place that housing advocates hope the DDA “plugs in” is with $300,000 of support for an initiative the AAHC is undertaking, which would convert the city’s public housing stock to project-based vouchers. The effort includes a requirement that significant renovations be made to many of the properties. The hope is that the DDA would provide $300,000 of support for a package of renovations that includes AAHC properties within 1/4 mile of the DDA district boundary. That’s the area the DDA currently uses as a policy guideline for allocating expenditures from its housing fund.

The $300,000 figure is significant, because it’s the amount the city council transferred from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund, in a budget action taken on at the council’s May 20, 2013 meeting. The DDA’s position is that it can’t fund the entire light pole replacement project – because of that transfer to the housing fund.

City Council, DDA Relations: Downtown Beat Cops

Reporting out from the DDA’s operations committee, Roger Hewitt noted that the city council had passed a resolution requesting that the DDA consider providing funding for police officers. [That resolution was passed at the council's June 3, 2013 meeting. At the DDA board's June 5, 2013 meeting, board chair Leah Gunn had referred the matter to the operations committee.]

Hewitt said the committee had a discussion about the matter of funding downtown police. There are a number of ways to approach it: with ambassadors, community standards officers, or police officers. Hewitt said the DDA would take a reasoned approach to determine what fits best.

Sandi Smith expressed a reluctance for the DDA to pay for an ongoing city operational expense. She felt, however, that it would be great to fund a start-up program to cover equipment needs – like uniforms. A light-hearted exchange unfolded based on the idea of Robocop as a depreciable asset.

Parking

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor. A report on monthly parking activity is a typical part of all board meeting reports.

Parking: Monthly Report

Roger Hewitt gave the monthly parking revenue update. [A recent Chronicle column includes the breakdown of the DDA parking numbers for nearly the last four years.]

Hewitt highlighted the revenues from the new Library Lane structure, which was completed in July of 2012. The structure showed revenues over $100,000 for May 2013. That is far more than projected, Hewitt said, and compares favorably with revenues from the Forest structure, which has been open for 20 years. The Library Lane structure has been accepted by patrons and is being adopted for use more rapidly than any other new structure, Hewitt said.

Hewitt also noted that this month’s report would be the last monthly report, and in the future quarterly reports will be given instead.

Commenting on the rationale for the move to quarterly reports, Newcombe Clark stated that “the painful convenience of data is that you can often torture it to tell you whatever you want it to say.” He’d been more and more concerned about the pressure that the DDA might feel to create policy based on monthly data. It might indicate a trend, but at this point the DDA is not running any kind of statistical analysis that would give any confidence or probability that “anything from the tides of March or the weather or what-have-you” might indicate revenue, he said.

At his self-described “polite and insistent poking,” Clark had proposed to move the reports to a quarterly review, so that the DDA could look at trends with a more objective eye. “The data will, of course, be collected daily as it [currently] is, and will be available for anybody that wants it,” he said. If board members just miss the monthly reports and it leaves a void in the monthly operations committee meeting, Clark quipped, he suspected they would restore the monthly reports. He thought it was a good policy to take a break from looking at data and getting lost in it without understanding it.

Parking: Permit Pilot Program

As part of his report from the operations committee, Roger Hewitt noted that the committee had focused on the high demand for parking in the area of the University of Michigan campus. Illustrating the overall demand was the number of monthly parking permits that had been sold for the new Library Lane structure. Over 600 monthly permits had been sold for Library Lane, Hewitt said, and there’s already a wait list for that new structure.

Hewitt said the operations committee had been discussing how to make the process for issuing permits “less subjective and more objective.” By way of background, the parking permit allocations are currently made on a first-come-first-served policy with a waiting list. So decisions about who may purchase them are objective. What could be considered subjective is the number of permits that can be sold for a particular structure. For some structures, the oversell margin seems to be maximized. For others, it is not.

That subjective component can make other DDA decisions also seem subjective – like determining whether monthly permits will be assigned to new developments under the contribution in lieu (CIL) program. That program can allow a new development to satisfy a parking requirement by purchasing monthly permits in the public parking system. Permits purchased through the CIL program are priced at a 20% premium. The DDA can exercise its discretion in determining whether there is capacity in the parking system to grant the permits. Whether there is capacity is the issue that could be subjective.

When the DDA granted 40 CIL permits in the Forest Street structure to the proposed 624 Church Street project – which is in the South University area – at least one owner of an existing residential building complained that this was unfair. That was the owner of the Zaragon building, located adjacent to the 624 Church Street development. Hewitt operates his revive + replenish business on the ground floor of Zaragon.

At the July 3 meeting, Hewitt reported that the operations committee had decided to start a pilot project for the Forest Street structure – to assign permits not based on the first-come-first-served basis as they currently are. Instead, permits would be issued to building owners in the South University area inside the DDA district, based on the square footage of those buildings.

