The farm parcels consist of property on either side of Vreeland Road, which is currently in agriculture production. Additional properties under the same ownership, adjacent to the farmland parcels, are also being considered for inclusion in the city’s greenbelt program, and the Vreeland Road properties are near other properties already protected as part of the greenbelt – the Meyer Preserve, the Jack R. Smiley Preserve and the Schultz conservation easement. Cherry Hill Nature Preserve is located just north of the property. [.jpg of greenbelt properties as of May 2014]

Here’s a dynamic map of properties outside the city already protected under the city’s greenbelt program. A 30-year open space and parkland preservation millage, which voters approved in 2003, funds both the greenbelt program as well as land acquisition for city parks. The border indicates the area where greenbelt funds can be spent to protect properties.

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

At a subcommittee meeting on Sept. 3, members discussed the presentation and format for the Sept. 9 forum, which will include a review of responses from an online survey conducted this summer. [.pdf of survey responses, a 110-page document] [.pdf of slide presentation showing survey results]

Highlights from the survey, which received about 1,600 responses, include:

• 76.2% of respondents believe Ann Arbor would benefit from more downtown parks/open spaces.
• Activities and features that are viewed as most important in a downtown park or open space include a place to relax, read and people-watch; a landscaped/green space; a place with shade; food vendors; and free wireless Internet access.
• 67.8% supported paying for any new park or open space through a combination of public and private funding.
• In ranking most desirable and least desirable options for a downtown park, the top of the Library Lane parking lot on South Fifth Avenue was ranked as the most desirable spot, with 721 N. Main ranked as the least desirable.

The results include more than 600 responses to a prompt for open-ended comments.

The Sept. 9 forum will include a presentation by subcommittee members and staff, as well as time for conversations at several “stations” representing different downtown park options. A second forum will be held on Wednesday, Sept. 18 from 7-8:30 p.m. in the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron. More information is on the subcommittee’s website.

Originally, the committee had hoped to deliver recommendations to the full park advisory commission by August. It’s possible that they’ll have a report prepared by PAC’s Oct. 15 meeting, according to Ingrid Ault, who chairs the subcommittee.

This subcommittee has been meeting since early February. Their work relates in part to a request that mayor John Hieftje made last summer to assess the city’s downtown parks. It’s also meant to supplement the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project, which focused on recommendations for development of five city-own lots in the downtown. For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Survey Drafted for Input on Downtown Parks,” “Parks Group To Weigh In On Downtown Need,” and “Committee Starts Downtown Parks Research,” as well as coverage included in the PAC meeting reports for March 19, 2013 and May 21, 2013.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connecting William Street

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connecting William Street: March 5 Meeting Logistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connecting William Street: Public Hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion

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

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Public Input

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

Amber Miller of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

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

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

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

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

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

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Library Lane

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

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

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

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Parks & Open Space

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

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

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Tony Derezinski.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Zoning & Density

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

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

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

Ann Arbor planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connecting William Street: Discussion – Pedestrian Connections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Transportation

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

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

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Affordable Housing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Woods said that cleared things up for her.

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

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

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Next Steps

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

Planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Kirk Westphal.

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

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

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

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

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Postponement?

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

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

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

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Vote

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

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

Connecting William Street: More Public Commentary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connecting William Street: Motion to Reconsider

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

Planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan.

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

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

Eric Lipson and Mary Hathaway attended the Sept. 18, 2012 Ann Arbor park advisory commission meeting to advocate for more green space in the downtown area, specifically on top of the Library Lane parking structure. (Photos by the writer.)

PAC took action on one of those topics, passing a resolution to give formal input on the Connecting William Street project. That effort, led by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, is process to examine five city-owned parcels for possible redevelopment. All but one of the sites are now used as surface parking lots.

PAC did not advocate that a particular site be turned into a park. Rather, the resolution recommends that the Ann Arbor city council seek additional evaluation of locations for a downtown park, the best mix of amenities for the population expected to use a downtown park, and the costs of developing and maintaining a new addition to the parks system. PAC also recommends that the council refrain from adopting plans for the five city-owned lots before resolving the question about open space in the Connecting William Street area. [.pdf of final Connecting William Street resolution]

At the start of the meeting, three members of the Library Green Conservancy – advocates of creating a commons on top of the Library Lane underground parking structure – spoke during public commentary. [The Library Lane site is one of the five properties included in the Connecting William Street project.] They urged commissioners to support their plan for a park at that location, adjacent to the library. The underground structure was built with a foundation to support a high-rise building on the site, in addition to a plaza area. PAC’s recommendation to the city council did not highlight that particular site.

Also during the meeting, commissioners heard from two speakers during public commentary who supported the creation of more dog parks. One speaker noted that despite potential problems – such as dog fights and the fact that ”pooping can occasionally go unnoticed” – a dog park poses no greater liability than a skatepark, pool or “even simply sidewalks.”

Colin Smith, the parks and recreation manager, told commissioners that staff did not support an unfenced option, but indicated that they’re exploring possible locations for one or more fenced-in dog parks. One possible site: A parcel on the east side of West Park, near the entrance off of Chapin.

PAC also was briefed on plans for rain gardens and other biodetention measures at Miller Nature Area and Garden Homes Park, in connection with a major reconstruction of Miller Avenue next year.

Smith also updated commissioners on letters of objection that had been submitted to the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) regarding plans to build a section of whitewater in the Huron River, near the Argo Cascades. A permit is needed from the MDEQ before the project can move forward. For a full report on this issue, see Chronicle coverage: “EPA, Others Object to Whitewater Project.”

It was the last meeting for commissioner Doug Chapman, whose term ended on Sept. 30. At the city council’s Oct. 1 meeting, his replacement was confirmed: Melissa Stults, a doctoral student at the University of Michigan’s Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning.

Connecting William Street

On the agenda was a resolution to make a recommendation to city council regarding a downtown park. The resolution came in response to a request from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which had asked park commissioners for input on the Connecting William Street project. That effort is focused on developing a plan for five city-owned properties along William Street, between Ashley and Division. Four of the parcels are surface parking lots; the fifth is a parking structure at Fourth & William.

PAC members previously had a lengthy discussion on the issue at their land acquisition committee meeting in early September. [See Chronicle coverage: "Park Commissioners: More Green, Please."] They concluded that the possible development scenarios being floated by the DDA did not include sufficient green space or parkland.

Connecting William Street: Public Commentary

Three people spoke about the need for a downtown park. Gwen Nystuen – a long-time PAC member who was term-limited and left the commission this summer – said she was part of the Library Green Conservancy, advocating for more open space downtown. She hoped that PAC’s resolution would highlight the fact that there aren’t many parks or much open space right now. The Connecting William Street choices seem to be “dense, dense or denser,” she said, but a survey done by the DDA had found that a desire for more open space was one of the top four responses. With more dwelling units being added downtown, the city needs more open space, she said.

Eric Lipson, another member of the Library Green Conservancy, told commissioners that he’d been heartened to hear some of them ask why there isn’t more green space in the Connecting William Street scenarios. It’s been disappointing to see the scenarios lacking in this regard, especially because there have been several large-scale studies that promoted the idea of more green space. In the Calthorpe plan, for example, the only site-specific mention of public space was the top of the Library Lane underground parking structure. Now, that space is being used for surface parking, he noted. The conservancy wants as much of that area as possible to be used as a plaza.

Lipson noted that a plurality of responses to the DDA survey had listed urban open space as a priority, yet it’s not in the Connecting William Street plans – except for a “tiny” amount of green space on top of Library Lane. The argument that downtown parks attract bad elements is no excuse, he added. That’s a problem, but it shouldn’t be a reason to shut down parks. The Library Lane site would be perfect, Lipson concluded, because of its proximity to the library, the AATA’s Blake Transit Center, and local restaurants.  He hoped that commissioners would listen to a large segment of the population as they considered this issue.

Conservancy member Mary Hathaway agreed with the points made by Nystuen and Lipson, and said she wanted to address the question of why the top of the Library Lane structure should be used as a park, rather than other parcels. For one thing, the city already owns it, she said. The city still owes money on the former YMCA site on William between Fourth and Fifth, and it might be good to sell it before the balloon payment is due. The suggestion that the downtown library could build on top of the Library Lane structure is impractical, she said. It’s a financial disadvantage to the library to build anywhere except its current site, at the corner of Fifth and William.

Hathaway also pointed out that city officials don’t want different ideas for each of the four surface parking lots that are part of Connecting William Street. They want a connected plan – that’s reflected in the project’s name, she said. There’s a strong desire for a pedestrian-friendly design. People should be led to enjoy walking from Main Street to State Street and beyond, with a series of green, enticing paths. The central feature of that would be right next to the library, she said. The land there is already connected with a diagonal path to Liberty Plaza and an east/west path between Fifth and Division. It would draw people in, she said. So she hoped commissioners would consider the Library Lane site as the prime location for a downtown Central Park. She brought handouts and larger drawings that showed how a park could occupy that space as well as a building, in a very attractive way – the conservancy isn’t opposed to a building there, she noted.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion

PAC chair Julie Grand began the discussion by saying she drafted the resolution based on her view of the consensus that commissioners had reached at their Sept. 4 land acquisition committee meeting. The draft resolution read as follows:

Whereas, the DDA has been charged by City Council to make recommendations regarding five City-owned lots through its Connecting William Street initiative;

Whereas, the PROS plan recommends that PAC work with the DDA to consider plans for downtown open space, including, but not limited to the Library Lane lot;

Whereas, the PROS plan reflects PAC’s commitment to, “assure citizens a voice in the decision-making process of the park, recreation, and open space system, including acquisition, planning, and development”;

Whereas, many community members have expressed a preference for a downtown park in this area;

Whereas, PAC recognizes the potential benefits of downtown density, the value of mixed-use interface with downtown open space, and the importance of creating a safe, attractive programmable space in the downtown;

Whereas, PAC is in agreement that the amount of open space currently proposed in the DDA’s plans for Connecting William Street may be insufficient;

Whereas, PAC is in agreement that there is more than one potential site for open space within the five City-owned properties;

Resolved, that PAC recommends additional input from City staff regarding the evaluation of locations for a downtown park, the best mix of amenities for the population expected to utilize a downtown park, and the costs of developing and maintaining a new addition to the Parks system.

Resolved, that PAC recommends that City Council refrain adopting plans for three of the five City-owned lots prior to resolving the question of open space within the Connecting William Street area.

Alan Jackson asked a question of Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager. Given that the resolution calls for input from city staff, Jackson said, does the staff actually have the resources to handle that?

Julie Grand, chair of the Ann Arbor park advisory commission, talks with former PAC member Gwen Nystuen prior to the start of PAC’s Sept. 18 meeting.

Smith described it as a multifaceted issue. Staff is currently providing information on multiple sites, including 721 N. Main, 415 W. Washington, the Library Lane site, Liberty Plaza and the overall issue of downtown parks, per the mayor’s request. [Mayor John Hieftje had attended PAC's August meeting and asked commissioners to help prioritize action regarding downtown parks.]

“It’s work that needs to be done,” Smith said.

Grand continued, saying that the point of the resolution is to state that no hasty recommendations should be made without the input of parks staff.

Tim Berla said that overall, he supported the resolution. But he felt they should take it a step further, and state that there should be a park in the William Street part of downtown. He believed that PAC is in agreement on that, and should go on the record about it.

Bob Galardi said he wanted to ask a procedural question. Does PAC decide where parks should be built? [In addition to serving on PAC, Galardi is a member of the  leadership & outreach committee of the Ann Arbor DDA's Connecting William Street project.]

Berla replied that PAC can advise city council on anything it wants. If PAC members agree on an exact plan, they can recommend it to council. That doesn’t mean that the council will do it, he noted.

Galardi then highlighted one of the resolution’s whereas clauses: “Whereas, PAC is in agreement that the amount of open space currently proposed in the DDA’s plans for Connecting William Street is potentially insufficient;…” He wanted to know what amount of open space would be considered sufficient: Is there some sort of ratio?

Grand noted that there are recommendations about open space in the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, and technically, the downtown area meets those guidelines. But that doesn’t mean PAC can’t evaluate what might be needed if more buildings are constructed, as proposed in the Connecting William Street scenarios.

Galardi ventured that they were being more qualitative than quantitative in their approach. That’s definitely true, Grand said – it’s fuzzy.

Berla characterized the project as a new approach for the city, and he hoped that in five years the downtown density of businesses and residents would be higher than anywhere else in Ann Arbor. But they don’t have experience in this kind of thing, he noted. He referred to a resolution that he had prepared, which he did not formally bring forward, that proposed looking at a much larger section of downtown, not just the Connecting William Street area.

Smith offered to come back at a later date with additional information about the guidelines that Grand had pointed to from the PROS plan, as well as some comparative data from other communities. He noted that there is a desire for more green space – that was reflected in responses to the DDA’s survey.

