Left to right: Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) are asking to be recognized to speak as Jane Lumm (Ward 2) gives her views on public art. (Photos by the writer.)

Public art was featured in two specific agenda items. One was a presentation of the annual public art plan given by Wiltrud Simbuerger, a member of the city’s public art commission. The council gave the presentation a basically positive reception.

But the second agenda item required a vote – on a $150,000 piece of art proposed by Ed Carpenter, to be hung in the lobby of the new Justice Center. The city’s public art commission had selected Carpenter from responses to a request for proposals. A vote on the artwork, a piece called “Radius,” had been postponed from the council’s April 2, 2012 meeting over concerns about public access to the Justice Center lobby, where the sculpture will be hung.

A nearly one-hour debate unfolded about the Carpenter piece, with the specific artwork serving as a kind of proxy for a rehash of previous council debates on the city’s Percent for Art ordinance. The ordinance requires that all city capital improvement projects include 1% for public art, up to a cap of $250,000 per capital project. For capital projects that aren’t suitable to have public art incorporated into them, the 1% is “pooled” for use in some other public art – which must be related to the purpose of the funding source. For example, the fountain outside the new Justice Center, designed by German artist Herbert Dreiseitl, is funded with money pooled from 1% of some sanitary sewer projects, drinking water projects, and stormwater management projects.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) proposed an amendment that would have canceled Carpenter’s project and appropriated the art project funds to invest instead in the city hall building. That amendment failed, but piqued mayor John Hieftje into announcing that he’d be sponsoring a future resolution to take $50,000 from public art funds, and deposit that amount into the general fund. That move is susceptible to the same critique made by several councilmembers as well as the assistant city attorney against Lumm’s amendment: The public art ordinance prohibits transfer from public art funds to other funds. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) stated that he would be content for the council simply to violate that ordinance. Carpenter’s sculpture eventually was approved over the dissent of Kunselman and Lumm.

Besides public art, the council approved the city’s portion of the State/Ellsworth traffic roundabout project, which includes an improvement for a water main connection – to pipe water from a well on the property of Ann Arbor’s municipal airport to the city’s water treatment plant. The airport also made it onto the agenda in the form of a resolution that settled outstanding legal issues surrounding the construction of hangars on the property.

Prompting extended discussion by the council was a resolution that invalidates sidewalk occupancy permits for vendors in a specific area around Main Street between Huron and William, whenever Main Street is closed down for special events.

The council delayed action on a tax abatement for the battery technology company Sakti3, pending review by the city council’s budget committee. And the council authorized another five-year extension of its contract with Waste Management to haul the city’s trash to a landfill.

The council also heard its usual range of public commentary. The public hearing on the fiscal year 2013 budget enjoyed light participation. The council will vote on that budget, and any amendments, at its May 21 meeting.

Public Art

The council had two public art-related items on its agenda: a presentation of the art commission’s annual plan, and the approval of a $150,000 sculpture for the new Justice Center. Submission by the public art commission of an annual plan to the city council is a requirement of the city’s public art ordinance.

From the ordinance:

The oversight body shall … by April 1 of each year, submit to City Council a plan detailing potential projects and desirable goals to be pursued in the next fiscal year; …

Public Art: Annual Plan

The council received a presentation on the public art commission’s annual plan from Wiltrud Simbuerger, a member of the commission.

The city’s public art commission had discussed the public art plan for FY 2013 at its March 28, 2012 meeting. The plan describes projects that AAPAC intends to work on between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013. [.pdf of FY 2013 annual public art plan].

1. Develop a master plan for 2013-2016 that will create community engagement and expedite work of the commission.
2. Advance the following projects that are underway, meeting all deadlines. All the projects have task force oversight, approved budgets, and are in various stages of completion. The projects are: (1) installation of Ed Carpenter’s “Radius” sculpture in the lobby of the Justice Center by November 2012 ($150,000); (2) a mural in Allmendinger Park by Mary Thiefels, to be completed by September 2012 ($12,000); (3) two additional murals by August 2013 ($40,000); (4) artwork for a rain garden at Kingsley and First by August 2013 ($27,000); (5) artwork for the East Stadium bridges by the fall of 2014 ($400,000); and (6) installation of artwork in the Detroit Institute of Art’s Inside|Out project by the spring of 2013 (budget TBD). That project involves installing framed reproductions from the DIA’s collection at outdoor locations on building facades or in parks.
3. By June 2012, identify and prioritize new projects for FY 2013, allocating existing funds using agreed-upon criteria of type, location, and community involvement. The criteria will be defined during the master planning process.
4. By Aug. 1, develop and begin to implement an effective communications plan about the uses and value of public art and the operation of the commission.
5. Collaborate with commissions, organizations, and agencies to accomplish public art projects.

The first objective – developing a master plan – included details on its purpose. The intent of the master plan is to: (1) guide AAPAC’s efforts to include public art throughout the city, involve community groups and create substantial visibility for public art as an integral part of community life and a city asset; (2) train commissioners and task force members with the goal of increased community knowledge, engagement and advocacy for public art; and (3) better integrate the public art administrator with every city department with the goal of increasing public art in the city.

Simbuerger concluded her presentation by thanking Aaron Seagraves, who provides staff support to the city’s public art commission as the city’s public art administrator.

Public Art: Annual Plan – Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked about the public art budget and request for proposals that’s connected to the East Stadium bridges project – $400,000. Simbuerger clarified that the 2014 date in the annual plan was not the date that the RFP would be issued, but rather the date of anticipated completion for the public art associated with the bridge project. The RFP is currently under review by the city attorney’s office, Simbuerger explained.

Lumm said the reason she was asking about it is that a lot of people see architecture as art. The Broadway bridges are like that, she ventured. She said she’d been told that the East Stadium bridges can’t be that nice, because there’s not enough money. She wondered if art could be incorporated into the bridge design.

Simbuerger indicated that the bridge design is done, so there’s some room for flexibility on only a few things, like railings or sidewalks. The art commission can’t influence the basic design of the bridge anymore, she said. Art could be added to the bridge, she said, and there’s also a park next to the bridge as well as a fence that leads up to the bridge along Stadium Boulevard – which could potentially serve as locations for public art.

Lumm concluded her remarks by commending the planned mural project at Allmendinger Park, for involving the community. The project, by local artist Mary Thiefels, will incorporate found objects into a mosaic on the pillars of the park’s bathroom building.

Later in the meeting, Lumm cited those earlier remarks she’d made – to argue against mayor John Hieftje’s contention that she was attacking public art. That discussion centered around the second public art-related agenda item – approval of a $150,000 piece of art for the lobby of the new Justice Center. The Justice Center is also known as the police-courts building. The overall construction project for the new building, which connected city hall with the new Justice Center, is also known as the municipal center building project.

Justice Center Art: Background – Building

The proposed public art project would be located in the lobby of the new municipal building called the Justice Center – on the northeast corner of Huron Street and Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The Justice Center houses the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor police department.

The sculpture is called “Radius” by Ed Carpenter of Portland, Oregon. Previously council had postponed approval of public art funds for Carpenter’s project at its April 2, 2012 meeting.

A rendering of Ed Carpenter’s proposed “Radius” sculpture in the southwest corner of Ann Arbor’s Justice Center lobby. This image was revised from earlier drawings by the artist to include more glass, at the request of a selection task force. (Links to larger image)

Because it houses the district court, the building features airport-style security measures at the entrance, and visitors must surrender electronic devices like cameras and cellphones to be locked in cubicles during their visit to the building. Concern about accessibility by the public to the public art was the subject of councilmember deliberations that led to the postponement on April 2.

The council expressed interest in using the delay to explore the possibility of moving the security screening to a point well past the entrance in the interior of the building. The visibility of the proposed sculpture from outside the building was also a point of discussion at the April 2 as well as at the May 7 meeting.

At the May 7 meeting, before the council began its deliberations on the Justice Center lobby art, city administrator Steve Powers indicated to the council that the question of public access to the lobby and art had been reviewed by city staff. He suggested that he was prepared to go into detail on that issue, or that the information could be reviewed by the city council’s building committee. He noted there are some details on use of the building by the police department that have an impact on its 24/7 accessibility. Powers also said that staff had some answers about the visibility of the art itself from the exterior of the building. The visibility of the art and the accessibility to the building, he said, are two separate issues. He noted that moving the security checkpoint would have a budgetary impact.

At its Jan. 25, 2012 meeting, the Ann Arbor public art commission had unanimously recommended selecting Carpenter for the $150,000 project. A task force had recommended the selection of Carpenter’s proposal from three finalists.

Carpenter plans to create a hanging sculpture of dichroic glass, aluminum, stainless steel and lighting, including LED spot and flood lighting. Among the reasons for recommending Radius, the task force cited the sculpture’s metaphor: That the activities in the Justice Center have a “rippling” effect throughout the community, which echoes the water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl that’s located in the plaza outside the building.

