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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AAHC Platt Road Project

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

Aerial view of 3451 Platt.

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

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

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

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

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

Alexis DiLeo of the city planning staff.

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

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

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

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

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

AAHC Platt Road Project: Public Hearing

The public hearing on this project drew 17 speakers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wendy Woods, chair of the planning commission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Colenback, a member of the AAHC board.

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

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

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

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

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

AAHC Platt Road Project: Commission Discussion – Rezoning

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

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AAHC Platt Road Project: Commission Discussion – Site Plan

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

Planning commissioner Ken Clein.

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

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

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

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

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

Revision to Bylaws

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

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revision to Bylaws: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minutes of Previous Meeting

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

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

Westphal clarified no office or financial institution uses.

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

Planning commissioner Kirk Westphal.

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

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

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

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

Absent: Bonnie Bona.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bylaws will be forwarded to the council for consideration. The revisions must be approved by the council before taking effect.

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

Wendy Woods was unanimously elected to serve as the commission’s chair, replacing Kirk Westphal. She has served as vice chair for the past two years. Ken Clein, who has served as secretary, was elected vice chair, replacing Woods in that position. Westphal reported that Jeremy Peters had expressed interest in serving as secretary, though he did not attend the July 15 meeting. Peters was unanimously elected to that position. None of the officer elections were contested. These three positions make up the commission’s executive committee.

This is also the time of year when the commission’s bylaws are reviewed. Planning manager Wendy Rampson introduced staff recommendations for changes to the bylaws, which had also been discussed at a July 8 working session.

Planning commissioners had originally adopted revisions to their bylaws at a Feb. 20, 2014 meeting. Those changes related to two issues: how city councilmembers interact with the commission; and public hearings.

Revisions to bylaws require city council approval. However, the city attorney’s office did not forward the Feb. 20 changes to the council for consideration. There was no action until earlier this month, when assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald provided suggested revisions to the bylaws related to public hearings. Those were the changes that were presented to commissioners at their July 8 working session, and again at their July 15 regular meeting. [.pdf of revised bylaws regarding public hearings] [.pdf of bylaws staff memo]

The revisions will be voted on at the commission’s next meeting, then forwarded to the council for consideration.

This brief was filed from the council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron, where the planning commission holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow.

Ann Arbor planning commissioners Eleanore Adenekan and Jeremy Peters at a Feb. 4, 2014 working session in the basement of city hall. (Photos by the writer.)

Most of their discussion at the Feb. 4 working session focused on how the city council interacts with the commission. The issue stems from an episode last year when councilmember Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) began to speak during a public hearing on a project in his neighborhood. He hadn’t been aware of the bylaws governing whether councilmembers can formally address the commission.

A similar situation occurred at an ordinance revisions committee meeting later in the year, when councilmember Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) started to address the commissioners during public commentary. In both cases, the councilmembers were told that the commission’s bylaws prevented them from speaking.

The current bylaws state: “A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.”

Jack Eaton (Ward 4) weighed in during the council’s Feb. 3 meeting, stating his view that if councilmembers are involved in a petition that would prevent them from voting on the item at the council meeting, they should be allowed to address the planning commission. “When we get elected, I don’t think we give up our right to petition government,” he said. Eaton asked Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who serves on the planning commission, to convey his point to commissioners as part of their discussion.

During the working session on Feb. 4, some commissioners expressed concern that any time a councilmember addresses the commission, it can be an undue influence on the process. Another concern is whether councilmembers, by forecasting their view in advance of a council vote, could put the city at legal risk. But at least one commissioner had a different view on the issue of constraining councilmembers from addressing the commission. Eleanore Adenekan told commissioners: “It’s like somebody telling me that ‘You can’t walk into this room because you’re black.’”

There seemed to be general consensus that the current bylaws are unclear, and a proposed revision is intended to simplify the issue: “A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission during the Councilmember’s term in office.”

Briere advocated for additional training of councilmembers, regarding what’s appropriate in these contexts. When the council takes up ethics issues later this year, she said, the issue of communicating with city boards and commissions will be one of the topics. “I call it How to Behave in Public,” Briere said.

Commissioners also discussed revisions to the bylaws related to public hearings. Some of the changes relate to whether someone can speak more than once at the same public hearing, when it is continued over multiple meetings. This situation arose last year during a public hearing on the downtown zoning review. Bonnie Bona cautioned other commissioners against changing the bylaws in ways that are “just making ourselves look more closed.” Some commissioners countered that the bylaws also allow for a majority vote to modify or waive the limitations, if necessary. [.pdf of current planning commission bylaws] [.pdf of Feb. 20 staff memo and proposed revisions]

The commission’s Feb. 20 meeting – held on a Thursday, rather than the typical Tuesday, because of scheduling due to the Presidents Day holiday – has a light agenda. In addition to the bylaws, the only other action item is a proposed rezoning of 2.02 acres at 2225 Traverwood Drive, adjacent to the Stapp Nature Area. Developer Bill Martin is donating the land to the city, and the proposal would rezone it to public land.

Planning Commission Bylaws: Background

The planning commission has been working on revisions to its bylaws for several months. At its July 16, 2013 meeting, the commission approved changes related to the order of agenda items, and the length of time required for special accommodations, such as sign language interpreters. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws]

Other revisions that are being discussed could prove more controversial, and stem from situations that arose at planning commission meetings in 2013.

One possible revision relates to the following clause from the planning commission bylaws, which imposes a limitation on the ability of a councilmember to address the city planning commission:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.

That part of the bylaws surfaced when councilmembers Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) on separate occasions sought to address the planning commission – Warpehoski, during a public hearing at the commission’s July 16, 2013 meeting, and Kailasapathy on Aug. 13, 2013 during public commentary at an ordinance revisions committee meeting.

An analysis in the Michigan Municipal League’s “Handbook for Municipal Officials” indicates that it be problematic for a city councilmember to address a body like the planning commission. That’s not based on having a property interest in a matter, but rather because the council is the appointing body for the commission. The handbook presents the following scenario as an ethical exercise – using the zoning board of appeals (ZBA). From the MML Handbook:

Situation #2 Before you were elected to the city council you served on your city’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA), so you know the ZBA procedures very well. A few months after your election to council, your neighbor and campaign manager files a petition with the ZBA seeking a variance. Since you know how the ZBA works, he asks you to accompany him to the ZBA and to speak on his behalf. Should you do it?

The analysis offered by the handbook is the following:

No. The Michigan Court of Appeals has labeled this situation as “patently improper” and an abuse of public trust for the reason that the person making the argument to the ZBA is also one of the people charged with appointing the ZBA. This creates duress on the ZBA, raising doubt about the impartiality of the ZBA’s decision. Any decision made by the ZBA under these circumstances is void. See Barkey v. Nick, 11 Mich App 361 (1968).

The implication of the Ann Arbor city planning commission bylaw is that it’s permissible for a city councilmember to address the commission exactly when the councilmember is not the petitioner or does not have an interest in the matter. That situation appears to be explicitly deemed unethical by the MML Handbook, if the handbook’s analysis is extended from the ZBA to the planning commission.

So commissioners are contemplating revisions to the section of its bylaws that address interactions with the city council.

In addition, commissioners are weighing another revision to their bylaws for speaking turns at public hearings. The intent is to clarify how many turns the same person can speak at a public hearing, and how public hearings are continued.

The revisions would clarify a process that was debated by commissioners on Oct. 15, 2013, during the middle of a public hearing on downtown zoning changes. Before that hearing began, planning commission chair Kirk Westphal stated that the hearing would likely continue at a future meeting, but that speakers would be allowed only one turn during the entire hearing – either that night, or at a subsequent meeting. Midway through the hearing, commissioner Sabra Briere raised an objection to Westphal’s ruling, and commissioners spent about 20 minutes debating the issue.

During that debate, planning manager Wendy Rampson reported that the commission’s bylaws are silent on this issue. The commission ultimately voted to allow for people to speak more than once when the public hearing is continued, over the objection of Westphal, Diane Giannola and Wendy Woods.

A proposed revision related to this issue in the bylaws was brought forward by commissioner Jeremy Peters on Nov. 6, 2013, but no vote was taken.

The revisions for both issues – public hearings, and councilmember interactions – were subsequently discussed at a planning commission work session on Jan. 7, 2014. That session was attended by only four of the nine commissioners, however, so the item was put on the agenda again for the Feb. 4 working session.

Interactions with City Council

The discussion of bylaws began on Feb. 4 with a report from Sabra Briere, a Ward 1 councilmember who also serves on the planning commission, regarding issues raised at the previous night’s council meeting on Feb. 3. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) had expressed concerned about whether a councilmember could speak to the planning commission as a whole, Briere said – either on an issue that affects the councilmember directly, or on some general principle.

Specifically, his comments were directed at Article V, Section 9 of the commission’s bylaws:

Section 9. A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.

It was Eaton’s assertion, she said, that councilmembers should be able to address the commission on issues that affect them directly, because they’d need to recuse themselves from voting on the item at council.

Sabra Briere, who serves on both the city council and planning commission.

[Eaton's remarks at the council table included this statement: "I think that this [Section 9] actually is backwards. I think that if a councilmember has a petition, they should be allowed to speak to the planning commission, just as anybody. When we get elected, I don’t think we give up our right to petition government. And it’s especially true because if we have an interest in a petition, we won’t be able to vote for or against it here at this table. And so there’s no conflict of interest in representing ourselves in front of the planning commission. Conversely, I think that it might be wise to not allow city councilmembers to talk at a commission meeting on a matter that they’ll later have a vote at this table in review of. So I think that Section 9 is exactly opposite. If you have a financial interest in something, you should be able to talk to the planning commission about that matter, because you won’t have a voice here. But if you’re going to vote here [at a council meeting] in review of the planning commission, you probably shouldn’t talk there [before the planning commission].”

Briere said that she’d told Eaton she would bring these issues forward for commissioners to mull over.

In addition, Briere reported that she’d spoken about these issues with Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office. “He’s very concerned that councilmembers should never be put in a position of asserting implicitly or explicitly their preconceived idea of how something ought to be that will come in front of them,” she said. If there’s a legal question about whether a vote at council was taken appropriately, she continued, according to McDonald “councilmembers need not to have left a trail of making assertions about what the outcome of the vote ought to be.”

Briere said McDonald’s real concern is if councilmembers were to come before the commission as a petitioner. If they did that, they wouldn’t be able to vote on the issue when it came before council. Briere said that McDonald cited a case involving a councilmember coming before a zoning board of appeals. It’s easy to imagine that a zoning board of appeals or planning commission wouldn’t feel they were making a decision based on the merits, but rather based on the councilmember, she said.

Briere said she’d requested that the council postpone action on the planning commission’s bylaws until its second meeting in March, to give commissioners ample time to discuss these issues.

Interactions with City Council: Having an “Interest”

Briere observed that the issue comes down to the definition of “having an interest.” The situation that precipitated some of this discussion, Briere said, was when Ward 5 councilmember Chuck Warpehoski wanted to address the planning commission about an issue in his neighborhood, which did not affect him directly.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

By way of background, both Ward 5 councilmembers – Warpehoski and Mike Anglin – had attended the commission’s July 16, 2013 meeting, which included a site plan for the proposed Glendale Condominiums, to be located at a former orchard south of Jackson Avenue next to the Hillside Terrace retirement community. During a public hearing on the item, Warpehoski began to speak but was cut off by commissioner Diane Giannola, who cited the commission’s bylaws. Warpehoski, who had been unaware of that rule, stepped away from the podium but stayed for the remainder of the public hearing and the commission’s deliberations on this item. He lives in the neighborhood, but did not have a financial interest in the project.

