The rejected ordinance failed on a 5-5 vote, as Margie Teall (Ward 4) was absent. Voting for the regulation of all drivers for hire were Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Voting against the change were mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

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

The city taxicab board’s next meeting is scheduled for Aug. 28 at 8:30 a.m. at city hall, and will likely include discussion of the appropriate price point for that very high maximum.

The ordinance change rejected on Aug. 18 would have required all drivers for hire to be registered with the city, to have commercial plates on their vehicles and to maintain insurance commensurate with commercial plates. And the absence of commercial plates on a vehicle that is observed to be used for picking up or dropping off passengers would have provided a reason for a traffic stop by Ann Arbor police. At the taxicab board meetings over the last few months, representatives of the taxicab industry argued that the state statute regulating limousines already gives the city the ability to enforce against Uber and Lyft drivers.

All drivers for hire would include those who work for Uber and Lyft, who together had a contingent of about 50 people in attendance at the meeting, several of whom addressed the city council during public commentary at the start and the end of the meeting. A representative from Uber, Michael White, was invited to the podium during the council’s deliberations on the ordinance. He spoke to councilmembers in a back-and-forth that lasted about 25 minutes, and recited many of Uber’s standard marketing points. No representatives from the taxicab industry seemed to be in attendance at the meeting; in any case, councilmembers did not inquire as to whether a representative might be available for comment.

The recommended ordinance changes came from the city’s taxicab board in the context of the entry of Uber and Lyft into the Ann Arbor market. The companies offer the arrangement of rides through mobile networks with drivers who operate their own vehicles. Both companies have continued to operate in Ann Arbor, despite cease-and-desist orders from the city. [.pdf of cease-and-desist sent to Lyft] [.pdf of cease-and-desist sent to Uber]

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

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

At the council’s Aug. 18 meeting, Kunselman – who serves on the taxicab board – advocated strongly for the changes, making arguments based on public safety and adherence to existing law. He argued that Lyft and Uber can make a profit with lower rates because the companies are “cheating” the law.

Taylor said that Uber and Lyft are safe and that the companies provide an alternative transportation option, which is desirable. He announced that he would be working with Briere to bring forward a resolution directing the city administrator to develop an operating agreement between the city and ride-sharing companies along the same lines that the city of Detroit has with such companies. His remarks were met with applause from Uber and Lyft supporters, including some riders and drivers who spoke during public commentary.

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

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

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

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

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

Postponement by the council came after about a half hour of deliberations that included back-and-forth between councilmembers and the owners of the parcel.

Initial approval by the council had come at its June 16, 2014 meeting.

The council’s initial approval came only after two votes on each of the parts of the zoning, as councilmembers had first decided to refer the height limit issue back to the planning commission, but ultimately decided to amend the height limit to 60 feet. A summary of the deliberations is provided in The Chronicle’s live updates from the June 16 meeting.

By way of background, currently a two-story 63,150-square-foot office building – where DTE offices are located – stands on the southern part of that site, with a surface parking lot on the north portion. [.pdf of staff memo on 425 S. Main rezoning]

Considered separately by the council on July 21 were two separate votes that would have: (1) changed zoning of the parcel from D1 (downtown core base district) to D2 (downtown interface base district); and (2) changed the character overlay district, of which the parcel is a part, to specify the height limit at 60 feet, not the 100 feet that the planning commission had recommended. [.pdf of staff memo on overlay district]

Upper-story setbacks, specified in the character district overlay along with the height limits, had been specified based on the 100-foot limit.

The planning commission recommended both the zoning changes at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The planning commission’s vote on the basic zoning change was unanimous – 9-0. But the vote on the 100-foot height limit was only 6-3, with dissent coming from Sabra Briere, Ken Clein and Jeremy Peters. Briere also serves on city council, representing Ward 1. Both recommendations had been brought forward by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC). Members are Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

The planning commission’s recommendations came in response to a city council directive given at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, which had been based on previous work the planning commission had done. The commission had studied and developed a broader set of eight recommendations for zoning changes in specific parts of the downtown. The overall intent was in large part to buffer near-downtown residential neighborhoods. The commission had unanimously approved those original recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting.

Those initial Dec. 3, 2013 recommendations from the planning commission had come in response to a previous direction from the city council, given at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. The council’s action in early 2013 came in response to the controversial 413 E. Huron development.

The zoning change affecting 425 S. Main, which the council delayed at its July 21 meeting, is just the first of what are expected to be several other changes recommended by the planning commission.

The current D1 zoning for 425 S. Main allows for a maximum height of 180 feet. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, set no limits on height. At this time, no new development has been proposed for the 425 S. Main site.

For more details on the July 21 council discussion, see The Chronicle’s live updates from that meeting.

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

Given initial approval by the council was an amendment to the city ordinance establishing the commission. In other business, the council confirmed the appointment of additional members to the commission: Allison Skinner and Benjamin Muth. Those nominations had been announced at the council’s June 16, 2014 meeting.

The ordinance change relates in part to the way that nominations to the EC are made. The EC is one of the few boards or commissions in the city for which the mayor does not make nominations. The more familiar procedure – for most boards and commissions – includes a mayoral nomination at one council meeting, followed by the confirmation vote of the council at a subsequent meeting.

In the past, the council has mimicked this procedure for the EC by having some councilmember put a resolution on the agenda appointing a member to the EC, and then postponing the resolution until the next meeting. The ordinance revisions include clarification that the nominations put forward by the council as a body to the EC are to be made by the two councilmembers who serve as the council’s representatives to the EC.

Besides two slots for council representatives, the EC includes positions for members of the planning commission, park advisory commission, and energy commission. The ordinance revision to which the council gave initial approval on July 7 makes clear that those groups make their appointments to the EC without further city council approval. This specific revision comes after the planning commission had selected Kirk Westphal from its membership to serve on the EC earlier this year. Some councilmembers voted against his confirmation, when the council was asked to confirm his selection two months ago. For background on that vote, see “Hutton, Westphal Reappointed to EC.”

The staff memo summarizes the changes to the ordinance regulating appointments to boards and commissions as follows:

• clarifies that the councilmembers currently serving on the environmental commission nominate persons for “at-large” appointments, which are then approved by council resolution;
• clarifies that the planning commission, park advisory commission, and energy commission each designate a representative to the environmental commission without council approval and for a one-year term;
• clarifies that the 3-year terms should be equally staggered;
• removes references to the Leslie Science Center Advisory Board, which no longer exists;
• requires the city administrator or the designated support staff of the environmental commission to notify council of vacancies – previously this was delegated to the clerk’s office, which does not always have immediate knowledge of vacancies;
• contains a few minor, non-substantive corrections and clarifications.

The ordinance amendment will still need a second and final vote at a subsequent meeting, in order to be enacted.

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

Because these are changes to the zoning code, which is expressed in city ordinances, the council’s action needs a second and final vote at a future meeting, in order to be enacted.

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

The council’s initial approval came only after two votes on each of the parts of the zoning, as councilmembers had first decided to refer the height limit issue back to the planning commission, but ultimately decided to amend the height limit to 60 feet. A summary of the deliberations is provided in The Chronicle’s live updates from the meeting.

By way of background, currently a two-story 63,150-square-foot office building – where DTE offices are located – stands on the southern part of that site, with a surface parking lot on the north portion. [.pdf of staff memo on 425 S. Main rezoning]

Considered separately by the council were votes that would: (1) change the zoning of the parcel from D1 (downtown core base district) to D2 (downtown interface base district); and (2) change the character overlay district, of which the parcel is a part, to increase the D2 height limit from 60 feet to 100 feet.

It’s the second of those changes that the council amended – so that the D2 height for this parcel would be the same 60-foot limit as other D2 areas in the downtown. The proposed changes to the character overlay district also include upper story setbacks from any residential property. [.pdf of staff memo on overlay district] Those upper story setbacks will likely need some further revision – by the time a second and final vote is taken – in order to be consistent with the 60=foot limit.

The planning commission recommended both the changes at its May 6, 2014 meeting. The planning commission’s vote on the basic zoning change was unanimous – 9-0. But the vote on the 100-foot height limit was only 6-3, with dissent coming from Sabra Briere, Ken Clein and Jeremy Peters. Briere also serves on city council, representing Ward 1. Both recommendations had been brought forward by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC). Members are Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Wendy Woods.

The planning commission’s recommendations came in response to a city council directive given at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, which had been based on previous work the planning commission had done. The commission had studied and developed a broader set of eight recommendations for zoning changes in specific parts of the downtown. The overall intent was in large part to buffer near-downtown residential neighborhoods. The commission had unanimously approved those original recommendations at its Dec. 3, 2013 meeting.

Those initial Dec. 3, 2013 recommendations from the planning commission had come in response to a previous direction from the city council, given at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting. The council’s action in early 2013 came in response to the controversial 413 E. Huron development.