Referring to another point in the PROS plan, Grand said part of their task is to plan for the future and anticipate future needs. This resolution fits in with that mission, she said.

John Lawter felt that perhaps the final resolved clause could be stronger, and that they should mention any deadlines that might apply. Galardi clarified the next steps. There will be another public meeting in October, then the committee will develop recommendations to present to the city council. PAC’s resolution will be part of the mix when the committee evaluates all the feedback it has received.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Where to Put the Park?

Some of the discussion centered on where to focus the possible recommendations for a park or open space. Galardi wondered why the draft recommended looking at only three of the five sites for Connecting William Street?

Park advisory commissioner Bob Galardi is also a member of the  leadership & outreach committee of the Ann Arbor DDA’s Connecting William Street project.

Grand replied that in previous discussions, no one seemed enthusiastic about recommending a park at the Ashley site, on the west side of the project area. And it wouldn’t be feasible to recommend it for the large parking structure at Fourth and William.

Galardi felt that all sites should be considered, so that they wouldn’t be pre-selecting.

Tim Doyle pointed out that they also had focused on just the three sites because those were the best positioned to make a connection between Main Street and the University of Michigan campus. That goal shouldn’t be forgotten, he said.

Berla highlighted a point he’d made previously: That the city should decide where it wants to put a park before selling off any property. He’d be open to sites other than the three possibilities in the Connecting William Street area, but the main thing is to make a decision about a park location before selling or developing anything.

Smith cautioned against identifying a specific location for a park without knowing what might be located around it. That could result in an impractical, underused park, he said. Smith felt that development and a park needed to happen in a coordinated way.

The two councilmembers who also serve as ex-officio members of PAC – Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – were asked for their opinions about what advice would be most helpful.

Taylor suggested it would be helpful to know what kind of features PAC would like to see. A tree-filled and canopy-laden park? Playgrounds? A “soft” public meeting space? The council would also be interested in knowing PAC’s rationale – why commissioners feel that a particular type of park is important.

Anglin said this discussion had been very meaningful, in terms of looking at the future of the city’s first urban park. He felt that such a downtown park would exceed the usership of even the Ann Arbor farmers market. There might be opportunities for performance art, he said, if the public art millage passes. [The mechanism of a millage would allow for more flexibility in funding certain types of projects, like temporary performance art. The current Percent for Art program, which uses capital dollars, does not allow for that.] Anglin felt a park could be an economic generator, drawing people downtown.

There was some discussion about whether to include a whereas clause about the value of an urban park for economic development, but that addition didn’t gain traction.

Galardi noted that the main message PAC wants to sent to the DDA and city council is that they need to more actively consider green space in their planning. As far as the ideas mentioned by Taylor, Galardi thought PAC still needed to “get our act together” on that. He said he’d be comfortable passing the more general resolution, to give quick feedback to the DDA.

Karen Levin noted that they could address more detailed issues at a retreat, which has not yet been scheduled.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – How Much Green Space?

Part of the discussion centered on how to quantify the amount of green or open space needed in the downtown area.

Referring to the three scenarios that the DDA had presented at PAC’s August meeting, Ingrid Ault noted that the amount of green space in each scenario was the same, although density levels for residents and businesses varied widely. She felt it was important to send a message to the council that there should be a proportionate increase in green space, as density increased.

When she referred to the scenarios as “options,” Bob Galardi quickly pointed out that these scenarios are not intended to be options or proposals. They are ideas that can be mixed and matched. He felt uncomfortable talking about proportions, because that implies a ratio or formula that somehow defines what “sufficient” means.

Alan Jackson said that even though he’s a physicist he didn’t want to formulize this approach. They should make judgments, he said. The key thing is that there’s an opportunity here because these parcels are undeveloped, so they should figure out where a park could be located. They shouldn’t lose sight of this historic opportunity.

Julie Grand noted that regardless of whether the scenarios are options or not, members of PAC still feel there is insufficient green space in all of the scenarios. Tim Doyle ventured that PAC would advocate for more open space, even if there were no population gains in the downtown area. The city doesn’t have a town square, he said, reminding commissioners that Ann Arbor is known as the “city of trees.” His sense is the city needs a park in this area.

Colin Smith asked whether their opinion would change if they factored in the possibility of adding parkland in other parts of town, like 721 N. Main (near Summit) or the DTE/MichCon property off of Broadway, near Argo Dam. Galardi threw the First & William site into the mix – would that change their opinion?

Smith said his point is to ask whether they’re considering this issue in isolation, or in the totality of the downtown area. It’s worth asking the question, he said.

Berla replied that he could imagine people walking between the library and Main Street, but not further west down the hill to First & William. He felt the DTE site could be a great community gathering space.

Grand said she’d like to consider this question in totality, but that time constraints required them to focus on the confines of the Connecting William Street project. Berla wondered why the DDA couldn’t have a scenario D, with a larger park.

Galardi observed that the Connecting William Street committee hadn’t completed its work. He promised to take PAC’s formal resolution – as well as the tenor of this discussion – and report it to the other committee members as they develop final recommendations for council.

Connecting William Street: Commission Discussion – Minor Amendments

After additional discussion, the commission reached consensus on some minor amendments to the draft resolution. The first five whereas clauses were unchanged. Changes in the remaining clauses are indicated in strike-through for deletions and italics for additions:

Whereas, PAC is in agreement that the amount of open space currently proposed in the DDA’s plans for Connecting William Street may be is insufficient;

Whereas, PAC is in agreement that there is more than one potential site for open space within the five City-owned properties under consideration;

Resolved, that PAC recommends additional input from City staff regarding the evaluation of locations for a downtown park, the best mix of amenities for the population expected to utilize a downtown park, and the costs of developing and maintaining a new addition to the Parks system.

Resolved, that PAC recommends that City Council refrain adopting plans for three of the five City-owned lots prior to resolving the question of open space within the Connecting William Street area.

[.pdf of final Connecting William Street resolution]

Outcome: On a 7-2 vote, commissioners passed a resolution urging the city council to get more input for a possible downtown park. Voting against the resolution were Ingrid Ault and Bob Galardi.

Dog Parks

At PAC’s Aug. 21 meeting, commissioners had voted to direct its dog park subcommittee to work with city staff and develop recommendations that could lead to additional off-leash dog parks.

John Lawter, PAC’s vice chair, has been leading this initiative, advocating in particular for more options in Ann Arbor’s central area. He gave a formal presentation on the topic at PAC’s Aug. 16, 2011 meeting. Currently there are two legal off-leash dog parks in Ann Arbor, at Olson Park and Swift Run – on the far north and south sides of the city. Lawter has recommended incorporating this goal into the city’s park planning efforts, adding it as a consideration when looking at land acquisitions, and asking that parks staff actively look for potential sites.

Dog Parks: Public Commentary

Susan Miller told commissioners that years ago, she regularly took her dogs to a field near the former Gelman Sciences plant in Scio Township. She later found the group of dog owners who gathered on Saturdays at Slauson Middle School, but that gathering was shut down recently, she noted. Miller said she doesn’t fault anyone, but there’s still a large, unmet need for a centrally located place for dogs and their owners to congregate in Ann Arbor. The city has failed to fill this need.

Miller described in detail the different dogs and people of all ages that she’d met, noting that she isn’t able to interact with them anymore because there’s no place to gather. Her point is that dog parks are about recreation for dogs and the community. Yes, problems can arise, she acknowledged. Dogs might fight and ”pooping can occasionally go unnoticed.” But these pose no greater liabilities than a skatepark, pool “or even simply sidewalks,” Miller said. She hoped commissioners would consider putting in a more centrally located dog park.

Describing himself as a lifelong Ann Arbor resident, Harold Kirchen also spoke in favor of another dog park. He said he knew Miller because of the Slauson dog party, and that they both knew PAC commissioner John Lawter for that same reason. Lawter is PAC’s “resident scofflaw,” Kirchen joked, referring to the fact that letting dogs run off-leash at Slauson had violated a city ordinance. In the past, the city hasn’t dealt with this need, Kirchen said. One city dog park is “halfway to Whitmore Lake,” he said, referring to Olson Park on the city’s north side, and the other [Swift Run, on the southeast side of town] is almost in Ypsilanti.

Kirchen also addressed possible concerns, saying that when a lot of people are around, someone is bound to call out a “poop alert” when they see a dog defecating. So the possibility of dog poop being left in the area is a false issue, he said. Also, people are better behaved when they’re watched by their peers – “just ask any cop.” He reported that when he went for a walk in the woods this spring, he filled two buckets with dog poop that had been left near the trail. At a dog park, people would self-police, he contended.

Dog Parks: Commission Discussion

Later in the meeting, Colin Smith – the city’s parks and recreation manager – gave a report on the dog park initiative. He noted that staff had met with the dog park subcommittee and reviewed previous work that had been done on this issue. The need for a centrally located dog park is identified as part of the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, which is used to guide capital spending and funding priorities. So the idea is not a new one, he said.

The staff has also reached out to other communities to get feedback about how off-leash parks have worked, Smith reported. They talked a lot about unfenced areas in particular, he said, and didn’t get positive feedback about that approach. Concerns that were raised included dogs leaving the designated areas and going onto private property. One community reported that they wound up fencing in an area that was initially unfenced, and that both dog owners and nearby property owners preferred the fenced-in park. Based on this feedback, Ann Arbor parks staff doesn’t support an unfenced dog park, Smith said. An additional point is that establishing an unfenced dog park would require an ordinance amendment, which Smith characterized as a lengthy and cumbersome process.

From left: Park advisory commissioners John Lawter and Tim Doyle. Lawter is spearheading an effort to create one or more centrally located dog parks in Ann Arbor.

Smith said the staff looked at possible areas in existing parks. The field at Slauson is bowl-shaped, with fencing on one side, creating a defined space – even though it wasn’t fenced-in. But in looking at Ann Arbor’s larger “programmable” parks, there aren’t many areas that would work, Smith said. The northwest corner of West Park has some of those characteristics, but it runs up against private property and the stormwater feature.

That said, Smith reported that the parks staff supports adding another off-leash, fenced area for dogs. So the next questions to address are how many of such areas should be created, and in what parts of town? They’d need to establish criteria for ranking locations, then visit different locations and rate each one. He hoped to have a report and recommendations for PAC at their Oct. 16 meeting.

No decisions would be made in October, he stressed – this is all background work. In 2007, when the city was evaluating locations for what eventually became the two existing dog parks, other sites were also evaluated as possible fenced-in dog parks, Smith noted. Rather than reinventing the wheel, it makes sense to revisit those other locations. One of those was Riverside Park, but now that’s become heavily programmed by sports groups. Another option is the parcel in the northeast corner of West Park, where the city recently bought and demolished the house on that site, near the entrance off of Chapin.

If PAC supports the recommendations that staff brings forward, Smith said, the next step would be to hold neighborhood meetings in the areas that have been identified as potential dog parks.

John Lawter told commissioners that although it sounded like there were many hurdles in this process, he wanted to put a more positive spin on it. The staff is looking at possibilities for a fenced-in dog park, but that doesn’t mean the door has closed on an unfenced area. But he agrees with staff that it makes sense to look at a more traditional fenced-in dog park at this point, rather than spending energy pushing for an unfenced option.

Assuming they can make recommendations in October and hold neighborhood meetings after that, Lawter believed it’s possible to get site approval from the city council by December. A fence would then be put up whenever the city can identify funding for the project, he said. Lawter noted that his original concern with a fenced-in dog park is that the cost would be prohibitive, but he’s been assured that the expense wouldn’t be too great and that it might be built within a year. He’s satisfied with the process, and the important thing is that the project is moving forward.

Smith observed that the original dog park project – Swift Run, at Ellsworth and Platt – had been a true capital project, as the 10-acre site had to be reshaped for a different use. The land also posed challenges for the fencing, he said. [Located on a former landfill, it also includes a gravel parking lot.] The next fenced-in dog park would be more like fencing someone’s back yard, at a fairly low cost.

Julie Grand suggested there might be a dog lover in the city who’d be willing to donate the cost – and perhaps the dog park could be named after the donor.

The West Park entrance off Chapin, looking west. A lot on the right side of this image is one potential location for a fenced-in dog park.

Tim Berla recalled that there used to be a group that attended PAC meetings to lobby for a dog park. Perhaps such a group could take responsibility for an unfenced dog park. He said that some of his dog-loving friends feel it’s dangerous to have an unfenced park, but perhaps an organized dog group could help with some of these issues.

Smith reported that this summer, the city’s park supervisors dropped by Swift Run and Olson dog parks to help educate residents about the need for dog licenses. Between May and mid-June, they found 107 unlicensed dogs at those parks. From mid-June until now, only 14 dogs were at the dog parks without tags. That’s a dramatic shift, Smith said.