Ann Arbor’s public art funds come from the application of the city’s Percent for Art ordinance, which requires that 1% of all capital projects (up to a limit of $250,000 per capital project) be set aside for public art.

Justice Center Art: Background – Ordinance

There was confusion on the part of councilmembers about how the public art ordinance actually works and where the money for Carpenter’s sculpture had originated. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was convinced that the source of funds for the Dreiseitl fountain – located outside, on the side of the building facing Huron – was the same as the source of funds for the interior piece. Kunselman pointed to the metaphor of the “rippling” effect that Carpenter’s sculpture was supposed to mirror, which was similar to the “water theme” that is supposed to justify the expenditure of sewer, stormwater and drinking water funds on the project. He also pointed to the original interior art pieces commissioned from Dreiseitl, which were planned to tie thematically to the fountain with lit blue spheres. [Those pieces were proposed but not authorized to be created, because of budgetary concerns.]

By way of background, the ordinance describes two ways that pieces of public art can be funded. They can be funded as pieces of art that are integrated into or stand on the site of some capital improvement project. The budget of all such projects must include 1% for public art.

But not every capital improvement project lends itself easily to the integration of public art or even a piece of art that can stand on the site of the capital improvement project. It’s also possible that the size of a capital improvement project would not generate adequate funds to contemplate funding a piece of art. In those cases, the 1% of the project’s budget is “pooled” together, and can be spent on a piece of art that is “related to the purposes of that fund [which paid for the capital improvement project].”

From the ordinance:

1:834. Inclusion of public art as part of a capital improvement project …
…
(3) Funds for public art that are included as part of a capital improvement project financed from a City fund other than the City’s general fund shall be accounted for within that fund and may be used as part of that capital improvement project for the creation, purchase, production or other acquisition of art incorporated as a part of the capital improvement project, including art located on the site where the project is located.

(4) Funds for public art that are included as part of a capital improvement project financed from a City fund other than the City’s general fund may instead be pooled in a separate public art fund within that fund. Public art funds that are held within a city fund other than the general fund shall be expended only on projects that are related to the purposes of that fund.

(5) Funds in pooled public art funds may be used for the creation, purchase, production or other acquisition of art for display in public spaces or facilities; for extraordinary maintenance, repair or refurbishment, including structural reconstruction, and for relocation, alteration and removal of public art.

The funding strategy for the Carpenter sculpture contrasts with that of the Dreiseitl fountain, which used “pooled” funds. The fountain had an initial budget created from pooled funds from other capital improvement projects – projects that were paid for out of drinking water ($210,000), sanitary sewer ($510,000) and stormwater ($30,000) funds.

In contrast, the Carpenter sculpture is funded from the Justice Center (aka police-courts or municipal center) building fund. The amount initially available for public art from that project was $250,000. One percent of the project budget would have been more than $250,000, but the ordinance caps the total public art allocation from any project at $250,000.

That building fund stemmed from various sources. At the council’s Nov. 21, 2011 meeting, then-public services area administrator Sue McCormick said that ordinarily, city staff would not go back and trace how much of that $250,000 could be attributed to various sources. However, because they’d been asked to do that by councilmembers, McCormick said that of the $250,000, around $50,000 could be “associated” with the general fund.

That $50,000 was a number batted back and forth by councilmembers at their May 7 meeting – it’s the amount that mayor John Hieftje said at the meeting that he wants to take out of public art and put back into the general fund. He said he wanted to settle that issue once and for all.

Hieftje’s proposal came in response to a gambit by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) to amend the resolution on the Carpenter sculpture – to cancel the project and to put the public art money into city hall building renovations. Either proposal would founder on the language of the public art ordinance, a portion of which assistant city attorney Mary Fales wound up reading aloud, in an apparent attempt to ground the council’s discussion in the options that are legally available. From the section that Fales read aloud:

1:835. Disbursement of public art funds.
…
(3) Funds for public art that are included as part of a capital improvement project or that are part of a pooled public art fund may be not be transferred to any other fund, encumbered or utilized for any purpose except the purposes specifically set forth in this chapter.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated that he did not believe it is necessary for the council to follow its own ordinances. Ordinances are there for the staff to follow, he suggested, not for the council.

Justice Center Art: Initial Council Deliberations

Major John Hieftje opened the council deliberations by saying he’d be happy to vote for approval of the piece of art that evening, leaving the issue of access to the lobby for future resolution.

City administrator Steve Powers. Behind him is a poster for the getDowntown Commuter Challenge, which runs through the month of May.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that her concern, dating back to a few weeks ago, was not about the art, but rather the use of the lobby space in the Justice Center. She’d talked with city administrator Steve Powers about the issue. She said she was not opposed to voting for the artwork; however, she was concerned about the possibility that the council’s building committee came back with a recommendation to change significantly the use of the lobby space. Will that piece of art still be the right piece of art for that location? She said she had every intention of asking that a council building committee be re-appointed.

Higgins asked interim public services area administrator Craig Hupy about possible changes to the use of the lobby space – to use more of the floor area in a utilitarian way. Hupy indicated that the piece of art is suspended from the ceiling, so it’s well above the floor space. His concern would be with the lighting of the piece. Public art administrator Aaron Seagraves explained that there’s internal lighting as a part of the artwork itself.

Higgins asked if the building committee determines that the proposed location in the lobby would not be the best place for the sculpture, is there another spot in the building where it could be installed? Seagraves indicated that for a suspended piece, that corner of the lobby is the best, or the only location, because there’s a drywall recess there – the rest is a plaster ceiling. It’s also the most visible corner, he said. He suggested it would be an option for the public art commission to fund an additional piece of art for the Justice Center.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that the piece of art has been designed to be viewed from outside the building. She noted that the location of the art is dependent on its size, so she asked if there’s a basic diameter for the sculpture. From the center to its farthest point, Seagraves said, the piece is 37 feet. Briere followed up by asking if the piece is “circular.” Yes, said Seagraves. Based on some ensuing confusion, it was clear that Briere intended the question to include the symmetric properties of “circular,” not just the rounded qualities.

Briere ventured that the piece was 74 feet across – no, said Seagraves, more like around 50 feet, because it’s not symmetric. [It's not clear if the participants in the exchange appreciated the irony of the name of the piece – "Radius."] Briere wanted to know if it would fit into the city hall building [which is adjacent to the Justice Center.] Hupy indicated that it wouldn’t be a matter of just moving the artwork over to another building – the suspension points would need to be adapted. Briere ventured that the piece of art had been designed specifically for the proposed location, a sentiment with which Hupy agreed.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said her initial concern had not been about the piece of art itself or where it is located. Rather, her concern was about the intended use of the Justice Center lobby and the ability of the public to see the art from inside the building. That had been the reason she’d asked for the postponement of the issue, she noted. Smith wondered if reappointment of the building committee would be needed or if city staff would be prepared to answer those questions about use and access.

Powers noted that there is currently 24/7 access to the Justice Center lobby. After hours, people can be buzzed in by the police department. Staff has looked at options of downsizing the footprint of the security checkpoint and relocating it. However, there are budgetary and space challenges, he said. There are four or five different options than can be provided to the city council or to a building committee of the council, Powers said.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who serves on the public art commission, indicated that the piece of art that’s been chosen, the work by Carpenter, is intended to hang in that specific spot. He felt it’s a beautiful use of the building.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she couldn’t imagine people needing to be buzzed in to see the art. She said she wanted to see renderings of the sculpture as viewed from outside the building. Based on what other councilmembers had said, she thought it didn’t sound like the council was heading toward postponing again. She said she’d be fine with appointing a building committee.

Lumm then introduced an amendment to the resolution by saying, “We’ll get this out of the way, I’m sure, but I’d like to make an option here for council to consider.”

Justice Center Art: Lumm’s Amendment

Lumm gave as background to her amendment her understanding of the city hall (Larcom building) renovation project. The bathrooms in the basement and the first floor had been upgraded as part of the municipal center project, she said. But there was no money in the building fund budget for bathroom renovations on other floors. So those renovations would be funded out of general fund money over two years, through the facilities budget in the public services unit.

Lumm noted that the council had approved the first phase of the upgrade to bathrooms on other floors at the council’s April 16, 2012 meeting – at a cost of $93,438. Another $165,000 is needed for that project in 2013, she said. The community has been told that no general fund dollars were used on the municipal center, Lumm contended, so she proposed that the public art project be canceled. The $150,000 budget for that public art would, according to her amendment, go back into the municipal center building fund. The bathroom would then be funded out of the building fund.

Higgins said she did not consider those upgrades to be a continuation of the municipal center building project. The bathrooms that were renovated in conjunction with the municipal center renovation were done because of the installation of the new elevator, she said. The renovations now being done in addition are standard upgrades, she said, like those that would be done in any other facility. She appreciated the idea of canceling the art project, but would not support the amendment.