That would provide an objective standard for determining who gets the parking permits instead of assigning them in a subjective manner, he said. It would be a pilot project, Hewitt stressed. No contract would be issued. Each building owner would be contacted and would be offered a chance to purchase permits at the going rate, based on how much square footage they owned. Hewitt indicated that roughly one parking space would be provided for every 2,500 square feet of building area, based on the data the DDA had collected.

Current permit holders would be “grandfathered in,” Hewitt said. He said there are very few examples where there are more permits in a building now than the proposed system would allow. If every building owner took up the DDA’s offer, about 280 permits would be sold for the Forest Street structure, compared against roughly 600 spaces in the structure, Hewitt reported. [However, half of the 600 spaces in the Forest structure are allotted to the University of Michigan. Currently, about 100 permits are sold for Forest.]

Hewitt indicated that at this point, the goal is to measure the level of interest. No one is going to lose their parking space, he stressed. If someone voluntarily decides not to renew their monthly parking permit, then the permit would go into the new system of allocation. Because the South University area is a separate geographic area from the rest of downtown, Hewitt said, it would be a better laboratory to experiment in.

Keith Orr asked about the timeframe for the project and the standards for evaluating success. What does success look like? Orr asked. Hewitt characterized the project at this point as “more informational gathering.” It’s not that the DDA is trying to achieve a specific goal beyond encouraging development in the South University area, Hewitt said. It gives current and future property owners the firm knowledge that: “If I build this many square feet, I’m going to get this number of parking spaces. It takes away a variable and puts in a known number,” Hewitt said.

It’s a question of whether there’s continued economic development and continued job growth, Hewitt said. The pilot project would be evaluated as it goes along, Hewitt said. It’s difficult to know what the reception is going to be and how successful it is. In the South University area, the DDA receives a large number of requests for monthly permits from students or parents of students who don’t live in the DDA district. That was a group that the DDA didn’t need to incentivize, Hewitt said. This proposal would use the parking system to benefit property owners in the area, Hewitt said. It would be up to the property owners to decide how those permits would be divided among their tenants.

Newcombe Clark indicated that he had been concerned about this. “Trying to answer the question of what is fair, is just going to give heartache for everybody,” Clark said. What he hoped would be released is something a bit more detailed – something that defines who the property owners are. With the exception of a limited number of reserved parking passes, the permits provide the ability for regular users of the system to save some money and have consistency with expectations for availability of parking. South University makes sense, Clark said, because of the geographic area – but also because of the contribution in lieu (CIL) approval of 40 parking spaces for the 624 Church Street development.

This approach to permits, Clark said, might allow the DDA to “get ahead of all these reactive pulling-out-of-the sky of who gets what, where, and why.” To him it was a big step to address demand management with monthly parking permits. There are long wait lists at large structures, and he didn’t want to get into the question of whether students or students’ parents deserve those spaces or not. That will be something the DDA continues to wrestle with, but the fact is, Clark stated: There will be more demand than supply. Getting away from the idea of “fairness” to the idea of an “objective standard” is a step forward, Clark said. If everyone hates it or no property owners take up the DDA on the offer, that would be helpful information, he said.

Hewitt wrapped up the conversation by saying that the CIL ordinance had pushed the DDA to address the issue, characterizing the CIL program as requiring the DDA to provide parking if there is room in the system.

Parking: Public Commentary

During public commentary time at the conclusion of the meeting, Alice Liberson indicated that she had no problem with cost and availability of parking in Ann Arbor. She said “it cracks me up” when she hears people say it costs too much and there’s no place to park. That’s because she compares the situation to Boston, where she lived previously. She was critical, however, of the new parking kiosks. She described them as very cumbersome. You have to wait for the screen to come up. And she felt she’s not the only one who’s had to go back and verify the number of the space where she’d parked – which has to be keyed into the kiosk. She’s also had her coins and credit card rejected.

Liberson also contended there’s a mean-spiritedness about the new parking kiosks, because they don’t show you the amount of time that’s still remaining from a previous patron, which makes it difficult to use the leftover time. She also complained about the way the meter bag program is handled. [Meter bags are placed over the meter heads to indicate that motorists are not allowed to park there.]

Board Transition

At the annual meeting, which immediately followed the regular monthly meeting on July 3, Sandi Smith was elected chair of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board for the current fiscal year, which began July 1.

Newcombe Clark reacts to a modification of his resolution of appreciation to include the phrase ‘”polite and insistent poking.”

Smith’s election as chair followed the board’s custom of electing its vice chair to the position of chair for the next year.

Other board officers elected included John Mouat as vice chair, Keith Orr as secretary, and Roger Hewitt as treasurer. They were all made by separate unanimous votes.

Smith took over the role of chair from Leah Gunn, who’s concluding her service on the board. Gunn’s current term on the DDA board expires on July 31 this year.

At the board’s July 3 meeting, the board bid farewell to Gunn and Newcombe Clark, whose term is also expiring at the end of July. First appointed in 2009, Clark served one four-year term. He’s making an employment-related move to Chicago.