The items on the council’s June 16, 2014 agenda were just the first of what are expected to be several other changes recommended by the planning commission. That set of initial recommendations from the planning commission to the city council – which the council then accepted and for which the council asked the planning commission to draft ordinance language – included a proposal to rezone 425 S. Main to D2. However, those original recommendations had also called for a maximum height of 60 feet for D2 zoning in the Main Street character overlay district – lower than the 100 feet put forward at the commission’s May 6 meeting.

The current D1 zoning for 425 S. Main allows for a maximum height of 180 feet. The previous zoning, prior to 2009, set no limits on height. At this time, no new development has been proposed for this site.

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

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

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

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

Aerial view showing Research Park Drive parcels.

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

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

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

City council action came at its May 5, 2014 meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This item would require a second vote by the council at a future meeting for final approval.

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

April 23, 2014 meeting of the Ann Arbor taxicab board at city hall. (Photo by the writer.)

The action comes in response to Uber‘s entry into the Ann Arbor market. Uber is a service, based on a mobile app, that coordinates prospective passengers with drivers who are willing to make the trip. Currently the city’s taxicab ordinance covers only taxicab drivers – not limousine drivers or any other drivers for hire. The board wants to see a draft ordinance that would include all drivers for hire – so that Uber’s drivers would need to be registered in the city of Ann Arbor.

Stephen Kunselman, who serves as the city council’s representative to the taxicab board, put it this way at the meeting: “The number one issue of regulating drivers in the industry is for public safety, alright? I want to know who these drivers are who are driving around picking up people in our town, okay? Number one issue.”

A change to the city’s ordinance could come only after approval by the city council.

The action requesting the city attorney’s office to begin work on an ordinance amendment was not actually on the board’s meeting agenda. The one item for discussion had been to consider possible deregulation of taxicab fares in the city – a topic the board has been considering for about a year. As board chair Michael Benson put it, “It’s time to address it one way or the other.” Currently the maximum rate is $3 to get in, $2.50 per mile, and $0.40 a minute waiting time.

Those rates were last adjusted upwards on May 16, 2011, in response to gas prices that had nudged past $4 per gallon. With one exception, representatives of taxicab companies at the April 23 meeting were not looking for the kind of $0.25 adjustments that have been made in the past. Instead, they’re looking for a high maximum – along the lines of $5 to get in and $5 per mile – so that a competitive market could develop under that cap.

Benson and Tom Crawford – the city’s CFO and an ex officio member of the board – steered the conversation toward identifying ways to measure success of any change in the city’s approach to regulating fares: “What is it that you want to achieve? Let’s get some clarity on that so that we can identify whether we have succeeded or not. That’s the real point,” said Crawford.

What came out of that board discussion was that the measurement of success should include the number of taxicabs being operated in the city. At the meeting, Ann Arbor police officer Jamie Adkins told board members that for the three years from 2008 to 2010 there were 177, 193, and 179 taxicabs operating in the city, respectively. But when Yellow Car converted all but one vehicle to limousine, that number dropped to 111 in 2011. In 2012 there were 132 taxicabs, she said, and the current figure is 124.

The board’s past effort to regulate the entire livery industry – including limousines, which are supposed to take only pre-arranged, not hailed rides – has included recommendations to revise the city’s ordinance so that limousine companies cannot hold themselves out as taxicab companies. And the city council enacted those changes in 2011. But according to officer Adkins, AAPD has learned that those aspects of the ordinance can’t be the primary reason for a police traffic stop. [.pdf of Ann Arbor taxicab ordinance]

Public Commentary: Initial Opportunity

Rick Clark of Amazing Blue Taxi addressed the board at the start of the meeting during time allotted for public commentary. He contended that in essence, the transportation industry in Ann Arbor has been deregulated as far as fare structure goes. Uber is coming to town, he noted, and that is the market.

The ordinance that Ann Arbor has is a fine ordinance for 1984, but now it’s 2014, Clark pointed out. Technology has changed, but the city has not changed the regulations – to take into account how the market has changed. The city has to decide whether it wants to have a healthy taxicab business over which the city could have some control, he said, or if it would prefer just to have the wild, wild West.

Deregulation of Fares?

Board chair Michael Benson noted that the deregulation of fares has been on the taxicab board agenda for about a year now. “It’s time to address it one way or the other,” he said. He reported that he and Tom Crawford, along with financial services support staff Sarah Singleton, had met during the previous week and talked about key questions. One of them was: How do we quantify success?

Crawford, who serves on the board in an ex officio capacity as chief financial officer of the city, said that during his time on the board, what he’d seen is the board react to a things that happen – things don’t just stay the same. As the board thinks about either experimenting or moving to a deregulated restructure, he suggested board members think about ways to measure success. “What is it that you want to achieve? Let’s get some clarity on that so that we can identify whether we have succeeded or not. That’s the real point,” said Crawford.

The way Crawford understood fares to work is that the city sets the maximum rate – and drivers may charge less but they cannot charge more. Typically when you deregulate rates, the intent is that the rates become more competitive, and that competition would drive the rates down, Crawford said. He wasn’t sure he would see that happening here. The question he put to the board was: Why should we make any change? Just to say that technology is out there was not enough, he said. What is not working, and why should the city change fares? Crawford asked.

Board member Eric Sturgis said that Rick Clark of Amazing Blue Taxi had made a good point in a letter he’d written to the board: What else does the city set prices on and regulate what a business can and cannot charge? If the taxicab board let the taxis set their own rates, Sturgis thought it could drive prices higher or lower. He wondered if the city had ever tried deregulating fares.

Board member LuAnne Bullington ventured that the city of Ann Arbor already had a situation where fares were not regulated – with limousines. The city doesn’t regulate limousines, she said, so was that not already an experiment that the city was in the midst of?

Initial Discussion of Uber

After a few minutes, the fact that Uber has entered Ann Arbor’s market was mentioned.

Board member Stephen Kunselman agreed with Crawford’s framing of the question. Kunselman thought that limousines were pricing themselves based on taxicab rates. Taxicab fares are the benchmark used by limousine companies, Kunselman said. Everyone knew that Uber is already in Ann Arbor, Kunselman said. He’d received a call from the Detroit Free Press writer commenting on this, and the Free Press reporter had notified him that the city of Detroit has issued a cease-and-desist order against Uber.

Kunselman noted that assistant city attorney Kristen Larcom was in attendance at the meeting, so he expected that Ann Arbor would be following Detroit’s lead. “The number one issue of regulating drivers in the industry is for public safety, alright? I want to know who these drivers are who are driving around picking up people in our town, okay? Number one issue.” As far as setting rates, the other issue identified by Kunselman is that bartering should not happen: The city doesn’t want people getting in a car in and bartering, so that it costs someone $10 to get across town and the next person pays $30.

Back to Fares

Bartering would create a lot of issues, Kunselman thought, and the taxicab board would end up hearing complaints about why people are getting gouged. In terms of the deregulating fares, from all the discussions that he’d had with Rick Clark and what he’d been finding, Kunselman had not seen any other community that has no regulation of rates, or that does anything complicated. Kunselman was not sure he wanted Ann Arbor to be the guinea pig in that respect. At the same time, he said, he recognized that the technology and the industry are changing pretty dramatically. So he didn’t know what the next step is. But the most important issue is that the city should make sure it knows who the drivers are in town, Kunselman concluded.

Bullington said she’d been talking to people who use cabs, and she uses cabs herself. Right now, we have the best of both worlds, she said. Ann Arbor has limos that are deregulated and can set their own price, and also has taxicabs that are regulated. So if people want to call around to find out what the prices are to get from A to B, they can do that. The people she was talking to know what they will get charged by a taxicab, and they know that taxicabs are regulated and they’re very comfortable with that. But there’s another group who want to see who can get the best rate so they call the limo companies. Bullington concluded that Ann Arbor has the best of both worlds.

Benson responded to Sturgis’ question by saying that Ann Arbor had not ever tried deregulation. Crawford ventured there was a time that the ordinance had a provision such that if you don’t have a meter, then you must post your rates – but he was unsure of the details. He did not think it was completely deregulated. Larcom’s recollection of that version of the ordinance was also vague. She said there was a provision of the kind Crawford described, but she didn’t recall exactly what it said or how it worked. She didn’t recall anybody ever using the alternative of posting rates instead of using a meter.

Benson noted that it’s important to remember that the taxicab board could not itself deregulate rates: That would require an ordinance change, he said. Any decision the board eventually made would likely just be a recommendation. Benson also agreed with Kunselman’s point – that the principal goal is to ensure safety. At the same time, the board was doing its best to make sure that the taxicab industry can thrive and succeed. Benson was concerned that if the board does nothing, more and more of the taxi companies would become limos, which could upset the balance. Now, is that the city’s responsibility to try to keep the balance? Benson asked. How many cabs does the board actually want on the streets of Ann Arbor? What makes sense?

Sturgis agreed that the point about safety is a good one.