Briere asked under what circumstances the council can cancel a project and reallocate the dollars. Assistant city attorney Mary Fales clarified the funds from a canceled art project have to be reallocated to another art project.

Kunselman, Briere, Hupy and Lumm then engaged in a conversation about the original source of funds for the artwork. Seagraves told them that the Justice Center lobby sculpture by Ed Carpenter didn’t come from pooled funds, but rather from the municipal center building fund.

Hieftje stated that not all the funds generated for public art from the municipal center building fund [a total of $250,000] are general fund monies. He allowed that hypothetically, $50,000 of that $250,000 may have originated as general fund money. Hupy noted that the funds for the Justice Center came from a multitude of funding sources beyond just the general fund – that would have to be analyzed to identify the specific contributions.

The city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford, essentially agreed with Higgins’ earlier description of the bathroom renovations as not part of the scope of the municipal center building project. There’s been a lot of deferred maintenance on the building, he said. One of the expectations is that there’d be a higher level of regular maintenance needed.

Kunselman wanted to revisit the issue of the theme of Carpenter’s sculpture – to which fund’s purpose was the art’s theme related? Seagraves reiterated that it wasn’t funded with “pooled funds,” so there’s no requirement that it be related in theme to some specific fund’s purpose. It was funded out of public art money generated by the center’s building fund.

Based on some remarks by Crawford, Hieftje said he’d be interested in a resolution to take $50,000 and put it into the general fund – to resolve the question of whether general fund money was used for public art.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5).

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) tried to achieve some clarity on the question of what the legal, possible uses of the sculpture’s budget would be if the project were canceled. He ventured that even if the sculpture were voted down, the money would be required to be spent on public art. So he concluded that the whole notion of monies going back and being applied for a different purpose would be tantamount to overturning the Percent for Art ordinance.

Given that the money could not be spent on something other than art, Hohnke asked Lumm what the point would be of canceling the sculpture for the Justice Center lobby. Lumm indicated that the point was so that the money would not need to be spent on a piece of art. Hohnke responded by saying that as long as the Percent for Art ordinance is on the books, what Lumm is saying simply isn’t true.

Crawford confirmed that once money goes into a specific fund, it’s not just a normal budget action – once the money gets into that fund, it has to be used for that purpose.

Derezinski equated the conversation around the table to a debate on the approval of the allocation of funds under the Percent for Art ordinance. The council had already had this debate, he said, and the people who were opposed to cutting funds for the program lost. He characterized what was going on at the table that night as an attempt slowly to kill off the Percent for Art program. [The council last debated revisions to the public art ordinance at its Dec. 5, 2011 meeting, which resulted in some revisions, but not a reduction of the specific percentage from 1% to 0.5%.]

Briere responded to Lumm’s amendment by saying that it could be reduced to three questions: (1) Should the sculpture be canceled? (2) Can money allocated to the public art program be allocated to a different capital improvement project? (3) Does either of those reflect support for public art? With respect to the first question, Briere said that if the council voted the project down, that would cancel it. With respect to the second question, she felt that it wasn’t legal to reallocate the public art money in the way Lumm wanted to.

Smith added a fourth issue, which was an attempt to revisit the decision to build the Justice Center: “I gotta say, it’s there and it’s operating!” Reflecting on the Larcom building’s age, and the need to renovate bathrooms, she ventured that at 49 years of age things start to break that need to be fixed.

Higgins noted that the money that’s been budgeted has to be used on public art, even if the project is canceled. She thought the city has spent enough money on art at the Justice Center location – given the Dreiseitl sculpture. She suggested some other location in the city could be found.

Kunselman agreed that too much money had been spent on art at the Justice Center and repeated his belief that the Justice Center lobby sculpture budget had drawn on water funds, given the allusion to the “rippling effect” the sculpture was supposed to have. He observed that bathrooms also have a theme of water.

Kunselman then stated that although the public art ordinance is an ordinance, the council did not need to follow its own ordinance.

Hieftje picked up on Derezinski’s earlier point, by stating that it would be a more honest approach to attack public art directly instead of the way that Lumm was proceeding. The council had twice before had that direct debate, he said.

Hohnke added that if the council wanted to cancel the project, as Lumm’s amendment stated, then the council could just vote the project down.

Outcome on the amendment: Lumm’s amendment canceling the project and reallocating the money to renovate bathrooms failed, with support only from Lumm and Kunselman.

Justice Center Art: More Deliberations

Lumm responded to Hieftje’s characterization of her lack of support for the specific project as an attack on the public art program. She felt that was “an outlandish claim.” She pointed out that earlier in the meeting, she’d asked questions regarding the East Stadium bridges project about incorporating art into that project and had praised the Allmendinger mural project. She allowed that she’d voted in the past to reduce the percentage allocation in the public art ordinance. But her opposition to the project was not based on opposition to the public art program, she said, but rather based on how much the city is spending on the Justice Center building. She expressed her disappointment that the artist who was selected was from out-of-state.

Hieftje responded to Lumm by saying it wasn’t a vote against the project that he was calling an attack on the public art program, but rather Lumm’s attempt to reallocate the public art money to a different purpose.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had opposed the construction of the Justice Center. But he noted that the proposed piece of art was different from the history of that building. He stated that as long as the Percent for Art ordinance exists, councilmembers should support public art. He described how someone could get access to the lobby after hours by getting buzzed in by police. He said the issue of better access could be pursued in the future and it’s important to do that. Given the amount of money that had been spent on art on the site, it’s important to figure out a way to draw the public in to view the art, he said.

Kunselman was not inclined to accept the idea that because the council had previously discussed the issue of the public art ordinance, the council could not or should not continue to discuss it. “We’re always going to be talking about this.” People could say it’s been discussed and voted on and that the majority rules and that councilmembers need to move on – but he cautioned against that. “Every council is different and there will be new councilmembers and this discussion will carry on for years until a methodology of funding public art is done that can be universally embraced.” He mentioned the possibility of a millage just for public art, or the removal of restricted funds from the public art program.

Kunselman indicated he would not support the project. Among the reasons he gave were horizontal bands of etched glass on the windows that won’t allow people to see it from outside, he contended.

Smith said she’d support the art project, but wanted to see the issue of the security checkpoint addressed as well.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) rearranges a chair before the May 7 meeting started.

Briere said that for her, the issue is whether the lobby can be casually available for a group of visitors who don’t want to go through the security checkpoint, emptying their pockets and taking off their shoes. Part of the reason that’s unclear is that there’s a cost factor involved, she said. She feared that the council would approve the art project, only to discover that the council is not also willing to fund the cost of making the art accessible.

Briere was not willing to let go of the concept that the lobby to the Justice Center should be available to the public. For that reason, she hoped to have the cost information available before the council votes on the fiscal year 2013 budget – a vote that will be taken on May 21. She said she is not against this piece of art, and she believes it can only be observed well from inside the building.

Hieftje indicated he’d support the piece of art, but also said work needed to be done on opening up the lobby of the Justice Center to make it more accessible. He mentioned three different receptions that have been held in the lobby without the security checkpoints.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) indicated he’d support the artwork. But he wanted to address the issue of the “ownership” of the building. He said it’s been suggested that it’s only a limited few who benefit from the building – that it’s city workers and councilmembers around the table who benefit from changes to city hall. He disputed that wholeheartedly. He said it’s obviously core public space that is important to the city – of government, courts and police. It’s also the place people come to do a wide variety of business for various purposes, he said.

Outcome: The sculpture “Radius” by Ed Carpenter was approved by the council over dissent from Lumm and Kunselman.

State/Ellsworth Roundabout

The council considered an agreement between the city of Ann Arbor and the Washtenaw County road commission for a $2.52 million roundabout project at State and Ellsworth.

Roundabout design for State and Ellsworth. (Image links to higher resolution .pdf)

The current design calls for a roundabout that is 150 feet in diameter. All four approaches to the roundabout have two lanes entering and two lanes exiting, except for the northern approach from South State, which will include a third lane. The planned design features include non-motorized paths that connect with the existing sidewalk system and new on-road bike lanes. Underground electrical conduit will be installed for the possible future addition of advanced pedestrian-activated crossing signals (HAWK) or rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFB). [.pdf of State/Ellsworth roundabout layout]

Of the total $2.52 million project cost, $2.17 million is for the intersection improvements per se, and the remaining $350,000 is for a city water main improvement. That will replace a 20-inch water main, which serves to pipe untreated water from the Steere Farms wells on the Ann Arbor municipal airport property to the city’s water treatment plant.

The city of Ann Arbor is paying for the water main portion of the project as well as contributing $135,000 to the intersection improvement. The remaining cost is paid by the road commission ($135,000), Costco ($500,000) and a federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant ($1.4 million). Costco is building a store near the intersection that’s expected to open this summer.