Gunn served for nearly 22 years on the board starting in 1991.

In 2011 she announced she would not to seek re-election in 2012 to a seat on the Washtenaw County board of commissioners. She had first been elected as a county commissioner in 1996. After redistricting of the county board seats, she decided to support fellow Democrat Yousef Rabhi, who was re-elected and now serves as chair of the Washtenaw County board. In her professional life Gunn served as a librarian in the University of Michigan graduate and law libraries.

Bob Guenzel led the standing ovation given to Leah Gunn on concluding her DDA board service.

The second term for Russ Collins is set to expire on July 31, along with those of Gunn and Clark. However, Collins was nominated at the city council’s July 1 meeting by mayor John Hieftje for reappointment to the DDA board.

Resolutions of appreciation were read aloud by DDA executive director Susan Pollay for outgoing board members Clark and Gunn.

Clark took some good-natured ribbing from his board colleagues as Smith picked up on a phrase he’d used earlier in the meeting to describe his own behavior: “polite and insistent poking.” The phrase was incorporated into his resolution.

For her part, Gunn picked up on her resolution’s mention of her previous turn as chair of the board – in 1995-96. She took the opportunity to note that during that period Pollay had been hired as executive director, so Gunn wanted to take some credit for Pollay.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s meeting included the usual range of reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council.

Comm/Comm: Connector Study

By way of background, the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority is currently conducting an alternatives analysis study for the corridor running from US-23 and Plymouth southward along Plymouth to State Street, then further south to I-94. The alternatives analysis phase will result in a preferred choice of transit mode (e.g., bus rapid transit, light rail, etc.) and identification of stations and stops.

A previous study established the feasibility of operating some kind of high-capacity transit in that corridor. A key finding of the feasibility study was that the demand for high-capacity transit is clear in the “core” of the corridor – primarily between the University of Michigan’s north campus, medical facilities and central campus. The demand was found to be less intense on the corridor’s “shoulders.”

In his report out from the operations committee at the DDA’s July 3 meeting, Roger Hewitt said that the connector study had held a public meeting a few weeks ago. It had not been overly well-attended, he allowed. The study is at this point in the process of looking at routes and modes. The option of the elevated guideway system had been eliminated from further consideration – due to cost, and difficulty of putting it through an historic district. It was five times more expensive than the next-most expensive option, he said.

Comm/Comm: DDA Website

Sandi Smith pointed out that the new DDA website is up. She thanked DDA management assistant Jada Hahlbrock for her hard work with Keystone Media to complete that project. Smith said the website includes an interactive map, where visitors can find out where charging stations, bike stations, and parking structures are, with details about each facility, including current vacancy rates. Vacancy rates are not all “hooked up” yet, she said, but that functionality is in progress.

Comm/Comm: Development, Planning

Issues of future downtown planning came up during public commentary at the start of the July 3 meeting and during Ray Detter’s report out from the downtown area citizens advisory council.

Alice Liberson introduced herself as a resident of Burns Park who owns a business on Fourth Avenue [Dogma Catmantoo]. She’d never attended a DDA board meeting, she said, but she’d just been reading an article in the media that she wanted to comment on. Whatever is going on in the South University area took her by surprise, she said. Some people want to make a high-density downtown – a regular, “grownup downtown.” Many times, she said, things happen under the radar and then all of a sudden it’s a fait accompli. What’s wrong with one- and two-story buildings? she wondered. Whatever you do, you’re not going to bring grownups to that South University area, she said.

She indicated skepticism that building high-density, fancy buildings would encourage specific demographics to move. The city can’t control who’s going to live where, and she didn’t think it should try. She suggested that there’s a great opportunity to establish a pedestrian, no-car zone. There are no such zones in Ann Arbor, she noted. She contended that most charming small towns have a car-free zone, where you can sit outside and enjoy a meal and not inhale car fumes. In such a car-free zone, people move slowly, and they wind up patronizing retail stores. She concluded her remarks by saying she hoped she didn’t sound strident, quipping that she has “tone issues.”

At the conclusion of the meeting, Liberson clarified that she was not against development.

Reporting out from the downtown area citizens advisory council, Ray Detter updated the DDA board on the re-establishment of the R4C citizens advisory committee. He also updated the board on the D1/D2 zoning review process that the city council, on April 1, 2013, had directed the planning commission to undertake. Detter reported that the planning commission’s executive committee had met the previous day to begin interviews to hire a consultant to help with that process. Two large public meetings would be held, Detter reported, in addition to several smaller meetings – with the goal to report back to the city council by the end of September.

Detter also noted that a design review task force had been established [through council action on March 4, 2013] to review the downtown design guidelines. The first of four scheduled meetings would take place on July 24 from 4:30-6 p.m. in the ground floor south conference room at city hall. Detter hoped that public input would be allowed at the meetings. He called for “more teeth” for the design guidelines. There are ways to give them more teeth, Detter contended.