Uber Redux

Kunselman noted that a lot of the issues the board is trying to deal with are handled at the state level. He thought there has been some legislative movement on the state level. On the other hand, he also recalled hearing that the state would actually allow cities more flexibility, and the city just hasn’t tried taking action. Kunselman said he was open to pushing the envelope and passing an ordinance amendment that basically requires all drivers – taxicab drivers and limo drivers alike – and push that to see what happens. If the limo companies take the city to court, then maybe that’s something the city needs to do. “We need to push from the bottom up as well as the state pushing down,” Kunselman said.

About Uber’s position that it does not take responsibility for the transportation and that the company is just coordinating these drivers, Kunselman said: “I’m not buying that. They have direct involvement in using their technology and they’re doing it to make money. If they are making money, then they should be subjected to our regulations.”

“Uber is here and we’re going to counter it,” Kunselman said. “We have to counter it. We can’t just let them come into our community and dictate that they are basically going to wipe out the taxicab industry because they are only using limo drivers.” From what he’d read in the paper, Uber was using all licensed limo drivers. But if they’re not using limo drivers, and if they are not being regulated, then the city needs to regulate them. Any driver who is picking up passengers for a fare should be licensed by the city of Ann Arbor, whether they are a limo driver or a taxicab driver, Kunselman said.

At that point, it was apparent that the board’s conversation about fares had been transformed into a discussion of what to do about the entry of Uber into the Ann Arbor market.

Sturgis ventured that it would be possible to have an ordinance that requires all drivers to register with the city, but also to deregulate fares.

Kunselman felt that deregulating fares is a good concept but agreed with Crawford that the board doesn’t know what the impact of that would be. He thought that step might drive fares higher – because limos are benchmarking themselves to Ann Arbor taxicab rates. Kunselman then drew a comparison of the effect of increased housing supply in downtown Ann Arbor: Everyone thought that increased supply of housing downtown would cause prices to come down. What had actually happened is that the new units just filled the market for 5,000 additional students that have been enrolling at the University of Michigan in the last decade, he said.

The introduction of services like Uber into the market means that it’s a very dynamic market, Kunselman said. He continued by describing the Ann Arbor taxicab market as kind of boom-and-bust, with weekends getting heavy use. That’s why the board needs to stay very focused on the safety issue, he said.

Kunselman called the taxicab rate issue very delicate, and suggested that rates should be calibrated to gas prices. Fares haven’t been changed due to increases in gas prices since 2011, he pointed out. If fares need to be adjusted, Kunselman was open to that and he was willing to tweak the fares. But he didn’t want to try to create a new fare system that included zones or other complicated features.

Success Metric: Number of Taxicabs?

Benson tried to get board members to focus on the question posed at the start: How would the board measure success, if it decided to change the fare structure? Benson then asked: Are we succeeding now? Since 2011 have we been succeeding? Hypothetically, if the city council allowed the board to raise the maximum fare to $10 – in effect deregulating fares – how would the board define success? Is it the number of cars on the street? Is it the number of companies? The number of incidents? The number of complaints? What might make sense? Benson asked. He noted that these are the kind of questions that should be answered, whether rates are deregulated or not.

Distribution of taxicabs companies operating in Ann Arbor by the number of vehicles in operation. Only three companies have more than 18 cabs. Most companies have just one cab in operation.

Board member Robert Goeddel ventured that the main incentive for deregulating would be to encourage more taxicabs – because however the city of Ann Arbor filters drivers, the city at least knows who is on the street picking up passengers. He thought success should be tied to the number of taxicabs operating in town, as opposed to limos. One thing that prompted this call for deregulation of fares, Goeddel said, was that a lot of cabs were switching over to limos – which are under state control, not under city control.

Crawford then asked Adkins to share information about the number of taxicabs that are operating in the city of Ann Arbor. Currently there are 124 vehicles and 21 companies. Previously, there were significantly more – when Yellow Car was part of the taxicab industry. From 2008 to 2010 there were 177, 193, and 179 taxicabs operating in the city, respectively. But when Yellow Car converted all but one vehicle to limousines, that number dropped to 111 in 2011. In 2012 there were 132 taxicabs, she said, and the current figure is 124.

Kunselman summarized the numbers by saying that when Yellow Car converted to primarily limo service, that took a big chunk of the taxicabs out of service, and it’s been pretty steady since then.

Success Metric: Citations for Limo-as-Taxicab?

Benson again asked the board to focus on metrics for success – whether the board takes on fares or not. Kunselman said he did not know if it was a metric for success, but he’d like to know on a regular basis how many limos are being pulled over for operating as taxis.

Adkins responded to Kunselman by saying that part of the city’s taxicab ordinance is very difficult to enforce – especially once the limos caught on. Adkins explained that when a limo is pulled over, before an officer makes contact, the driver would tell the passenger to tell the officer that it was a prearranged fare and tell the officer that the passenger had called for the ride. Kunselman ventured that the limo driver would still need to show their licenses. Adkins told Kunselman she’d talked to the state police about whether Ann Arbor police officers could stop limos – to make sure they were properly licensed through the state and that they had their current driver record with them. Adkins explained that it could not be the primary reason to pull over a limo.

The state police had suggested that Ann Arbor look at enacting a local ordinance regulating limousines. Kunselman’s response: “Then let’s do it.”

Adkins said that East Lansing has done something like that already. Kunselman ventured that the state is realizing it’s not working to regulate limos at the state level. If the limo company wants to sue Ann Arbor over a local ordinance, that company will need to have something to point to at the state level saying the statute clearly prohibits cities from enacting ordinances regulating limousines. Kunselman understood the message from the state to be that it’s not that clear.

Sturgis said he did not know why the board did not simply place on a meeting agenda an ordinance amendment that requires all drivers to register with the city. “To me, that should be a no-brainer,” he said.

Registration of All Drivers for Hire

Crawford asked for clarification, saying he thought the limo drivers were licensed by the state and not licensed by local municipalities. Adkins explained that limo drivers have to have a chauffeur’s license, but it’s the vehicles that are registered by the state, not the drivers.

Sturgis said that the drivers should be registered locally if they’re not registered by the state.

Bullington noted that building trades contractors get a license from the state, but they have to be registered in the city. Sturgis again pushed for the board moving toward an ordinance amendment that would register all drivers – limo drivers and taxicab drivers alike. “I don’t understand why we can’t move that forward,” Sturgis said. Kunselman replied: “All right, let’s do it. I move that we ask the city attorney’s office to draft an amendment that would allow for the regulation of all drivers for hire in the city of Ann Arbor.”

Crawford ventured that the draft would come back for a broader discussion by the board. He got clarification from Kunselman that standards for taxicab drivers would be the same as for limo drivers as well.

Larcom, who will be doing the work to write the ordinance amendment, got clarification that the board wanted all drivers for hire – taxicab drivers and limo drivers – to get what is essentially right now is just a taxicab driver’s license. Kunselman indicated that he wanted all drivers for hire to be registered, because his understanding of how Uber works is that there is no cash transaction between the driver and the patron – but that’s still a driver for hire.

Benson raised the question of whether this issue falls under the purview of a taxicab board – or if the board should be named the taxicab/limo board? Kunselman ventured that changing the title of the ordinance itself might be an option. Benson got confirmation from Kunselman that he definitely wanted the taxicab board to be involved.

Crawford got additional clarification that the board’s intent was to require all drivers for hire to be registered, whether the rides were hailed (as with a taxicab) or pre-arranged (as with a limo).

Sturgis ventured that once the safety issue is figured out, the board could then talk about the fares.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the motion to ask the city attorney’s office to draft an ordinance amendment that would require all drivers for hire to be registered with the city.

Later in the meeting, the board came back to the issue of the city’s ability to enforce ordinances on limo drivers holding themselves out as taxicab drivers, and on other ancillary issues.

Benson asked Adkins to what extent the city is trying to enforce the city’s ordinance now? Adkins told Benson that what can be done about it must be done through ordinance changes. In terms of current enforcement on limousines holding themselves out as taxicabs, there’s no enforcement because officers can’t make it the primary reason for a traffic stop. AAPD has tried, but it’s very difficult, she explained. There are officers who make sure that a limo or taxi has proper documentation, when the officers stop a limo or taxi for other reasons. But as far as enforcement of the prohibition against limos working as taxicabs, it is not happening, Adkins explained.

Kunselman ventured that if the city enacted an ordinance that requires all drivers for hire to be licensed, that would give the AAPD the responsibility to make traffic stops. Adkins was not sure that was automatic, saying “We have to make sure that that’s a primary offense that we can stop for. That’s something that I would defer to the city attorney’s office for.”

Adkins explained that this issue is something the police department is confronting now on the state regulations: They can’t stop somebody just to make sure the limo or taxi is properly licensed. That’s a secondary offense, and so an officer would need to stop them for a primary offense first. As an example of a primary offense, she gave a traffic violation.

Kunselman asked if stopping in the road to pick somebody up could count as a traffic violation. Adkins indicated that impeding traffic is one possible traffic violation. Adkins said she’d like to have something with more meat to it – so that officers on patrol would be able to enforce it instead of having to wait for some other traffic violation to occur.