State/Ellsworth Roundabout: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked that the item be pulled out of the council’s consent agenda, saying it’s a big deal and a big change. [Consent agenda items are voted together all in one go. The consent agenda includes those items considered to be routine, with contracts under $100,000. It's not clear how the roundabout qualified for inclusion under the consent agenda. In any case, an item must be pulled out of the consent agenda for separate consideration if any councilmember requests it.]

Lumm asked Homayoon Pirooz, head of project management at the city, to review the background, which he did. He noted that State and Ellsworth is a very busy intersection.

By way of background, the Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS) website provides a database of traffic counts for various intersections. For example, data available from that database shows that the northern leg of the intersection of State and Ellsworth was studied in November 2009 and showed a total two-way, 24-hour count of 26,733 on the north segment of State out of the intersection. That compared with a two-way count of 17,566 on the south segment of State, measured about seven months later. To get an idea of whether those counts are a lot or a little, here’s how that stacks up with counts from another intersection that many drivers would likely consider “busy” – Main and Stadium. The most recent counts available from WATS date from over a decade ago, in 1999 – 23,957 for two-way traffic on the north segment of Stadium out of that intersection.

Pirooz described the Washtenaw County road commission as having taken the lead on the project. He highlighted the jurisdictional issue – the fact that two legs of the intersection are locate in the city and two of them in Pittsfield Township. The two legs in the city are the State Street section north from the intersection and the Ellsworth section east of the intersection.

The city’s share of the intersection work, Pirooz said, is estimated to be $135,000. The plans are completed, he said, and a public meeting was held a few months ago. As usual, Pirooz said, some forum attendees were excited and others had reservations. [For Chronicle coverage of that public forum, see the March 6, 2012 planning commission meeting report.]

Lumm ventured that the forum was well-attended. She wondered about the inclusion of provisions for non-motorized infrastructure, wiring for pedestrian activated crossing beacons. She allowed that Pirooz is the expert, but she had difficulty understanding how it’d be safer for pedestrians and drivers. The idea of a roundabout is that traffic is expected to flow continuously – but motorists might be expected to stop for pedestrians. She asked for an explanation if that’s typical.

Pirooz explained that the roundabout is designed so there’s adequate distance between cars. He said that statistics of roundabouts show an improvement, measured by accident rates. He cited the new roundabout at Nixon and Huron Parkway as an example, noting there’d been concerns similar to Lumm’s that had been discussed before that roundabout was constructed. Pirooz explained that vehicles entering a roundabout are simply forced to slow down – you can’t go through a roundabout at 45 mph. He concluded that roundabouts are safer than standard signalized intersections.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) added his personal observations, saying that he’d worked with Pirooz when some roundabouts in Ward 2 were first proposed – Nixon and Huron Parkway, and Geddes and Earhart. Derezinski said a lot of people who opposed the roundabouts came to believe in them. The traffic through Geddes and Earhart now flows through beautifully, he said. It really is “a win,” he said, and there’d been a couple of requests for more roundabouts.

Pirooz commented that one of the new roundabouts is right at the entrance to Concordia University, and the school was concerned before construction about pedestrians on campus crossing the street to get to an athletic field. But the university is very happy with the roundabout, Pirooz reported, and feels that pedestrians are now safer.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she appreciated the use of roundabouts and noted that everyone had likely driven through them. But the Ward 2 roundabouts have a different environment than the State and Ellsworth location, she contended. There’s a lot of truck traffic that goes through the State and Ellsworth intersection, she said. The proposed roundabout design is 150 feet in diameter. She wanted to know if that design took into account the size of the trucks that go through the intersection, noting there are many major corporations located south of Ellsworth on State.

Pirooz responded to Higgins by starting to describe the alternative to a roundabout, which would be to add more lanes. Higgins interrupted Pirooz, telling him she was not asking for more lanes, but rather was just making sure that the entrances to the roundabout can accommodate trucks. Trucks add another dimension to the traffic challenge, she said, and there’s a tremendous amount of truck traffic that goes through the intersection. Higgins told Pirooz she just wanted him to tell her he’d look at that issue. Pirooz replied, “We have and we will,” and Higgins indicated that was all she needed.

Pirooz indicated that he would expect trucks to be in the right lane as they navigated the roundabout. The roundabout is designed with the understanding there’s a large amount of truck traffic on the roads, he said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the resolution on the State and Ellsworth roundabout.

Ann Arbor Airport Hanger Project

The council considered two change orders totaling $46,238 to resolve all remaining issues related to a lawsuit that CMA Design/Build Inc. had filed against the city in connection with the construction of hangars at the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

The original contract was approved by the city council on May 5, 2008 for $2.39 million, of which $1.101 million was for the local share. Because CMA failed to complete the project, Ann Arbor terminated the contract and CMA’s bonding company, North American Specialty Insurance Co., finished up the work. CMA filed suit against the city; and one of CMA’s subcontractors filed suit against CMA. Claims by CMA involved costs it incurred due to stop work orders issued by Pittsfield Township (where the airport is located) over jurisdictional questions between the city and the township.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the airport hangar change orders.

Landfill Contract

The council considered approval of the third five-year agreement since 2002 with Waste Management of Michigan – to dispose of the city’s trash in the Woodland Meadows landfill in Wayne, Michigan. For years 11 through 15 of the contract (2013 through 2017) the rates are as follows: $12.99/ton; $13.28/ton; $13.57/ton; $13.87/ton; and $14.18/ton. The increases reflect a 2.3% escalator. Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle, city of Ann Arbor solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie explained that those rates don’t include the additional transfer charge of $12.12 a ton, paid to ReCommunity, which operates the city’s materials recover facility (MRF) and transfer station.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, the city disposes of 62,000 tons of trash in the Woodland Meadows landfill per year. The city’s street sweepings and seasonal wastewater treatment sludge are also disposed there.

In 2002, the city council first approved the five-year contract, and then approved a five-year extension in 2007.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the contract with Waste Management.

Sidewalk Permits

The council considered a resolution that, beginning June 1, 2012, invalidates sidewalk occupancy permits and solicitor/licenses for a specific area of the downtown on occasions when Main Street is closed for special events between William and Huron streets. The special events include, but aren’t limited to, the Taste of Ann Arbor, Rolling Sculpture Car Show, the Children’s Holiday Parade, Green Fair, and FestiFools.

The area where sidewalk permits will be invalidated is the interior of the rectangle defined by Huron Street on the north, Fourth Street on the east, William Street on the south, and Ashley Street on the west. [.pdf of the area where sidewalk permits will be invalidated]

The resolution doesn’t apply to businesses that have been issued permits for permanent locations.

Council deliberations were driven by a request from Sandi Smith (Ward 1) to amend the resolution. She did not want to allow the resolution to prevent the city from granting permits for use of the Palio parking lot at Main and William or the parking structure at Fourth and William. In the context of the Connecting William Street planning project, being managed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, Smith did not want to tie the city’s hands on uses for the two lots.

Mayor John Hieftje wondered what kind of uses Smith had in mind. [Both Hieftje and Smith also serve on the DDA board.] Both areas Smith had identified are within the geographic scope of the Connecting William Street project. People had talked about ways to use the Palio lot as open space. Non-parking activity on the lots might “leak out” into the sidewalk, she said. She just wanted to leave options open for the city.

From left: Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association, talks with councilmember Jane Lumm (Ward 2).

Maura Thomson, executive director of the Main Street Area Association, was asked to the podium to clarify. She described such a resolution as being on a “wish list” for the MSAA for a long time. She stressed that it would invalidate sidewalk permits only when the streets are closed – for specific events. Further, she said, it applies to sidewalk and peddler permits. For activity on the Palio lot or in the Fourth and William parking structure, she ventured that approval could be obtained from the DDA, but there’d be no sidewalk permit or peddler permit involved.

Asked by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) if Smith’s amendment impeded her, Thompson indicated she was mostly confused by it. When 7,000 people visit Main Street for Taste of Ann Arbor, she said, the more control over management she has in that area, the safer it is. The resolution is looking out for businesses that are open 365 days a year. She described how undesirable it would be for the owner of a bookstore, which contributes dues to the MSAA to help put on a special event, to have to watch a sidewalk peddler selling books in front of their bookstore.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered if the DDA proposed some non-parking use of a public parking lot, whether the city council would have something to say about that. He was not sure that the DDA’s contract with the city, under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system, allows for that.

Smith indicated that she wasn’t at all opposed to the resolution. She was just trying to protect the city’s right to do something that it hasn’t thought about yet. She ventured that the DDA has no evil plans to take over the downtown for special events.

Derezinski suggested that the DDA and MSAA get along pretty well and the two organizations could work out things informally if they needed to.