The developer of the 413 E. Huron project, Detter contended, had “scoffed” at the recommendations of the design review board. Detter mentioned two projects that would be coming forward located in the D1 zoning area: at 121 E. Liberty and 210 S. Fourth. The public participation meetings for those projects would be taking place on July 10, Detter said. Nothing higher than five stories is proposed, Detter said. The properties are in a historic district, he pointed out.

[The back-to-back meetings for those projects start at 6 p.m. on July 10 at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. The first citizen participation forum, from 6-7:10 p.m., is for a proposal by the owners of the Running Fit building at 121 & 123 E. Liberty. They hope to add two stories of apartments to the existing one-story building, as well as a rooftop patio and penthouse occupying a partial fourth floor. The second forum, from 7:10-8:30 p.m., is for a project at the Towne Center – the former Montgomery Ward building at 210-216 S. Fourth Ave. The project would add up to three stories of apartments above portions of an existing two-story building. A new facade is planned for the building.]

Present: Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein,

Absent: Nader Nassif, John Mouat.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Sept. 4, 2013, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

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

Map of proposed BIZ area: Main Street from William Street in the south to Huron Street in the north. (Image links to complete .pdf file of the Main Street BIZ plan.)

On Wednesday, a cold and rainy evening, a group of downtown Ann Arbor property owners gathered in the city council chambers for a public meeting gaveled to order by the city clerk, Jackie Beaudry.

They were there not to discuss rain, but rather snow. At least in part.

On their agenda was consideration of a plan for a business improvement zone (BIZ) on Main Street – bounded by William Street to the south and Huron Street to the north – which would assess an extra tax on owners of property in the zone.

That plan for the BIZ includes snow removal as one of three main categories of services to be paid for through the BIZ. The other two categories of service in the plan are sidewalk cleaning and landscape plantings.

The plan was approved on a roll call vote of the property owners in attendance on Wednesday night, but not without some dissent. And the approval of the plan on Wednesday is not the final step before the BIZ can be implemented. Still ahead lies a formal public hearing by the city council, a vote by the city council, followed by another vote by property owners – this one by mail.

Background on the Ann Arbor Main Street BIZ

Almost exactly a year ago, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority‘s partnerships committee reported out to the full board at its Dec. 3, 2008 meeting that Ed Shaffran and Ellie Serras had expressed an interest in creating a self-assessment zone centered on Main Street. They’d inquired about start-up funding, which would entail mostly a consultant and some legal work. Shaffran is a local developer and former chair of the DDA board. Serras is former executive director of the Main Street Area Association.

Ann Arbor city clerk Jackie Beaudry chaired the public meeting for property owners to vote on the business improvement zone proposed for Main Street between William and Huron. (Photo by the writer.)

And four months later, at its April 1, 2009 meeting, the DDA board authorized $83,270 to support the creation of a business improvement zone (BIZ) on South Main Street. The amount included roughly $75,000 plus a 10% contingency. A series of public meetings were held to pitch the idea to downtown property owners, including one at Conor O’Neill’s in June. [Chronicle coverage: "In the Business Improvement Zone"]

The series of public meetings resulted in submittal of a petition to the city clerk supporting the creation of the BIZ, signed by at least 30% of property owners in the district, where each signature is weighted based on the value of the property owned.

That weighting applies to all votes of property owners on matters related to the BIZ. The Ann Arbor city council also heard a presentation at an October work session on the proposed Main Street BIZ. [Chronicle Coverage: "Work Session: Trains, Trash, and Taxes."]

With the 30% petition submitted and a work session under its belt to get familiar with the notion of a BIZ, the city council then voted at its Oct. 19, 2009 meeting to move the BIZ along to the next step of its creation: the city clerk provided written notice to property owners of a public meeting to vote on the plan –  which includes the budget and the formula for assessing property owners.

It was this vote that took place on Wednesday evening. It required a majority of property owners in attendance to pass – weighted based on the value of property they own. [For the state enabling legislation for a BIZ, see Public Act 120 of 1961].

Services Planned Through the Main Street BIZ

The services to be paid for through the Main Street BIZ are divided into two categories – those that are analyzed as providing a “direct benefit” to a property owner and those providing a “common benefit” to all property owners. The distinction between direct and common benefit services is important for the calculation of the tax owed by each property owner.

But first, what are the services?

The direct benefit services are sidewalk snow removal (budgeted at $60,000 per year) and sidewalk cleaning (budgeted at $10,000.) The common benefit services are landscape improvements and maintenance (budgeted at $12,000 a year).

Stephen Kelly questioned whether the cost of the snow removal was reasonable. (Photo by the writer.)

In response to a question from property owner Stephen Kelly and other property owners about what they perceived to be the excessively high cost allocated for snow removal, Ellie Serras explained that in getting estimates from potential snow removal contractors – names they had solicited from property owners in the proposed zone – they had specified: “We want Main Street to be like a hospital zone.”