On Feb. 4, Briere said the question was whether it was appropriate for Warpehoski to speak. “Our bylaws suggest he has an interest.”

She added that McDonald was concerned that councilmembers would be influencing the outcome of a decision by another public body.

Giannola advocated for separating whether the councilmember is the petitioner, or just an interested party. “Those are completely different things,” she said.

The real issue is whether a councilmember can speak to the planning commission as a concerned citizen, Giannola said. She felt it was an ethical issue. While it’s not illegal to have a councilmember speak to the planning commission, she added, there are multiple problems with that.

One of the biggest problems is undue influence, Giannola said. The council appoints the planning commission, which in turn makes recommendations to the council. What’s the benefit of councilmembers speaking to commissioners? “Are they intimidating us? Do we have to follow through on what they’re saying? It’s kind of like your boss telling you what you should recommend.”

Giannola said the issue of undue influence is even greater now than it’s been in past years. “Will you be publicly put on the spot or shamed at council,” she asked, “because you disagree with a project that they wanted you to vote a certain way on?”

Another issue is whether planning commissioners should be getting input from councilmembers on a recommendation that the commission is making to council, Giannola said, adding that “it circumvents the process.” The council should wait for the recommendation, she said. Then at the council meeting, they have a “bigger and better platform” to make their views known. The council’s decision “trumps” the planning commission, she added, so there’s no benefit for councilmembers to speak earlier in the process.

Jeremy Peters also raised the issue of process. There’s a standardized process that’s known to the community, he said, with a set role for council. The council takes the recommendation from planning commission, and acts upon it. “To jump in front of that process is arguably a violation of due process,” he said. If someone has a negative response to council’s decision, that could be a legal angle that could be used against the city.

Giannola agreed, saying it was a situation in which the personal desire of a single councilmember could put the city at risk for a lawsuit. There’s no benefit, she added. The only reason for a councilmember to speak to the planning commission early in the process is to try to influence it, or to grandstand, she said.

Eleanore Adenekan was skeptical that anyone on the council could intimidate commissioners – she didn’t view the council that way. A councilmember’s job is to advocate for constituents, she said.

Planning commissioner Wendy Woods, a former city councilmember.

Commissioners then returned to the time when Warpehoski came to the July 2013 commission meeting to speak about the project in his neighborhood. His home wasn’t affected by the development, Briere noted, but he was there “to speak in support of a neighborhood viewpoint.” A councilmember can’t recuse themselves from voting on an item, just because they live in that neighborhood, she added. The only situation in which council rules allow a councilmember to ask for recusal is if they have a direct financial stake in the item, she said.

Wendy Woods, a former councilmember, disputed that characterization. She noted that when she served on council, she recused herself from voting on an African American history museum item because her husband, Ronald Woods, served on the board.

Briere cited a counter-example, when the council wouldn’t agree to let Warpehoski recuse himself from a vote related to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, even though his wife – Nancy Shore, director of the getDowntown program – was officially an employee of the AATA. [The meeting that Briere was referring to took place on April 15, 2013. The issue emerged that night during deliberations on revisions to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, which helps fund the getDowntown program. Warpehoski had read aloud the relevant city charter passage regarding recusal, but no councilmember responded to Warpehoski’s disclosure and no vote was taken to settle the issue.]

Briere noted that attorneys on council don’t vote on items that involve the firms where they work, and she’s been told that she can’t vote on items when her husband, local attorney David Cahill, represents one of the interested parties. But she added that the times when councilmembers can recuse themselves “is really very tight.”

Peters thought that it’s an issue the council needs to take up in a discussion of ethics. It shouldn’t be something the commission deals with in its bylaws. “That debate probably should happen in the open at council – and not here,” he said. If the commission tries to address it in their bylaws, “whatever we end up doing might get misconstrued in the wider community as having some sort of reasoning behind it, other than trying to sort out these legal issues,” he added. The city has previously been threatened with lawsuits surrounding development, Peters observed, and so it should be a wider discussion.

Giannola argued that it should be up to the planning commission to protect its own integrity.

Ken Clein wondered if the constraints on councilmembers would include other forms of communication too, like email or letter. Noting that the council as a whole appoints one of the councilmembers to the planning commission, he also asked why there would be a need for councilmembers to communicate in other ways – given that they had a liaison to the commission already.

Giannola framed the question as one of influence. The form of communication doesn’t matter, she said; “It’s really the influence that’s the problem. It’s not public input, in my mind.”

Bonnie Bona agreed with Peters, saying this isn’t an issue that planning commissioners should be spending their time on.

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters.

Woods noted that these bylaws have been in place for years, and if a councilmember comes before the commission to speak, commissioners have the prerogative to point to the bylaws for guidance. The problem is how to interpret the phrase “a party interested in a petition,” she said. To her, that’s something the city’s attorney’s office should decide.

Giannola replied that according to McDonald, it’s up to the planning commission to decide.

Briere noted that prior to 2008, the bylaws of various city commissions, boards and committees did not come to the council for review. In 2008, council passed a resolution requiring that the council see and approve all bylaws. According to Briere, McDonald told her that no one expected the council would edit the bylaws. “It was considered pro forma at the time,” she said, to ensure that all boards and commissions actually had bylaws, and that the bylaws were uniform and consistent. McDonald had told her that the planning commission bylaws were used as a model.

She noted that it’s clear when a councilmember is the petitioner. But “having an interest” is vague – does it mean a financial interest? Is it a political interest?

Briere also reported that she’d raised this issue at the council’s recent administration committee meeting. The message from that committee had been that the planning commission should decide what should be in its bylaws. She noted that bylaws for other commissions and boards have come to council and been approved. “It’s only planning commission where council has balked,” Briere said. [The council has postponed action on the planning commission's bylaws multiple times, because the council wants to delay until the commission votes on its revisions.]

Kirk Westphal described the question as whether to make the language clearer, or to leave it as is.

Briere said it’s the planning commission’s purview to determine its bylaws. She noted that Warpehoski has never asked for a change in the commission’s bylaws, but she added that Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) think it’s an issue that needs to be addressed.

Westphal clarified with Briere that, based on her conversations with McDonald, the usual interpretation of “interest” is financial. Westphal asked whether the existing language helps protect the city, by directing councilmembers not to address the commission.

Giannola contended that in the bylaws, “interest” refers to any interest – not just financial.

Woods suggested language that would make it broader: “A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission during the Councilmember’s term in office.”

Kirk Westphal, chair of the planning commission.

Giannola said that’s similar to language in the Ann Arbor historic district commission’s bylaws. City planning manager Wendy Rampson clarified that the HDC bylaws, in fact, state: “Members of the City Council are discouraged from appearing before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Councilmember’s term of office.” [.pdf of full HDC bylaws] Giannola indicated that the bylaws must have been changed since she served on the HDC.

Briere said that as a councilmember, she never felt that she could speak during a meeting of the HDC. She also said she didn’t feel she had the right to address the park advisory commission, even though she might attend meetings and talk to individual PAC members. The same is true for other city boards and commissions, she said. “I never felt that I had an automatic right to address them, even if they were having a lot of public input, because I was not there as a member of the public. I was there as a member of the council – and that means I keep my mouth shut.” [The PAC bylaws do not address the issue of communicating with councilmembers.]

Westphal wondered if the bylaws should be even broader, prohibiting councilmembers from communicating with commissioners. Briere pushed back on that, asking what “communicate” would mean in this context. She said she could imagine a councilmember wanting to ask a question or raise an issue with the commission. It might make sense for a councilmember to meet with the commission’s chair, she said, and in a sense petition the commission to take up an issue.

Giannola argued that it came back to the issue of influence: Should a councilmember be trying to influence the commission in any way?

Clein thought Briere had a point. The commission shouldn’t be building a firewall between the commission and city council. On the other hand, he said, the thing he’d be most concerned about is a councilmember appearing before the commission at a public meeting, as an attempt to influence not just the commission but also the community.

Bona was concerned about councilmembers speaking to commissioners individually. She recalled talking to mayor John Hieftje and telling him that a councilmember had encountered her on the street and talked to her about an issue facing the commission, Hieftje had indicated to her that the councilmember shouldn’t have done that, Bona reported. She thought it was appropriate for Briere, as the city council’s representative on the planning commission, to bring forward any concerns, questions or issues that other councilmembers might have. That approach, coupled with resolutions that the council can pass to communicate with the commission, seemed sufficient, Bona said. “What other communications channels do we need?”

Planning commissioner Ken Clein.

Briere said she wanted to tease apart these issues. If a councilmember addresses the commission at a public meeting regarding a specific action item that the commission will be voting on, “it seems to me that actually is a problem,” Briere said, because councilmembers will be voting on that issue later. She thought it would be difficult to separate the role of the councilmember from the individual person – even if the councilmember stated that he or she was speaking as a private citizen.

The other issue, Briere said, is when councilmembers attend committee meetings of the commission, and speak out on matters that the committee is addressing. She said that when she was first elected, she was told that she shouldn’t forecast how she would be voting on an issue “to the point where my mind is so closed that I can’t accept new information.” Eleanore Adenekan asked if all councilmembers got this same advice. “I can only tell you what I heard,” Briere replied. “I can’t tell you, even if the words were uttered, whether other people heard that. But I did hear it, and understood the rationale behind it.”

Briere said it concerned her that a councilmember could put the city in jeopardy, if someone decides to sue based on a council decision. “They will be able to see that that councilmember’s mind was made up well before … they saw what they were voting on.”

Interactions with City Council: Training

When the council takes up ethics issues later this year, Briere said, the issue of communicating with city boards and commissions will be one of the topics. “I call it How to Behave in Public,” she said.

Bona asked Briere whether she thought the commission should take up the issue of interactions with councilmembers. Briere said her personal feeling is that the current bylaws are fine, “except that we haven’t defined what ‘interest’ is.” Briere said she could tell that some councilmembers would be confused about that. “I got it when I read [the bylaws],” she said. “But I can tell that other councilmembers feel they are being told they are not as able to influence outcomes as they’d like.”

That’s the whole point, Giannola replied. She and Clein both emphasized that in this context, “interest” includes more than just financial interest. It includes influence as well.

Adenekan took a different view: “It’s like somebody telling me that ‘You can’t walk into this room because you’re black.’”

Woods thought the current bylaws are clear to commissioners. But it would be unfortunate to have another situation with a councilmember in front of them wanting to speak, she said. Her recommendation was to use the language she had proposed earlier in the session: “A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission during the Councilmember’s term in office.” Woods noted that this approach doesn’t prevent communication from councilmembers.

Briere said perhaps it’s a matter of training councilmembers about how to interact. “A new councilmember simply isn’t going to have read the bylaws.”

Rampson said she’d make sure to add it to her list of topics to cover when she meets with councilmembers for orientation. She noted that the issue hadn’t previously come up, in her experience.

Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager.