Outcome on amendment: Smith’s amendment got support only from Smith.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the concept behind the resolution is to encourage people to frequent the businesses that are there year round, not just for an event. So she said she supported the resolution – because it might make a difference in how people spend their time and money when they go downtown for an event.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution invalidating sidewalk permits when Main Street is closed.

Sakti3 Tax Abatement

After a public hearing held at the May 7 meeting, the city council considered a tax abatement for Sakti3 – a battery technology spinoff from the University of Michigan. Sakti3 is led by UM professor Ann Marie Sastry.

A conversation during a May 7 council meeting recess, from left to right: Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), city administrator Steve Powers, Ann Marie Sastry of Sakti3, and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, the abatement would be on $151,433 of real property improvements and $1,374,861 of new personal property. According to a memo from city financial staff, the value of the tax incentive to Sakti3 over three years totals $36,000. The council had voted to set the public hearing on the tax abatement at its previous meeting, on April 16, 2012.

Reasons given in the staff memo for the abatement include the need for Sakti3 to expand and add new equipment for the continually changing alternative energy business and the expected addition of five new employees due to the firm’s expansion. The memo concludes that the retention and expansion of such operations is consistent with the economic development goals of the city of Ann Arbor and of Ann Arbor SPARK, the local economic development agency.

Previously, the council voted on March 21, 2011 to set a public hearing on the establishment of the industrial development district under which Sakti3 is applying for an abatement. And on April 4, 2011, the city council approved the establishment of that district.

The city is prohibited by state statute from abating taxes on any more than 5% of the total state equalized value of property in the city. Responding to an emailed query, city of Ann Arbor chief financial officer Tom Crawford wrote to The Chronicle that total SEV for the city for 2012 stands at $5,294,974,640, and the total SEV of abated property in 2012 is $8,935,974. That works out to 0.169% – well under 5%.

Sakti3 Tax Abatement: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge asked that mayor John Hieftje ensure that there’s an introduction to every public hearing by having a councilmember or the city administrator explain the substance of the resolution, before asking people to come forward to speak about it. Partridge asked Hieftje if he would do that with the Sakti3 resolution. When Hieftje did not respond, Partridge told him that Hieftje’s silence spoke for itself. Hieftje then told Partridge that the city attorney had informed Hieftje that Partridge needed to stay on the topic of the public hearing. At that Partridge said he was then ready to speak specifically to the requested tax abatement. Partridge said that Sakti3 and other companies need to justify their request, and he opposed the resolution – unless the company agrees to terminate the exemption when it can find finances on its own. He also warned that we should be cautious about battery manufacturing, due to the toxic chemicals that are used.

Sakti3 Tax Abatement: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who chairs the council’s budget committee, asked that the tax abatement request be postponed, until it could be reviewed by the budget committee.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) stressed that there would be an expedited meeting of the council’s budget committee [on Wednesday, May 16 at 5:30 p.m.]. Sakti3 had developed a whole new technology, he said, and was quite worthy as a candidate for a tax abatement. He noted that representatives of the company had been present earlier in the meeting. He said he’d like to show Sakti3 the council’s ability to act quickly.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) appreciated Higgins’ request to postpone. Lumm said an analysis had been provided to her on the impact of the abatement, and the city of Ann Arbor actually does very little of this. She felt postponing was fine.

Outcome: The council postponed the tax abatement for Sakti3 until its May 21 meeting.

Street Closing: Monroe

There were several separate resolutions to approve street closings for special events. Mayor John Hieftje said he would lump them all together for one vote, unless someone objected. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) wanted separate consideration of a request from the University of Michigan law school to close Monroe Street for its dedication weekend, Sept. 7-8, 2012.

Smith indicated that she did not have an objection to the Monroe Street closing – that was not the reason she was requesting separate consideration. She wanted to highlight the fact that UM would like it closed on a permanent basis. Instead of a permanent closing, she said, she’d prefer to see requests for closing come before the council for specific occasions.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) – who’s a UM law school alum and has served as an adjunct professor at the school – responded to Smith by saying he loved part of her sentiment. [Derezinski has worked out of public view to facilitate a permanent granting of the public right-of-way on Monroe Street to the University of Michigan. See Chronicle coverage: "Column: Ann Arbor's Monroe (Street) Doctrine"] He highlighted the fact that the dedication would be attended by Elena Kagan, justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

During the final opportunity for public commentary at the meeting, Thomas Partridge suggested that when Kagan comes to Ann Arbor for the dedication ceremony, she should take cognizance of the willful disregard for justice here locally, and the total disregard – during an historic recession – of the needs for the most vulnerable, and for working residents who actually keep Ann Arbor operating on a day-to-day basis.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Monroe Street closing, along with all the other street closings on the agenda.

Street Repair: Willard, et al

The council had on its agenda an item to approve a $206,900 contract with the E.T. MacKenzie Company for a project to reconstruct Willard Street, using permeable pavement. It’s a 21-foot wide, 700-foot long street that runs between East University Avenue and South Forest Avenue. The project covers replacement of curb and gutter, sidewalk ramps and installation of a permeable asphalt pavement.

The general topic of street repair was discussed by the council early in the meeting, during communications time.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) wondered about Madison Street from Seventh to South Main – when would it be resurfaced? He felt that there could be more deterioration on streets where public buses travel due to vehicle weight. He felt that the buses are an important service, but could also be an annoyance, because of the impact they have on roads.

Back and forth between mayor John Hieftje and Homayoon Pirooz, head of project management, indicated Madison is in very poor condition, so it needs to be rebuilt from scratch – which would take a whole summer. The city is also resurfacing Seventh Street, and Madison is serving as a detour, so it’s a coordination problem, Pirooz said. But Madison is definitely on the list for 2013, he said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he thought that Madison had been done within the last 10-15 years – why is the city doing it again? Pirooz was not sure when the last time Madison had been reconstructed. He told Kunselman it’s possible it was just resurfaced, not rebuilt. Kunselman wanted the documentation on that. He picked up on Anglin’s comment about buses, by saying it’s also the bigger city trucks that are causing more rapid deterioration. The road along Madison is sloughing downhill, he said. Pirooz pointed out that resurfacing alone doesn’t help the road base.

When the council came to the Willard Street reconstruction, Kunselman questioned city engineer Nick Hutchinson about the cost of permeable pavement compared to regular pavement. Hutchinson indicated that the cost of the asphalt itself is about 1.5 times regular pavement; however, given the complete reconstruction required, the cost of the permeable asphalt as a component made the project more expensive – but not 1.5 times as expensive.

Hutchinson reviewed the number of permeable pavement installations in the city: (1) Easy Street, which has permeable pavers lining the sides; (2) Sylvan Street; (3) an alley in Burns Park; and (4) Willard Street. Kunselman noted that University of Michigan buses run for one block on Willard – how does permeable pavement hold up under heavy weight? Hutchinson said he believes the pavement will hold up very well – it’s designed in a heavy duty way. Kunselman wondered if permeable pavement might last even longer than traditional pavement, because there’s less freeze-thaw. Water drains through the courser material instead of being trapped inside it.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Willard Street permeable pavement project.

FY 2013 Budget Hearing

Mayor John Hieftje introduced the hearing on the city of Ann Arbor’s FY 2013 budget by noting it will be on the council’s agenda at its next meeting, on May 21. According to the city charter, he observed, the budget needs to be approved by the city council by the end of its second meeting of May. [Last year, the second meeting in May was conducted in multiple sessions, stretching until the end of the month.]

Thomas Partridge said that despite Hieftje’s pronouncement that the budget is available on the Internet, he did not see a rush of residents to speak at the public hearing. He called for the budget resolution to be reviewed again by the individual city departments, before it’s put forward for passage at the council’s next meeting. Partridge stated that he is convinced the budget is based on the undemocratic principle of one tax rate for all, that it victimizes senior citizens and lower-income people, and people who need vital public services, which will not be provided by this budget. He called the proposed millage rates “conservative right-wing millage rates.”

Michael Benson introduced himself as a Ward 2 resident. He thanked the council for placing all the documents online.

Stephen Ranzini introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor, who wanted to address the declining quality of fire safety in Ann Arbor in the context of the budget. He began by telling the council a story about his nine-month-old daughter, who was baptized on Sunday, April 29 at St. Mary’s downtown. During the baptism, across the street in a residential high-rise building, there was a fire in the upper story of the building, he said. [According to an AnnArbor.com news report, a publication for which Ranzini writes op-ed pieces, an April 29 fire in the Maynard House – located at 400 Maynard St. – originated in a garbage chute located in the basement. It spread up to the first and second floor sections of the chute, according to the AnnArbor.com report, where firefighters were able to contain the fire. According to the report, firefighters also discovered a small fire on the 11th story, that had resulted from a resident leaving the stove on after hearing the building's fire alarm and evacuating the building.]