More Discussion on Uber

During the final round of public commentary, the board returned to the subject of Uber.

A representative of Arbor Taxi ventured that Ann Arbor already has the highest taxicab fares in the whole country – the same rates as in New York City. Rates should go down, not up. But with Uber’s arrival in the market, he wanted to hear from board members: What you going to do to protect us?

Kunselman reiterated that with Uber, one issue is the drivers. The other issue is insurance. If you pull over a person who is impeding traffic to pick up a ride and is doing it for hire, can you ask for proof of insurance to drive for hire? Kunselman asked. The answer from Adkins was: Not until the city has done what the city of Detroit has done – by attempting to regulate Uber. Detroit has issued a cease-and-desist order and told Uber that the business needs to register with the city as a limo company. So until Ann Arbor has city ordinances in place and the business is required to register as a limo company, not much can be done.

Adkins reviewed how there are two kinds of services offered by Uber: UberX and UberBLACK. For UberBLACK, they’re contracting with limo companies, she said. It’s UberX that’s of more concern, she said. Anybody passes Uber’s vetting system if they have an operator’s license in a vehicle that accommodates four people and personal insurance.

Kunselman wanted to know if Ann Arbor could piggyback on what Detroit is doing and issue some sort of cease-and-desist order. “We need to send that message pretty clearly to Uber,” Kunselman said. If their app is allowing for drivers for hire without the proper credentials and insurance, then Kunselman thought “it behooves us as a city to make sure that they are notified that that’s not acceptable.”

Larcom responded to Kunselman by saying she couldn’t say right away if action could be taken now. If the business is violating a city ordinance, then just like an officer can write a ticket without going to the city council, the city can enforce its ordinances, Larcom said.

Kunselman asked what had caused Detroit to issue a cease-and-desist order. Adkins explained because Uber was registered as a limousine company. The city of Detroit has a limo ordinance in addition to a taxicab ordinance, she explained. Kunselman said his understanding is that once Detroit’s population dropped below 750,000 that Detroit no longer had the authority to have a limousine ordinance. But if Detroit issued a cease-and-desist, then the city was “pretending” it did have that authority, he said.

Adkins told Kunselman that there is currently some language within the state statue that she felt the state attorney general’s office and certainly the Michigan State Police have interpreted to mean that cities can regulate limousine companies. Adkins said she only knew what had been explained to her. At any rate, she reported that the previous evening she’d looked up on the state’s website to see if Uber was even registered as a limo entity within the state – and they are not. [Updated after initial publication: A query from The Chronicle about the ability of cities to regulate limousine companies was referred by the state attorney general's office to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. Jeff Cranson, MDOT director of communications, emailed The Chronicle the following statement: "Public Act 271 does NOT prohibit local limo regulations."]

Adkins also reported that she’d been provided that morning with descriptions of eight different cars that were seen on the road the previous night that are providing transportation for Uber. Only one of them had a commercial plate; the other seven did not have commercial plates. She described how there’s a light that plugs into the cigarette lighter and sits on the dashboard, to identify that the vehicle is providing rides through Uber.

Kunselman said the bottom line is that the city needs to enact some ordinance amendments to reflect the change in business practices, and then start enforcing the ordinance. “We can’t wait for the state. I would like to follow the lead of the city of Detroit,” Kunselman said. So Kunselman told Larcom he was looking to the city attorney’s office to start that ball rolling.

Kunselman indicated that he would certainly bring it up at the next city council meeting and report that as a result of the taxicab board’s meeting, that process is getting started. He ventured that there are other, ancillary issues that need to be dealt with – and he would look to the city attorney’s office to somehow “draft that up.” Larcom indicated that she would rely on Adkins to learn what exactly Uber does.

Metrics for Success

The board continued with its discussion of metrics for success. Sturgis said that success should depend on safety – not having incidents come up with customers. He also felt that riders should feel like they’re getting a fair deal for the ride. Benson ventured that whatever the board does or doesn’t do affects the industry and affects the riding public. Ann Arbor loves transportation, Benson continued, so as the board proceeds in this discussion and its multiple facets, he would envision a good amount of public interest with “folks wanting to tell us things.” The traveling public wants cheap transportation and safe transportation, Benson said. At the same time, people who work in the industry need to be able to earn a living.

Benson summarized what he was hearing – that people would like to see the general case addressed to some extent before the board looks to deregulate fares, if the board were to do such a thing. As far as measures of success, he said it would be measured in terms of safety, in a variety ways. Success would also be measured by maintaining the number of companies operating vehicles in the city. Benson was concerned that if a critical mass of taxis is lost, the limos will be able to ignore the basic taxicab fare as a basis of comparison. Benson felt that fares would rise as a result.

Crawford wondered how the number of vehicles licensed in the city would be used as a metric. The number could go up or down – so would that be a reflection of success or a lack of success? Having more taxicabs in the city might make it more difficult for the industry to survive, he ventured.

Kunselman observed that the seasonal character of the Ann Arbor market – with football games, for example – would make it difficult to measure success. Kunselman indicated he was not interested in creating anything complicated.

Bullington noted that success would be difficult to measure in a college town where the population fluctuates. Crawford suggested that if the board does go through with setting a much higher maximum fare, under its existing authority, it might be done as a pilot – and that would have to be for a full year, because of the seasonality.

The conversation then moved to how rates are advertised, but again swung back to the issue of regulating drivers for hire. Larcom, who would be doing the drafting of the ordinance amendment, stated: “I just need to know what is being proposed.”

Kunselman ventured that at this point, Ann Arbor might be the city to push the envelope because the state is not able to. The state is essentially saying that the locals need to take care of it, he said.

Goeddel returned to the historical data about the number taxicabs operating in Ann Arbor. Adkins reviewed how it had remained pretty steady since about 2011, but there’d been a significant drop when Yellow Car converted all but one of its vehicles to limousines. Benson ventured that it would be interesting to know how long various companies have been registered in the city. Benson said that if the board knows how many limos are running in Ann Arbor, and also knows how many taxicabs are here, then the board will have a better idea of what’s going on in the city.

Crawford responded to Benson by saying he thought the board could get an idea of how many drivers are registered in the city but not necessarily how many are operating. The drivers might not be operating here. Kunselman pointed out that there might be four drivers per car.

Crawford indicated that to get a clearer picture, you’d have to start counting vehicles, drivers, and hours of operation. Adkins added that drivers migrate between companies, so initially the city might know who they’re working for, but that ebbs and flows over the year. The drivers could start out today with one limo company and then for whatever reason tomorrow go to a different one, she said.

Public Commentary

After the board discussion, toward the end of the meeting during public commentary, John Etter of Blue Cab told the board he was kind of impressed that board members had focused so heavily on customer safety. He’d thought he’d just been yelling into a void about the importance of safety. He felt that the primary purpose of the board was to ensure public safety in the industry. On the topic of fares, he thought the fact that almost all taxicab companies charge the maximum rate indicates a flaw. There should be variation in a competitive marketplace. He wanted the city to set a high maximum and then let people come in under it. That way you prevent absolute gouging, he noted – you can’t tell somebody it’s 10 bucks to get in and 20 bucks a mile.

But a high maximum of $5 to get in and $5 a mile – might be something to explore, he said. Etter indicated he would never charge anything as high as 5 bucks to get in and 5 bucks a mile – because he would lose most of his customers. But if you set it high, then the prices that companies would set, under that high maximum, would at least resemble a market. If he wanted to run 2013 Tauruses and someone else wanted to run 2004 Crown Victorias, then some people would take the Crown Vic because it’s cheaper, Etter said, and other people would take a ride in a 2013 Taurus because they’re willing to pay for it.

Etter then criticized the idea that taxicab rates should be regulated at all. The state regulates a lot of things about restaurants to ensure public safety, he said, but the state doesn’t regulate price. If you want to eat a McDonald’s burger, you do that. Or if you want to pay Zingerman’s 18 bucks for sandwich, he said, you can do that.

Etter also touched on the topic of insurance, saying there are only two or three companies that provide insurance for taxicabs in the state of Michigan. He reported a recent conversation with a colleague about his insurance, and the first quote he got was $2,000 higher than last year. If that happened to him, with his 50 cabs, he would convert his business to limos immediately, saying he would have no choice. With a $100,000 increase in operating costs, it would just be a no-brainer – because he could not pass that cost along to riders.

Benson asked Etter: If the city were to set a high maximum, what should that high maximum be? Etter told Benson that if the board didn’t want to keep revisiting it, he couldn’t imagine in the near future anybody wanting to charge $5 to get in and $5 a mile – but that kind of maximum would give companies potential for a lot of range, he said. He couldn’t see his company approaching that limit in 20 years – barring an explosion in insurance and gas prices.

During public commentary, Rick Clark with Amazing Blue Taxi told the board he was interested in seeing added features of a fare structure that would include the ability to charge different rates for groups of a certain size, for example.