Giannola then brought up another issue. She recalled an experience she had when she attended a meeting of the park advisory commission, to speak out about an issue that PAC was considering. Councilmember Jane Lumm was at the same meeting, Giannola said, and also addressed PAC – but with a position on the opposite side of the issue. “That would have been fine,” Giannola said, except that Lumm sat behind her, talking with another person about the topic. “It made me really uncomfortable,” she added, and she imagined that someone who wasn’t familiar with the city government would be intimidated. She suggested that councilmembers be told that they can be heard even when they’re in the audience. “They should just sit there and listen,” Giannola said.

Adenekan said she couldn’t imagine being intimidated by a councilmember. Someone jokingly pointed out that it’s because Adenekan is from New York.

Peters said that in the past he’d been scared to speak out at city council meetings. The proceedings are televised and the council chambers are often crowded.

Bona pointed out that when there’s an issue that people feel passionate about, “those who don’t agree feel like they don’t want to speak.”

Adenekan said it’s not like Detroit city council, where someone might try to physically harm you if they don’t agree. In Ann Arbor, “what will they do? Will they throw a knife at you? Will they shoot you?”

Giannola replied that people are scared about being judged, to which Adenekan responded: “Who cares!”

In wrapping up the discussion on this issue, Rampson confirmed with commissioners that she’d include the language that Woods had proposed as a starting point for their Feb. 20 discussion. The change would amend the bylaws to state:

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

Bylaws: Public Hearings

The proposed revisions to the bylaws regarding public hearings had been drafted by Jeremy Peters. [.pdf of proposed revisions]

Most of the discussion on Feb. 4 related to these proposed sections:

Section 3. An individual wishing to address the Planning Commission during a public hearings may speak for up to three (3) minutes in total. The first person identifying him/herself as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner, or representing an organized neighborhood group registered with the City of Ann Arbor, may speak for five (5) minutes in total. Subsequent speakers identifying themselves as the petitioner, or as a person representing the petitioner or representing an organized neighborhood group, may speak for three (3) minutes in total. The commission may, by majority vote, modify or waive the limitations made within this section.
…
Section 5. At the discretion of the Chair, or by vote of a majority of the members present, public hearings may be continued to another meeting, but will not be deemed to be a new hearing but a continuation of the original.

Bonnie Bona said she was struggling with it. “This comes up so seldom that I think we’re just making ourselves look more closed.” She understood that the current language isn’t entirely clear, “but I don’t think it matters.” The commission seldom has issues that draw huge crowds over multiple meetings, she noted.

Bona pointed out that the commission had held public hearings over multiple meetings for downtown zoning revisions. At the final meeting on that issue – on Dec. 3, 2013 – few people spoke during the public hearing. “It just proves that we don’t need this,” Bona said.

Peters said the only reason he’d written the revisions this way was to provide clarity, and to be consistent with the city council rules regarding public hearings. It was important for the bylaws to be clear and easy to understand, he added, but it’s a discussion that should happen at one of their regular meetings.

Ken Clein suggested including some explanation – perhaps in a staff memo – to show why the commission is considering these changes. Peters replied that he had proposed a new section with the intent of providing that explanation:

Section 6. The interpretations of the above will be guided by the most recent interpretation of rules for Public Hearings by the Ann Arbor City Council as it pertains to their Rules of the Council, and may from time to time be edited so as to mimic the interpretation and process for Public Hearings in place at meetings of the Ann Arbor City Council.

However, consensus from a previous working session – attended by only four commissioners, on Jan. 7 – was to strike that from the proposed amendments that would be brought forward on Feb. 20.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

Kirk Westphal said there was some merit in being more restrictive but clear in the bylaws, and knowing that commissioners have the option of being less restrictive if the situation calls for it. A proposed addition to the bylaws would address this: “The commission may, by majority vote, modify or waive the limitations made within this section.”

Sabra Briere reported that she’s heard from people in the community who believe that the commission had wanted to limit public input. She noted that at the city council, there’s an ongoing record of who has spoken during public hearings. The goal is that no one person should come back three or four times to say the same thing on the same issue. “Not only does that feel like it’s a waste of time,” she said, “but it feels as if that person’s individual voice may sound more powerful than someone else who’s only spoken once.”

Briere noted that some people do speak multiple times, and they think that it’s standard practice. She wondered if there would be a way to keep track of the speakers at the commission’s public hearings.

Briere also highlighted the proposed revisions that state: “An individual wishing to address the Planning Commission during a public hearings may speak for up to three (3) minutes in total.” Does that mean that someone could speak for a minute, then come back later in the same hearing and speak for another two minutes? Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the council rules use the same language, and no one tries to break up their speaking turn in that way.

Rampson also pointed out that in the past, the planning commission has allowed people to speak again at a public hearing if the item is postponed. The rationale is that if an item is postponed, it’s for a reason, she said – and that when it comes back to the commission, changes might have been made.

She said that if the commission approves these changes to its bylaws, there are several administrative things that can be done to make it clear that people can only speak once per hearing. She suggested adding a sentence to the text that the chair typically reads before a public hearing, laying the ground rules.

Next Steps

The proposed revisions to the planning commission’s bylaws will be on the agenda for the Feb. 20 meeting. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed revisions] The meeting is being held on a Thursday because of scheduling changes related to the Presidents Day holiday.

If approved by commissioners, the bylaws revisions will be forwarded to the city council for approval.

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

Absent: Paras Parekh.

Next meeting: Thursday, Feb. 20, 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.

The most significant item on the council’s Feb. 3, 2014 agenda is listed last – a resolution that would authorize the city administrator to exercise the city’s right of first refusal to purchase the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers property on South State Street. The council could adjust the order of the items at the start of the meeting.

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

Two new ordinances will also be given initial consideration at the Ann Arbor city council’s Feb. 3 meeting. One involves public art – which relates to leftover business from the council’s previous meeting. The second proposed new local law involves prohibitions against smoking in some public places.

Background on the possible acquisition of the Edwards Brothers property includes the fact that the University of Michigan has made an offer to Edwards Brothers to purchase the property for $12.8 million. But the city has a right of first refusal on the property as a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011.

The resolution on tonight’s agenda approves the exercise of the city’s right of first refusal, appropriates necessary funds, and directs the city administrator to notify Edward Brothers Malloy about the exercise of the city’s right.

This effort began at the council’s Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, when councilmembers had directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information about the Edwards Brothers land. The due date for that gathering of information was specified in the council’s resolution as Jan. 30.

Public art is actually the topic of two separate items on the council’s agenda. One is a contract extension for the city’s part-time public art administrator, which had been on the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 agenda, but was postponed at that meeting.

The postponement took place in the context of a political horse trade offered by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council table on Jan. 21. Eaton indicated he’d support the public art administrator’s contract extension at the council’s subsequent meeting – but only if the council would move toward returning as-yet-unallocated money set aside during the now defunct Percent for Art program to its funds of origin (e.g., sanitary sewer fund, street millage fund etc.).

Both elements of the horse trade are scheduled for the Feb. 3 meeting. The move toward returning money out of the public art fund takes the form of initial consideration of an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance. The ordinance amendment, sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), would allow the council to return money accumulated under the city’s former Percent for Art program to the funds from which that money was drawn. The ordinance change would need a second and final council vote at a subsequent meeting to be enacted. Any transfer of public art money would require separate council action after the potential ordinance change.

Also getting initial consideration on Feb. 3 will be a new ordinance that would prohibit smoking in specific outdoor public areas. Made punishable through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of any city-owned building. The ordinance amendment would also authorize the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking.

In another item on its Feb. 3 agenda, the council will consider approval of a $398,703 contract plus a $40,000 contingency with Hubbell Roth & Clark Inc. to reconstruct Geddes Avenue from Huntington to Huron Parkway. The project, which includes five components, is scheduled to start in the spring of 2015 and may continue through 2016. The five components of the project are: reconstruction of Geddes, sanitary sewer on Geddes, sanitary sewer on Dover Place and Riverview, storm sewer on Geddes, and water main on Dover Place and Riverview.

Also on the council’s Feb. 3 agenda is a proposed expansion for Germain Motors – an auto dealership on South State Street, formerly Howard Cooper Imports.

The council will also consider setting a hearing date for one establishments that could potentially be recommended for non-renewal of its liquor licenses for non-payment of taxes: Banfield’s Bar & Grill.  Also originally on the list were  The Arena,  and Café Zola, but as of Monday morning, Feb. 3 they’d been removed. Those three businesses were also subject to the same scrutiny last year, and all eventually paid their taxes without having their licenses revoked.

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

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

Edwards Brothers Land

The council will consider moving ahead with the purchase of the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property at 2500-2550 S. State St. The University of Michigan has made an offer to Edwards Brothers to purchase the property for $12.8 million, but the city has a right of first refusal on the property.

The resolution approves the exercise of the city’s right of first refusal, appropriates necessary funds, and directs the city administrator to notify Edward Brothers Malloy about the exercise of the city’s right. As of the morning of Monday, Feb. 3, the online agenda item contained no other background information.

Reached by phone late Friday afternoon, city administrator Steve Powers told The Chronicle that he and other staff would be working over the weekend to finalize the information that the council would be provided before being asked to consider the possible purchase of the land. That includes the financing mechanism, source of funds, types of scenarios for the city eventually to shed ownership of the land, results of an environmental review, and possible zoning revisions to enhance property value. Powers allowed that the council might not be ready to vote at its Feb. 3 meeting, but confirmed that the council’s next regular meeting on Feb. 18 would still fall within the 60-day window of opportunity for action.

At its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, the council had directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information about the Edwards Brothers land. The due date for that gathering of information was specified in the council’s resolution as Jan. 30 – the same day that the land-purchase item was added to the Feb. 3 agenda.

At its following meeting, on Jan. 21, 2014, the council approved without discussion a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services on the property. That assessment included a survey of asbestos-containing materials.

By way of background, the pending sale of the property to UM was announced in a Nov. 27, 2013 press release. The business – a fourth-generation Ann Arbor publishing and printing firm – had signaled its intent to put the property on the market in late July.

The city’s right of first refusal on the property was a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million. In 2013, Edwards Brothers paid a total of $182,213 in real property taxes, not all of which is the city’s levy. The total city levy of 16.45 mills on $3 million of taxable value works out to about $50,000.

According to the tax abatement agreement, the event triggering the city’s 60-day right-of-first-refusal window is a formal notification to the city by Edwards Brothers, which was made on Nov. 27, 2013. If the council were to delay voting on the item until its Feb. 18 meeting, it would still be within that 60-day window.

The Feb. 3 agenda item requires an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council – because the resolution will change the city budget and involves a purchase of real estate. At least one councilmember will not be present for the Feb. 3 meeting. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) will be attending a professional conference of the Association of Physical Plant Administrators (APPA). He works in the University of Michigan’s energy office as Planet Blue energy conservation liaison.

Public Art

Two items related to public art appear on the council’s Feb. 3 agenda. One item is a contract extension for the city’s part-time public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves. The extension had been on the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 agenda, but was postponed at that meeting.

The postponement took place in the context of a political horse trade offered by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council table on Jan. 21. Eaton indicated he’d support the public art administrator’s contract extension at the council’s subsequent meeting on Feb. 3 – but only if the council would move toward returning as-yet-unallocated money set aside during the now defunct Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin (e.g., sanitary sewer fund, street millage fund etc.).

Both elements of the horse trade are on the Feb. 3 agenda. The move toward returning money out of the public art fund takes the form of an amendment to the city’s ordinance on public art.