Ranzini said that while the firefighters responded in a timely way, they were not able to bring the tower truck or ladder truck to reach upper stories, because the trucks are currently out of repair. As a result, he contended, firefighters and residents were placed in harm’s way.

Ranzini called for the budgeting and hiring of 88 firefighters, not just the 82 in the currently proposed budget – of which only 76 positions are now actually staffed. Commenting on a proposed new station model for the department [which would use three stations instead of the current five], Ranzini cited a poll by AnnArbor.com that indicated overwhelming opposition to the three-station model. Rather than continuing to study that station model, he called on the city council to hire the full complement of firefighters who are budgeted, add six additional firefighters to this year’s budget, and replace or repair the tower truck and the ladder truck.

He described the current staffing levels as an “experiment with public safety” by the mayor.

Ranzini said he knew about the fire on April 29, not because of the fact that he was nearby, but rather because he’d received an anonymous communication from a firefighter. That communication was anonymous, he contended, because the fire chief has ordered firefighters not to talk to the press. Ranzini indicated that the executive director of the ACLU of Michigan has told him that if the city administrator does not correct that situation, a lawsuit might ensue.

Communications and Comment

Every city council agenda contains multiple slots for city councilmembers and the city administrator to give updates or make announcements about issues that are coming before the city council. And every meeting typically includes public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the agenda.

Comm/Comm: Smart Meters

Nanci Gerler and Darren Schmidt had also addressed councilmembers on the topic of “smart meters” at the council’s April 16, 2012 meeting.

Gerler told the council that five other communities in Michigan have passed resolutions and bans on smart meters and she called on the Ann Arbor city council to do the same. The current installation by DTE Energy is going rapidly, she said, with 30 trucks working six days a week. She contended that DTE is not maintaining a list of opt-out requests. She went on to describe that many residents haven’t received notification or a knock on the door to alert them of the installation of the meters. Installation has occurred over people’s protests, she said. The utility company has accepted no responsibility for people’s health, she said.

Schmidt said he supports a halt to installation of smart meters. He described several patients with a history of symptoms that are hard to get rid of. After stumbling around looking for solutions, he said they found that many of their symptoms could be attributed to electromagnetic fields. While it’s possible get rid of other consumer wireless devices, people can’t get rid of smart meters, he said.

Comm/Comm: Localized Flooding

David Foster told the council he lives in the Lansdowne neighborhood a few houses down from the Fisher family, who’d addressed councilmembers at the council’s April 16, 2012 meeting. He described how his own house had received severe water damage during the March 15 storm. He described how there’d been a “river effect” on the streets, rendering them impassable. On the west side of his house, he reported, the water had flowed up over some block and into the basement egress window – a window that is required by the city. His basement had water seven feet deep, he reported. He noted that he’s 5-10 and his son is 4-2 – so the water would have been well over their heads, if they’d been home at the time. And they would have been in the basement, he said, because they’d have been seeking shelter from the tornado. He asked that the council acknowledge that a problem exists. It’s not a question of whether similar events will occur in the future – it’s a question of when, he concluded.

Responding to Foster’s comments, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) wanted to know if there could be an update on the meetings that Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated had taken place between residents and city staff. Higgins, who represents the ward where this localized flooding is located, told Lumm that staff are still analyzing the situation and that there’s nothing ready to report yet.

Comm/Comm: Advocacy for Most Vulnerable

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a Democrat and grandfather and a resident of Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County – an advocate for those who can’t attend the meeting, the vulnerable people who are disconnected from the multimillion-dollar projects on the agenda. He called on the council to advance human rights, and public transportation, to give priority to the need to end homelessness and poverty and to provide access to expanded shelters, transitional housing and permanent housing. That should take precedence over talk about art commission projects, he said, which are unnecessary to the cause of human rights.

Comm/Comm: Energy Production

Kermit Schlansker opened by telling the council that every furnace now being sold is obsolete. He observed that heat is a byproduct of making energy, so furnaces could manufacture energy while generating heat. He described the process of “co-manufacturing” heat and energy.

Comm/Comm: Warpehoski’s Ward 5 Candidacy

Henry Herskovitz said that the report that the director of the Interfaith Council on Peace and Justice had entered the race for the Ward 5 seat on city council had come as a shock to members of the former ICPJ Middle East task force. [Herskovitz didn't name the director, but he was referring to Chuck Warpehoski.] Under the leadership of Warpehoski, Herskovitz said, the task force was summarily disbanded by the ICPJ’s board of directors. The task force had voted unanimously in 2006 to support the Palestinian call for boycotts, divestments and sanctions against Israel. Herskovitz attributed the disbanding of the task force to a few powerful supporters of Israel on the ICPJ board of directors. The task force, Herskovitz continued, had sought to resolve the dispute with outside professional mediation. Herskovitz characterized the board’s action, supported by Warpehoski, as overrunning democratic procedures. Voters in Ward 5 deserve representation by someone who embraces democratic ideals, Herskovitz concluded.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Sabra Briere, Sandi Smith, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke.

Absent: Margie Teall.

Next council meeting: Monday, May 21, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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 us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The  current design calls for a roundabout that is 150 feet in diameter. All four approaches to the roundabout  have two lanes entering and two lanes exiting, except for the northern approach from South State, which will include a third lane. The planned design features include non-motorized paths that connect with the existing sidewalk system and new on-road bike lanes. Underground electrical conduit will be installed for the possible future addition of advanced pedestrian-activated crossing signals (HAWK) or rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFB). [.pdf of State/Ellsworth roundabout layout]

Of the total $2.520 million project cost, $2.170 million is for the intersection improvements per se, and the remaining $350,000 is for a city water main improvement. That will replace a 20-inch water main, which serves to pipe untreated water from the Steere Farms wells on the Ann Arbor municipal airport property to the city’s water treatment plant. The city of Ann Arbor is paying for the water main portion of the project as well as contributing $135,000 to the intersection improvement. The remaining cost is paid by the road commission ($135,000), Costco ($500,000) and a federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant ($1.4 million). Costco is building a store near the intersection that’s expected to open this summer.

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

A car pulls into West Stadium Boulevard from a driveway next to the former Sze-Chuan West restaurant. The Ann Arbor planning commission recommended approval of a proposal to tear down the structure and build a Noodles & Co. restaurant there. (Photos by the writer.)

Much of the discussion about the Tim Hortons site focused on a proposed roundabout at that intersection. Though the coffee and donut shop will likely be built by late summer – about a year before the roundabout is expected to be in place – a spokesman for the company said they’ll be designing the site with the roundabout in mind.

Commissioners also recommended approval of a new AAA branch on South Main, across from Michigan Stadium. The plan calls for rezoning a portion of the site to accommodate more parking than the current office zoning would allow – a total of 35 spaces. That’s a reduction from the amount of parking currently on the site, which was approved in the mid-1970s, but it no longer conforms with existing zoning.

Commissioners Bonnie Bona, Erica Briggs and Kirk Westphal expressed concerns about rezoning an area along Main Street for parking. They also wondered whether 35 spaces were necessary, especially when there are alternative parking options – at a park-and-ride at Pioneer High, and in the nearby neighborhood. Briggs noted that it ran counter to the city’s efforts to encourage alternative transportation. Those three commissioners voted against the rezoning, but the resolution passed on a 6-3 vote. It will still require city council approval.

Also at the March 6 meeting, commissioners postponed action on a request from owners of the Shell service station at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline and West Eisenhower Parkway. Owners of the station hope to build additions onto the existing 1,000-square-foot convenience store, but planning staff recommended postponement in order to gather additional information and analysis about the plan.

AAA Branch Proposal

Site plans and rezoning for two Main Street parcels owned by the Automobile Club of Michigan – where an AAA branch is currently located – were on the agenda for the March 6 meeting.

City planner Alexis DiLeo gave the staff report. The requests relate to 1100 and 1200 S. Main, across from Michigan Stadium. An AAA branch built in the 1950s is located there. The owner wants to build a new branch on a different part of the site, tear down the existing building, and reconfigure parking spaces.

The two parcels are part of a 1.5-acre site containing four parcels owned by the auto club and all zoned O (office). Located on the 1200 S. Main parcel is the current one-story branch building with walk-out basement and 36 parking spaces, with exits onto South Main, Berkley and Potter.

The 1100 S. Main site is a surface parking lot, which has 72 spaces and exits onto both Potter and Keech. The owner is requesting to build a one-story, 5,443-square-foot new branch building on the northeast corner of that site, with parking for 21 spaces. A second phase of the project would include an eventual 2,230-square-foot addition to the south side of that building. There are six landmark trees on the site, and the plan would require removal of two that are located along South Main, near Keech. Other trees would be added elsewhere on the site.

Looking north on Main Street at the AAA Michigan branch in Ann Arbor.