Kunselman told Clark that just keeping track of the drivers is what he wanted to focus on. Managing the rates is a lower priority for him right now, Kunselman said. Clark told Kunselman that if he wanted taxicabs in Ann Arbor, they had to be allowed to be profitable. Kunselman indicated that there was openness to the idea of raising the allowable fare.

Clark told Kunselman that it’s not just gasoline that has increased in price. Insurance is up and the cost of tires is up, he pointed out. Kunselman said he was in favor of tweaking the rate, by increasing it by $0.25 or something like that. “That’s not going to do it,” Clark stated. Clark said it was an economic decision.

Kunselman told Clark that what he saw in the industry is cheating. The limo industry and Uber are cheating the public trust if they’re not holding the proper insurance, Kunselman said. They are cheating the public trust if their drivers don’t have proper licenses. Clark told Kunselman that it might be that the public trust is being violated with respect to insurance and registration, but “the public is not being screwed or shafted on price.” Clark indicated that he needed room under the maximum fare to be able to react to a rise in insurance rates.

Adkins told the board that based on her experience, the majority of the taxicab companies in Ann Arbor are really doing their best job to upgrade their fleet. There are a lot of vehicles that are only a couple of years old. The quality of the vehicles is high, she said, and there’s only one, maybe two, companies that she’d have to go after.

Mark LaSarge with SelectRide thanked Kunselman for his comments on public safety. He thought the biggest thing for Ann Arbor is driver safety. His company does both taxis and limousines, he said. He’d been licensed as a taxicab driver in the city of Ann Arbor, and he’s also a limousine chauffeur in the state of Michigan. So he’s operated on both sides. He called Ann Arbor a testbed.

He felt Ann Arbor is in a really neat position to deal with all the different issues: taxis versus limousines versus Uber. He felt that if the board focused on transportation for hire, that would actually be more accurate, because the reality is it’s the livery industry. He questioned why price was being regulated. Students show an ability to evaluate the price of milk at Plum Market versus Whole Foods versus Kroger – they know where to go for cheap milk. He reiterated that safety is the number one issue: We want to know who our drivers are, he concluded.

Present: Tom Crawford, Jamie Adkins, Eric Sturgis, Stephen Kunselman, LuAnne Bullington, Michael Benson, Robert Goeddel.

Next taxicab board meeting: May 22, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. in the city council workroom on the second floor of city hall at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

An image by artist Catherine Widgery for artwork on the East Stadium bridge. This night view shows how the structures would be lit from below, illuminating the images of trees that are etched into louvered glass panels.

John Kotarski and Bob Miller of the city’s public art commission presented images of a revised design for public art on the East Stadium bridge, a $400,000 project that includes columns of louvered glass panels on the bridge as well as underneath it, along South State Street. The artist – Catherine Widgery, who’s based in Massachusetts – had changed her original proposal at the request of a selection committee. The public art commission is seeking feedback on this new design, including at a public forum on Monday, April 21 at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library.

The public art commission likely will vote on a recommendation at its April 23 meeting. The proposal would then be forwarded to the city council for approval.

Also heading to city council is the site plan for a new Ruth’s Chris Steak House, which planning commissioners voted to recommend on April 1. The plan involves major renovations to the existing building at 314 S. Fourth Ave., which most recently housed the Dream Nite Club that closed in 2012. The renovations include adding a second-floor mezzanine level to the front of the building.

Part of the planning commission’s discussion focused on whether there might be outdoor dining in front of the restaurant. The project’s architect, Stephen Fry, indicated that at this point, outdoor seating wouldn’t be appropriate, in part because of bus traffic. The building is located near the Blake Transit Center, a hub for public transportation. “Ruth’s Chris is about a known and consistent dining experience,” Fry said, “and we just don’t feel we can control it out there.”

Fry also reported that the restaurant will likely be using valet parking, with valets positioned in front of the building. “So we’re going to activate the street with humans that are dressed up and looking good,” he said.

Commissioners also reviewed proposed ordinance revisions related to drive-thrus, and recommended that the city council approve the changes. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code.

In addition, the changes would require that drive-thru projects obtain a special exception use from the planning commission, and would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance. Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

The changes will give planning commissioners more discretion in approving drive-thru businesses, including restaurants, banks, pharmacies and other types of drive-thrus.

Ruth’s Chris Steak House

The planning commission’s April 1 agenda included review of the site plan for Ruth’s Chris Steak House.

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

The site plan calls for renovating the single-story building at 314 S. Fourth Ave. and putting up a 1,943-square-foot second-floor mezzanine addition over the front part of the existing building. An open space in front of the building – about 220 square feet – would also be filled in as part of the new addition.

The current structure is 8,024 square feet, and most recently housed the Dream Nite Club, which closed in 2012. The property owner is Dean Zahn Properties in Saline. The project is estimated to cost $2.2 million. [.pdf of staff report]

The recommendation of approval is contingent on addressing the following issues: (1) a discrepancy in the property legal description; (2) a license agreement for emergency egress across the front of the Fourth & William parking structure; and (3) construction of one bicycle parking space in the Fourth & William parking structure or payment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to install the space.

Because the site is within the D-1 zoning district, it’s exempt from vehicle parking requirements. No outdoor dining is proposed.

No one spoke during the public hearing on this project. The planning staff recommended approval of the site plan.

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

Ruth’s Chris Steak House: Commission Discussion – Fire, Water

Wendy Woods asked about fire suppression, pointing to comments in the staff report:

If an automatic sprinkler system is not being required by the Building Official, there will be no fire department connection (FDC) on this building, making the location of the FDC in relation to a supporting fire hydrant null. However, should a sprinkler system be installed, according to City Standards, the FDC is required within 100 feet of a supporting hydrant. With that said, the hydrant located on the southwest corner of E. Liberty and S. Fourth Ave is approximately 135-150 feet from the proposed FDC for Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse. This does not meet City Standards.

If the building was to be suppressed, in the interest of public safety and welfare, and adding an additional hydrant in order to meet the 100 foot requirement negatively impacts other aspects of the street layout and accessibility of parking and pedestrian traffic, then the current distance from the E. Liberty/S. Fourth Ave. hydrant to the proposed FDC would be considered acceptable in the Fire Marshal’s review.

Stephen Fry of Concept Design, the Grand Rapids firm that’s designing this building, said there was a question about whether building code required this renovation to include an automatic sprinkler system, because there isn’t going to be a change of use – it was a restaurant, and it will remain a restaurant. After talking to city building officials, Fry said, he believes a fire suppression system will be required. It will add more than $100,000 to the project, he said.

Stephen Fry of Concept Design, a Grand Rapids architectural firm that’s designing the Ann Arbor Ruth’s Chris Steak House.

That requirement might also entail putting in another fire hydrant, Fry added, but he’s been working with the fire department and believed they were close to agreeing that existing fire hydrants in the area will suffice. However, he said, “if they want one, then we’ll provide it.”

Sabra Briere asked Fry to explain the emergency egress issue. Currently, Fry replied, there’s a five-foot-wide egress area on the southeast corner of the site. Because the building will have a second floor, it needs a second means of egress that goes to the public right-of-way, he explained. Fry didn’t want to put an exit along the front of the building, so he’s planning to tuck it onto the building’s south side. To do that, a revocable easement from the city needs to be obtained. If the city ever revokes the easement, he said, then the restaurant would need to install an exit door on the front. “It’s a technical issue that we need to legally take care of,” Fry said.

Bonnie Bona asked about stormwater management, saying it’s nice when an existing building can contribute to the “first flush” stormwater treatment. She asked how it would be done – would they cut through the slab and install an infiltration system? Fry responded by saying that “this building is in a significant state of disrepair.” Between 50-100% of the floors will be removed, and most of the building will be gutted. The back doors don’t open, so they’ll be putting in new doors. If they need to make the door big enough to bring in large concrete basins, “that’s what we’ll do,” he said.

The concept is that the roof water will be fed from the roof directly to two tanks buried below the floor in the rear of the building, near the alley. The tanks will slow down the runoff rate from stormwater that flows from the roof, before entering the city’s stormwater system. If the rainfall is too fast for the tanks to contain, the water will overflow into the stormwater system.

Bona asked what the potential is for actual infiltration. Fry said he had mixed emotions about this approach, saying that he knows the city’s engineering staff really wants to locate infiltration tanks on the site. “But this is a 66-year-old building,” Fry said, “and architecturally, I’m a little bit concerned about inducing water around foundations that have been there that long, that I don’t know what condition they’re in.” There are impervious surfaces in every direction for miles, he noted. “It makes me architecturally nervous about the structure,” he said.

Fry hopes to reach a compromise with the city about how to handle the infiltration. Given the age of the building, the current proposal “is just asking for trouble,” he said. An architect typically has three problems, Fry added: “Water, water and water.” Part of the process will entail excavating that part of the building to see what’s there, he noted. Until that happens, it’s hard to know what they’re dealing with. “The commitment is there for [stormwater] detention,” he said. “We’ll do our best for infiltration.”