Public Art: Part-time Administrator’s Contract Extension

The council will be asked again to consider a six-month extension for Ann Arbor public art administrator Aaron Seagraves – through June 30, 2014. The council will be asked to allocate $18,500 to cover the added term.

The budget expenditure for Seagraves’ contract will need support from at least an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council. That’s why some councilmembers’ dissatisfaction with the current $839,507 in unallocated money in the public art fund posed a credible possibility of a failed vote at the Jan. 21 meeting.

The proposal to postpone the vote on the contract extension came from Jack Eaton (Ward 4), who wanted to delay until the council’s next meeting, by which time a clear plan could be crafted to return the Percent for Art money to its funds of origin. The only dissenting vote on postponement at the Jan. 21 meeting came from Margie Teall (Ward 4). [Details of the council's deliberations are reported in The Chronicle's live updates from the Jan. 21 meeting.]

Seagraves is contracted to work an average of 20 hours a week.

By way of background, the city council enacted a public art ordinance in late 2007, setting up a Percent for Art program as a funding mechanism. For each of the city’s capital projects, 1% of the budget – up to a cap of $250,000 – was set aside for public art. The Ann Arbor public art commission oversaw the expenditures. However, the approach proved controversial and the city council changed the ordinance to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism at its June 3, 2013 meeting. That ordinance change came after a failed public art millage that was put before voters in the November 2012 election.

Under the new approach, city staff will work to determine whether a specific capital improvement should have enhanced design features “baked in” to the project – either enhanced architectural work or specific public art. The funding for any of the enhanced features would be included in the project’s budget and incorporated into the RFP (request for proposals) process for the capital project.

The funds accrued to the public art fund during the time of the Percent for Art program are still subject to the same legal constraints – which require a thematic link between the original source of the funds (e.g., the street millage) and the piece of art to be funded.

A budget summary provided by Seagraves in response to a Chronicle emailed query shows a current balance of $839,507 in available funds for public art, as of Jan. 14, 2014. An additional $535,853 is 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]

The council debate at its June 3, 2013 meeting included wrangling about what to do with that fund balance, with Jane Lumm (Ward 2) arguing unsuccessfully that $845,029 should be returned to the funds of origin. The council voted to return only the money that had accrued to the fund in the most recent budget year – $326,464.

At their most recent meeting on Jan. 29, 2014, public art commissioners expressed concern over possible council actions on Feb. 3. “We’re volunteers trying to do things we’re passionate about, but there’s never any certainty about things,” Nick Zagar said at that Jan. 29 meeting. He noted that if the city eliminates the public art administrator’s position, “everything I’m sure will grind to a dramatic halt.” It’s hard to want to invest a lot of energy into the program, he added, given that commissioners don’t really have a clear direction about the program’s future.

Public Art: Ordinance Revision

At the June 3, 2013 meeting, the council did not ultimately vote on Lumm’s proposal to return Percent for Art money from earlier years to its funds of origin. That’s because the council rejected her proposal to amend the public art ordinance to allow that transfer to take place.

So Lumm’s ordinance proposal for the Feb. 3, 2014 meeting reprises the previous effort to amend the ordinance to allow the transfer of money accumulated during previous years of the Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin.

If the council votes to approve the ordinance on Feb. 3, it would still require a second vote at a subsequent meeting to be enacted. And any transfer of money would require a separate council action supported by an eight-vote majority.

Outdoor Smoking

On the council’s Feb. 3 agenda for initial consideration is a new ordinance that would prohibit smoking in specific outdoor public areas. Made punishable through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building.

The ordinance amendment also authorizes the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking, and to increase the distance from entrances to city buildings where outdoor smoking is prohibited.

Where no signs are posted noting the smoking prohibition, a citation could be issued only if someone doesn’t stop smoking immediately when asked to stop.

An existing county ordinance already prohibits smoking near entrances, windows and ventilation systems, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution – but the county’s ordinance can be enforced only by the county health department. The memo further notes that the Michigan Clean Indoor Air Act does not regulate outdoor smoking.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is listed as the sponsor of the ordinance change on the city’s Legistar system. At the council’s Oct. 21, 2013 meeting, he had announced his intent to bring forward a proposed ordinance regulating outdoor smoking, and reported at that time he’d been working with city parks staff on the issue.

Geddes Avenue Reconstruction: 2015

The council will consider approval of a $398,703 contract plus a $40,000 contingency with Hubbell Roth & Clark Inc. to reconstruct Geddes Avenue from Huntington to Huron Parkway.

The portion of Geddes to be reconstructed is indicated in yellow. Parcels currently lacking sanitary sewer service are indicated in red.

The project, which includes five components, is scheduled to start in the spring of 2015 and may continue through 2016. The five components of the project are: reconstruction of Geddes, sanitary sewer on Geddes, sanitary sewer on Dover Place and Riverview, storm sewer on Geddes, and water main on Dover Place and Riverview. [.pdf of map showing parcels currently lacking sanitary sewer service]

The components of the project, which the city is calling collectively the Geddes Avenue Improvements Project, could also include corrections of slope sloughing, and the construction of non-motorized improvements within the project limits.

The scope of the actual project is supposed to stem in part from public participation. So part of the contract with HRC includes a “robust public engagement process” to include the adjacent residents, various interest groups, and the public at large.

Germain Motors Site Plan

On the council’s Feb. 3 agenda is a proposed expansion for Germain Motors – an auto dealership on South State Street, formerly Howard Cooper Imports.

The site plan was recommended for approval by Ann Arbor planning commissioners at their Dec. 17, 2013 meeting. The item had previously been postponed by commissioners on Nov. 19, 2013.

The planning commission’s recommendation of approval of the project’s site plan was subject to variances for modifications related to parking lot and landscaping requirements. Those variances were considered and approved by the city’s zoning board of appeals on Jan. 22. Planning commissioners also approved landscape modifications that would reduce the requirement – outlined in Chapter 62 of the city code – for depressed landscape islands within the site.

The planning staff had supported a recommendation of approval on Dec. 17, noting that the owner had addressed several issues that had previously raised concerns. Changes from the plan presented on Nov. 19 include:

• Adding 5,027 square feet of porous pavers to be installed in the expanded vehicle display areas along State Street and Oakbrook Drive.
• Adding eight new depressed landscape islands to the parking storage areas in the back of the site. The changes mean a loss of about 24 parking spaces.
• Changing the landscape modification request. The original request had included reducing the number of required trees to be planted on site by eight. The owner now plans to plant all of the required trees.

The project’s architect also explored the possibility of adding a “green” (vegetated) roof, but ultimately determined that it wasn’t feasible without making significant changes to the existing buildings. The question of whether the architect had considered a green roof to help with stormwater management was raised on Nov. 19.

Other parts of the proposed project, which is located in Ward 4, were unchanged. It calls for a 4,877-square-foot addition to the Volkswagen building on the northern portion of the State Street frontage, bringing the total square footage to 18,722 for that structure. A 6,429-square-foot addition is proposed for the Porsche/Audi building, in the center of the site, which would create a total building size of 31,097 square feet. The site’s third building, housing the Honda dealership on the southern part of the property, would remain at 36,101 square feet.

Also, the owner – Steve Germain, who attended the Nov. 19 planning commission meeting with several members of the project team – would like to add 248 parking spaces, bringing the total number of spaces to 1,039. The new spaces would be in three locations: (1) along the southern half of the South State Street frontage; (2) along the Oakbrook Drive frontage; and (3) in the rear car storage lots. The proposal would require three variances from Chapter 59 (off-street parking) in order to allow tandem parking, to reduce the aisle widths, and to exceed the maximum percentage (30%) of allowable small car parking spaces. Those are the variances granted by the ZBA at its Jan. 22 meeting.

The total expansion is estimated to cost $5.5 million.

Liquor Licenses: Possible Non-Renewal

On the council’s agenda is a resolution setting a hearing date for one establishments that could potentially be recommended for non-renewal of its liquor licenses for non-payment of taxes: Banfield’s Bar & Grill.  Also originally on the list were  The Arena,  and Café Zola, but as of Monday morning, Feb. 3  those two businesses had been removed. Those three businesses were also subject to the same scrutiny last year, and all eventually paid their taxes without having their licenses revoked. The date of the hearing would be Feb. 25 at 9 a.m.

The council’s resolution would also appoint Jane Lumm (Ward 2) as the hearing officer. Lumm serves on the council’s liquor license review committee, along with Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Lumm served as the hearing officer for this kind of proceeding in 2013 as well. Also on that occasion, Banfield’s Bar & Grill, Café Zola and The Arena were on the hearing list. However, by the time of the hearing, Café Zola had resolved its issue. And at the hearing itself, Banfield’s Bar & Grill made an arrangement to resolve its outstanding issue.

Only the hearing on The Arena ultimately resulted in a city council recommendation to the state liquor control commission not to renew a license. Subsequently, The Arena did pay its taxes, and the council withdrew its objection to a license renewal for The Arena.

Planning Commission Bylaws

Again on the city council’s agenda is the approval of changes to the planning commission’s bylaws. The changes relate to the order of agenda items, and the length of time required for special accommodations, such as sign language interpreters. The change would require additional lead time so that special accommodations, including a sign language interpreter, can be made for people with disabilities, when requested at least two business days in advance of a meeting. The current bylaws specify just a one-day advance request.

The planning commission had given approval to changes in its bylaws about six months ago – at its July 16, 2013 meeting.

The bylaws changes were considered but postponed twice by the city council last year – first at the council’s Nov. 7, 2013 meeting, then at the Dec. 16, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws changes]

The council had held off voting to approve the bylaws changes as the planning commission has considered further revisions to its bylaws – related to the number of times someone can speak during a public hearing, and whether city councilmembers are allowed to address the planning commission during the commission’s meetings.

At a regular meeting of the planning commission, the additional revisions were discussed most recently on Nov. 6, 2013. The additional changes were also discussed at a working session on Jan. 7.

Appointments to City Boards, Commissions

Several nominations to city boards and commissions were made at the council’s previous meeting on Jan. 21. Confirmation votes will be taken at the council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Jim Simpson was nominated to fill the vacancy of Malverne Winborne on the public art commission. Winborne’s term ended on Dec. 31, 2013.

Daniel Lee was nominated to serve out the rest of Marta Manildi’s term on the Ann Arbor housing commission. Manildi’s term ends this spring, but she said she’d step down early if someone could be appointed.

Paige Morrison was nominated to serve out the rest of Jennifer Geer’s term on the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. Geer has resigned.

And Peter Woolf was nominated to fill the vacancy of Lindsey-Jean Hard on the public market advisory commission.

Consent Agenda

The consent agenda is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. Here are some highlights from the Feb. 3 consent agenda.

Consent Agenda: Chelsea Tech Agreement

The council is being asked to approve an amendment to the renewal agreement for information technology services between the city of Ann Arbor and city of Chelsea. The contract is being amended to match fiscal years – by extending it an extra five months for a total of 17 months and $80,499.

The contract covers support for the help desk, management of the city’s website, server hosting, data backup and recovery, overseeing IT contractors, project management, and representing the city of Chelsea in regional technology efforts and meetings.

Consent Agenda: Street Closings

The council will be asked to approve street closings for FoolMoon (April 4, 2014) and FestiFools (April 6, 2014).

Consent Agenda: Firehouse Subs Grant

The council will be asked to approve a resolution accepting a grant of $25,736 from Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation Corporation. The money will be used to buy 11 automatic external defibrillator units for use by the fire department.