After the new structure is completed, the old building at 1200 S. Main would be torn down and a 14-space parking lot would be put on that parcel. To do that, the proposal asks that the northern 123 feet of that parcel – about half of the parcel – be rezoned from O (office) to P (parking), so that parking could become the principal use for that site. A site plan for that parcel is also required.

The owner’s overall plan called for a total of 35 spaces – a reduction from the current parking on the site, which was approved in the mid-1970s but is no longer conforming with existing zoning. The 35 spaces would be four more spaces than the 31 maximum number permitted under the O (office) zoning, based on the new building’s square footage in both phases. That’s why the owner requested that a portion of the overall site be rezoned for parking – in the P (parking) district, there is no maximum.

Planning staff had previously recommended postponing action on the request, so that the owner could include the possible future addition as part of the site plan, to reflect parking needs better. However, because the planning commission did not achieve a quorum for its Feb. 23 meeting, no action was taken. Revised plans were subsequently submitted, and the planning staff recommended approval.

AAA Branch Proposal: Public Hearing

One person spoke during the project’s public hearing. Chris Arnold of NSA Architects spoke on behalf of the owners, and said the entire team – including legal counsel, designer, civil engineer and landscape architect – were on hand to answer questions. He said they did a study to see whether to remodel. The existing building has more space than the branch needs, and is configured so that the bottom level is not handicap accessible. The building is also not energy efficient, he said. Meanwhile, the auto club has developed a new brand and image for its offices, so the decision was made to rebuild.

Arnold cited several features of the plan, including a reduction of parking from nearly 100 spaces to a proposed 35 – a rather large and significant reduction, he said. The plan will reduce pervious pavement by about 40%, and eliminate curbcuts onto South Main. The building will also target LEED certification, he said.

Commissioners had several comments and concerns. This report organizes their discussion thematically.

AAA Branch Proposal: Commission Discussion – Construction

Tony Derezinski said he was curious about the construction phases. When would the second phase be built? He joked that Main Street does have some activity, especially in the fall – an allusion to the Saturday football games at Michigan Stadium, located across the street from the AAA branch.

Responding to Derezinski, Alexis DiLeo said that depending on when approval is granted, construction for the first phase would likely begin in late summer or early fall.

John Chamberlain, an attorney representing the owner, said there are no plans yet regarding the second phase. It’s not anticipated that the first phase would require any closure of Main Street due to construction.

Later in the meeting, Derezinski pressed for more details on the project’s second phase – not having a solid timeframe was a concern to him. Chamberlain said he wished he could be more specific, but it’s unclear when expansion would be appropriate in Ann Arbor. Nationwide, AAA is expanding. In some locations, the company is opening bank branches. There’s one in Dearborn, and the second phase of the Ann Arbor branch could accommodate a bank branch, he said. But their plans are flexible, with no certain schedule at this point.

AAA Branch Proposal: Commission Discussion – Landscaping, Stormwater

Wendy Woods asked about the portion of the parcel at 1200 S. Main that would not be used for parking. Would the landscaping be upgraded? Chamberlain said the plan calls for turf grass with perimeter landscaping. It would be an increase over the amount of impervious surface at the site now, he said – about 55-60% of the parcel will be grass or landscaping.

Evan Pratt asked about the soil type on the site – it’s Miami loam, DiLeo said. Pratt highlighted the fact that a bioswale is proposed on the southern side of 1100 S. Main.  Usually, inclusion of a bioswale means that the design relies on water to infiltrate, he said, but there’s also an underground detention chamber on the site. Steve Sorensen, the project’s civil engineer, confirmed that the intent is for water to perc down through the bioswale.

There are pervasive water problems along the Allen Creek, Pratt noted, so it’s beneficial to take runoff off-line, out of the city’s stormwater system. He observed that another recent project – a residential development at 618 S. Main – plans to handle all its stormwater runoff on the site, with zero percent added to the stormwater system. The commission liked that approach, he said.

Pratt encouraged the use of pervious pavement, whenever possible, saying that it’s a benefit to the owners because it requires less maintenance than traditional impervious pavements. He also liked the fact that the curbcuts onto Main Street would be removed. However, he said he was scratching his head “trying to figure out how we can get a little silk on the sow’s ear here.”

AAA Branch Proposal: Commission Discussion – Parking

Kirk Westphal asked whether other options were considered – such as a “planned project” – instead of rezoning a parcel for parking. Alexis DiLeo indicated that several options had been discussed. The owners originally were seeking a variance for the additional parking. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, noted that the city’s zoning board of appeals doesn’t have the authority to grant a variance for a use that normally isn’t allowed. Because parking would be considered the principal use for this parcel, she said, the only option was to rezone it for parking.

Rampson said the other strategy that was discussed was to keep the existing building or put another development on the site, so that there could be shared parking with the new branch building. The owners looked at that possibility, but decided that their mission wasn’t to create new office space and become a landlord.

Rampson noted that in an earlier proposal, the owners had requested that the entire 1200 S. Main parcel be rezoned for parking. But that request had been modified to ask for rezoning only on about half of the parcel.

Bonnie Bona, right, was one of three planning commissioners who voted against a proposal to rezone part of the AAA branch parcel from office to parking. To the left is Alexis DiLeo of the city's planning staff.

DiLeo explained that a planned project wouldn’t be an option, because it allows only for zoning modifications related to setback and height, not parking.

Westphal asked whether this rezoning would complicate future development, if the land changes hands. DiLeo replied that if it’s rezoned as parking, then that’s what the parcel must be used for. If the entire site were to be redeveloped, it would likely have to be rezoned again.

Erica Briggs also expressed concern about rezoning for parking, especially given that the site is located on Main Street. It doesn’t seem to be in line with the city’s plans for that area, she said.

Bonnie Bona noted that some of the auto club’s parking demand relates to occasional special meetings that are held there. She wondered about the availability of nearby parking in neighborhood streets. Is there any residential pressure that would prevent daytime parking there?

All of the side streets in that area – including Keech, Potter and Berkley – have on-street parking, DiLeo said. It’s used to some extent by people who work in downtown Ann Arbor or at the University of Michigan, she added, but not at levels like you’d find in Kerrytown or on the Old West Side. She did note, however, that before the AAA branch added parking in the 1970s, residents complained about the on-street parking situation.

John Chamberlain, legal counsel for the auto club, explained that the larger meetings held at the branch were usually marketing- and travel-related, such as information meetings about cruises, for example. Bona said that where she works, when they need to hold a large meeting they find a venue with parking that can accommodate it.

Bona also noted that since this AAA site is in an urban setting, alternative methods of getting to work should be encouraged. Is it located on a bus route? she asked.

Yes, DiLeo said. Two bus routes emanate from the south stop at the nearby Pioneer High School park-and-ride, then go past the AAA site and into downtown.

Diane Giannola asked whether the maximum amount of parking allowed on the site takes into account whether the parking is needed for employees or customers. DiLeo wasn’t sure, but said there are different requirements for retail districts compared to office districts – more parking is allowed for retail. Regarding the possible future AAA bank branch at that location, DiLeo later clarified that financial institutions require between 4.5-5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor space. That compares to general office use, with a requirement of 3-4 spaces per 1,000 square feet.

Referencing the initial phase of the project, Giannola said she understands that the AAA branch is considered an office, but it’s not a typical office – more customers tend to come and go.

Wendy Woods asked whether there are restrictions on who can use the AAA parking lot after-hours. No, Chamberlain said, anyone can park there. Woods noted that if UM decides to hold more night games at Michigan Stadium, additional parking in that area might be useful. Chamberlain reported that on football Saturdays, the branch lets a local Boy Scout troop sell parking on the lot and keep the proceeds. That relationship will continue, he said.

Westphal noted that there is, in effect, overflow parking in the neighborhood, which he said the city subsidizes. He pointed to the parking study of the site as summarized in the staff report, which stated: ”Between 14 and 18 parking spaces were occupied for multiple hours without turnover, which is attributed to employee vehicles.”

He asked how long it would take to walk from the Pioneer park-and-ride lot to the AAA branch. About 5-7 minutes, DiLeo estimated. In that case, Westphal said, he’d feel comfortable about possibly deferring action on the extra parking that AAA says it needs for the second phase of its project.

Briggs agreed, saying it’s hard to see the need for rezoning part of the parcel for parking.

AAA Branch Proposal: Commission Discussion – Parking, Rezoning Deferred?

Westphal wondered whether it made sense to consider the rezoning proposal later, but move ahead on the site plans. Would that throw a wrench into the overall project?

DiLeo said the rezoning takes longer to move through the approval process, because it requires two readings at city council. If the commission postponed or tabled the rezoning, the site plan for 1200 S. Main couldn’t move forward because the two proposals are linked, she said. On the other hand, even if the commission voted to deny any of the proposals, the owners could still move the project to the city council. It would simply move forward with a recommendation of denial.