Lawter noted that maintaining an active volunteer group is difficult. Now that there’s a volunteer coordinator for parks, that would go a long way in helping to keep such a group alive, he said.

Ingrid Ault asked whether they’d be considering just one more dog park. Not necessarily, Smith replied. One of the things that needs to be determined is how many dog parks are desired, and where they might be located. If more than one site is conducive to a dog park, they can consider that. Ault also requested that PAC be provided with a map showing the locations of Swift Run and Olson dog parks.

Outcome: This was not an action item – no vote was taken. Staff recommendations for possible dog park locations are expected at PAC’s Oct. 16 meeting.

Bioretention at Miller Nature Area & Garden Homes Park

Nick Hutchinson, a project manager in the city’s public services unit, briefed commissioners on plans to add bioretention areas – including rain gardens – in the Miller Nature Area and Garden Homes Park. Both city properties are along Miller Avenue, which will be reconstructed next year between Newport Road and North Maple. Coordinating with that road reconstruction, the city is planning this project to help improve stormwater management in the area.

Map showing planned bioretention areas along Miller Avenue.

There are three places where the Miller Nature Area extends to Miller Avenue. The “finger” of land that’s the farthest east – between 1553 and 1575 Miller – is where one of the bioretention areas will be located. The project calls for removing vegetation, regrading the area, and planting seeds for native plants. Some of the flow from the existing stormwater pipe along Miller would be diverted into the bioretention area, and the current path would be rebuilt to go around the bioretention site.

Garden Homes Park is located further west of Miller Nature Area, north of Miller between Franklin and Fulmer. The bioretention there would be located at the northwest corner of Miller and Franklin, which Hutchinson described as an “isolated fragment” of the park. A similar approach would be taken to remove vegetation, regrade, and replant seeds of native plants. Stormwater would be diverted off Miller to flow under the sidewalk and into the bioretention basin.

A new path would be built through the bioretention area to provide better access to the park from that corner.

Hutchinson noted that public meetings have been held with residents, and the sites were selected with input of staff from parks and the natural area preservation program.

Bioretention: Public Commentary

Natalie Fulkerson told commissioners that her family lived on Miller Avenue, next to the section where the bioretention work is proposed. She thanked PAC member Alan Jackson for visiting them to see the situation. She expressed appreciation to the city for these improvements, and said she’s excited about most of the plans. However, one concern is the plan to relocate the path. The new path would abut their back yard. They have a seven-year-old son, she said, and are concerned about strangers and off-leash dogs. The plans also call for removing some of the trees and growth that currently provide screening and privacy for their property. She hoped that the plans could be modified, and she thanked commissioners for their attention.

Bioretention: Commission Discussion

Commissioners asked Hutchinson several clarificational questions about the project, and generally expressed support for the changes. Alan Jackson said he hoped the plans could be modified to respond to concerns raised by Natalie Fulkerson during public commentary. Hutchinson indicated that the project could accommodate those issues, possibly with more plantings to act as a screen – and the staff had already discussed it.

Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager for Ann Arbor, talks with Natalie Fulkerson, a resident who lives near the Miller Nature Area.

Jackson also wondered how wet the areas would become, especially during spring rains. Would there be standing water? Hutchinson replied that there might be some standing water after a rainfall, but as the rain garden plants take root, those plants help absorb the water.

John Lawter asked about the project’s funding source. Hutchinson said that although staff from the city’s natural area preservation program will perform the work, it will be paid for out of the city’s stormwater fund.

Mike Anglin noted that some of the lawn extensions in that area are quite large, and that residents might be encouraged to install rain gardens there as well. Perhaps the city could work some kind of deal with residents to do that, he said.

Responding to a question from Tim Berla, Hutchinson said the rain gardens are intended to help the flow of water as well as its quality. By detaining some of the stormwater, the rain gardens would slow the flow of water going downstream. The plants would also help filter out pollutants.

Berla wondered if there was any chance that this project might actually make flooding worse. He noted that he had attended a meeting of residents in the West Park area, where many expressed the opinion that flooding had worsened after the city’s stormwater project there. Hutchinson replied that the rain gardens would also have outlet areas so that during heavy rains, there are designated places for water overflow. Overall, the project is located in the upper edge of Allen Creek, he said, so it could only help the situation downstream.

Tim Doyle wondered what happened to rain gardens during drought conditions. Would the plants survive? That question was fielded by David Borneman, manager of the city’s natural area preservation program. He noted that conditions like they’ve seen this summer are hard for some plantings. The critical period is the first couple of years – after that, the plants are deeply rooted and can withstand drought conditions.

Colin Smith wrapped up the discussion by noting that this project ties in with the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan, which calls for using unused portions of the parks for stormwater management. He also thought the changes at Garden Homes Park would greatly improve the “curb appeal” of that area.

Misc. Communications

There were opportunities for communications from staff or commissioners during the Sept. 18 meeting.

Misc. Communications: Objections to Whitewater Project

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, reported to commissioners that several letters of objection had been submitted to the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) regarding plans to build a section of whitewater in the Huron River, near the Argo Cascades. A permit is needed from the MDEQ before the project can move forward. Objections were filed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the state Dept. of Natural Resources fisheries division, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the local Huron River Watershed Council.

For a full report on this issue, see Chronicle coverage: “EPA, Others Object to Whitewater Project.”

Misc. Communications: Farewell to Chapman

Julie Grand, PAC’s chair, noted that this was the last meeting for Doug Chapman, whose term ended in September. She thanked him for his service on the commission. Chapman described it as a positive experience, and said he was sorry he didn’t have the chance to work with the new commissioners. [Within the last few months, three term-limited PAC members – Gwen Nystuen, Sam Offen and David Barrett – have been replaced by Ingrid Ault, Bob Galardi and Alan Jackson.]

Chapman’s position has been filled by Melissa (Missy) Stults, for a three-year term running through Sept. 30, 2015. Her appointment was confirmed at the Ann Arbor city council’s Oct. 1 meeting. According to her application, she is a research scientist and doctoral student at the University of Michigan’s Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning.

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

Next meeting: PAC’s meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2012 begins at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

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

Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board members Roger Hewitt (left) and Keith Orr. They're examining a Girl Scout badge created for assisting in the Downtown Blooms event. The car on the wall in the background is a mockup of the planned wayfinding system for the levels of the new underground parking structure, anticipated to open by mid-July. (Photos by the writer.)

One of those structures farther west of the campus is the new underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue, which is nearing completion. The garage, which the DDA is currently calling the “Library Lane” parking structure, is now expected to open by the time the art fairs begin, which this year fall on July 18–21. South Fifth Avenue between Liberty and William is expected to re-open by Memorial Day.

A characterization of that timing as “on schedule” was disputed during public commentary by Ali Ramlawi, owner of the Jerusalem Garden restaurant. Jerusalem Garden is adjacent to the construction site. Ramlawi noted that the structure was originally due to be completed by August 2011.

The future use of the top of the underground garage was the subject of public commentary from advocates who’d like to see it used as a green plaza. That suggestion was met with remarks from mayor John Hieftje, who sits on the DDA board, with a description of his expectation that three major parcels would soon be incorporated into the city’s park system – 721 N. Main, 415 W. Washington, and the MichCon property (located between the Amtrak rail station and the Huron River near the Broadway bridges). Hieftje’s point was that the additional financial burden for the maintenance of those parcels as parks might impact the city’s ability to add a downtown green plaza to the park system.

Requests for better information about the parking system and suggestions for disseminating information about the availability of open parking spaces were topics of additional public commentary.

Although it was not an action item, the board discussed a draft policy on supporting “brownfield” projects – a policy prompted by discussions at the board’s partnerships committee over the last few months. [.pdf of draft DDA brownfield policy]

The committee has been discussing a proposal by Dan Ketelaar for support of a proposed development at 618 S. Main, which received a positive recommendation from the Ann Arbor planning commission on Jan. 19, 2012. If the project moves forward, the 7-story building would include 190 units for 231 bedrooms, plus two levels of parking for 121 vehicles. Ketelaar has estimated that the tax on the increment between the current valuation of the property and the final built project would yield around $250,000 a year in TIF (tax increment finance) revenue to the DDA. If adopted as it’s currently worded in the draft, the formula in the policy would translate into up to $625,000 of support for 618 S. Main.

The board also received updates on the third-quarter financial statements for the DDA, as well as an update on the Connection William Street planning project. 

The DDA manages the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor that ensures the city receives 17% of the gross parking revenues, which amounts to around $3 million annually.

So parking is typically a topic at DDA board meetings that receives a great deal of time and attention. The May 2, 2012 meeting was no different. The construction of the new parking garage on South Fifth Avenue was highlighted at the meeting in three ways: (1) public comment on future planning for the top of the underground parking garage from advocates of a public park to be constructed there; (2) a resolution to help foster usage of the new garage through differential pricing; and (3) and the regular update on construction progress.

Parking Structure Park

A request for proposals (RFP) process that could have led to the selection of a development project on the top of the underground parking structure was terminated by the Ann Arbor city council on April 4, 2011. The structure includes reinforced footings designed to support future development on the site.

Parking Structure Park: Public Comment – Library Green

Will Hathaway told the board that he was speaking on behalf of group of Ann Arborites advocating for a downtown public park – a Library Green on the Library Lot. He allowed that there are other competing views for the future of the Library Lot. He also allowed that there are also concerns about the possible impact of public open space in the downtown.

He reviewed the site plan for the top of the parking structure, given the absence of any future development on the top of the lot. The design includes 40 parking spaces, he said.

The red rectangle outlines the area where Hathaway and the Library Green advocates would like to see a public park/plaza constructed, instead of using all the available area for surface parking. (Image links to higher resolution .pdf file)

Hathaway then reviewed the configuration of the spaces that are currently planned for the top of the structure. He suggested that a public plaza be created now and proposed a configuration that would leave 18 parking spaces, but would allow for a plaza too.

He invited the DDA board to think about an interactive water feature or an ice rink or a piece of public art like The Cube as elements of the plaza. He reported that he’d been on a tour of the underground garage, which is nearing completion, and he allowed that in some ways it’s architecturally beautiful.

But it needs a better “crown,” Hathaway said, than a surface parking lot.

Eric Lipson introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor and former city planning commissioner. He told the board he was also wearing the hat of a Library Green advocate. He explained that as general manager of the Inter-Cooperative Council, he was also representing a stakeholder in the Connecting William Street project. The ICC houses 600 members, and its headquarters is located on East William Street, within the area of study for that project.

Lipson reminded the DDA board of the Calthorpe process that the community had engaged in around 2005. He described it as an extensive process that had included a series of design charettes. One of the ideas that had emerged was the need for a public plaza, or a “town square.” The Calthorpe report mentions a town square over a dozen times, Lipson said, and depicts such a square on the Library Lot.

Lipson called it a perfect time to revisit the question of what to put on top of the underground structure. He told the board it was doing an excellent job on the Connecting William Street project. The DDA’s planning and research specialist, Amber Miller, and executive director Susan Pollay were doing a good job, he said. The speaker series that Concentrate is sponsoring as a part of that is very useful, he said.

Right now the plan for the top of the Library Lot is for it to be a surface parking lot [until some other possible future use is identified]. But surface parking lots are anathema to active downtowns, he said. He encouraged the DDA board to put something on the site that is not a surface parking lot. He acknowledged the concern about crime and panhandlers, but characterized that as a broader issue. The community shouldn’t sacrifice the idea of a plaza because of the issue of the homeless. He said that as he moved through downtown Ann Arbor walking along the sidewalks, he was approached more and more by panhandlers – but no one is suggesting we abolish sidewalks.

Ray Detter, during his report from the downtown citizens advisory council (CAC), said that Lipson and Hathaway had spoken to the advisory council at its meeting the night before. Detter said the CAC agreed with them that a plaza space should be part of the plan. But he said that a plaza space has always been part of the plan. The CAC agreed there should be a clear-cut process for using Library Lane when it was finished. [Library Lane is the mid-block cut-through from Division Street to Fifth Avenue just north of the current location of the downtown district library.] Detter said the CAC had affirmed a long-held commitment to tax-producing private development on top of the parking garage. The CAC has always believed that whatever goes on the top of the parking garage should benefit the library, Detter concluded.

Parking Structure Park: Board Response – Three Other Parks

Responding to the remarks of Library Green advocates about the perceived problem of panhandling as an argument against additional open space in the downtown, mayor John Hieftje noted that panhandling had been the focus of a task force that had done some work on the issue. He mentioned that people would start seeing posters appear that give suggestions for ways to help without giving money to a panhandler.

[By way of background, the city of Ann Arbor previously staffed a downtown beat patrol, which many officers chose to cover by bicycle. With the reduction of the police officer force, that specific patrol assignment has been reduced to the point of elimination. Many people have contended that there's an increased panhandling and other nuisance-type crimes in downtown Ann Arbor and that it can be attributed to the elimination of the downtown beat patrol.]