More specifically, the snow removal service is triggered by accumulations of 1 inch or more, with provisions for the  major accumulations of snow to be physically removed from the downtown area, not just shoveled into the street. The budgeted $60,000 covers up to 40 snowfalls per season.

The warm-weather equivalent of snow removal to be provided by the BIZ is sidewalk cleaning – weekly vacuuming of the sidewalks and semi-annual power washing. In addition, handbills will be removed weekly from public surfaces, and graffiti will be removed on demand. [For Chronicle coverage of Ann Arbor's relatively new graffiti ordinance: "Council OKs Graffiti Law, Questions AATA"]

The landscaping services – categorized as a common benefit – consist of contributing funds (budgeted at $12,000 per year) toward the maintenance of the 44 planter boxes within the district.

Calculating the Tax Owed: Direct versus Common Benefit

In addition to the common benefit service of landscaping, in the BIZ plan budget there are organizational expenses also categorized as common benefits to property owners of the district. Those organizational expenses are budgeted at $36,848 per year.

Broken down in terms of common benefit and direct benefit costs, then, the BIZ plan budget looks like this:

Direct Benefit
Snow removal          $60,000
Sidewalk Cleaning     $10,000
Total Direct Benefit:           $ 70,000

Common Benefit
Landscaping           $12,000
Organizational        $36,848
Total Common Benefit            $ 48,848

Total BIZ Budget                $118,848

-

The assessment formula is designed to generate the $118,848 for the BIZ budget by considering the direct benefit costs and the common benefit costs separately.

Despite appearances, this is not a "lineal foot." Its owner did, however, attend the BIZ public meeting and voted yes on the BIZ plan. (Photo by the writer).

Direct benefit costs, so goes the reasoning, is a function of the amount of frontage along the area where the service is performed, measured in lineal feet. So the cost per lineal foot is calculated by taking the $70,000 in direct benefit costs and dividing by the 3,349 lineal feet of frontage in the zone to get an assessment rate of $20.90 per lineal foot.

The organizers of the BIZ reason that the common benefit costs are a function of the square footage of a property. So the cost per square foot is calculated by taking the $48,848 in common benefit costs and dividing by the 575,998 commercial square feet in the zone to get an assessment rate of $0.0848 per square foot.

So to calculate the tax owed by a property owner in the zone, the formula is:

Tax Owed = [Lineal Feet]*$20.90 +[Commercial Square Feet]*$0.0848

The average BIZ assessment of property owners in the zone, said Ed Shaffran, would be around $2,200.

Concerns Expressed by Property Owners

Besides the high costs associated with the snow removal, a concern was raised about the fairness of the distinction between direct costs and common costs. One point of confusion was whether the tax imposed by the BIZ would change based on changes in property value through time – the BIZ is specified to have a term of seven years. The BIZ tax uses the commercial square footage in its calculation, but not the assessed values of that commercial square footage. The role played by the commercial square footage owned by a property owner merely establishes the percentage of the total BIZ burden shouldered by that property owner.

Beyond the actual mechanics of how the BIZ would be administered, the main worry expressed by a few property owners was that the extra tax burden would be passed along to tenants – retailers on Main Street. The retail environment was repeatedly described as “fragile” and the fear was expressed that even a little extra burden could make the difference between surviving and failing.

One Tenant’s View

It was a tenant who actually argued most energetically for the BIZ – Chris DeRuyver of Affinity Wealth Solutions, a commercial tenant at 122 S. Main. DeRuyver would serve on the board of directors of the BIZ.

Chris DeRuyver describes how clients cancel appointments on snowy days. (Photo by the writer.)

He described how snowy days inevitably led to cancellation of appointments – his clients would call to cancel, saying they didn’t want to trudge through the snow.

“Downtown is like a ghost town on snowy days,” DeRuyver said. He compared his previous experience working out of the 777 Building on Eisenhower, saying he never had cancellations due to snow, because the snow was always removed from the parking lot all the way to the door.

So DeRuyver said the BIZ would address a specific obstacle to the economic success of the Main Street area.

As for the concerns that some property owners had expressed about the additional expense of the tax threatening fragile businesses, he offered this advice: “In a down economy, you can’t be expense-driven; you have to be revenue-driven.”

The Vote

The Chronicle scored the roll call vote read out by city clerk Jackie Beaudry as 26 votes for the BIZ plan, with 2 votes against. Given that the votes had to be weighted by the value of property owned, the city assessor, David Petrak, was on hand to verify that the weighted majority had been achieved.

The next step is for the city council to hold a public hearing and a vote again on the BIZ – likely to happen in January 2010. Assuming approval by the city council, a final vote among property owners conducted by mail would then likely happen in February 2010. The first BIZ assessment would then be made in June 2010 and appear with the July tax bill. BIZ operations would commence in July 2010.