Ruth’s Chris Steak House: Commission Discussion – Design

Woods asked if the rendering of the building would actually be what the structure looked like after it was built. Fry replied that it would be very close to that. Adding a second floor will make the building “feel more at home in a very large monumental sort of neighborhood,” he said. “This is a tough street.”

Bonnie Bona.

Fry said he had to convince investors to even look at the building. The location includes a lot of bus traffic but no other retail, he noted. So Ruth’s Chris will be a good transitional use, because it’s a destination restaurant and doesn’t rely on foot traffic as much, he said. They can control what happens inside the building, Fry added, so what’s going on outside isn’t as important.

Bona noted that the proposal is a fairly small second-floor addition to a downtown building. Current downtown zoning doesn’t allow for a one-story building if it’s new construction, she said. Is there any potential for further additions on top of the existing building? Fry replied that the existing building won’t support a second floor, so they’ll be building new support structure for the addition. The design is also nearly the maximum allowable square footage that doesn’t require an elevator, which would be a significant cost, he said.

Fry also reported that a single-floor roof allows for economical kitchen venting – that’s one reason why this building was chosen. He noted that some of the investors didn’t even want to add any second floor, but Fry thought it was the only way to make the restaurant successful. “The private dining sector in this town seems to be very strong, and Ruth’s Chris is certainly a player in that,” he said.

Bona thought the second-floor facade added a lot to the streetscape. She appreciated that it would be a real second floor, saying that there’s a restaurant nearby with a second floor “that’s just open space to the first floor. It’s basically a fake second floor.” [She was referring to Tios, at 401 E. Liberty.]

Regarding the streetscape, Bona asked Fry for his thoughts on the use of the sidewalk. Fry noted that there’s some broken concrete that needs to be repaired. He said the restaurant would be a good neighbor for that area, and would likely make seasonal changes to the planters in front of the building. The restaurant is very serious about having a valet service, Fry added, “so we’re going to activate the street with humans that are dressed up and looking good.”

The sidewalk is only 12 feet wide, Fry noted, so there’s not a lot of room. The restaurant would likely go along with whatever improvements are proposed for that block. There’s a lot of activity on the sidewalk during the day, but the restaurant doesn’t intend to be open for lunch initially, Fry said. He added that the restaurant hopes to bring more activity at night, so lighting will be critical to make the sidewalk safe.

Paras Parekh asked about the potential for outdoor seating. There’s no restaurant policy against it, Fry replied, but “we do not think it’s appropriate for this location.” The sun never hits that east wall, he said, and it’s difficult for the restaurant to control the outdoor setting. “Ruth’s Chris is about a known and consistent dining experience,” Fry said, “and we just don’t feel we can control it out there.” He wasn’t sure there’d be room for tables anyway, given the valet service.

Kirk Westphal.

Kirk Westphal followed up, asking whether the design would be flexible enough to allow outdoor seating in the future, if the restaurant decided to do that. There’s nothing to preclude it, Fry replied. He noted that the Ruth’s Chris in Grand Rapids has a really nice sidewalk in front and is in a location with a nice environment, so there is outdoor dining. “If there’s a need, we will certainly evaluate that,” Fry said.

The restaurant’s biggest concern is the bus traffic on Fourth Avenue, which causes significant noise, Fry told commissioners. There’s also not a lot to look at, he added – just the wall of the federal building across the street. Westphal noted that the buses stop running at night.

Diane Giannola wondered if the architect had considered having a rooftop deck. Yes, Fry said, but again it came down to whether the restaurant could control the outside environment. There would be kitchen exhaust and other noise, he said, so it didn’t seem to make sense at this location.

Ken Clein said he’d like to see outdoor dining too, but agreed that it probably wasn’t the best location to do that. As a destination restaurant, Clein thought it was a good use of the site, especially considering that it’s been vacant for a long time. “I’m a vegetarian, and I’m still supportive of it,” Clein joked. Fry replied that there’d be options for vegetarians, too.

Clein, who is also an architect, asked about the building materials, which Fry described. There would be some tweaks to respond to recommendations from the city’s design review board regarding the colors of the facade, Fry said. “It all needs to reflect quality and craftsmanship – that’s the idea.” The company doesn’t dictate the design of the franchises, he added, so every building is unique. Fry said he designed the Ruth’s Chris restaurant in Grand Rapids too, which is located inside the Amway Grand Plaza Hotel.

Ruth’s Chris Steak House: Commission Discussion – Misc.

Responding to a query from Woods, Fry said that the bicycle parking in the Fourth & William structure is visible from the sidewalk.

City planner Matt Kowalski.

Briere asked if a citizens participation meeting had been required for this project. No, Fry replied, but they did mail out some notifications to surrounding property owners. There were no responses.

Jeremy Peters asked about the staff memo regarding a discrepancy in the property line. The current legal description does not include the western 8 feet at the back of the property, adjacent to the alley. City planner Matt Kowalski explained that it appears to be a clerical error when the deed was drawn up more than 60 years ago. There’s no question about who owns it – it’s clearly part of the lot, he said.

Fry added that it can’t be changed without filing a lawsuit, and that’s being done. “I understand that our odds are extremely high that it’s going to go through,” he said, because the owner has been paying taxes on that portion of the property for decades.

Westphal asked about shielding noise from the restaurant’s mechanical systems. Fry indicated that the noise would be very similar or less than previous restaurants located in that same building. The kitchen, which was built for Maude’s restaurant, is huge, Fry said.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson said the city’s challenge is that it’s difficult to enforce the noise standards – especially after equipment has been installed – other than sending police to respond to complaints. Fry noted that the site is surrounded by a parking structure to the south, a surface parking lot to the north, and an alley on the west. The noise would be shielded in the front by the new second floor addition, he said. Westphal suggested exploring quieter models of mechanical systems, if possible.

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

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes

Commissioners considered several amendments to the city’s zoning ordinance related to drive-thrus. The amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The changes will give planning commissioners more discretion in approving drive-thru businesses, including restaurants, banks, pharmacies and other types of drive-thrus.

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

Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

In introducing the proposal, planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that planning commission chair Kirk Westphal had requested that staff look into these changes. The issue has been around for a long time, she said.

Since the changes were first considered in 2007, the city’s South State Street corridor plan has been approved, Rampson noted. [It was added to the city's master plan in 2013.] There’s been discussion about how to make the city’s major commercial corridors more pedestrian friendly, she said, by bringing buildings closer to the front of properties and reducing the impact of vehicles. So it made sense to bring forward these proposed revisions related to drive-thrus, she said.

Rampson pointed out that these changes would not preclude having drive-thrus in office, C2B or C3 zoning districts. Rather, it would give planning commissioners the opportunity to look at the layout of the site, though there are some design restrictions. For example, the ordinance revisions would prevent a drive-thru window from being located between a sidewalk and the main building.

These proposed changes, coupled with revisions that the city made two years ago in the off-street parking ordinance, should help minimize the impact of a drive-thru, Rampson said.

Finally, the changes would also give the planning commission the discretion to reject a drive-thru proposal, if it’s in a location that commissioners feel isn’t appropriate, Rampson noted. The intent is to give commissioners the tools they need to make sure a drive-thru works on a particular property, she said.

The biggest impact will likely be on banks that are built in the future, Rampson said, because currently regulations related to drive-thrus haven’t applied to banks at all.

No one spoke during the public hearing on this item.

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes: Commission Discussion – Definition, Use

Ken Clein asked whether these revisions would impact car washes. No, Rampson replied, because car washes are considered a separate use. She noted that in C2B districts, car washes, automobile service stations and filling stations are allowed as special exception uses.

Wendy Woods.

In the definition of a drive-thru, Clein wondered whether the word “motor” should be added in front of “vehicle” – in case some “intrepid entrepreneur” wanted to have a bicycle or skateboard drive-thru at some point. Rampson noted that the definition describes “customers who remain in their vehicle.” She thought it would be hard to say that someone is “in a skateboard” or “in a bike.” There are also motorized bicycles, she noted.

But Rampson agreed that Clein’s suggestion to add the word “motor” would allow more clarity. If someone proposed a different kind of drive-thru – or a walk-up window, for example – she didn’t think the city would be concerned about that.

Clein proposed an amendment to add the word “motor” to the definition. The revised definition would state: “Any building or structure, or portion thereof, that is constructed or operated for the purpose of providing goods or services to customers who remain in their motor vehicle during the course of the transaction.”

Bonnie Bona agreed that there would be no problem with a walk-up or bike-up window, because those wouldn’t cause conflicts with sidewalks and pedestrians.

Outcome on amendment: It passed unanimously.

Wendy Woods noted that there are drive-thru funeral homes, including some in Detroit. That’s another kind of use, though she hoped it wouldn’t come to Ann Arbor. She asked whether the ordinance needed to mention that use.

Rampson replied that the advantage of the proposed approach is that the drive-thru is associated with many different uses. It’s only the drive-thru component that would trigger the special exception use requirement.