It was the fire department that applied for the grant to replace existing equipment. No local matching funds are required.

2:10 p.m. An update to the agenda noted above is that Cafe Zola and The Arena are now off the list of liquor licenses up for hearings on possible non-renewal recommendations. The only remaining establishment is Banfield’s Bar & Grill.

No background information is yet attached to the online agenda item on the possible Edwards Brothers land acquisition.

3:43 p.m. Names of people signed up for the 10 slots for public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting are now added to the agenda. Five people are signed up to talk about the public art ordinance: Bob Miller (chair of the public art commission); Susan Froelich; Shoshana Hurand; Lily Au; and David Olson.

Four people are signed up to advocate for the homeless community: Seth Best (in connection with the outdoor smoking ordinance); and Chris McKewan, Joel Reinstein, and Tracy Williams (all on the topic of camp evictions). Steve Carnes is also signed up to talk about camp evictions in an alternate slot.

Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about public transportation and expanding the geographic area of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

The second alternate slot is filled by James D’Amour, who is is signed up to thank the council for its support of the climate change action plan.

It appears no one will be speaking during public commentary reserved time on the potential Edwards Brothers land acquisition.

4:13 p.m. Supplemental documents for tonight’s meeting have now been distributed to councilmembers. However, the Edwards Brothers land acquisition does not appear to be covered. Three documents relate to the public art ordinance. A fourth document is the set of staff responses to council questions on agenda items. [List of Art Projects ] [Art Project Schedule ] [Art Budget Summary] [Staff Responses to Council Questions about Feb. 3, 2014 agenda items.]

4:42 p.m. It’s worth noting that the list of public art projects, as well as the councilmember questions, point to a possible focus during deliberations on what projects actually have funds committed to them. The proposed ordinance amendment would allow return of money to the funds of origin only if it’s not already committed to a project. But the return of funds is not a question that will be before the council tonight. Tonight is just a question of initial approval of the ordinance amendment that would allow the council to make such a transfer. That transfer would need to take place in a separate action. There could be some interest on the council in making that action a part of the FY 2015 budget approval process that culminates at the council’s second meeting in May.

6:14 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. Yellow stacks of printed agendas are here, and the CTN technician has installed mics for all the councilmembers and at the public speaking podium. A man named Bill has already arrived to stand in support of those who’ll be speaking on behalf of the homeless community.

6:28 p.m. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) is the first councilmember to arrive. Four people are now here in chambers who’ll be supporting advocates for the homeless community.

6:38 p.m. Eaton is introduced by Caleb Poirier to a group of homeless community advocates now numbering about 18 people. Poirer tells them that Eaton has been kind to them in print about the group’s goals. Eaton quips that the meeting could last a week to 10 days. He ventures the council will burn a lot of time talking about art and will probably go into closed session to discuss the Edwards Brothers property.

6:45 p.m. Eaton is still the only councilmember who has arrived in chambers.

6:47 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje has now arrived. So has city administrator Steve Powers. Chair of the public art commission Bob Miller has arrived. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) has arrived.

6:54 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) has arrived. John Kotarski, vice chair of the public art commission, is here. Several students are getting signatures attesting that they’ve completed their attendance requirement for a class.

6:58 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) has arrived.

7:01 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) have now arrived.

7:03 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) has arrived, as has Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

7:07 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) has now arrived, so except for Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), who’s expected to be absent, all councilmembers have arrived. They’re not all seated and ready to start, however.

7:08 p.m. And we’re off.

7:09 p.m. Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. Only Kunselman is absent – because he’s attending a work-related conference in Dallas. Anglin was away from the table for the opening roll call.

7:10 p.m. Approval of agenda.

7:10 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the agenda.

7:11 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers has introduced public services area administrator Craig Hupy. Hupy describes the wet snow as tough to plow. Both the pre- and mid-season salt purchase have been made. End of February or early March, he cautions that the city will need to make an additional salt purchase, so the council will be asked to approve that.

7:13 p.m. Powers asks Hupy about the high frequency of water main breaks. It’s been an extraordinarily cold winter, he says – it’s what would be expected. Thirty-plus years of data suggests that water main breaks are commensurate with the cold weather. As the ground freezes, it moves, Hupy says, and that causes breaks.

7:13 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje asks about the condition of city sidewalks, given the freezing rain. Hupy says they have a machine that they use, but it takes time.

7:18 p.m. Mary Jo Callan, director of Washtenaw County’s office of community & economic development, is updating the council on the city and county response to the weather with respect to human services. She explains that they’re in communication with all the relevant human services agencies. At least 10 warming centers and 40 local nonprofits are a part of the mix, she says. They’re doing better at communication, she says. All the emergency shelters are full, she says. They’re over capacity. The Delonis Center, she says, had a January average of 165 a night, including more than 65 in the warming center. They’re continuing with the policy of not having weather amnesty on days like today, for example. Food Gatherers is providing meals. The county’s Project Outreach Team (PORT) is continuing to do outreach and engagement to people in tents, she says. PORT is housing 19 people in 15 hotel rooms around the community.

7:19 p.m. Callan says that she’s coordinating with the Ann Arbor police about how to deal with campers. “It’s a hideous winter,” she says. “But we all know there’s going to be a winter next year.”

7:19 p.m. INT-1 Proclamation honoring EMU’s Alpha Phi Omega fraternity. The fraternity is being recognized for service in the city’s GIVE 365 Volunteer Program at several recreation facilities and parks assisting with special events like the Trick or Treat Paddle and Buhr Blitz Day.

7:21 p.m. Public commentary reserved time. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Five people are signed up to talk about the public art ordinance: Bob Miller (chair of the public art commission); Susan Froelich; Shoshana Hurand; Lily Au; and David Olson.

Four people are signed up to advocate for the homeless community: Seth Best (in connection with the outdoor smoking ordinance); and Chris McKewan, Joel Reinstein, Tracy Williams (all on the topic of camp evictions). Steve Carnes is also signed up to talk about camp evictions in an alternate slot.

Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about public transportation and expanding the geographic area of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The second alternate slot is filled by James D’Amour, who is is signed up to thank the council for its support of the climate change action plan.

7:22 p.m. Thomas Partridge was signed up to speak, but isn’t here.

7:25 p.m. Bob Miller says he’s passed out a document that quotes Gov. Rick Snyder, saying that art “is integral to economic development.” The occasion was a state leadership award for the arts. Miller is now quoting from the patron who commissioned the “Spirit of Ann Arbor” on a building on Liberty Street – John Carver. Miller says that finding a sustainable funding model would satisfy critics and proponents. He’s describing the new program that the council put in place. He calls for viable transition from the old Percent for Art program to the new program.

7:27 p.m. Seth Best says he’s not there as a member of Camp Take Notice, but as a smoker. He’s concerned about the proposed $50 fine. He’s poor, he says, and can barely afford the cigarettes he buys. The ordinance will target the poor, he cautions. He allows that it might not be the healthiest for him, but speaks about the culture associated with smoking. The rituals associated with smoking provide a mechanism for getting to know people and making new friends, he says.

7:30 p.m. Susan Froelich says she’s a native Ann Arborite with a degree in the history of art from University of Michigan. She’s ticking through her public service in the area of art. She heard that the council had been discussing transferring money from the public art fund to its funds of origin. She stresses that it’s important to leave already-committed funds in the public art fund and to fund a full-time public art administrator.

7:33 p.m. Shoshana Hurand asks councilmembers: “Do you want to live in a remarkable city?” She introduces herself as a social worker but also an art administrator. She explains the work of an art administrator. She urges the council to retain the public art administrator position. She’s concerned that returning the money from the public art fund would lead to no investment in public art. She cautions against allowing Ann Arbor to be an unremarkable city.

7:36 p.m. Lily Au reads aloud the city’s mission statement. She compares art to food. “You cannot serve me art work,” she says, using props from a bag. She asks people to stand who support money going to help feed people and keep them warm. About 30 people stand.

7:40 p.m. David Olson tells the council that he grew up in Ann Arbor. Art has added a sense of community and quality of life to Ann Arbor, he says. He expresses strong support for the idea that funds remaining in the public art fund be spent on art. He ticks through several events that indicate the community supports the arts. [Such events are not eligible to be funded through the funds accumulated through the Percent for Art program.] He thanks those who’ve supported the public art program, saying the criticism has been harsh. It’s difficult work, he says, but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be done. He calls for supporting smaller, temporary art installations or participatory projects. Instead of giving up because the job is difficult, he calls for re-imagining the art program.

7:42 p.m. Chris McKewan is speaking for “Troll Village” and asks people to stand in support. Most of the center section of the audience is standing. He says the residents of Troll Village are human beings. He describes wandering the streets after being kicked out of a shelter. He asks the council to show the kindness he’d experienced on the streets to those residents of Troll Village.

7:44 p.m. Joel Reinstein is also speaking about the homeless camp evictions. He’s happy the evictions were not carried out. Those residents are human beings who deserve the same respect as the entrepreneurs funded by Ann Arbor SPARK. The overcrowded Delonis Center is not cutting it, he says. He calls for no more evictions.

7:46 p.m. Tracy Williams tells the councilmembers they’ll continue to see the group – because they’re not going away. He’s sent the council an email because the public speaking time is limited. He thanks Jason and Jim who have worked to stop the eviction of Troll Village. He calls for keeping a warming center open not just in the coldest weather.

7:47 p.m. Partridge and Hieftje are engaged in a back-and-forth over his speaking turn that he missed. Hieftje says that he’s not going to let Partridge speak, saying that he’s sure that Partridge will find an opportunity to speak sometime during the meeting.

7:49 p.m. James D’Amour is thanking the council for their support of the climate action plan. He’s come from a demonstration at the federal building protesting the Keystone pipeline.

7:52 p.m. Communications from council. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) commends the police department for the way that they’ve handled the issue of the campers down by the river. Eviction was a matter of life and death, he says. Rather than just evicting them, they worked with PORT, essentially as social workers, to deal with the sensitive issue.

7:54 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) cautions against seeing things like a cyclops – through one eye. If he only sees the good work through one eye, he misses the continuing need, he says. As long as there’s an economy that treats people like throwaway people, we’ll see crises like the city saw last month, he says. He calls for doing adequate emergency prevention work. The money has to come from somewhere, he says. He doesn’t have the answers. He appreciates the work that everyone is doing.

7:57 p.m. Hieftje says that no one has been turned away from the Delonis Center this winter. In the area known as Troll Village, he says that the city received complaints about camping in Riverside Park. That had resulted in an eviction notice being placed there – but not under the bridge. Having some place to go is very important, he says. Ann Arbor spends a greater percentage of its budget on human services than any other Michigan city, he says. He feels bad for residents in other Michigan cities. He criticizes state and federal governments for not doing what they should.

7:58 p.m. MC-1 Confirmation of nominations. The council is being asked to confirm four nominations that were made at the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting. Jim Simpson was nominated to fill the vacancy of Malverne Winborne on the public art commission. Winborne’s term ended on Dec. 31, 2013. Daniel Lee was nominated to serve out the rest of Marta Manildi’s term on the Ann Arbor housing commission. Manildi’s term ends this spring, but she said she’d step down early if someone could be appointed. Paige Morrison was nominated to serve out the rest of Jennifer Geer’s term on the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. Geer has resigned. And Peter Woolf was nominated to fill the vacancy of Lindsey-Jean Hard on the public market advisory commission.

7:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve all the nominations.

7:59 p.m. Hieftje is now saying that there’s no money in the public art fund that can be used on human services.

7:59 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Tonight only one public hearing is scheduled – about the Germain Motors site plan.

8:02 p.m. PH-1 Germain Motors site plan. Thomas Partridge says he’s there to advance the notion that Ann Arbor needs a mayor who is responsive to citizens. He allows that Germain Motors is a prominent business, but says that it’s outside the downtown development authority area. He calls for an expansion of the DDA district.

8:02 p.m. Minutes of previous meeting.

8:02 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the minutes of the previous meeting.

8:03 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Fuller Pool Boiler Replacement. The contract to replace the boiler is with Altech Mechanical Service LLC ($66,544).
• CA-2 Shared 800Mhz Simulcast System. The resolution to authorize a purchase order with Washtenaw County is for the city of Ann Arbor’s portion for maintenance of the shared 800 MHz Simulcast System ($36,500).
• CA-3 Chelsea Services Agreement. The resolution approves the renewal agreement for Information Technology Services between the city of Ann Arbor and the city of Chelsea ($80,499).
• CA-4 Firehouse Sub Grant Acceptance. The resolution accepts a grant from Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation Corporation. The money will pay for defibrillators ($25,736).
• CA-5 FoolMoon. The resolution will authorize street closings for FoolMoon on Friday, April 4, 2014.
• CA-6 FestiFools. The resolution will authorize street closings for the FestiFools parade on Sunday, April 6, 2014.
• CA-7 Insurance Board Minutes. The resolution accepts the board of insurance administration minutes of Jan. 23, 2014.

8:04 p.m. CA-7 Insurance board minutes. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) reports that the insurance board had accepted all the recommendations for revisions to the insurance policies. City treasurer Matt Horning is in attendance to answer any questions. No questions are asked.

8:05 p.m. Outcome: The council has now approved the whole consent agenda.

8:05 p.m. C-1 Public art ordinance. This ordinance revision reprises a previous effort to amend the public art ordinance to allow the transfer of money accumulated during previous years of the Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin. That unsuccessful effort came eight months ago at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. At that meeting, the council did eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism from the public art ordinance, and also allowed the most recent year’s accumulation of money to be returned to the funds of origin. The council also returned that most recent year’s worth of funding – $326,464.

What’s up for initial approval tonight is an ordinance revision to allow the return of the money accumulated in previous years. The current balance of unassigned funds accrued in the Percent for Art fund as of Jan. 14, 2014 is $839,507. If the council votes to give initial approval to the ordinance change tonight, it would still require a second vote at a subsequent meeting to be enacted. And any transfer of money would require a separate council action. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

8:08 p.m. Lumm thanks Karen Lancaster and others for their work. She thanks her cosponsors. Lumm is describing what the ordinance would do. It would not in itself return art money to other funds. But she says that on second reading it’s her intent to bring forth a resolution that would return that money. She ticks through about $840,000 that she says should be returned. A breakdown of the maximum amount that could be returned to which funds is covered here: [Art Budget Summary]

8:10 p.m. Sumi Kailaspathy (Ward 1) picks up on David Olson’s remarks during public commentary and notes that his vision of a public art program is not fundable through the money in the public art fund – because of the thematic link that’s required to the funds of origin. She says Olson’s ideas were very good. This ordinance amendment does not say that Ann Arbor doesn’t want art, she says.

8:13 p.m. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) says he’ll vote in favor of the amendment at first reading. Things have been very quiet, he says, after the direction from the council to develop a transition from the old program to the new one. His expectation is that the transition will be funded. He didn’t think all the money in the fund would be necessary, but expected that those projects currently “in the pipeline” would also be funded. He includes art at Arbor Oaks Park, the Jewett Memorial, Canoe Imagine Art and the PowerArt project in those projects. He says that the way the ordinance has moved forward has caused turmoil on the art commission. He wishes there had been more collaboration.

8:16 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) recalls the work of the city council committee that had come up with a recommendation about a revision to the public art ordinance. We should be talking about how to fund public art, she says. The council had not thought through the fact that a transition needs deadlines and goals. She agrees with Lumm that the ordinance should be changed, but says that she also agrees with Taylor that we need a better plan. She says she’ll be offering an alternative at the next council meeting.

8:18 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) recounts the origins of the program and how concerns were raised about the legal basis for the program and the amount of money that started to accumulate. He says that the council is not giving up on public art, but it’s important to remember the history of how the program arrived at this point. He ventures that if the city had faced a lawsuit on the legality of the program, the city probably would have lost. This is not a war on public art, he says.

8:20 p.m. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) says that this ordinance amendment does not diminish the commitment to public art, but rather reaffirms the city’s commitment to basic services by returning public art money to its funds of origin. She agrees with David Olson’s remarks during public commentary that Ann Arbor needs to move away from monumental art as its basic approach to public art.

8:23 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) says she’s disappointed – as she’s not sure why this issue has arisen at this point. The recommendation had been to use public art money to fund a transition under direction from a full-time public art administrator. Taking away that funding doesn’t make sense to her. She calls the ordinance change a slap in the face of public art. It boggles her mind, she says. Using the “baked-in” approach, she cautions, inherently leads to monumental art. The private sector needs a public partner to dance with, she says. Teall is describing an NPR report she heard about Art Prize in Grand Rapids. She won’t support the ordinance amendment.

8:26 p.m. Jack Eaton (Ward 4) thanks Lumm for bringing forward the ordinance amendment. He reviews how the funds are restricted – saying they can’t be used to transition or for general administration. His problem is that the source of the funds drives decision-making under the Percent for Art approach. He says we should set out a method of administering those works in progress. He says the funding for the transition could be found in the FY 2015 budget process.

Lumm is echoing Eaton’s sentiments. “We need to make a clean break,” she says. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to head in that direction, she says.

8:28 p.m. Lumm cites a staff memo from May 2013 to support the idea that you can’t use Percent for Art money for general art administration.

8:33 p.m. Warpehoski notes that Lily Au had asked why the council is funding art instead of feeding people. Right now the answer is easy, he says: We can’t use that money, because it’s not general fund money. If we switch to a different approach, he says, the council might have to answer Au’s question, because it might create a situation where general fund money is stretched between art and feeding people. Reading The Chronicle’s coverage of the last public art commission meeting, he says that it’s clear that the council has tasked the commission with a lot of work. Warpehoski will support the ordinance change, but says that he doesn’t think that all of the $840,000 should be returned. He also wants something more specific than a vague allusion to funding the transition from the general fund.

8:34 p.m. Hieftje is reading from a Forbes article recounting the history of public art in America. He says it’s always been a great weakness of Ann Arbor’s public art program that it carries with it constraints on how the money is spent.

8:36 p.m. Hieftje laments the fact that Ann Arbor does not have four billionaires like Grand Rapids. He says he thinks that to generate private investment, the city will have to provide matching funds. He also says that the city will need a full-time art administrator to address fundraising.

8:39 p.m. Hieftje says it was a mistake in establishing the Percent for Art program to not provide enough staff support. He says that the private donor for a proposed project at the wastewater treatment plan had withdrawn. [That partner was the Ann Arbor Hands On Museum.] He talks about the beauty in taking wastewater and turning it into clean water that can be returned to the Huron River. Hieftje stresses that it’s not legal to restrict funding just to local artists – as long as it involves public money.

8:40 p.m. Briere is commenting on the role of private and public funding. It’s important for the city to partner with a nonprofit that can accept tax-deductible donations from the private sector.

8:41 p.m. Teall calls everyone’s attention to the timeline for projects. It takes a long time for projects like these to get done, she says.

8:44 p.m. Taylor reiterates Eaton’s point that the transition be funded through the FY 2015 budget process. He expects to see that budget proposal from the city administrator, he says. Taylor ventures that donations to the city would also be tax deductible, contradicting Briere’s remark. He cites IRS publication 526. Lumm and Taylor engage in back-and-forth on what Taylor said about priorities.

8:45 p.m. Petersen is trying to bring the council back to the point of the ordinance, which is not how to fund a transition between programs.

8:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to give initial approval to the amended public art ordinance. Teall was the sole dissenting vote.

8:45 p.m. C-2 Outdoor smoking ordinance. The council is giving initial consideration to a new ordinance that would prohibit smoking in specific outdoor public areas. Made punishable through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building. The ordinance amendment also authorizes the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking, and to increase the distance from entrances to city buildings where outdoor smoking is prohibited. [For additional background, see Outdoor Smoking above.]

8:47 p.m. Warpehoski announces he’ll be asking for postponement until the council’s first meeting in March, in part to allow time for feedback from the city’s park advisory commission. He allows that the language about the fine wasn’t clear. [.pdf of highlighted proposed ordinance] He says the idea is not to be punitive, but rather to provide clean air for people who want to enjoy city parks. He points out the existing county ordinance already prohibits smoking around doorways and windows.

8:49 p.m. The motion to postpone has not yet been made. Warpehoski wants to hear any questions. No one has any. He makes the motion to postpone the initial vote on the ordinance until March 3, 2014.

8:49 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the initial vote on the new outdoor smoking ordinance until its March 3, 2014 meeting.

8:49 p.m. DC-1 Set liquor hearings. This resolution would set hearings on a recommendation for non-renewal of liquor licenses for just one establishment in the city. The date of the hearing would be Feb. 25 at 9 a.m. The three businesses originally subject to the hearings were The Arena, Banfield’s Bar & Grill, and Café Zola. They were all potentially be recommended for non-renewal due to non-payment of personal property taxes.

But by Monday morning of the council meeting on Feb. 3, only Banfield’s Bar & Grill remained on the list. The council’s resolution would also appoint Jane Lumm (Ward 2) as the hearing officer. Lumm serves on the council’s liquor license review committee, along with Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). [For additional background, see Liquor Licenses: Possible Non-Renewal above.]

8:50 p.m. Lumm is reviewing how the process works. She thanks staff for their work.

8:50 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to set the date and time of the hearing on liquor license non-renewal.

8:50 p.m. DB-1 Art administrator contract. The council is being asked again to consider a six-month extension for Ann Arbor public art administrator Aaron Seagraves – through June 30, 2014. The council will be asked to allocate $18,500 to cover the added term. It’s a 20-hour-a-week appointment. The budget expenditure for Seagraves’ contract will need support from at least an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council. The item was postponed from the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting. [Details of the council's previous deliberations are reported in The Chronicle's live updates from the Jan. 21 meeting.] [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

8:52 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) allows that a concern had been raised about the appropriateness of funding Seagraves’ contract with Percent for Art money. He’s not working on transition work, she says. Still, she is willing to change the funding source from the public art fund to the general fund.

8:55 p.m. Lumm reads aloud the resolution as amended to draw the money from the general fund. Taylor says he likes the general fund the way it is and is content to fund the administrator’s contract extension from the public art fund. Warpehoski says he’d rather use the restricted funds instead of the general fund. The general fund should be only the last resort, he says. Taylor and Warpehoski won’t support Briere’s amendment. Hieftje says he’ll support funding the administrator’s contract out of Percent for Art money. He discounts the idea that there’s a legal problem using the money for administration.

8:57 p.m. Lumm wants to postpone, but Hieftje wants to handle the amendment first. Eaton questions the parliamentary principle cited by Hieftje. But they deal with the amendment.