A sampling of the questions and ideas generated from a recent meeting of Main Street businesses, who gathered to discuss the concept of a Business Improvement Zone for that area. (Photo by the writer.)

About a dozen business owners, managers and others from the Main Street area gathered last Thursday morning at Conor O’Neill’s to talk about an idea being floated for that district – a self-taxing entity called a business improvement zone, or BIZ. It’s a way to pay for services – things like snow or litter removal, or flowerbeds – to make the district more attractive and bring more shoppers downtown.

This isn’t the first time we’ve encountered the Main Street BIZ. In April, the Downtown Development Authority awarded $83,270 to the group – spearheaded by Ellie Serras and Ed Shaffran – to help get it going. Since then, Main Street BIZ has hired a consultant – Betsy Jackson of The Urban Agenda – and is holding meetings with stakeholders to pitch the idea and get feedback.

That’s what was happening on Thursday. The meeting was one of three planned so far: Earlier in the week, organizers met with property owners of buildings along a three-block stretch of Main Street, where the district is proposed. And on Tuesday, June 30, they’ve scheduled a similar presentation for residents and others who patronize Main Street area businesses. That meeting starts at 6 p.m., also at Conor O’Neill’s.

What’s a BIZ?

Michigan law allows property owners within a specified district to tax themselves, with the funds designated for economic development purposes within that district. The proposed Main Street BIZ would stretch from the south side of Huron to the north side of William, and would include a “wrap” down Washington and Liberty on both sides of Main, running to (but not including) the alleys.

Betsy Jackson, the consultant hired for this project, walked The Chronicle through the process required to set up a BIZ – organizers have already taken initial steps, including setting up a nonprofit and forming a transitional board. Next, they’ll need to get 30% of property owners to sign a petition stating their intent to form a BIZ. (That 30% is based on a formula which gives weight to a vote based on the value of an owner’s property. That is, they could reach the 30% mark without getting 30% of the individual property owners. Additionally, there’s a maximum weight of 25% for any one individual.)

After the petition is filed, the city schedules a public meeting of property owners, who will vote on a detailed business plan for the BIZ. The business plan specifies exactly what the collected funds can be used for. (After the BIZ is approved, it would require another vote to spend the money on services not covered by those categories. For example, if snow removal isn’t initially designated as a category for the BIZ funds, then the district can’t spend the money on snow removal.) The business plan would also give details about a budget, frequency of services, a formula for assessment, governance structure and other information.

At the public meeting, if a majority of property owners approve the business plan, then the city schedules a public hearing within 45 days, and the city council votes on the plan. If council approves it, an election is set. The election is administered by the city via mailed ballots. This time, 60% approval is needed – and again, the votes are weighted based on the value of the property. If 60% or more votes approve the BIZ, then all property owners within the district will be assessed, with the exceptions of  nonprofit property owners (like religious organizations or the university), government properties and owner-occupied housing units. The BIZ requires renewal every seven years.

Why Form a BIZ?

At Thursday’s meeting, Ellie Serras said some of the Main Street property owners decided they needed more control over the district’s future. “We want to make this good thing even better,” said Serras, the long-time executive director of the Main Street Area Association who stepped down from the post last year. Her husband, Dennis Serras, is a partner with Mainstreet Ventures, which owns several restaurants in Ann Arbor, including Palio, Gratzi, Real Seafood Co., The Chop House and La Dolce Vita – all operating on Main Street.

Five property owners got this project off the ground: Ed Shaffran of Shaffran Companies, Rob Spears of Cabrio Properties Amvest Properties, Mike Martin of First Martin Corp., Jeffrey Harshe of MAV Development and Jim Curtis of Curtis Commercial. Each of them contributed $5,000 to the effort, which will be repaid from BIZ funds if the entity is formed. They are also part of a transitional board – other board members are Alan Freedman of Four Directions, and Ron Dankert of Swisher Commercial. Keith Orr of the Downtown Development Authority board (and co-owner of the \aut\BAR and Common Language Bookstore in Kerrytown) is a tentative board member. If the BIZ is formed, property owners in the district would elect a new board at their first annual meeting. The city’s mayor would also be entitled to appoint one board member.

In addition to forming a board, organizers plan to use the DDA grant to set up office space, do website design and cover administrative costs, Serras said.

Jackson said that BIZ districts are typically set up in response to dwindling public sector resources. Business districts have special needs that aren’t necessarily covered by the city’s general fund – standard “common denominator” services aren’t sufficient, she said. Downtown shops and restaurants can’t compete on price with big box stores and malls, Jackson added, but what they can offer is a distinctive, positive experience and ambiance – that’s their competitive edge.

Organizers have identified three potential categories for which BIZ funds could be earmarked, Jackson said, though these could change based on feedback. All of them are aimed at improving people’s perception of the Main Street business district – they are the first things people encounter, she said. The potential categories are 1) snow removal from sidewalks and curb cuts, 2) sidewalk cleaning and litter removal, and 3) landscaping/maintenance.