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes: Commission Discussion – Past Projects

Bona asked Rampson to share an example that had been discussed at the ordinance revisions committee – a drive-thru on Plymouth Road, near the Holiday Inn North Campus hotel. In that project, the back doors of the building faced Plymouth Road, Bona noted. How would the proposed ordinance revisions have helped the planning commission deal with that project?

Paras Parekh.

[Bona was referring to a project that the planning commission recommended for approval at its Jan. 15, 2013 meeting. The retail development – called The Shoppes at 3600 – is located at 3600 Plymouth Road, just west of US-23.]

Rampson told commissioners that if the proposed ordinance revisions had been in place at that time, the project would have required the commission to grant a special exception use. The drive-thru could not be located between the main building and a public right-of-way. For that project, the window was actually located on the side of the building, Rampson noted, so it wasn’t between the main building and the sidewalk. Commissioners had been more critical of the exiting driveway that led around the back of the building, between the building and the Plymouth Road sidewalk.

However, Rampson said, commissioners could have applied other standards of the special exception use to require modifications to the project.

Rampson also pointed to the drive-thru at the Tim Horton’s on Ellsworth Road, which planning commissioners recommended for approval on March 6, 2012. In that case, the drive-thru window is facing Ellsworth. So if the proposed ordinance revisions had been in place at that time, the city would have required that the building or the window be reoriented.

Woods noted that other drive-thru projects have created problems, like the Walgreens at the corner of Washtenaw and Huron Parkway. It’s very difficult to use the drive-thru, she said, because of traffic coming in from Huron Parkway. And pedestrians “pretty much take their life in their own hands when they want to cross the street to get over there,” she added.

Drive-Thru Zoning Changes: Commission Discussion – Special Exception Use

Bona said the special exception use allows the developer to be creative about how to solve the problem. She indicated that she preferred this approach, rather than requiring specific design restrictions. The intent is to not prioritize cars over the pedestrian experience, she said.

Jeremy Peters agreed, saying that the standards outlined in the special exception use might yield better designs. He said he was a fan of taking this approach, instead of banning drive-thrus completely. Businesses that have the need for a drive-thru still have that option.

Responding to a query from Kirk Westphal, Rampson said that if existing drive-thrus need renovations that require an administrative amendment to the site plan or planning commission approval, it’s considered a pre-existing, special exception use. But if a project requires going to city council to get site plan approval, then the special exception use would need to be re-established by the planning commission.

Ken Clein agreed that the special exception use was a good tool for this purpose. It raised the bar a little, in terms of the planning commission’s expectations, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners recommended approval of the ordinance revisions. The proposal will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Stadium Bridge Artwork

John Kotarski, vice chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, gave a presentation to commissioners about the proposed artwork for East Stadium bridge. Also on hand were AAPAC chair Bob Miller and Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

John Kotarski, vice chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission. Seated in the background are AAPAC chair Bob Miller and Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

In early August of 2013, Catherine Widgery of Cambridge, Mass. was recommended as the artist for public art on the East Stadium bridge in Ann Arbor. She was picked by a selection panel from four finalists who had submitted proposals for the project, which has a $400,000 total budget. [.pdf of Widgery's original proposal]

The selection panel provided feedback to Widgery and asked that she revise her proposal before it’s presented to AAPAC and then later to the city council for approval. Members of the panel are Wiltrud Simbuerger, Bob Miller, Nancy Leff, David Huntoon and Joss Kiely. [.pdf of panel feedback]

Kotarski reviewed the process, which started in November 2011. The goal had been to unify the East Stadium bridge overpass and the South State Street underpass, and connect to the neighborhoods. The artwork was intended to connect with different modes of transportation, to be viewed by people walking, biking or in cars. A total of 32 proposals had been originally received.

Kotarski said AAPAC “constantly” is asked the question: Why not pick a local artist? “The short answer is the city attorney said we can’t,” Kotarski told commissioners. The city can’t have an open competition and restrict artists to only ones who live in this area, he said. However, he added that AAPAC did extensive outreach to local artists, contacting local organizations and asking them to spread the word about the request for proposals. Seven Michigan artists presented proposals, but none were selected as finalists.

Although Widgery’s work stood out in many ways, Kotarski said, the selection panel wanted her to refine it. For example, her original proposal called for 12 four-by-six-foot acrylic/aluminum or glass banners etched with images of trees, to be hung from existing lightpoles on the bridge. It would have required the lightpoles to be reinforced in some way. The panelists also wanted a more dramatic structure, Kotarski said.

Widgery’s new design for the bridge features stand-alone, louvered glass columns that are etched with images of trees. The same type of louvered glass panels are also used under the bridge along South State, affixed to the wall of the underpass. The panels are lit, so that the etchings stand out at night, Kotarski explained.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery along East Stadium bridge.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

An image of proposed artwork by Catherine Widgery below East Stadium bridge, along South State Street.

A detail of the louvers designed by Catherine Widgery. The etched glass panels will be attached to a metal frame.

Kotarski noted that he and Miller will be making similar presentations at a public forum and at meetings of local groups like the planning commission. The public forum will be held on Monday, April 21 at the downtown Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. starting at 7 p.m.

AAPAC will review the input and likely vote on a recommendation for the project at its April 23 meeting, Kotarski said. That recommendation would then be forwarded to the city council for approval. The hope is to have the artwork installed by the fall of 2014 or early spring of 2015.

Kotarski concluded by saying that “not one penny of the money spent on this artwork could be spent on potholes. This is a completely different fund.” He said the money to fix potholes comes from state revenue, not local taxes. “So this is not art versus potholes – I want to assure you of that,” he said.

The funds for the East Stadium bridge artwork are from the city’s former Percent for Art program, which the city council eliminated at its June 3, 2013 meeting. The project’s budget had been approved prior to the council’s decision to suspend funding for new projects. That decision occurred on Dec. 3, 2012.

The specific Percent for Art money for this project comes from street millage revenues. The Percent for Art funding mechanism set aside 1% for public art from the budget of each of the city’s capital projects, such as street work.

Stadium Bridge Artwork: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere confirmed with John Kotarski that the structures would be lit from below. She wondered if the lighting would be solar-powered. Bob Miller replied that the city is getting estimates from the electrician, but the structures won’t be lit with solar power. Briere asked if it would connect with the same electrical system that’s heating the stairs coming up to the bridge from South State. Miller wasn’t sure.

Sabra Briere.

When Briere expressed disappointment that the lighting wouldn’t be solar, Miller said that it would be possible, if the city wanted it.

Miller highlighted the fact that these structures will be on both the east and west ends of the bridge – along the north side.

Ken Clein said he’d seen the previous designs, and thought this version was a great improvement. The lighting makes a big difference. He thanked AAPAC for its work.

Briere noted that the structures on the bridge are adjacent to sidewalks, and thus are removed from traffic. Miller replied that a previous iteration had positioned the structures in a landscaped area on the east end. But feedback from neighbors, who didn’t want the landscaping disturbed, resulted in moving the structures out of that area, but next to the sidewalk.

Briere hoped there would be less risk of vehicular accidents in the proposed location. Miller replied: “I didn’t know there was a risk to begin with.”

Briere said there are always risks, so she wanted to make sure the structures were separated from traffic.

Kirk Westphal asked about maintenance costs, citing the example of a car hitting one of the structures. Miller replied that the artist has been asked to provide a maintenance schedule. That will be part of the final proposal.

Westphal asked if there would be a plaque identifying the artist. Aaron Seagraves indicated that there would be a plaque of some sort.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Meeting Schedule

Commissioners were asked to approve their meeting schedule for fiscal 2015, which runs from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. [.pdf of meeting schedule]

Ann Arbor planning commissioners.

The planning commission meetings are held on Tuesdays. During the week of an election, the meetings are typically rescheduled for a Thursday. However for the next fiscal year, which begins on July 1, 2014, the planning staff is recommending that the planning commission meetings be moved to Wednesday after an election, rather than to Thursday.

Sabra Briere asked whether there would be any conflicts with Wednesday meetings. Briere said she was thinking about all the neighborhood and citizen meetings that occur on Wednesdays, and trying to determine “how to adjust my mental schedule.” Planning manager Wendy Rampson thought they’d encounter the same potential conflicts on Thursdays. There are only a limited number of options, she noted, and the staff tries not to conflict with other city boards and commissions.

Rampson reported that city staff hadn’t anticipated the Tuesday, May 6 election. [The election is being held for the sole purpose of voting on a transit tax, which was put on the ballot by the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority.] The elections staff will be using the hallways outside of council chambers on May 6, she noted. The planning staff felt that there would likely be too much noise, so they’ve scheduled the May 6 meeting to be held in the Washtenaw County boardroom, at 220 N. Main St.

That change of venue will get planning commissioners accustomed to the new location, Rampson said. Later in the calendar year, their meetings will be held at that location while asbestos abatement occurs on the second floor of city hall, where the council chambers are located.

Outcome: Commissioners approved their meeting schedule.

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners, as well as two opportunities for public commentary. No one spoke during public commentary on April 1.