So in connection with panhandling, Hieftje then took the occasion to point out that later in May, the city council would be likely to approve a budget that does not cut 9 police officers as had been planned last year, but would add one, for a net gain of 10. He also pointed out that some additional personnel would be added as part of a recruitment program.

[In May 2011, the city council approved a budget that eliminated six police officer positions, with a plan to eliminate nine additional positions this year. So compared to 2010 budgeted levels for sworn officers, preserving the nine positions and adding one leaves Ann Arbor police officer staffing at five fewer for next year. That doesn't include the proposed recruitment program, which calls for potential new hires to the department to work under the direction of sworn officers.]

Image from the city/county flood map website showing the 721 N. Main parcel. The blue area is floodway. The green area is floodplain. Two of the three buildings on the parcel are in the floodway. They could be demolished with a FEMA grant described by mayor John Hieftje. Acceptance of the grant from FEMA would require a deed restriction against development in the floodway. (Image links to floodway mapping tool.)

Continuing his remarks on panhandlers, Hieftje noted that most of them are not homeless.

Hieftje then pitched a framework for discussing the future of the top of the underground parking garage – which Library Green advocates are suggesting should become a public park. Hieftje contended that it should be considered in the context of other significant anticipated additions to the city park system.

Hieftje indicated that the city council’s May 7 meeting would include a presentation about a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant for demolition of buildings on the city-owned 721 N. Main property.

By way of additional background, Jerry Hancock, the city’s floodplain manager, provided some explanation about the grant, which has been awarded but still awaits some steps on the city’s part. One of those steps is updating the city’s All-Hazard Plan, which had expired, delaying the award of the grant by FEMA.

From The Chronicle’s March 5, 2012 city council meeting report:

Hancock responded by saying there’s only one other site on which the city has moved forward with FEMA applications: 721 N. Main St., a city-owned property.

The city had received approval of a grant to remove two storage structures in the floodway on the 721 N. Main site, but that grant has been delayed because the city’s All-Hazard Plan has expired. The city’s emergency manager, along with the city attorney’s office, is updating that, Hancock explained. Once that All-Hazard Plan is complete, the city will be able to move ahead with that grant. However, no other sites besides the two storage structures at 721 N. Main have been identified for FEMA applications, Hancock said.

At the DDA board meeting on May 2, Hieftje also said there was a real push being made to get the area across Main Street from the 721 N. Main property cleaned up – it’s the site of Avalon Housing‘s Near North affordable housing project, which currently has several vacant houses on it. Hieftje indicated that the city would be pursuing a state Natural Resources Trust Fund grant to make the 721 N. Main site the first of the greenway parks. It would have a linkage across Main Street under the railroad tracks to the countywide Border-to-Border Trail, he said. City staff would be investing time in planning for that, he said. Washtenaw County [parks and recreation], Hieftje reported, had agreed tentatively to participate in the project by making a match for the Natural Resources Trust Fund grant.

[Hieftje appears to have somewhat overstated the currently expected level of participation by the county's park and recreation program. In a phone interview, Bob Tetens – director of Washtenaw County parks and recreation – told The Chronicle that there was not anything yet on the table in front of the parks and recreation commission. He indicated that there'd been conversations with the city about the project, and that the idea of connecting the 721 N. Main property would be a good fit with the Connecting Communities grant program – a $600,000 annual program over five years, for a total of $3 million. Tetens also said that a project that's already partly funded through another source (like the state's Natural Resources Trust Fund) would enhance a project's application. However, there are more applications for various projects every year than Washtenaw County parks and recreation can fund through the Connecting Communities program, Tetens said.]

Hieftje characterized the land at 721 N. Main as something that the city needs to do something with – because the city doesn’t want to contribute to blight. [The property was previously the city's fleet maintenance yard, but was closed when the Wheeler Service Center opened in 2007.] He also reported that he’d been working with community members on the city-owned 415 W. Washington property. He said that not much progress has been made because of the condition of the old building. By council resolution, he said, that parcel will be a greenway park. [The council resolutions to which Hieftje is referring don't appear to commit the entire parcel to becoming a greenway park.]

Environmental cleanup work is being done on the MichCon property, located between the Amtrak rail station and the Huron River, near the Broadway bridges. Hieftje stated he hoped that would also become a park – across from the new whitewater features to be constructed in connection with the Argo Dam bypass, now called the Argo Cascades.

So as people start to think about adding parks, he said, people need to think about how to maintain them. According to the park advisory commission, Hieftje said, the city is at the limit of being able to maintain parks. Because the city already owns the 721 N. Main site, and because the MichCon property is one the city has wanted for 40 years to be cleaned up and added to the park system, those would be “first in line,” he stated. The capacity to care for another park will stretched, Hieftje said. He recommended to people who are working on the Library Green to take that into account: How will we maintain the park? Also, Hieftje invited Library Green advocates to think about how that fit into the competing interests of three large new parks that will need planning, development and maintenance.

Hieftje also said that he’d be recommending to the park advisory commission that they take up the issue of how to re-design Liberty Plaza [at Division and Liberty streets] so that it becomes a more active center and not something that people avoid. It’s fortunate that First Martin cares for the park, Hieftje said. [First Martin is an Ann Arbor firm that owns the building adjacent to Liberty Plaza.]

Picking up on Hieftje’s comments, Sandi Smith noted that the Connecting William Street committee members would have the future of the top of the underground parking garage on their radar as well, and noted that Liberty Plaza is within the boundary of the study area. Trying to maintain and activate two parks within the same block seems to be a difficult chore, she said.

Responding to Hieftje’s comments during the second opportunity for public comment at the end of the meeting, Jerusalem Garden owner Ali Ramlawi suggested that one idea of funding the maintenance for a public park plaza on top of the parking garage would be to take a fraction of a percent of the parking revenues collected from the structure.

Parking Demand Management

Parking demand management is basically a strategy of differential pricing – higher for higher demand areas and lower for lower demand areas – to try to optimize the available parking spaces in the system. At an April 9, 2012 city council work session, Ward 1 city councilmember Sabra Briere had asked DDA board member Roger Hewitt when residents could expect to see demand-management strategies implemented. At that work session, Hewitt had been presenting the DDA annual budget to the council.

Parking Demand Management: Resolution on Permits

At their May 2 meeting, the DDA board considered a resolution authorizing its operations committee (aka bricks & money and transportation committee) to use demand-management strategies to price monthly parking permits in Ann Arbor’s public parking system. The goal of adjusting monthly parking permit rates is to expand campus-area parking to structures other than those immediately adjacent to the University of Michigan campus. In broad strokes, “demand-management strategies” means pricing the most desirable parking options higher than those that are less desirable.

The move comes as the opening of the new underground parking structure on South Fifth Avenue, offering around 700 total spaces, is set to open by the start of the Ann Arbor art fairs, which this year run from July 18-21. Monthly permits for some of the spaces will be offered at the new structure, which will add to the five public parking structures where permits are available: Ann & Ashley, Forest Avenue, Fourth & William, Liberty Square (Tally Hall), and Maynard.

Under a demand-management strategy, prices of monthly permits at the underground parking structure are likely to be lower than at other structures.

The Ps denote parking structures offering monthly permit parking. (Image links to Google map.)

Hewitt noted that the DDA has been focusing on the completion of the new underground parking garage and has not had time to pay as much attention to parking demand-management initiatives.

As the DDA gets closer to opening the new underground garage, Hewitt said, the idea is to look at carrots and sticks for evening out the usage in the system. Rather than forcing people to move their permits from structures in high demand to those that are in lower demand, the idea is to offer incentives. There’s a number of ideas to relieve the pressure on the structures closest to campus – Forest, Maynard and Liberty Square. The idea is to move those folks into the new underground structure or the Fourth & William structure, he said.

The resolution authorized the operations committee to use parking demand management to alter rates to even out the demand in the system, he said.

Newcombe Clark questioned why there was an explicit mention of “two blocks west” in one of the “whereas” clauses. Hewitt assured him that the intent was to explore parking demand management for monthly permits throughout the system, without any particular boundary.

Outcome: The DDA board unanimously approved the resolution authorizing the operations committee to use parking demand management strategies to alter monthly parking permit rates.

Parking Demand Management: DDA-City Contract

The  Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority manages Ann Arbor’s public parking system under contract with the city. The DDA has the unilateral ability to set parking rates. To implement an increase, the DDA is required under the contract to complete a series of steps designed to ensure adequate notice and public input before implementation of a rate increase. From the contract [emphasis]:

Notwithstanding the foregoing, DDA shall not implement any increase in the Municipal Parking System’s hours of meter operation or parking rates intended to persist for more than three (3) months without first: (i) announcing, and providing written communication regarding, the details of such increase at a meeting of the DDA Board; (ii) providing all members of the public an opportunity to speak in a manner similar to a public hearing before the DDA Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting on the subject of the proposed increase (“Public Hearing”); and (iii) postponing any vote on the proposed increase until at least the regularly scheduled meeting of the DDA Board after the Public Hearing

The changes to the monthly permit system, which Hewitt characterized as “incentives,” do not appear to involve rate increases, but perhaps only decreases. So the various steps outlined in that contract clause would not apply.

Parking Demand Management: Public Comment

Edward Vielmetti addressed the board during the second opportunity for public commentary, and focused on the topic of demand management pricing. He ventured that sometimes people don’t have much of a choice as to where they can park and they pay whatever price they have to pay – because they don’t know much about what their alternatives are.

In addition to improved communication about availability of spaces, Vielmetti asked for better communication about information on the parking system performance – as opposed to simple pronouncements about the parking system being at full capacity.

Vielmetti also addressed the board at the start of the meeting on the topic of relatively low-tech ways to get parking space availability information to people who need it – people who are looking for a place to park.

He shared an experience he had visiting Toledo to watch the Toledo Mud Hens play. It’s usually easy to find a place to park, he said, and if the lots near the stadium are full, there are usually other lots that are easy enough to find. But on the occasion of the visit he described to the DDA board, the Detroit Tigers were playing, and all the lots were filled up. So he had to navigate using his wits and found the farmer’s market, which offered free parking.

Part of the challenge of parking in an unfamiliar place, he said, is not knowing the lay of the land. You have to figure out if the place you want to park is legal, and you might not know if the structure you know exists is already full. He said that what was fascinating about Toledo was not any kind of fancy smart phone application that anyone had running, but rather a sign at the border that advised people to tune their radios to AM 1640. That’s a station that tells you how much traffic was on the roads to get to the stadium, or to get to downtown Toledo from the Michigan border.

The radio station, Vielmetti said, would give estimated travel times to different places, on a constant loop. Every few minutes the information would be updated. It’s a low-power AM station that you can only hear in Toledo, he said. He suggested that setting up such a station would be within the means of any municipality or a public body like the DDA, and the radio station could tell people a little bit about what they need to do in the downtown. The DDA already has realtime parking information available, so potentially that information could be broadcast every three minutes and listeners could hear something like “All the lots have spaces available,” or if the Fourth and Washington structure is full, then it could advise people to use the underground garage.

Vielmetti said he wanted to revisit the realtime parking information issue that he’d raised with the DDA back in 2009. This time around, he said, he didn’t want to look at “fancy things” that only people with fancy phones could use, but something that people could tune into from their car radio.

Parking Demand Management: Parking Report

A report of the monthly parking figures are a standard part of every DDA board meeting. Generally, the message conveyed by Roger Hewitt is that revenues are up in excess of the rate increase, which he interprets as an indicator that demand for parking is increasing.

For the past few months, The Chronicle has charted out revenues and hourly patrons in the system as reflected in the DDA’s monthly reports over the last couple of years. Hourly patrons don’t include people who park at on-street meters, but rather those who pay hourly at a parking structure – as opposed to parking there using a monthly permit.

Ann Arbor public parking system revenue through March 31, 2012. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Ann Arbor public parking system hourly patrons (in structures) through March 31, 2012. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Parking Garage Construction

At its monthly meetings, the DDA board typically receives a report on the progress toward completion of the new underground parking garage on South Fifth Avenue. It will offer around 700 spaces underground. The surface lot that existed there previously offered 192 spaces.

Parking Garage Construction – Public Comment

Ali Ramlawi introduced himself as the owner of the Jerusalem Garden and a resident of Ward 5 – but he allowed that board members already knew who he was. [Ramlawi has addressed the board previously to raise essentially the same issues he did at the May 2 meeting.]

He described the construction of the underground parking structure as stretching now into its fourth calendar year, but was not yet complete. [The ceremonial groundbreaking took place in October 2009.] He reviewed some of the issues he’s raised before – loss of income, disruption in deliveries, forced evacuation [due to the emergence of a sinkhole]. He questioned how the construction contract was awarded to the Christman Company and contended that the choice of subcontractors by Christman had raised some eyebrows. He contended that the original contract with Christman had no penalties for being late and no reward for finishing on time. No one is held accountable, he complained. With the powers and budget the DDA board members have, they need to do a better job of awarding contacts, he said. If this were the private sector, he contended, someone would have been fired. Where are the penalties for the lateness? he asked.