Questions and Concerns

After a presentation by Serras and Jackson, they opened the floor for questions – and there were many. Several people expressed concern that Ann Arbor city council would not provide basic services if they knew that Main Street BIZ had the money to pay for them instead. Jim Beuche, an attorney with Hooper Hathaway who’s doing work for the BIZ, said that while city council is hard to predict, they “can’t foist off more on us than they will on everyone else.” That said, the reality is that the council defines what services are provided in the city, Beuche said, and those can change at any time.

This prompted Newcombe Clark, president of the Main Street Area Association board, to say: “If you pay more for a cabin on the Titanic, you’ll still sink like everyone else.”

Serras responded by saying that the city can – and has – been pulling back services for the past decade. When the city decided to stop taking care of flowerbeds downtown, the Main Street Area Association stepped in to pay for that, she said. A few years ago, the South State Street merchants paid for security because the city removed its beat cops, she said – a scenario that’s playing out again. Having the BIZ in place would make it possible to respond when the city changes its service levels. (Clark later reminded the group that Ann Arbor’s beat cops would no longer be patrolling, as of this week.)

Derek Davis, marketing manager for The Melting Pot restaurant on South Main, wondered how expensive this would be for his business. The Melting Pot pays rent, he said – would the BIZ mean that their rent will be raised?

At this point it’s unclear how much the property owners will be assessed, Jackson said. The business plan would have to specify the formula used to calculate an assessment, likely based on a property’s value and perhaps its streetfront footage. But the BIZ has no authority to prevent landlords from passing along the costs to their tenants, she added.

Davis noted that some landlords do take care of services like sidewalk snow-shoveling and flowerbeds. But for the building his restaurant rents, he said they have to pay for that kind of thing themselves. It sounded to him like within the organization of the BIZ, tenants had little power.

The issue of tenant power came up again in a discussion of the BIZ board, which would be elected by property owners and include one mayoral appointee. Several people suggested that the board include at least one business owner/tenant, to give that group a voice.

Parking was another issue raised during the discussion. Caroline Kaganov, general manager of Conor O’Neill’s and a Main Street Area Association board member, joked that she feels she’s been working for the city – she’d spent the past four days helping people figure out how to use the new parking meters installed downtown. She said the perception is that parking is scarce. Davis said there was plenty of parking, but there needed to be ways to lower the price. Perhaps the BIZ could subsidize customer parking for businesses that can’t afford to comp it on their own, he suggested.

Some people were concerned because alleys aren’t going to be included within the BIZ district – that’s where a lot of the problems are, they said, citing litter and snow removal.

Angela Pierro of Zero Gravity Designs said aesthetics were important, like putting in flowerbeds and cleaning up cigarette butts. She also said sidewalks need to be in better shape – uneven sidewalks, which cause little kids to trip or which make it difficult to push strollers – deter families from wanting to come downtown.

Davis said that in general he felt the city was very safe, but the biggest security complaint he heard from customers related to panhandling. Being approached by panhandlers affects the perception of whether Ann Arbor is a family friendly place, he said.

Next Steps

The goal would be to have a BIZ assessment on the July 2010 tax bills, Jackson said. That means they’d need to have a draft of the BIZ plan adopted by the board and start circulating petitions in September, she said. They hoped to have enough signed petitions to submit to the city clerk in October.

Meanwhile, they’ll be gathering information about similar zones in other cities. More outreach efforts are planned, too, including a website (to be designed by Angela Pierro of Zero Gravity Designs) and online survey to get more feedback about what services the district needs. They’re also working with the city attorney’s office and city clerk to ensure that all the proper steps are taken, since the city hasn’t done anything like this before. “We want to make sure there are no hold-ups related to process,” Jackson said.

Michael Kessler queries potential users of coworking space at 118 S. Main about what they'd commit to and at what price. (Special thanks to Bill Merrill, who lent The Chronicle his camera.)

At noon on Tuesday, around 50 people gathered in the space at 118 S. Main St. to evaluate its potential as a place for coworking by independent operators. Coworking includes income-earning activity that ranges from people working solo in physical proximity with other independent workers, to collaboration with some of them on a single project – without belonging to a common business concern.

But it wasn’t just the physical space that people were keen to see (over a free catered lunch). They also wanted to know what Michael Kessler had in mind for the actual space-use agreements. Kessler has an arrangement with Ed Shaffran, who owns the Goodyear Building which houses the potential coworking space.

So what people wanted to know from Kessler on Tuesday was: What do you get, and how much does it cost? And what Kessler wanted to know from attendees was: Would you actually use this space, and how much would you pay?