8:58 p.m. Outcome: The amendment to draw the funds from the general fund fails with support only from Teall, Eaton, Briere and Lumm.

9:00 p.m. Lumm now moves to postpone the vote on the contract extension until the council’s Feb. 18 meeting. Briere asks Hupy if the postponement would affect the city’s ability to pay Seagraves between now and Feb. 18. Yes, he says. Briere asks a question that Hupy doesn’t understand.

9:03 p.m. Hupy clarifies that the council would be able to pay Seagraves under a scenario where the council returns money to the funds of origin. Briere says she sees no need to postpone. Hieftje alludes to the discussion at the last council meeting and says he also won’t support postponement. Eaton says that he supports postponement because he doesn’t think there are eight votes in support tonight. Hieftje responds: “I can accept that!”

9:04 p.m. Hupy and Lumm are talking about how the administrative funding works.

9:05 p.m. Hiefjte says that in light of Eaton’s remark, he’ll support postponement. Hupy clarifies that he will not be able to pay Seagraves if the resolution is postponed. Teall says: “That’s not right.”

9:06 p.m. Warpehoski asks what the impact would be on the progress of projects that Seagraves is working on. Hupy indicates there’d be a negative impact.

9:08 p.m. Taylor echoes Teall’s sentiments. This postponement would put the contractor out of work and he calls it “not proper.” He says that it’s unfortunate that this question of the contract is being linked to a different question about the larger issue.

9:10 p.m. Outcome on postponement: The postponement fails with Teall, Warpehoski, Briere, Petersen and Taylor voting against it.

9:12 p.m. Outcome on the main resolution: The council has rejected the six-month extension for the public art administrator’s contract. Voting against it were Anglin, Eaton, Kailasapathy, and Lumm, so it thus failed to achieve the eight votes it needed to pass.

9:13 p.m. Warpehoski raises his voice, expressing incredulity that those who opposed the contract did so. He tells them they’ve thrown Seagraves out of his job. He says “Shame on you!” to councilmembers who voted against the extension, and concludes his outburst with “I’m offended.” Eaton raises a point of order.

9:13 p.m. DB-2 Germain Motors site plan. The council is being asked to approve a proposed expansion for Germain Motors – an auto dealership on South State Street, formerly Howard Cooper Imports. The site plan was recommended for approval by Ann Arbor planning commissioners at their Dec. 17, 2013 meeting. [For additional background, see Germain Motors Site Plan above.]

9:13 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the Germain Motors site plan.

9:14 p.m. DS-1 Planning commission bylaws. The council is being asked to approve a change to the planning commission’s bylaws. This was considered and postponed twice last year, as the planning commission has weighed additional changes to the bylaws. The planning commission is continuing to weigh those changes, which involve speaking turns and time during public hearings, and whether a city councilmember can address the commission.

The change in front of the council tonight relates to the order of agenda items, and the length of time required for special accommodations. The change would require additional lead time so that special accommodations, including a sign language interpreter, can be made for people with disabilities, when requested at least two business days in advance of a meeting. The current bylaws specify just a one-day advance request. If the council follows the previous pattern, this will be postponed. [For additional background, see Planning Commission Bylaws above.]

9:15 p.m. Eaton ventures that the rule on councilmembers addressing the planning commission is exactly reversed from what it should be: Councilmembers with a petition in front of the commission should be able to address the commission, he says.

9:15 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone consideration of the change to the planning commission’s bylaws until the first meeting in March.

9:15 p.m. DS-2 Geddes Avenue project. The council is being asked to consider approval of a $398,703 contract plus a $40,000 contingency with Hubbell Roth & Clark Inc. to reconstruct Geddes Avenue from Huntington to Huron Parkway. The project, which includes five components, is scheduled to start in the spring of 2015 and may continue through 2016. The five components of the project are: reconstruction of Geddes, sanitary sewer on Geddes, sanitary sewer on Dover Place and Riverview, storm sewer on Geddes, and water main on Dover Place and Riverview. [For additional background, see Geddes Avenue Reconstruction: 2015 above.]

9:18 p.m. Lumm and Petersen are engaging Elizabeth Rolla and Craig Hupy in a discussion about the project – as it’s in Ward 2, which they represent.

9:19 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract to reconstruct Geddes Avenue.

9:20 p.m. DS-3 Edwards Brothers property. This resolution would authorize the city administrator to move ahead with the purchase of the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property on South State Street. The University of Michigan has made an offer to Edwards Brothers to purchase the property for $12.8 million, but the city has a right of first refusal.

Specifically, the resolution approves the exercise of the city’s right of first refusal, appropriates necessary funds, and directs the city administrator to notify Edward Brothers Malloy about the exercise of the city’s right. As of early afternoon on Friday, Jan. 31, the item contained no other background information. Reached by phone late Friday afternoon, city administrator Steve Powers told The Chronicle that he and other staff would be working over the weekend to finalize the information that the council would be provided before being asked to consider the possible purchase of the land. That includes the financing mechanism, source of funds, types of scenarios for the city eventually to shed ownership of the land, results of an environmental review, and possible zoning revisions to enhance property value.

However, the information still wasn’t made available by the start of Monday’s council meeting. Powers allowed that the council might not be ready to vote at its Feb. 3 meeting, but confirmed that the council’s next regular meeting on Feb. 18 would still fall within the 60-day window of opportunity for action. [For additional background, see Edwards Brothers Land above.]

9:21 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the question until after a closed session. [Proper motion here would have been to table.]

9:22 p.m. Closed session. Outcome: The council has voted to go into closed session to discuss land acquisition and written communication protected by attorney-client privilege.

10:15 p.m. Three conversational pods here in city council, as we wait for the council to conclude its closed session.

10:58 p.m. The council has emerged from the closed session.

11:00 p.m. The council is back in open session.

11:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone consideration of the Edwards Brothers land purchase until its next meeting.

11:02 p.m. Communications from council. Hieftje is querying Eaton about his intentions for next meeting on the public art administrator. Eaton indicates that he intends to bring it back for reconsideration.

11:03 p.m. Briere ventures that Seagraves might continue not to continue his employment. In the next two weeks he might choose not to be reliable or forgiving, she says. So the council is taking a risk, she says. No matter what the funding its, the city still needs a public art administrator, she says.

11:03 p.m. Clerk’s report of communications, petitions and referrals. Outcome: The council has received the clerk’s report of communications.

11:03 p.m. Public comment general time. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

11:07 p.m. Thomas Partridge is addressing the council. He’s talking about a trip by president Barack Obama to East Lansing. Partridge hopes he’ll extend the visit to Ann Arbor. He’s talking about income disparity between the top 1% and the rest of the population. He’s complaining about snow-removal contractors for the Walden Hills Apartments. They allow “mountains of snow” in excess of 30 feet high, he says.

11:09 p.m. Edward Vielmetti is now addressing the council. He points out to the council that the habit of some of the boards and commissions is to submit their minutes late –highlighting the LDFA (local development finance authority). The council should insist that minutes be submitted promptly. He also highlights the downtown citizens advisory council minutes. The most recent minutes show only two people attending the last meeting, but the minutes were submitted as if it was a regular meeting, he said.

11:13 p.m. John Floyd says this has been the best snow plowing he’s experienced in the last 15 years. He alludes to a remark quoted from Joan Lowenstein who apparently characterized Jack Eaton as being wrong 100% of the time. He engages in a humorful dialogue that concludes with his presentation of a broken watch to Eaton – which Eaton can wear and thus be right at least twice a day.

11:15 p.m. A speaker is addressing the council on behalf of Camp Misfit, reprising themes from the public commentary at the start of the meeting. Seth Best follows up with remarks supportive of the homeless community. He also reiterates his concerns about the proposed outdoor smoking regulations. He suggests community service as an option to the $50 fine.

11:18 p.m. Caleb Poirier thanks the council for the work they do. He allows that a lot of good work is being done for human services in this city. He cites the Delonis Center for their good work. He compliments the AAPD officers who delivered the eviction notices, saying that they were apologetic about the fact they had to deliver the notice. He said that the message his group had tried to bring was multi-faceted. He allowed that all of these things need work.

11:18 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Two new ordinances will be given initial consideration at the Ann Arbor city council’s Feb. 3, 2014 meeting. One involves public art – which relates to leftover business from the council’s previous meeting. The second proposed new local law involves prohibitions against smoking in some public places.

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the Feb. 3, 2014 meeting agenda.

Public art is actually the topic of two separate items on the council’s agenda. One is a contract extension for the city’s part-time public art administrator, which had been on the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 agenda, but was postponed at that meeting.

The postponement took place in the context of a political horse trade offered by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council table on Jan. 21. Eaton indicated he’d support the public art administrator’s contract extension at the council’s subsequent meeting – but only if the council would move toward returning as-yet-unallocated money set aside during the now defunct Percent for Art program to its funds of origin (e.g., sanitary sewer fund, street millage fund etc.).

Both elements of the horse trade are scheduled for the Feb. 3 meeting. The move toward returning money out of the public art fund takes the form of initial consideration of an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance. The ordinance amendment, sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), would allow the council to return money accumulated under the city’s former Percent for Art program to the funds from which that money was drawn. The ordinance change would need a second and final council vote at a subsequent meeting to be enacted. Any transfer of public art money would require separate council action after the potential ordinance change.

A third public art item is expected to be on the agenda as an item of communication – the annual public art plan for fiscal 2015, which was approved by the Ann Arbor public art commission at its Jan. 29 meeting. It lists projects that are underway, as well as potential new projects for the coming year.

Also getting initial consideration on Feb. 3 will be a new ordinance that would prohibit smoking in specific outdoor public areas. Made punishable through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of any city-owned building. The ordinance amendment would also authorize the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking.

In another item on its Feb. 3 agenda, the council will consider approval of a $398,703 contract plus a $40,000 contingency with Hubbell Roth & Clark Inc. to reconstruct Geddes Avenue from Huntington to Huron Parkway. The project, which includes five components, is scheduled to start in the spring of 2015 and may continue through 2016. The five components of the project are: reconstruction of Geddes, sanitary sewer on Geddes, sanitary sewer on Dover Place and Riverview, storm sewer on Geddes, and water main on Dover Place and Riverview.

Also on the council’s Feb. 3 agenda is a proposed expansion for Germain Motors – an auto dealership on South State Street, formerly Howard Cooper Imports.

The council will also consider setting a hearing date for three establishments that could potentially be recommended for non-renewal of their liquor licenses for non-payment of taxes: The Arena, Banfield’s Bar & Grill, and Café Zola. The three businesses were also subject to the same scrutiny last year, and all eventually paid their taxes without having their licenses revoked.

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

Public Art

Two items related to public art appear on the council’s Feb. 3, 2014 agenda. One item is a contract extension for the city’s part-time public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves. The extension had been on the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 agenda, but was postponed at that meeting.

The postponement took place in the context of a political horse trade offered by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council table on Jan. 21. Eaton indicated he’d support the public art administrator’s contract extension at the council’s subsequent meeting on Feb. 3 – but only if the council would move toward returning as-yet-unallocated money set aside during the now defunct Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin (e.g., sanitary sewer fund, street millage fund etc.).

Both elements of the horse trade are on the Feb. 3 agenda. The move toward returning money out of the public art fund takes the form of an amendment to the city’s ordinance on public art.

A third public art item is expected to be added to the Feb. 3 agenda as well, but simply as an item of communication – the annual public art plan for fiscal 2015, which the Ann Arbor public art commission approved at its Jan. 29 meeting.