He told the board that when they have the ceremonial opening celebration he would not be around for it because he didn’t want to “puke over [himself].”

Parking Garage Construction – Board Report

John Splitt gave the update on the construction of the underground garage. Work continues on the mechanicals. The most exciting part of things, he said, is that the backfilling on the plaza level is going along nicely and the waterproofing is almost complete. Backfilling on the “bridge” section, which will allow the re-opening of South Fifth Avenue, is almost complete, he said. Curbs are beginning to be formed on South Fifth Avenue. It’s on schedule to reopen by the end of May, and it’s anticipated that the underground garage will be open by the time that the art fairs start, he said. The fairs run from July 18-21 this year.

During the second opportunity for public commentary near the end of the meeting, Ali Ramlawi objected to Splitt’s use of the phrase “on schedule to open,” saying that the project is a year behind schedule. He contended that saying it was on schedule undermined the DDA’s credibility.

Following up on Splitt’s construction summary, Newcombe Clark asked that the depiction of the Lincoln Continental on the meeting room’s wall be explained, so that people did not think the DDA was getting into the sponsorship business. Splitt explained that it’s part of the underground garage wayfinding system – which will use both colors and four different automobiles to identify floors. The car is a mockup of a wayfinding sign.

“Brownfield” Policy Draft

The DDA board considered a draft policy on supporting “brownfield” projects – a policy prompted by discussions at the board’s partnerships committee over the last few months. [.pdf of draft DDA brownfield policy] The board was not expected to act on the policy, and did not vote.

“Brownfield” Policy Draft: Background

The DDA’s partnerships committee has been discussing a proposal by Dan Ketelaar for support of a proposed development at 618 S. Main, which received a positive recommendation from the Ann Arbor planning commission on Jan. 19, 2012. The 7-story building would include 190 units for 231 bedrooms, plus two levels of parking for 121 vehicles. Ketelaar has estimated that the tax on the increment between the current valuation of the property and the final built project would yield around $250,000 a year in TIF (tax increment finance) revenue to the DDA.

Ketelaar is asking that the DDA pledge 80% of its TIF capture money for six years – about $1.3 million – to support certain aspects of the project in connection with the state’s Community Revitalization Program. The CRP is the successor to the brownfield and historic preservation tax credit programs. In order to approve the tax credit, the state would like to see a commensurate commitment from local units – and Ketelaar is proposing that it take the form of the DDA’s support.

At the April 11, 2012 DDA partnerships committee meeting, one of the points that resonated strongest with some board members in favor of supporting the 618 S. Main project was the ability of the contribution to leverage state money that would otherwise not be invested in Ann Arbor. The amount of money from the state that could be leveraged is in the range of $3 million.

Under Ketelaar’s proposal, taxes on the property would still need to be paid. In other words, the DDA would not simply waive its tax capture on the property. The 618 S. Main project would be reimbursed for a portion of those taxes it would normally owe. In the draft policy, that’s reflected in the following passage: “The DDA will not forgo its TIF capture from a project; the DDA may elect to provide a grant to a project utilizing its funds, or it may elect to provide all or some of its support using such in-kind elements as access to parking for contractors or construction staging.”

The maximum amount of a possible grant described in the draft policy is “calculated by estimating 25% of the total TIF captured by a project over ten years.” In the case of the 618 S. Main project, that amounts to .25*(10*$250,000) = $625,000. That’s about half what the 618 S. Main project is requesting.

The DDA board has heard about the proposal on several occasions – first at the full board meeting on Feb. 1, 2012, and at four subsequent DDA partnerships committee meetings. DDA board members are cautious about the precedent that such a pledge might set, and the appropriateness of the DDA’s role at this early stage in the project. (Ketelaar has not yet acquired the land.) At the March 28 partnerships committee meeting, DDA board member Newcombe Clark expressed concern that, depending on the precise role defined for the DDA’s participation, the DDA could effectively be artificially inflating land values.

“Brownfield” Policy Draft: Board Discussion

Sandi Smith introduced the draft policy. Looking at the 618 S. Main project caused the partnerships committee to take a really hard look at the reasons why the DDA would participate in the project at all, some or a lot, she said. The committee felt that it was struggling with the idea of creating a precedent. So the committee wanted to make a strong policy statement that the DDA would be able to honor for the 618 S. Main project, as well as for projects that came after it.

She walked the board through some of the highlights of the draft policy. She said she was looking for board-wide feedback for further work by the partnerships committee.

Roger Hewitt said that a lot of his concerns were addressed by the draft policy – about the subjectivity of picking projects. He liked the idea of getting rid of as much subjectivity as possible. The idea of a state match was good, he said, as well as the idea that the only costs to be reimbursed would be public infrastructure, not parts of the development itself. He also wanted to make sure that the DDA would not be paying out more than the DDA would receive in TIF capture.

Smith assured Hewitt that nothing would be paid until the taxes have been paid. The DDA would never be in a position of being ahead of the taxes it had received. Hewitt said his concern was that the amount of the grant could become a larger percentage of the TIF, if the value of the project actually went down. He wanted some way to protect against that. Keith Orr suggested some kind of clause that states that while the grant amount would be based on the estimated value of the TIF capture, the payout would be capped by the actual value.

Russ Collins noted that the scenario that Hewitt was describing involved possibly paying out more than anticipated, but not more than the DDA was capturing. John Splitt noted that there could be flexibility to pay out sooner than the actual TIF capture was received, so that’s where the issue could arise – if it were paid out on a schedule sooner than the 10 years.

Splitt wondered if 25% was enough to make a difference in the project. Bob Guenzel clarified that “enough” meant whether it was enough to actually provide the matching leverage for state funds. Smith responded by saying that for past projects, the Liberty Lofts project [a residential development at Liberty and First] had been the most significant one – and that had amounted to 17% of the TIF over 10 years. Taking all that into account, she wondered if 25% was too high or too low.

Keith Orr agreed with the idea of making it as objective as possible and focusing on public infrastructure.

Newcombe Clark said he was happy that the DDA has continued to be creative even when the organization doesn’t have a lot of money. He appreciated the patience of Ketelaar, watching the “sausage making.” Clark said he’d enjoyed the process. Maybe the DDA didn’t make everyone happy or didn’t get it right the first time, he said – that’s always possible. He knew it was not perfect, but he felt that as a group the DDA board could pick it back up and shine it up some more. He said he’d had the fear that for a few years there’d be nothing the DDA would be able to do [because of diminished financial capacity] and he’d been proven wrong.

Collins quipped that he found Clark’s positive and optimistic attitude completely inappropriate, which drew laughs around the table. On a more serious note, Collins said that the DDA had structured itself as an organization that tends to assets. That causes a certain amount of fiscal conservatism. The draft brownfield policy, therefore, is very conservative, he said. But by being conservative, the DDA could miss the chance to be a stimulus to other private investment, which is the core of the DDA’s mission, he said. That’s the constant tension a DDA has, he ventured.

Clark suggested that based on past experience, once the DDA creates policies, it lays down the rules of engagement, and then people will line up with proposals. Collins continued with his friendly ribbing of Clark, saying that Clark’s unmitigated optimism was completely out of character.

During his report from the downtown citizens advisory council (CAC), Ray Detter congratulated the DDA on the formulation of the draft policy. He said the CAC supports the project and is confident the DDA is developing a consistent policy that will be fair to everyone.

Outcome: The draft policy was not before the board for a vote. It will be subjected to further discussion by the partnerships committee.

Third Quarter Financials

Roger Hewitt reviewed the financial statements for third quarter, through March 31, 2012. The DDA’s accounting system includes four funds: the TIF (tax increment finance) fund, which gets its revenue from tax capture; the parking fund, which receives revenue from the public parking system; the parking maintenance fund, which gets revenue through transfers from the parking fund; and the housing fund, which gets revenue through transfers from the TIF fund. [.pdf of DDA  financial picture through March 31, 2012]

The tax increment finance (TIF) income is anticipated to be $200,000 below budgeted – $3.7 million instead of $3.9 million, Hewitt reported. The drop, he said, is primarily due to changes in personal property, not changes to real property. Personal property depreciates quickly, he said. Operating expenses will be about $250,000 below budget, primarily from less use of consultants and lower administrative expenses. Only about $45,000 in capital expenses are shown so far, he said, but he anticipated that number would be right around $1 million at the end of the fiscal year.

That figure will come from the Fifth and Division streetscape improvements project and a portion of the “Library Lane” parking structure. Overall, he said, the DDA had budgeted for around a $1.5 million use of fund balance. Now, said Hewitt, it looks like it would be around $1.44 million of fund reserves that would need to be used. Hewitt pointed out that the use of fund balance was planned, and the natural consequence of accruing capital funds to pay for major construction projects and then using the money.

Revenue for the public parking system is anticipated to be around $17 million, or about $800,000 more than anticipated. The rate increases had been budgeted into the anticipated revenue, he said, so he attributed the additional revenue to increased demand. He stated that the DDA continues to see strong growth in demand for parking. It’s fortunate that the “Library Lane” parking structure is coming on line when it is, because the system is at capacity, he said, at least in the campus area and at the Ann Ashley parking structure.

Direct operating expenses are expected to be $800,000 less than expected. That has to do with the fact that Republic Parking – the DDA’s contractor for day-to-day parking operations – is doing a good job at belt-tightening and is efficient in its operations, Hewitt said. He commended Art Lowe, Republic Parking manager, and his staff for keeping costs in line. Overall, it looks like the parking fund will be around $1 million to the positive.

Parking maintenance has received around $2 million, he said, which is right where the DDA anticipated being. The DDA has not spent money on maintenance that it would have ordinarily done, but the DDA is so far ahead on preventive maintenance that it was able to scale back without any concern about the structural integrity or long-term durability of the structures, he said. So parking structure maintenance has been conservative. There’s been about $1.6 million less spent on maintenance than what had been budgeted. That money will be there for future years as needed, Hewitt said.

The only income into the housing fund was due to interest. About $500,000 had been budgeted for Avalon Housing’s Near North project, but that project has not gone forward. The $500,000 is not due to be paid until Avalon has a certificate of occupancy, and that shows as under budget on the expense side for the housing fund.

Summarizing the financial picture in terms of fund balances, Hewitt gave the following round figures: TIF fund – $6.5 million; housing fund – $1 million; parking fund – $2 million; and parking maintenance – $1.8 million. Total fund balance is $11,444,000, he said. That will certainly be drawn lower as the Fifth and Division streetscape and the “Library Lane” parking structure projects are paid off, he said, but the DDA still has adequate cash.

Communications, Committee Reports

The board’s meeting included a usual range of miscellaneous reports from its standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council, as well as public commentary. To the extent that significant issues are not already included in the other parts of the meeting report, we include them here.

Comm/Comm: Connecting William Street

Joan Lowenstein gave an update on the Connecting William Street project – an effort the DDA is making under the direction of the city council to find alternate uses for city-owned parcels currently used for surface parking. Lowenstein said that the DDA’s leadership and outreach committee is continuing and increasing efforts to bring different “scenarios” to the public. The scenarios won’t be exact building drawings, but there would be more detail in them, she said. In mid- to late June there’d be something concrete to bring to the public.

Focus group meetings will continue in an effort to shape scenarios. A meeting with members of the city’s park advisory commission had taken place. On May 16, the committee would hear the market analysis findings that will shape the scenarios, based on survey feedback and the market analysis. Throughout the month of June, the committee was moving ahead to have something to show people and get feedback.

The next event in the Concentrate speaker series, focusing on land-use economics, will take place on May 17 at 5 p.m. at Conor O’Neill’s, Lowenstein said.

Comm/Comm: Commuter Challenge

Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program, gave the board a brief update on the Commuter Challenge, which getDowntown sponsors annually during the month of May.

Comm/Comm: Girl Scouts

Girl Scout badge design for "Spring Blooms" park cleanup day. The DDA is camouflaged into the design.

Board members were given a Girl Scout badge that’s been created in connection with the parks cleanup day, Spring Blooms. Girl Scouts can earn the badge by participating in the event, DDA executive director Susan Pollay said.

Pollay noted that the DDA name was hidden within the badge design.

This year, the event falls on Saturday, May 19. The assembly point is Liberty Plaza at Division and Liberty. Said Pollay: “We will go forth and clean up the downtown!”

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

Absent: John Mouat, Leah Gunn.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, June 6, 2012, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [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. While you’re parked in front of your computer screen, please 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!