After brief introductory remarks by Kessler, the conversation threatened briefly to stall until Bill Tozier piped up. Tozier, who is affiliated with Not An Employee, which is a standard-bearer for coworking in Ann Arbor, exhorted Kessler: “Describe the space!” What everyone could see were the bare brick walls that are a common feature of Shaffran’s properties. Common enough, that Shaffran knows you are kidding if you suggest to him, as The Chronicle did, that what the bricks need is a good coat of paint. Patrons of Arcadian Too Antiques, which was the most recent tenant there, will not remember exposed brick walls in the store.  Part of the work Kessler has had done in the last few weeks is remove the plaster from the bricks.

The view from the mezzanine level. The bright light is from the Main Street side. (Special thanks to Bill Merrill, who lent The Chronicle his camera.)

What Tozier meant, of course, was that Kessler needed to describe what the roughly 3,000 square foot space would look like when configured for coworking. Kessler ticked off various features: a meeting area, a bathroom, a 12-person conference room, a training area, lockers for security, and a place to pick up mail.

The ability to receive mail at a Main Street Ann Arbor address was a real plus for Jessica Rauch, president of The Generation Project. After the presentation, she told The Chronicle that The Generation Project would be moving to Washington D.C. in a year and a half, but that in the meantime, she was keen to have space to work from that was not her apartment.

A concern expressed in small talk before Kessler’s presentation, as well as during the ensuing conversation, was: How does noise get regulated in the coworking space? The noise issue was illustrated perfectly during a back-and-forth between Kessler and Dan Cooney, who were both speaking from the middle of the room. Off to the front of the building, Cooney’s comments were rendered almost indiscernible on that side of the room by conversational noise in the same corner. Conversational volume management in that case came in the form of a finger snap.

Other logistical challenges of managing a shared space include access. One attendee wanted to know if she’d be able to get into the space during later, evening hours, because she works for a west coast company. Answer: The intention is to provide 24/7 availability though a key card system most likely to be installed on the side entrance. Users of the space would swipe in and out.

Michael Kessler one-ups UPS's whiteboard ads by using a piece of drywall to write on.

Swiping would not be necessary to open the door to get out, but having a record of exactly when the space was being used would be helpful moving forward in arranging availability. The idea of being able to check the current physical space usage without physically going there met with a lot of enthusiasm in the room:  If you can see online that there are already a full complement of people using the space, it saves showing up only to be disappointed that there’s no room for you to cowork at that particular time.

Generally there was a lot of positive sentiment expressed in the room on Tuesday, even if there was some caution that could be found in internet backchannels. People said they really wanted to see the space succeed. Interest in the existence of a coworking space in Ann Arbor (or at least interest in measuring interest) goes at least as far back as May 2008. Based on a Chronicle conversation with Jennifer Burn after the presentation, that interest could go back even further. Before moving to a South State Street location in late 2005, Burn said, ICON Creative Technologies Group used to lease out work space to independent operators. And according to Jacqueline Yang, of Zattoo Inc., sub-leasing work space to independents is a practice they have adopted as well after recent downsizing. Yang was attending the Tuesday lunch partly with an eye towards possible use of the coworking space by a local initiative for Tech Cocktail.

Drawing of the street entrance to the coworking space. (Special thanks to Bill Merrill, who lent The Chronicle his camera.)

What the coworking space is imagined to be was clarified a bit on Tuesday when David Bloom, executive in residence at Ann Arbor SPARK, contrasted it with the space that SPARK offers through its business incubators. The incubators, said Bloom at Tuesday’s lunch, are “not about community – it’s about business acceleration.” The tenants of its incubators, continued Bloom, have the ambition to create lots of jobs and revenues.

So the coworking space on South Main is not meant as an incubator in that sense. But it’s also meant to be more than coffee houses – with their attendant overhead music, sometimes dodgy Wifi connections, and non-guaranteed access to electrical power for a laptop computer. Still, the South Main space will likely provide a coffee kiosk, staffed probably by Mighty Good Coffee, which had its brew on hand Tuesday for lunch. In addition to providing “eyes-on-site,” the kiosk at the entrance off the street would provide an interface zone between the public street and the private coworking space further back.

The public conversation on Tuesday yielded a show of about 30 hands of people who’d be interested in access to the coworking space at $100 per month. To get to the $10,000 a month that Kessler says he needs to make it work, that means the 30 hands will need to actually commit and get a couple of friends to commit as well.

Reached by phone the day after the lunch, Kessler said that followup communication with lunch attendees was positive enough that he’s got workers executing on the designs that people saw at the lunch, which had been drawn up by architect Clifford Cushard of Cushard Design Associates. Target date for the construction of the space is March 2009. The user agreements still need to be hammered out by legal counsel.

But now after hearing feedback from the potential users – about the physical space and the desired kinds of uses – Kessler said he’s developing a concrete and specific plan. As he put it at Tuesday’s lunch, he is “the decider,” which drew a laugh. But by phone, Kessler allowed that how the space actually gets used, and the day-to-day patterns that evolve, will be determined by those who are actually using the space.

[Editor's note: Please direct inquiries about the coworking space to Michael Kessler at coworkinga2 [at] gmail [daht] com]