Public Art: Part-time Administrator’s Contract Extension

The council will be asked again to consider a six-month extension for Ann Arbor public art administrator Aaron Seagraves – through June 30, 2014. The council will be asked to allocate $18,500 to cover the added term.

The budget expenditure for Seagraves’ contract will need support from at least an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council. That’s why some councilmembers’ dissatisfaction with the current $839,507 in unallocated money in the public art fund posed a credible possibility of a failed vote at the Jan. 21 meeting.

The proposal to postpone the vote on the contract extension came from Jack Eaton (Ward 4), who wanted to delay until the council’s next meeting, by which time a clear plan could be crafted to return the Percent for Art money to its funds of origin. The only dissenting vote on postponement at the Jan. 21 meeting came from Margie Teall (Ward 4). [Details of the council's deliberations are reported in The Chronicle's live updates from the Jan. 21 meeting.]

Seagraves is contracted to work an average of 20 hours a week.

By way of background, the city council enacted a public art ordinance in late 2007, setting up a Percent for Art program as a funding mechanism. For each of the city’s capital projects, 1% of the budget – up to a cap of $250,000 – was set aside for public art. The Ann Arbor public art commission oversaw the expenditures. However, the approach proved controversial and the city council changed the ordinance to eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism at its June 3, 2013 meeting. That ordinance change came after a failed public art millage that was put before voters in the November 2012 election.

Under the new approach, city staff will work to determine whether a specific capital improvement should have enhanced design features “baked in” to the project – either enhanced architectural work or specific public art. The funding for any of the enhanced features would be included in the project’s budget and incorporated into the RFP (request for proposals) process for the capital project.

The funds accrued to the public art fund during the time of the Percent for Art program are still subject to the same legal constraints – which require a thematic link between the original source of the funds (e.g., the street millage) and the piece of art to be funded.

A budget summary provided by Seagraves in response to a Chronicle emailed query shows a current balance of $839,507 in available funds for public art, as of Jan. 14, 2014. An additional $535,853 is 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]

The council debate at its June 3, 2013 meeting included wrangling about what to do with that fund balance, with Jane Lumm (Ward 2) arguing unsuccessfully that $845,029 should be returned to the funds of origin. The council voted to return only the money that had accrued to the fund in the most recent budget year – $326,464.

Public Art: Ordinance Revision

At the June 3, 2013 meeting, the council did not ultimately vote on Lumm’s proposal to return Percent for Art money from earlier years to its funds of origin. That’s because the council rejected her proposal to amend the public art ordinance to allow that transfer to take place.

So Lumm’s ordinance proposal for the Feb. 3, 2014 meeting reprises the previous effort to amend the ordinance to allow the transfer of money accumulated during previous years of the Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin.

If the council votes to approve the ordinance on Feb. 3, it would still require a second vote at a subsequent meeting to be enacted. And any transfer of money would require a separate council action.

Outdoor Smoking

On the council’s Feb. 3 agenda for initial consideration is a new ordinance that would prohibit smoking in specific outdoor public areas. Made punishable through a $50 civil fine would be smoking within 20 feet of: (1) bus stops; (2) entrances, windows and ventilation systems of the Blake Transit Center; and (3) entrances, windows and ventilation systems any city-owned building.

The ordinance amendment also authorizes the city administrator to have signs posted designating certain parks or portions of parks as off limits for outdoor smoking, and to increase the distance from entrances to city buildings where outdoor smoking is prohibited.

Where no signs are posted noting the smoking prohibition, a citation could be issued only if someone doesn’t stop smoking immediately when asked to stop.

An existing county ordinance already prohibits smoking near entrances, windows and ventilation systems, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution – but the county’s ordinance can be enforced only by the county health department. The memo further notes that the Michigan Clean Indoor Air Act does not regulate outdoor smoking.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) is listed as the sponsor of the ordinance change on the city’s Legistar system. At the council’s Oct. 21, 2013 meeting, he had announced his intent to bring forward a proposed ordinance regulating outdoor smoking, and reported at that time he’d been working with city parks staff on the issue.

Geddes Avenue Reconstruction: 2015

The council will consider approval of a $398,703 contract plus a $40,000 contingency with Hubbell Roth & Clark Inc. to reconstruct Geddes Avenue from Huntington to Huron Parkway.

The portion of Geddes to be reconstructed is indicated in yellow. Parcels currently lacking sanitary sewer service are indicated in red.

The project, which includes five components, is scheduled to start in the spring of 2015 and may continue through 2016. The five components of the project are: reconstruction of Geddes, sanitary sewer on Geddes, sanitary sewer on Dover Place and Riverview, storm sewer on Geddes, and water main on Dover Place and Riverview. [.pdf of map showing parcels currently lacking sanitary sewer service]

The components of the project, which the city is calling collectively the Geddes Avenue Improvements Project, could also include corrections of slope sloughing, and the construction of non-motorized improvements within the project limits.

The scope of the actual project is supposed to stem in part from public participation. So part of the contract with HRC includes a “robust public engagement process” to include the adjacent residents, various interest groups, and the public at large.

Germain Motors Site Plan

On the council’s Feb. 3 agenda is a proposed expansion for Germain Motors – an auto dealership on South State Street, formerly Howard Cooper Imports.

The site plan was recommended for approval by Ann Arbor planning commissioners at their Dec. 17, 2013 meeting. The item had previously been postponed by commissioners on Nov. 19, 2013.

The planning commission’s recommendation of approval of the project’s site plan was subject to variances for modifications related to parking lot and landscaping requirements. Those variances were considered and approved by the city’s zoning board of appeals on Jan. 22. Planning commissioners also approved landscape modifications that would reduce the requirement – outlined in Chapter 62 of the city code – for depressed landscape islands within the site.

The planning staff had supported a recommendation of approval on Dec. 17, noting that the owner had addressed several issues that had previously raised concerns. Changes from the plan presented on Nov. 19 include:

• Adding 5,027 square feet of porous pavers to be installed in the expanded vehicle display areas along State Street and Oakbrook Drive.
• Adding eight new depressed landscape islands to the parking storage areas in the back of the site. The changes mean a loss of about 24 parking spaces.
• Changing the landscape modification request. The original request had included reducing the number of required trees to be planted on site by eight. The owner now plans to plant all of the required trees.

The project’s architect also explored the possibility of adding a “green” (vegetated) roof, but ultimately determined that it wasn’t feasible without making significant changes to the existing buildings. The question of whether the architect had considered a green roof to help with stormwater management was raised on Nov. 19.

Other parts of the proposed project, which is located in Ward 4, were unchanged. It calls for a 4,877-square-foot addition to the Volkswagen building on the northern portion of the State Street frontage, bringing the total square footage to 18,722 for that structure. A 6,429-square-foot addition is proposed for the Porsche/Audi building, in the center of the site, which would create a total building size of 31,097 square feet. The site’s third building, housing the Honda dealership on the southern part of the property, would remain at 36,101 square feet.

Also, the owner – Steve Germain, who attended the Nov. 19 planning commission meeting with several members of the project team – would like to add 248 parking spaces, bringing the total number of spaces to 1,039. The new spaces would be in three locations: (1) along the southern half of the South State Street frontage; (2) along the Oakbrook Drive frontage; and (3) in the rear car storage lots. The proposal would require three variances from Chapter 59 (off-street parking) in order to allow tandem parking, to reduce the aisle widths, and to exceed the maximum percentage (30%) of allowable small car parking spaces. Those are the variances granted by the ZBA at its Jan. 22 meeting.

The total expansion is estimated to cost $5.5 million.

Liquor Licenses: Possible Non-Renewal

On the council’s Feb. 3 agenda is a resolution that would set hearings on a recommendation for non-renewal of liquor licenses for three establishments in the city. The date of the hearing would be Feb. 25 at 9 a.m.

The three businesses subject to the hearings are The Arena, Banfield’s Bar & Grill, and Café Zola. They could all potentially be recommended for non-renewal due to non-payment of personal property taxes.

The council’s resolution would also appoint Jane Lumm (Ward 2) as the hearing officer. Lumm serves on the council’s liquor license review committee, along with Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Lumm served as the hearing officer for this kind of proceeding in 2013 as well. Also on that occasion, Banfield’s Bar & Grill, Café Zola and The Arena were on the hearing list. However, by the time of the hearing, Café Zola had resolved its issue. And at the hearing itself, Banfield’s Bar & Grill made an arrangement to resolve its outstanding issue.

Only the hearing on The Arena ultimately resulted in a city council recommendation to the state liquor control commission not to renew a license. Subsequently, The Arena did pay its taxes, and the council withdrew its objection to a license renewal for The Arena.

Planning Commission Bylaws

Again on the city council’s agenda is the approval of a change to the planning commission’s bylaws. The changes related to the order of agenda items, and the length of time required for special accommodations, such as sign language interpreters. The change would require additional lead time so that special accommodations, including a sign language interpreter, can be made for people with disabilities, when requested at least two business days in advance of a meeting. The current bylaws specify just a one-day advance request.

The planning commission had given approval to changes in its bylaws about six months ago – at its July 16, 2013 meeting.

The bylaws changes were considered but postponed twice by the city council last year – first at the council’s Nov. 7, 2013 meeting, then at the Dec. 16, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws changes]

The council had held off voting to approve the bylaws changes as the planning commission has considered further revisions to its bylaws – related to the number of times someone can speak during a public hearing, and whether city councilmembers are allowed to address the planning commission during the commission’s meetings.

At a regular meeting of the planning commission, the additional revisions were discussed most recently on Nov. 6, 2013. The additional changes were also discussed at a working session on Jan. 7.

Appointments to City Boards, Commissions

Several nominations to city boards and commissions were made at the council’s previous meeting on Jan. 21. They’ll be voted on at the council’s Feb. 3 meeting.

Jim Simpson was nominated to fill the vacancy of Malverne Winborne on the public art commission. Winborne’s term ended on Dec. 31, 2013.

Daniel Lee was nominated to serve out the rest of Marta Manildi’s term on the Ann Arbor housing commission. Manildi’s term ends this spring, but she said she’d step down early if someone could be appointed.

Paige Morrison was nominated to serve out the rest of Jennifer Geer’s term on the Ann Arbor park advisory commission. Geer has resigned.

And Peter Woolf was nominated to fill the vacancy of Lindsey-Jean Hard on the public market advisory commission.

Consent Agenda

The consent agenda is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. Here are some highlights from the Feb. 3 consent agenda.

Consent Agenda: Chelsea Tech Agreement

The council is being asked to approve an amendment to the renewal agreement for information technology services between the city of Ann Arbor and city of Chelsea. The contract is being amended to match fiscal years – by extending it an extra five months for a total of 17 months and $80,499.

The contract covers support for the help desk, management of the city’s website, server hosting, data backup and recovery, overseeing IT contractors, project management, and representing the city of Chelsea in regional technology efforts and meetings.

Consent Agenda: Street Closings

The council will be asked to approve street closings for FoolMoon (April 4, 2014) and FestiFools (April 6, 2014).

Consent Agenda: Firehouse Subs Grant

The council will be asked to approve a resolution accepting a grant of $25,736 from Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation Corporation. The money will be used to buy 11 automatic external defibrillator units for use by the fire department.

It was the fire department that applied for the grant to replace existing equipment. No matching funds are required.

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