Blobs inside the squarish boundaries represent properties or development rights acquired with greenbelt millage funds. The darker squarish area is the original area where millage funds could be spent. The lighter strips to the east, south, and west were added in 2007. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

Though not included explicitly in the millage language, the city approaches the administration of the millage as a one-third/two-thirds split between a portion for parks and a portion for the greenbelt program. So as part of the financial review, commissioners also looked at current fund balances as analyzed based on the one-third/two-third split between parks and greenbelt projects. Noting that the greenbelt fund balance might be on track to be drawn down before the parks portion is exhausted, commissioners seemed to agree that now is a good time to begin mulling what should happen if that scenario played out. The group discussed holding a joint meeting between the park and greenbelt advisory commissions – their last joint session was held in April 2010.

Also discussed on Wednesday was the scheduling of a first meeting of a commission subcommittee that will look at the question of changing greenbelt boundaries. The boundaries define the region where land or development rights on land might be acquired by the greenbelt program. Any change to those boundaries would ultimately require approval from the Ann Arbor city council.

Millage, Bonds

In 2003, Ann Arbor voters passed a 30-year 0.5 mill tax for land acquisition – called the open space and parkland preservation millage. On the summer tax bill, the line item appears as CITY PARK ACQ. The millage and the programs it supports are managed with support from staff of The Conservation Fund, Ginny Trocchio and Peg Kohring. Though not stipulated in the legal terms of the millage, the city’s policy has been to allocate one-third of the millage for parks land acquisition and two-thirds for the city’s greenbelt program.

To get money upfront for land acquisition, the city took out a $20 million bond in fiscal year 2006. That bond is being being paid back with revenue from the millage. Debt service on that bond so far in FY 2011 year has amounted to $815,288.

Bonds: Down to Zero

The city keeps separate track of the greenbelt fund balances in several ways. One way is to track separately: (1) total fund balances due to accumulated unspent millage revenues; and (2) total fund balances due to proceeds from the $20 million bond issuance.

During the greenbelt advisory commission’s discussion of the financial presentation given by Trocchio, commissioner Mike Garfield called attention to the line in the spreadsheet indicating a total overall fund balance of $11,741,975. Also indicated on the sheet was the fact that all $11,741,975 is due to the separate fund balance in (1). Mike Garfield asked if that meant that the commission had spent down the bond proceeds to zero – yes, answered Trocchio. That was the “first pot of money that we wanted to spend down,” she said. Now the millage revenue is getting spent down, which has also been accruing, she explained. Garfield appeared satisfied: “Good!”

Trocchio’s spreadsheet shows that the bond proceeds fund balance in FY 2008 was $9.6 million, and that it was spent down to $6.9 million the following year, and further to $3.3 million FY 2010.

Millage: Contrast Between GAC and PAC

Another way the finances are tracked for the greenbelt and open space millage relates to the policy of allocating one-third for parks land acquisition and two-thirds for the city’s greenbelt program. This one-third/two-thirds division is reflected in the two different public bodies that make recommendations on use of the funds: the park advisory commission (PAC) for one-third of the money, and the greenbelt advisory commission (GAC) for the other two-thirds.

Jennifer S. Hall and Dan Ezekiel, chair and vice chair of Ann Arbor's greenbelt advisory commission.

Trocchio provided as part of her presentation an analysis of the millage finances, along this one-third/two-thirds division for PAC- and GAC-related money. Commission chair Jennifer S. Hall noticed that the GAC-related fund balances had been spent down steadily – from $12.4 million in FY 2008 to $7.4 million in the current fiscal year. In contrast, the PAC-related fund balance in FY 2008 was $4.4 million, and has remained relatively steady through the current fiscal year.

So Hall asked Carsten Hohnke, who serves as the city council representative to GAC, if the city council had had any dialogue about what to do if GAC-related money were exhausted with PAC-related money still available. Hohnke indicated that there was no conversation about that currently, but said it would be useful to begin that conversation with the park advisory commission.

Hall said she felt it would be wise to have the discussion before a great disparity arises between the GAC-related fund balance and the PAC-related fund balance. Garfield reminded his colleagues that the two-thirds/one-third split is not a legal division. [It's not part of the millage language.] It’s simply a working understanding, he said, so having a dialogue makes sense.

A consensus seemed to emerge among commissioners that it would be useful to have a joint GAC-PAC meeting to go over the money question – along the lines of a joint meeting the two bodies had convened on April 6, 2010. Ezekiel recalled that last year only five GAC members were able to attend the joint meeting, which meant that GAC could not go into closed session, which would have been useful on that occasion. [GAC meetings often include closed sessions to discuss land acquisition; PAC handles most of its land acquisition discussions during closed sessions at the meetings of its land acquisition committee (LAC), which includes all PAC members. Discussions of land acquisition are one of the legitimate reasons for a public body to meet in a closed session under the Michigan Open Meetings Act.]

On Wednesday, GAC commissioners expressed an interest in ensuring that a scheduled date for a joint meeting would accommodate as many commissioners as possible. Laura Rubin, for example, said she thought the proposed April 5, 2011 date fell during the Ann Arbor public schools break, and she could not commit to being there on that day.

Details of Financial Picture

Trocchio walked commissioners through the most recent numbers as of Dec. 31, 2010, which marks the midway point through the fiscal year. Millage proceeds to date stand at $2,175,804. [That is comparable to the entire year's collection of millage funds last year and in previous years. In FY 2010, for example, $2,262,001 was collected. Of the two tax bills that property owners receive, the greenbelt tax appears only on the summer tax bills. So the current figure is likely to be very close to the final tally.]

Trocchio noted that the investment income for FY 2010 now reflected a corrected number: $492,576. In response to a commissioner question, she said that the previous number – from unaudited financial statements – had been around $130,000.

[The issue had arisen at the commission's Sept. 8, 2010 meeting, when commissioners had expressed concern about the unaudited figure of $130,011 for investment income for FY 2010. They'd received an explanation from city treasurer Matthew Horning at their Nov. 10, 2010 meeting:

Regarding concerns over investment income, Horning said the good news is the amount reported to GAC in September was an unaudited figure – the final number will be much higher, at about $492,000. To explain the difference, Horning said that at the end of the year, the city does a reclassification entry, required by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB). This mark-to-market accounting requires that the city record the actual market value of its investments at the end of the fiscal year – that is, what the value of their investments would be, if liquidated. If it’s worth greater or less than the book value of the investments, you have to record that difference, Horning said.

At the end of the last fiscal year – on June 30, 2010 – the city made a mark-to-market entry of about $362,000 for greenbelt investment income. That figure isn’t reflected in the financial statement that had been presented to the commission, Horning said. So the total investment income is actually about $492,000, he said.

The FY 2010 investment income presented by Trocchio on Wednesday showed $492,576. That's still a decrease from $815,261 the previous year.]

The investment income to date in FY 2011, Trocchio said, is $88,148 and that will be corrected in the same way last year’s figure was adjusted.

Ginny Trocchio gave the mid-year financial update to the greenbelt advisory commission, which met on the seventh floor of the City Center building.

Federal grant reimbursements stand at $1,235,183  she said. Since Dec. 31, 2010, an additional $675,000 worth of federal grants had been received for the Honke and Whitney properties that had been closed on. The grant reimbursements, together with investment income and millage proceeds, showed a combined net income of $3,499,134.

The millage program expenditures to date in this fiscal year total $6,665,645, with $5,682,035 going towards greenbelt projects and $983,609 going towards park projects.

Commission chair Jennifer Hall pointed out that of the roughly $5.6 million that had been spent, almost $2 million was reimbursed with federal grants.

Total administrative expenditures, reported Trocchio, stand at $66,358 year-to-date. Administration costs include staff time for Trocchio and other Conservation Fund staff, as well as personnel and IT costs from the city. The cost of all projects, plus debt service and administrative costs, bring total expenditures so far in FY 2011 to $7,547,290. The net change to the fund balance is negative: $4,048,156.

Commissioner Laura Rubin drew out the fact that the mid-year numbers for some categories of expenditures and revenues made sense to measure against a 50% benchmark, while others did not. She asked if the $7 million expenditures so far meant that potentially for the whole year they could be looking at $14 million in expenditures. Trocchio replied that at year’s end last year, they’d had a lot of closings. This year she anticipated perhaps two additional closings before the end of the fiscal year and then perhaps one at the end of the calendar year.

As far as expenses lining up with the mid-point of the year, Carsten Hohnke noted that administrative expenses appeared to be tracking at or below the annual run rate for those types of expenses. Last year for the entire year, there were $178,892 worth of administrative expenses, compared to a mid-year number of $66,358 for this year. Later in the presentation, Trocchio showed how the administrative costs over the life of the millage – which are limited by ordinance to be no greater than 6% of revenues – are now tracking well under that number. Starting in FY 2005, those percentages each year have trended as follows: FY05, 7.6%; FY06, 5.1%; FY07, 2.0%; FY08, 3.8%; FY09, 4.3%; FY10, 3.5%; and so far in FY11, 0.9%.

As Trocchio worked her way through the details of each greenbelt property, which included endowments, Hall and Ezekiel both indicated they felt it was very important that these endowments be kept up to date. There’s now a separate line item for the open space endowment fund balance, which currently stands at $390,000.

Boundary Issue

At its Nov. 10, 2010 meeting GAC had established a subcommittee to consider the question of whether to recommend an expansion of the greenbelt boundary – the area where the greenbelt millage can be used to acquire land or development rights to land. Since the millage was approved by voters in 2003, the boundary has been previously expanded on one occasion, in August 2007. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Time to Change the Greenbelt Boundary?"]

GAC vice chair Dan Ezekiel, who’s leading the committee, was keen to stress at Wednesday’s meeting that GAC did not have the authority to expand the boundaries. That power rests with the city council. The issue came up at Wednesday’s meeting only in the context of a brief conversation about the scheduling of the subcommittee’s first meeting, which has not yet taken place. They’d planned to meeting the following day, Feb. 10, at 4:30 p.m. But Catherine Riseng told her colleagues that although she’d previously been available at that time, her schedule had changed.

Commission chair Jennifer Hall suggested that because this would be the first meeting, it might be good to go ahead and meet with the members who were available – “to get the ball rolling.” Ezekiel asked Riseng if she’d be willing to provide some input via email. Peg Kohring, of The Conservation Fund, told commissioners that it would not be an easy conversation.

When it became apparent that some of the communication about the meeting and the materials related to it had been sent only to a subset of commissioners, Hall asked that communication about future meetings be addressed to all commissioners. Riseng ventured that she thought the subcommittee was, in any case, a committee of the whole. Hall responded by saying she thought it was a committee of the all-who-are-willing.

Present: Dan Ezekiel, Mike Garfield, Jennifer S. Hall, Carsten Hohnke, Catherine Riseng, Laura Rubin, Gil Omenn

Absent: Peter Allen, Tom Bloomer

Next meeting: Wednesday, March 9 at 4:30 p.m. at the Washtenaw County administration building, 220 N. Main, Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

The city’s cost would be paid out of the greenbelt millage funds. The federal match would be up to 50% of the appraised fair market value of the development rights, up to a maximum of $5,000 per acre. The greenbelt advisory commission recommended at its Dec. 8, 2010 meeting that the city make the applications to the FRLPP.

This brief was filed from the boardroom in the Washtenaw County administration building, where the council is meeting due to renovations in the city hall building. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Jim Daratony, owner of Cobblestone Farms in Webster Township, made a presentation at the Jan. 12 meeting of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission. To the right is Jennifer Merrick-Brooks, an equestrian trainer and coach. (Photos by the writer.)

It’s the first equestrian-related property to be considered for the greenbelt, so they came to commissioners to make their case for including it. The land is used for a sport called “eventing,” which includes a cross-country component. Jim Daratony said the eventing competitions that they’ve held so far on the property have drawn people from as far away as Texas – he stated that it’s having a positive economic impact on this area.

Commissioners also heard from John Satarino, one of the original advocates of the greenbelt program, who spoke during public commentary. He urged them to consider making more outright acquisitions of property, which could then be open to the public. Much of the land protected by the greenbelt is done through the purchase of development rights, with the land remaining private property.

In her staff update, Ginny Trocchio reported that in 2010, the greenbelt program had protected just over 1,000 acres of land, bringing the total of greenbelt land to nearly 3,000 acres.

Equestrian Uses for the Greenbelt?

Jim and Darlyn Daratony, who own Cobblestone Farms in Webster Township, are applying to the greenbelt program for a 53-acre parcel they own next to Cobblestone. [Their business is not connected to the city-owned Cobblestone Farm, located on Packard Road in Ann Arbor.]

Jim Daratony gave a presentation to commissioners, noting that preserving land for equestrian purposes is a little different than what the greenbelt program is accustomed to doing. He described the land – located at Zeeb and Gregory roads – as a beautiful parcel, with open spaces, a pond, wetlands, a stream that feeds into Arms Creek, active wildlife and forest areas. Several acres of the land are in hay production, he said, and are used by people for walking, riding their horses and cross-country skiing.