Communications & Commentary: City Council

Planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the city council’s April 7 agenda will include the joint resolution regarding the former Edwards Brothers property, which planning commissioners passed at their March 18, 2014 meeting.

The resolution included recommendations on uses for the site on South State Street, which the University of Michigan is acquiring. The intent is to encourage representatives from the city and UM to discuss their mutual interests in that area – weighing the university’s need to expand its facilities against the city’s interest in strengthening its tax base.

Issues include the possible private development of the section that fronts South State, impact on the park-and-ride lot in that area, and the extension of Oakbrook Drive from South State to South Main, through UM property. The council will be considering the same resolution.

The council’s April 7 agenda will also include the planning commission’s resolution about the use of the Library Lane surface, which commissioners also approved on March 18, 2014. That resolution will be attached to the agenda as an item of communication, Rampson said.

Communications & Commentary: ZORO

Wendy Rampson reported that the city attorney’s office and city planner Alexis DiLeo have been working on the Zoning Ordinance Reorganization (ZORO) project. “I just thought you’d be excited to hear that,” she joked. There’s still a lot of work to be done, but the staff is trying to move it forward, she added.

ZORO began in 2009. The goal is to do a comprehensive review of 11 chapters of the city code that are related to development, and to present the material in a more concise, user-friendly way, clarifying terminology, and eliminating inconsistencies and outdated material. The project is being overseen by the city attorney’s office, with support from planning staff and work by an outside consultant. Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald is the lead staff person for ZORO.

At a Jan. 7, 2014 planning commission work session, Rampson had reported that the project had been stalled for about six months. The slow progress has been a point of frustration for commissioners over the years.

Communications & Commentary: Downtown Zoning

Bonnie Bona reported that the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC) is working on revisions to the downtown zoning ordinance. The planning commission had made recommendations about the revisions at its Dec. 2, 2013 meeting. Those recommendations were subsequently approved by the city council on Jan. 21, 2014, when the council directed the planning commission to craft the corresponding zoning ordinance language to reflect the recommendations.

The ORC started with the rezoning of property at Main and William to D2, Bona said, and that will be on the planning commission’s agenda in May. The next piece is to look at the area north of Huron Street, including potentially rezoning some sites and adjusting the overlay district in that area.

Communications & Commentary: DDA Streetscape Framework

Ken Clein, who represents the planning commission on the partnerships committee of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, reported that the DDA is kicking off its streetscape framework project. He’ll be representing the planning commission as part of that effort. [The DDA board authorized a $200,000 contract for development of a streetscape framework plan at its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting.]

Ken Clein.

In response to a query from Wendy Woods, planning manager Wendy Rampson said the framework will include an economic evaluation of the use of sidewalks – whether it’s for dining, outdoor sales, or other activities. The intent is to help provide better guidance about what should be allowed on the sidewalks.

Related to downtown sidewalks, Sabra Briere said she keeps hearing from constituents about problems with handicapped accessibility. In many locations, it’s difficult or impossible for someone in a wheelchair to maneuver, she said. Many times, outdoor seating is marked off with a fence that blocks access at a handicapped parking spot, Briere noted. Any time there are barriers put in place unknowingly, “we’re making a mistake,” she said.

The city should be really sensitive to the situation, so she hoped that Clein could bring that up as the streetscape project moves forward.

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

Next meeting: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 7 p.m. in the second floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

If approved by the city council, the amendments would add a definition of a “drive-thru facility” to Chapter 55 of the city code. Currently, the term used throughout the code is “drive-in,” which is not explicitly defined in the code.

In addition, the changes would require drive-thrus to obtain special exception use permits, which would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance. Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

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

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

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

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

The changes will give planning commissioners more discretion in approving drive-thru businesses, including restaurants, banks, pharmacies and other types of drive-thrus. Commissioner Jeremy Peters noted that he preferred the approach of requiring a special exception use, rather than an outright prohibition of drive-thrus.

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

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

Back on the council’s March 3 agenda will be two resolutions – or possibly just one – that would make such a fund transfer. Also back on March 3 will be a resolution extending the part-time public art administrator’s contract for six months and appropriating $18,500 for that purpose.

The council’s actions on Feb. 18 began with final approval to an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance. That amendment allowed the council to transfer money accumulated through the now demised Percent for Art program back to the funds from which that money was drawn. Those funds include street millage funds, sanitary sewer funds, stormwater funds and the like. That ordinance amendment passed on a 10-0 vote. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) was absent from the 11-member council. The council had given initial approval to the ordinance amendment at its Feb. 3, 2014 meeting.

Any actual transfer of funds, however, required separate council action, with support from an eight-vote majority. Two different resolutions had been placed on the agenda addressing a fund transfer of money out of the public art fund. The first was sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), joined by Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), and Mike Anglin (Ward 5), and the second by Sabra Briere (Ward 1). The council ultimately postponed action on both resolutions.

The council flipped the order of the resolution at the start of the meeting, when the agenda was approved. So Briere’s resolution was considered first. A key difference between the two resolutions was the amount to be transferred: Lumm’s resolution specified a $819,005 transfer while Briere’s specified $957,140. The increased amount in Briere’s proposal was based on canceling a stalled public art project at Argo Cascades.

At the start of the council’s Feb. 18 meeting, the balance of unassigned funds accrued in the Percent for Art fund was $839,507. An additional $535,853 was earmarked for three projects that are underway: artwork at East Stadium bridges ($385,709), a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($7,009), and at Argo Cascades ($143,134). [.pdf of financial summary] A breakdown of the amounts that could be returned – and the funds of origin for the money – is covered here: [Art budget summary]

Another key element from Briere’s resolution was based on the council’s June 3, 2013 action to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism, which also included a provision for a new approach to a public art program. The Percent for Art funding mechanism required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. The new approach enacted by the council last year can include city-funded art when it’s designed as an integral part of a capital project, as well as projects funded through a combination of private and public money.

So the resolution put forward by Briere included an instruction to the city administrator to direct city staff to develop a transition plan to be implemented by staff and the public art commission. It directed that plan to be presented to the council in about a year – before March 2, 2015. Briere’s resolution also directed the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator, drawn from the general fund. FY 2015 runs from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015.]

Lumm and Kailasapathy felt the direction to establish a budget was too vague and they were not prepared to support the resolution on that basis.

When the roll call vote on postponement was taken,  Margie Teall (Ward 4) hesitated for several seconds before casting the final and deciding vote for postponement of Briere’s resolution to the council’s March 3 meeting. The other five votes for postponement were from Briere, Sally Petersen (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), and mayor John Hieftje.  In Taylor’s absence neither resolution had a realistic chance of meeting the eight-vote requirement for approval.

Those in favor of postponing Briere’s resolution instead of seeing it be defeated were unwilling to support Lumm’s resolution because it did not provide a clear plan or a path for transition to the new public art program. As councilmembers recognized that Lumm’s resolution did not have adequate support to pass, they voted unanimously to postpone it until March 3. That ended the debate on a comparatively calm tone, after featuring some sharp exchanges between Briere and Lumm.

The two councilmembers had been at odds earlier in the meeting over an affordable housing resolution (which was ultimately postponed) – which Lumm had not wanted placed on the agenda until March 3. Indications were that a single public art resolution might be crafted for the March 3 meeting, instead of putting both forward again. That drew some interest from Kunselman, who had stated early in deliberations that he would be voting against both resolutions. He floated the idea that if a single resolution were brought forward, he might lend it his support. Kunselman’s view of the matter was that establishing a budget for a transition and transferring funds  was best addressed as part of the annual budget process. The council adopts the next year’s fiscal budget at its second meeting in May.

In its final public art-related action on Feb. 18, the council reconsidered a resolution defeated at its Feb. 3 meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. The result of that council vote on Feb. 3 was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves could not be paid. The council’s unanimous vote on Feb. 18 was to postpone the question until March 3.

The reconsideration of the contract extension at the Feb. 18 meeting was the result of political bargaining. That reconsideration had originally been based on whether there would be a successful vote to transfer Percent for Art money back to its funds of origin. But based on the way the debate on the two resolutions evolved, Eaton made a motion for reconsideration near the end of the meeting – with the understanding that would be immediately postponed.

The art administrator’s contract was first considered at the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, but was postponed in the context of a political horse trade – support for the administrator’s contract being contingent on beginning a process to transfer money accumulated under Percent for Art in previous years, back to the money’s funds of origin.

The Feb. 18 meeting also featured public commentary in support of public art funding from several speakers, including Margaret Parker, former chair of the Ann Arbor public art commission, and Bob Miller, the commission’s current chair. Parker referred to “negative city councilmembers” who say no to everything. Directing her comments at some councilmembers who say they’re in favor of public art, Parker asked, “Who can believe you?” Miller told councilmembers that the commission represents the council’s goals and direction. Another speaker, Dave Olson, read aloud from a statement that has been circulated in the arts community and that was signed by about 25 people advocating for a  sustainable art program.

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