Specifically, they’d like to preserve that land for “eventing,” a sport that Daratony described as an equestrian triathalon. The land is currently used for that purpose just two or three weekends during the year. The reason for applying to the greenbelt is to preserve the land, he said, but also to preserve the sport of eventing.

Eventing competitions have been held there for three years and are growing, Daratony said – at their last one in 2010, nearly 200 horses participated. Overall, the events have attracted more than 800 participants from multiple states, with 700 spectators annually. The competitions are supported by the U.S. Equestrian Federation and the Fédération Équestre Internationale, he said. “We hope that we continue to grow that,” he said.

Jennifer Merrick-Brooks, who organizes eventing competitions in the U.S. and Canada, spoke about the sport itself, which she said is quickly disappearing because of the lack of preserved land. To run these competitions, a lot of undeveloped acreage is required, with different types of terrain. It’s a three-phase event: (1) dressage, (2) stadium jumping, and (3) cross country.

Merrick-Brooks said they’ve seen a growth in the number of participants and spectators at the local events over the past three years. People are coming from out of state – as far away as Texas – and many are being introduced to Michigan for the first time, she said. It’s creating an economic impact, she added, for local hotels, restaurants, and businesses that sell on-site concessions. In addition, local stores get business, she said – wood is needed to build the jumps, for example, and veterinarians are hired to be at the events.

Daratony then described Cobblestone Farms – about 100 acres that’s adjacent and to the west of the land that they’re requesting to be part of the greenbelt. He characterized it as a state-of-the-art equestrian development and training facility, housing over 40 horses. Cobblestone includes about 50 acres of paddocks, pastures and riding areas, and an area that grows hay for horses and livestock.

The combination of Cobblestone Farms plus the acreage they hope to protect via the greenbelt will create a large parcel of preserved land in that area for equestrian use, Daratony said. “We’re excited about it, and we hope you are too.”

Equestrian Uses: Commissioner Questions, Comments

Peter Allen began the discussion by asking what kind of access, legally, the public would have to the property. Daratony replied that he isn’t a lawyer, but that the goal is to keep it open for their neighbors. Some people walk their dogs on the property, he said, and some people who board their horses at Cobblestone ride on the land. He noted that the property is completely insured.

Four members of the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission, from right: Carsten Hohnke, Mike Garfield, Dan Ezekiel, Peter Allen.

Dan Ezekiel said the proposal has given the commissioners a lot to think about. Access is a big issue, and he wasn’t expecting to hear that the Daratonys would be willing to have people walk through the property. Ezekiel asked if they’d be amenable to having a certain guarantee of public access written into an easement agreement. “That would be a real positive factor in our consideration,” he said.

Daratony replied that they’d been talking about that issue – they’re aware of other places that open up the land to other equestrian uses, like pony clubs and 4-H. “We’re not opposed to that,” he said.

Merrick-Brooks noted that she and Darlyn Daratony are members of the Eventing Association of Michigan. That group has an easement to use another property in Washtenaw County, she said – though she didn’t identify its location. As a past president of the association, Merrick-Brooks said she was involved in getting that property insured. They haven’t had anything happen, but they’re covered, she said.

Jennifer S. Hall, the commission’s chair, asked whether this other property in Washtenaw County includes a public access component written into the easement agreement? Merrick-Brooks said she didn’t recall, but that people did use the property to walk their dogs and such.

Ezekiel noted that if the commission moved ahead with this proposal, they’d probably want to negotiate capping the number of events held on the property. They wouldn’t want to see 50 events held there each year, for example. It would be counter to the purpose of preserving open space if it were constantly in use.

Daratony responded by saying it’s a lot of work to hold these events, and he had no problem putting a limit on that.

Mike Garfield asked Daratony to talk about the land’s history, how long they’ve owned it and how they got into this equestrian sport.

Daratony described himself as a “city boy,” but their four daughters had fallen in love with horse riding. They’ve owned the land for four years. It was previously owned by a long-time local farmer whose family was selling off his property after he passed away. Daratony’s family was just starting to get involved in the sport of eventing, he said, and they were interested in hosting some competitions – the land seemed like a good fit for it.

Hall noted that Ginny Trocchio, a staff member who manages the greenbelt program, would have more information for commissioners during a closed session later in the meeting. [That closed session, for the purpose of discussing possible land acquisitions, lasted nearly an hour. Details of greenbelt negotiations aren't released until the proposals are forwarded to city council for approval.]

Public Commentary: Public Access

John Satarino was the only person to address the commission during time set aside for public commentary. He began by noting that he was proud to be one of the early founders of the greenbelt program, and he thanked commissioners for their efforts in what he described as a very successful purchase of development rights (PDR) program. At the same time, there has been a commitment to purchase land outright for users, he said, adding that now is a good time for that kind of purchase. It might be more expensive and problematic in some ways, he allowed, but could be accomplished by using partnerships and grants. There are many beautiful properties, Satarino said, especially west of Ann Arbor and near the city.

Satarino pointed out that a Washtenaw County-owned property, Scio Woods Preserve, is growing in popularity, which reflects that there’s a need for this kind of property that’s open to the public. Taxpayers would like to see something more tangible for their tax dollars, he said. He reported that some people voted against the county program in November because they thought it was part of the greenbelt. [The 10-year renewal for a millage to fund the county's natural areas preservation program was approved by voters on Nov. 2. Most of the county's natural preserves are open to the public, while most property protected by the greenbelt program is not.] Satarino concluded by encouraging the commission to look at opportunities, knowing that in decades to come, it would help meet the program’s goals of wildlife protection and providing places for the public to use.

Staff Update

Ginny Trocchio of The Conservation Fund, who serves as staff for the greenbelt program under a contract with the city, gave a brief report.

Before the meeting she had distributed a map to commissioners, showing all protected land in Washtenaw County through the end of 2010. In addition to land in the greenbelt, the map showed land protected through development rights and conservation easements held by other governmental entities and nonprofit groups – such as the Legacy Land Conservancy and the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy. It also indicated areas that are part of state, regional, county or local parks systems.

Trocchio reported that 2010 had been a very busy year for all land preservation efforts, including the greenbelt. The greenbelt alone had protected just over 1,000 acres in 2010, including year-end deals for the 146-acre Whitney Farm and the 33.7-acre Clark Farm – both in Webster Township – and the 96-acre Honke Farm in Northfield Township.

In total, nearly 3,000 acres are protected by the greenbelt, she said. That includes a 1,000-acre block in Webster Township, and a nearly 1,000-acre area in Ann Arbor Township. One of the greenbelt program’s strategic goals is to build areas of protected land in 1,000-acre chunks. [.pdf file of city press release on year-end update of all land preservation in Washtenaw County, including the greenbelt. Trocchio gave a more detailed report on the greenbelt program's most recent fiscal-year activities, from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010, at the commission's September 2010 meeting.]

Greenbelt Approvals on Council Agenda

Though these weren’t mentioned during the greenbelt commission’s Jan. 12 meeting, two items are on the Ann Arbor city council’s Jan. 18 meeting agenda that relate to the greenbelt:

• A resolution to approve a purchase agreement for the purchase of development rights (PDR) on the Lee A. Maulbetsch Trust and Lori M. Maulbetsch Trust Property in Northfield Township, for $804,392. The city expects to be reimbursed for $282,750 of that amount through a grant from the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP). The roughly 128-acre farm is located along Northfield Church Road.
• A resolution to approve a purchase agreement for the purchase of development rights on the Nancy M. Geiger Revocable Living Trust and Rose Ann Geiger Contingent Trust Property in Salem Township, for $1,339,442. Of that, the city expects to be reimbursed for $611,030 through an FRPP grant. The 218-acre farm is located along Pontiac Trail and Five Mile Road.

Present: Peter Allen, Tom Bloomer, Dan Ezekiel, Mike Garfield, Jennifer S. Hall, Carsten Hohnke, Gil Omenn, Laura Rubin

Absent: Catherine Riseng

Next meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 9, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. at the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners boardroom, 220 N. Main, Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

In following The Chronicle’s coverage of these issues, local architect Chuck Bultman has been wrestling with the notion of where old barns fit into this preservation picture.

Every architect remembers that first time they went into a barn – the vastness of the space, the hewn beams, the light streaming through all of those gaps. For me it was in southwest Virginia, in the country going to college. I was captivated by the light and space. Outside, the farmyard also made its statement. The large red barn, along with the out-buildings made a room with a silo in it, not so much unlike a piazza with a campanile.

Barns have an interesting place in the built world. They are icons in the landscape, and as such it is easy for us all to assume a familiarity, bordering on ownership. After all, they have been there for as long as you can remember and you expect them to be there long after you are gone. We think of barns not as in the landscape. Instead, like rivers or mountains, they seem part of it – an inseparable part of the countryside that surrounds towns and cities across the country, coloring the landscape with distinct personalities. They are variously described as timeless, strong, permanent, and historic.

But barns are not part of the landscape, nor are they timeless, permanent, or historic – at least as we might commonly apply the word “historic” to an achievement, for example.

And while they may have been strong, many are now weak and vulnerable. The reality is that barns are, or at least were, working buildings owned by individuals whose intentions were to have a building where their tools and animals could be out of the weather, and where hay could be kept dry and close to the animals. Iconic pastoral landscapes were not on the agenda – livelihood or even survival was. Barns were pragmatic buildings, built to be strong because they had work to do and they had to last. Depending on the time and location, the barn was more important than the house.

Which Barns Do I Mean?

I am talking about 18th and early 19th century barns, built with mortise and tenon joinery, heavy hand-hewn beams and posts that can be 8, 10 and even 12 inches in size, wide plank floors and wide board siding.

Guenther Road – A classic arrangement of barn, silo and shade trees.

I am also talking about late 19th century barns that used finer, and more efficient, balloon-framing with rough sawn timbers. I am talking about church-like interiors with honey-brown wood, and bright red exteriors now graying from sun and age.

The old barns of southeast Michigan are like barns everywhere; many are out of work due to obsolescence or neglect or both. The size and weight of modern farm equipment and less need for a place to shelter a few animals, means these wonderful old structures have less work to do on the farm. The big farms of today have fewer farmers who are doing a much smaller range of things. The old wood barn doesn’t fit into the plan. And depending on the location, the barns are being left as orphans in the landscape slowly deteriorating as the elements take their toll.

Many of the barns in our area are elegant buildings, sited well in the landscape, with craftsmanship that would be impossible to reproduce. Regardless, most of these old buildings will not meet the criteria to be protected as historically significant; or landmark buildings. Even if a barn was built by someone who may now lend an adjacent road its name, generally no one of enough importance owned the barn that would allow it to be considered a landmark. Likewise, it is not common to hear that an important event ever occurred on the site which could classify it as a landmark.

Dancer Road – A well maintained, and presumably, well used gable barn.

Finally – as I paraphrase the Department of the Interior’s standards for determining whether a building is historically significant – is the architecture. And again, it is rare that a barn will be so distinguished in its appearance or construction to warrant it being declared a landmark. These were utilitarian structures that we now prize for their subliminal beauty.

To put this in perspective, a recent USDA Census of Agriculture lists over 21,000 barns in Michigan built before 1960. However the state’s Historic Preservation Office’s website lists only 17 landmark barns in the state. That means less than .08% of all of the barns in the state are protected as historic landmarks.

Checking for “farms” on SHPO’s website produces only 58 additional listings, ostensibly to single out the house. What about the rest of the barns? Certainly some of the remaining 99.9% of the barns in the state, if evaluated, may be considered historically significant; the vast majority, however, will not. The problem is this: Within that vast majority there are many fine barns.

Historic Districts for Barns

Historic districts are used to protect groups of buildings, or neighborhoods. Historic districts are an effective way to declare that the structures within the district add up to more than the sum of their parts. In some historic districts it is tough to single out any one outstanding building. The district’s character sometimes stems from the collection of buildings as a whole, along with the landscape and site, each contributing to the significance of the place.

To protect barns with an historic district, particularly in Washtenaw County, would be cumbersome, as there is such a wide range of barns, in varying conditions, spread over a wide landscape. Our barns are not in one particular section of the county. They had been pretty evenly spread out and are now mixed in among many other kinds of non-contributing buildings – as farmland has been subdivided and other buildings have been built. You can find barns in the backyards of tract houses, on the edges of subdivisions, behind commercial buildings, or standing alone as the sole survivor of a long-gone farmstead.

“Historic” Barns

Reading about old barns you will typically find them referred to as “historic.” What is signified by calling a barn “historic”? An historic barn is one that is more than 50 years old, nothing more, nothing less. Attaching the word “historic” does not imply any other significance other than it is age. By that standard much of Ann Arbor is historic, but we rarely refer to historic office buildings, or historic warehouses, or historic shopping centers just because they are 50 years old.

Dixboro & Five Mile Roads – A less maintained and un-used, gable barn.

Conversely, when we make reference to historic events or speeches or other happenings, we are typically not just noting their age; something important is always implied. This is not the case when you read “historic barn” and it’s due to this confusion that I typically refer to a barn as “old.”

With this understanding, all of the 21,000 barns in the state that are older than 50 years can be called historic – regardless of their construction, location, condition, or visual appeal. Less than .1% of these barns are landmark buildings, meaning they have an historic significance that distinguishes them from other barns, and that the state or federal government has determined that they are an asset to all of us and deserve to be protected.

The U.S. Department of the Interior, the government agency authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, published a series of briefs collectively called “The Preservation of Historic Architecture” [emphasis by USDOI]. Brief 20 is titled “The Preservation of Historic Barns.”

In this Brief the plight of the roughly 665,000 barns found in all 50 states is characterized as follows:

… historic barns are threatened by many factors. On farmland near cities, barns are often seen only in decay, as land is removed from active agricultural use. In some regions, barns are dismantled for lumber, their beams sold for reuse in living rooms. Barn raisings have given way to barn razings. Further threats to historic barns and other farm structures are posed by changes in farm technology, involving much larger machines and production facilities, and changes in the overall farm economy, including increasing farm size and declining rural populations.

Brief 20 offers this suggestion:

Yet historic barns can be refitted for continued use in agriculture, often at great savings over the cost of new buildings. This Brief encourages the preservation of historic barns and other agricultural structures by encouraging their maintenance and use as agricultural buildings, and by advancing their sensitive rehabilitation for new uses when their historic use is no longer feasible.

Michigan Avenue – This barn is but one small part of a 148 acre parcel for sale today. Even in this condition the frame may still be salvageable.

The USDOI can encourage maintenance, but the record speaks for itself. More and more old barns are in disrepair, fewer and fewer are serving farms, and many are abandoned. We all know of at least one barn that is falling down but might be hard pressed to single out one that has been restored.

Two Threats to Barns

There are two major threats to barns.

The first threat is internal; the buildings are old and typically need expensive maintenance. In most cases a barn is a fairly big building, meaning when it needs materials like roofing – a typical maintenance item – it needs a lot of it. And, as a barn, if it leaks a little, no one complains. Roof repair is often deferred when money is tight; and on a farm, money is always tight.

A barn’s foundation is also a universal weak point. Foundations were made of field stones, mortared together, but after more than 100 years the mortar decays and chips out. Water then migrates through, causing more mortar to fail. And then stones fall. Soon that barn is teetering on only a partial base. Barns are strong, but as the foundation moves out from under it, many bad things happen. And these problems are expensive to repair. With neglect comes decay; the boards rot and the roof sags. The fatal blow, though, may be when you get your insurance bill and find that it is much higher than you expect, because your insurance company has had bad experiences with barns: “Someone could be seriously injured in there.” That is where many barn owners draw the line, and barns get removed.

Michigan Avenue – The roof of the gable barn while rusty still appears to be keeping the rain out. The foundation however is beginning to lose its battle; sections have fallen away and the corner closest to the gambrel barn is no longer under its corner post at all.

It is here that I would specifically quibble with the USDOI’s notion that barns “can be refitted for continued use in agriculture, often at great savings over the cost of new buildings.” When presented with the actual cost to retrofit a barn many people look to alternatives. One of the choices is demolition.

The second threat is external. Many barns were built very close to the road that served the farm, for obvious reasons. Clustered with other farm buildings, farmers wanted easy road access to get to their fields, other farms, and to town.

Dexter-Ann Arbor Road – A gable barn about 30 feet from the asphalt. This barn might even be in the road easement.

But these roads were narrow dirt roads, and if you drive down some that have yet to be “improved” you’ll see what I mean. Dancer, Guenther, Joy, Feldcamp, Macon and Willow, just to name a few, are lined with barns just feet from the road. However because these roads are dirt, it is hard to drive much faster than a horse can trot.

And somehow a slow car does not seem to disrupt the 19th century feeling of the place.

Improved roads, however, are another story. Scio Church, North Territorial, Island Lake, Dexter and Jackson, among others, also have barns and farm buildings within feet of the road. And cars go by at 50 to 70 mph. At those speeds, most drivers don’t even notice the barn. However from inside the barn, a 50-mph car whizzing by is like a rocket.

Up until about 2005 there were two old barns very close to Jackson Road, on the Terumo property. Relics of a past farm, they crowded the newly improved boulevard. These barns were of no use to Terumo and were dismantled. As we press further and further out into the countryside and widen and improve the roads, more barns will suffer the same fate.

What Can Become of an Old Barn?

Owning an old barn is as much a liability, as an asset; and occasionally the liability outweighs the benefit. When this is the case many look to change or as the USDOI rightly encourages, “… by advancing their sensitive rehabilitation for new uses when their historic use is no longer feasible.”

While there is no official policy or approach to what might be considered a “sensitive rehabilitation,” it is widely believed that a barn should be preserved, based on three descending orders of priority. The first is to preserve them in place. The second is to allow them to be moved and re-erected. And the third is to salvage the materials and reuse them to build something else.

Michigan Avenue – Three barns a mere 30 feet from Michigan Ave.

The wild card for the first two is: What is the function for this building? If someone is going to invest in restoring a barn, or moving and restoring a barn, what are they going to do with it? It might seem best to let them remain barns, but few will pay the price to wind up with just a barn in the end. That opens the door to consider alternative uses.

Restoring the barn in place rarely makes sense. Most of the time, the barn’s foundation is too far gone, and the cost to undertake work under the barn is very high. Even if the foundation is found to be sound, the barn’s siting is rarely ideal. As some of the photos published with this piece illustrate, a barn sitting on the side of a road may not prove to be the best place to invest your money. Likewise, a barn off in the middle of a cornfield might make an equally poor investment. Barns were not located to be houses or offices, so in many instances the desire to move the barn is the first decision to be confirmed.

Moving an old barn does not preserve whatever historic relationship it might have had to its site, but then neither does letting it rot and turn to dust. Given those choices – and in many instances these are the only choices – I would opt for moving the barn every time. At least a barn that has been moved can be enjoyed and would contribute to the architecture of its new use. Also, barns are filthy, and sometimes the beams and posts have rot or damage. Dismantling the barn gives you the opportunity to clean, inspect, and restore the barn before re-building on a new foundation – which can now be located anywhere.

A hand-hewn barn frame that utilizes mortise and tenon joinery. Pegs are driven through the tenons locking the joints in place. Old barn frames would have had no fasteners other than pegs.

The last in the descending orders of priority is simply to take down the barns and salvage their materials. In this scenario, the parts of the barn – the planks, the siding, the beams – are sold at will.

The most lamented aspect of this approach, though, is the disregard for the barn’s timber frame with all of its joinery. The beams and posts are basically treated as raw materials again. Usually the beams are just chain-sawed apart, discarding the joints as unwanted knots, and their four faces are sliced off to make old-looking flooring.

While I can see this approach making some sense for small quantities of material, or maybe for partially collapsed barns, it pains me to hear that a viable barn has been turned into boards. It feels like a step backward.

Old barns are both beauty and beast. While they are extensively photographed to capture their aged and worn materials, it is these old materials that make a barn conversion difficult to comprehend and maybe even scary to some. The wood is old, rotten, cracked, and dirty.

You must be crazy to begin with a barn. But the massive beams are also rich with texture from being hewn by hand. They have a warm golden tone that only time can produce. The sheathing boards exposed to the weather read like driftwood or Van Gogh’s “Starry Night.” Yes, these barns are challenging to work with but the reward is well worth the effort.

Serendipitous barn art

Done sensitively, an old barn can find new life mixed with new materials through a deft compromise of form, function and fabric and can be the center of really exciting “new” architecture. Whether your goal is to have an old barn within your house, or just to have the warmth and character of the hewn beams, or even to keep old material out of landfills, an old barn can provide a great starting point.

A striking example of mixing new and old buildings is Camden Yards in Baltimore. In the 1980s, Baltimore’s downtown was backdropped by what was possibly the largest brick building on the east coast– the Baltimore and Ohio Warehouse. This building is eight stories high and over 1,000 feet long, but was abandoned. Roughly 80 years old at the time, the warehouse was both an icon and an eyesore. What do you do with 400,000 square feet of ruin? Some wanted to simply tear it down but instead it was given a new life as a major component to the new ball field. This warehouse is the windowed wall you see behind right field – it has been rehabilitated and adapted as part of the new ball field. Camden Yards’ architectural success launched a series of retro ball fields that embraced the warmth and scale of older ball parks.

Similarly, barns – these wonderful old structures – can be salvaged, moved and re-erected, insulated and converted to be houses, offices, studios, etc. While not officially “preservation,” barns can have a new life adapted to a new use. And the charm and craftsmanship of the old barn timbers can become the focal point for new architecture. The spaces can soar to the rafters as some barns do; or lofts can be built to make the spaces more intimate, as other barns did; or a combination of both. The barns can have wood boards on the frame and therefore look much like the barn originally did, or painted materials to introduce color and be a little brighter.

A salvaged barn frame being rebuilt to become a house.

Barns, being industrial buildings, seem comfortable with industrial elements. Exposed ductwork and metal railings have been successfully integrated into barn projects. From my perspective a barn can put up with a lot.

But in David Larkin’ s book, “Barn: The Art of a Working Building,” Mr. Larkin describes a renovation of dubious design: “Sad though it may be to see a fine Bucks County stone barn falling into ruin because of neglect, such quiet, gradual deterioration might seem a kinder fate than the rude transformation imposed on another small Pennsylvania barn.”

The message is clear: A barn is a simple building, and one must tread lightly and listen to what the barn wants, when one is trying to coax a new use out of the old structure. Mr. Larkin warns that architects are, “… too often prone to impose their own clever devises …” Indeed, it is easy to let the heart and soul of the original barn slip away.

A Tale of Two Barns: Not Mine or Yours

Saving barns can be complicated, because they are not my barns. On Scio Church Road there is a pair of barns built right next to each other. Now, I have seen multiple barns on one site before, but normally they are built over time. These two however appear to be built at the same time; they are twins, but they are not kits. They are two hand-built, hewn frames – with posts and beams a little bigger than I have come to expect in Michigan, which is a good thing. They are also in very good shape. One of the barns was awkwardly renovated to be a house, but I think a fair number of the timbers could still be salvaged, possibly the whole frame. The other barn has not been touched. Its foundation is in great shape and it is dry, or at least it was when I saw it last.

Scio Church Road – The left barn has been renovated to be a house. The right barn has not been renovated.

About two years ago, I was asked by a builder to walk these two barns for the new owner – to assess their condition and to discuss how [or was it if?] they could be used. I made my comments, which were all positive, and went back to my other work. Over the coming months I tried to see if anything was going to happen with the barns, but got word that with the market softening the owner was not interested in doing anything at the time.

Just this summer, though, while driving past, I noticed a hole in the roof of one of the barns. And I know that a barn can decay very quickly, if that kind of thing is not dealt with. So I tried to reach the owners to let them know that their asset is at risk. And so far, I have not heard back – maybe something is being planned and workers are lining up to repair it or salvage it, but I do not know, and it is not for me to decide.

You see, whatever may be possible with an old barn is only possible with the support and the ability of the owner. If a barn falls into disrepair, and it goes beyond a certain point, it becomes economically unfeasible to restore. Those of us who do this restoration work all have heard stories: People inquire about having their barn restored or salvaged after particularly bad winters or after it has been open to the rain for a few seasons. Usually the call comes after owners notice the ridge sagging or worse. Many times these calls are too late, because as you might imagine, once a building moves far enough to be noticed by a non-builder type, it usually has moved too far.

Barns do not fall apart nicely – everything breaks and cracks, leaving little to salvage. Paying attention to the building and maintaining it is essential to preserving the barn’s frame but not everyone can, or does, keep the building up.

There is a truth that some like to reveal with a question: “If you can pick up a calf today, can you pick it up tomorrow?” It is easy to want to answer yes, because the daily growth of a cow goes unnoticed. But a cow can gain pounds in a day and, of course, the day will come when the cow can’t be lifted by the strongest of men. These two barns are still apparently fine and strong, but with the roof open, it is not possible to know how much they weaken every day. Like the growing cow, if nothing is done, the barn will continue its descent, and there will be a day when the barn will yield. Right now, two strong, timeless, and beautiful barns sit by the side of the road – their fate wholly in someone else’s hands.

North Territorial Road (all photographs are by the author)

-

About the author: Chuck Bultman is the principal at Charles Bultman, architect. His practice has included integrating barns and other salvaged materials into buildings. Bultman has worked with over thirty barns converting them to new uses, many in new locations.