Wendy Rampson said the reason that planning staff presented three different proposals to vote on was to allow for some flexibility. But if the commission denied a recommendation to rezone the parcel, they should also make it clear that they’re recommending approval only of the first phase of the overall project, she said. That would be the most expeditious way to allow the owners to move forward to the city council.

Westhphal explained his main concern: If AAA never moves ahead with its second phase, there will have been no reason to rezone land on Main Street for parking. He didn’t think it was onerous to ask AAA to bring back the rezoning request whenever they’re ready to do the second phase of the building.

Planning commissioner Eleanore Adenekan.

Giannola reminded commissioners that the current proposal reduces parking on the site significantly from the amount that’s there now. It’s an improvement, she said, so it’s more of a win-win, even if it’s rezoned for parking.

Briggs said she agrees 100% that the proposal would be better than the existing site. But there’s never a justification to rezone for parking, she said. Residents pay taxes to support the park-and-ride lots, and the neighborhoods. There is parking capacity in those locations, she said. If AAA ever decides to build the second phase, they can ask for more parking. She observed that the current proposal requests rezoning to allow for just four extra spaces.

Rampson clarified that the parcel would have to be rezoned for parking no matter how many spaces were actually on it, because without a building there, parking would be its principal use.

Bona agreed that the proposal was a huge improvement, “but that doesn’t mean it’s enough improvement.” If the rezoning occurs, Bona said she assumed the owners could leave the existing building in place and use the parking that’s currently there. But could they tear down the building and keep the parking for it?

No, DiLeo said, because without a building, parking would become the principal use and it would need to be rezoned. She said the staff had talked to the owners about keeping the current building and renting it out, but AAA doesn’t want to be a landlord, she said. They could leave the building vacant, but they can’t demolish it.

Woods said she wasn’t sure it was fair to tell a business to ask clients or employees to park on the neighborhood streets. Then the problem spills over into the neighborhood. She noted that if an office is eventually built on the 1200 S. Main parcel, then a portion of the lot would be used for parking anyway. So she wasn’t sure it was fair to prevent parking on that site now.

Giannola agreed with Woods. It’s unfair for the parking to spill into the neighborhoods. And it doesn’t seem necessary, she added, given that the site is being improved. AAA is a special kind of office, and needs more parking than just for employees. It’s important to have temporary parking for customers, she said.

Derezinski said he echoed those comments, and added that the building AAA plans to put up is very nice. He objected to making the company return a second time for approval of the next phase, saying that approach is more expensive and therefore would be less likely to happen.

Briggs said she was likely beating a dead horse, but that she lived on the city’s west side and didn’t mind when non-residents parked in the neighborhood. It meant there were more “eyes on the street.” If more parking is provided on the site, she said, then of course it will be used. But if the city wants to encourage alternative forms of transportation, like biking and walking, then they need to plan parking accordingly. These goals are stated in several of the city’s planning documents, she concluded, including the transportation plan and non-motorized transportation plan, among others.

Outcome: Three separate votes were taken. The vote to recommend rezoning of 1200 S. Main to P (parking) passed on a 6-3 vote, with dissent from Bona, Briggs and Westphal. Those three commissioners also voted against the site plan for 1200 S. Main, but that resolution also passed on a 6-3 vote. The site plan for 1100 S. Main was unanimously approved. The proposal will be forwarded to the city council for approval.

Noodles & Co. Site Plan

Commissioners were asked to consider a plan for a new Noodles & Co. restaurant at 2161 W. Stadium Blvd. – site of the former Sze-Chuan West, a building adjacent to Bell’s Diner and Stadium Hardware.

City planner Alexis DiLeo gave the staff report. The proposal calls for demolishing the existing 4,300-square-foot restaurant and building a new 2,679-square-foot one-story restaurant with a 615-square-foot enclosed patio at the front of the building. The 1.15-acre site is located on the west side of West Stadium, south of Liberty. The project would also reconfigure the existing parking lot and provide additional landscaping.

The site plan approval would be contingent on a land division request that’s currently being reviewed by the city’s planning staff. The division would separate the restaurant parcel from a larger parcel at 2151 W. Stadium, where the Big M car wash is located. Both parcels are owned by Chuck Gallup of Gallup Properties.

Another contingency relates to an easement that allows the site to access West Stadium. Currently, there’s a 10-foot access easement to the north – a shared driveway with 2163-2177 W. Stadium, where the building that houses Bell’s Diner and Stadium Hardware is located. However, the owner of that property is unwilling to expand that easement. Instead, a permanent access easement across the adjacent property to the south – where the Big M car wash is located – will be required.

In their staff memo, planning staff noted that the redevelopment is consistent with the city’s master plan and would improve the aesthetics of the West Stadium corridor. The project had originally been on the planning commission’s Feb. 23 meeting agenda, but because commissioners lacked a quorum, no action could be taken and it was rescheduled for the March 6 meeting. Staff had recommended the project for approval.

Noodles & Co. operates two other restaurants in Ann Arbor – at 320 S. State, near the University of Michigan campus; and at Arborland on Washtenaw Avenue, on the city’s east side.

Noodles & Co. Site Plan: Public Hearing

Only one person, Todd Quatro, attended the public hearing – he spoke on behalf of the owner. Quatro said DiLeo’s report covered the highlights of the project. The plan is to demolish the existing building and put up a new one, with additional landscaping, stormwater detention and other features. A new fire hydrant will also be installed, he said.

Noodles & Co. Site Plan: Commission Discussion

Diane Giannola asked if it’s common to have a parcel with two different types of zoning for the same parcel. [The site at 2161 W. Stadium Blvd. is zoned C3 (fringe commercial) at the front, where the restaurant is located, and C2B (business service district) at the rear.] DiLeo said it’s not a common situation, but it does occur – the AAA branch site is now an example of that, she added.

Wendy Woods told Quatro that the pavement between the car wash and the restaurant building is “a little rough.” Quatro replied that it will be repaved, and widened slightly.

Bonnie Bona raised the issue of the driveway between the proposed Noodles site and the building to the north. She noted that driveway is wide and people were accustomed to parking next to the restaurant, but all the parking spaces for the new restaurant will be in the back. The excess pavement in the driveway might attract parking, and create a problem, she said.

Quatro said communication has been difficult with the property owner to the north. [City records show the property is owned by Renken Associates. Duane Renken, the firm's president, had sent a letter to the city planning staff stating that an access easement would not be expanded or modified.] A meeting is scheduled next week with the owner to talk about the construction sequence, Quatro said, and he hoped that would open a little conversation between the parties. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, also indicated that the staff were somewhat frustrated about the lack of communication, and hoped that the meeting would improve the situation.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of a site plan for a new Noodles & Co. restaurant at 2161 W. Stadium Blvd. The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Tim Hortons on State Street

A site plan for a new Tim Hortons at 3965 S. State St. was on the agenda for the March 6 meeting. The site is located on the east side of the street, near the intersection of State and Ellsworth.

Mark Kellenberger, a representative of Tim Hortons, addressed the March 6 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission. In the background is Dave Dykman, a project manager with the city, who was on hand to answer questions about a roundabout planned for the intersection of South State and Ellsworth, near the proposed Tim Hortons site.

City planner Chris Cheng gave the staff report. The plan calls for demolishing a vacant building on the 2.23-acre site where previous restaurants, including Enzo’s and Gallagher’s, were located. In its place, a one-story 1,953-square-foot restaurant with a single-lane drive-thru would be built on a 1.18-acre site divided from the current parcel. An outdoor seating area is proposed on the east side of the building.

The building would face West Ellsworth and use an existing shared drive on South State, as well as a relocated drive onto West Ellsworth, which will be shifted to the east.

The property is zoned C3 (fringe commercial), which allows for construction of a drive-thru restaurant. The planning commission’s recommendation would be contingent on two issues: (1) submission of a tree health evaluation form, and (2) approval of the parcel’s land division, prior to the city’s issuance of permits for construction of the new building.

Cheng noted that some aspects of the proposed drive-thru don’t conform with draft amendments to Chapter 59 of the city code, which the commission had voted to recommend at its Dec. 6, 2011 meeting and which were given initial approval by city council at their March 5 meeting. The Tim Hortons proposal includes a 5-foot-wide pedestrian link from the Ellsworth sidewalk to the outdoor seating area – crossing the drive-thru lane. But the link is not raised, and no bollards are proposed at each corner to alert drivers to the pedestrian crossing – both of these measures would be required by the code, if the council gives final approval to the amendments. Cheng said Tim Hortons is open to making changes in the color or materials of this sidewalk link, and to placing two bollards at the south side corners.

Much of the discussion among commissioners focused on the proposed roundabout at State and Ellsworth, which Cheng described as a “fluid situation.” He noted that the plan at this point calls for an 8-foot-wide nonmotorized path along the north side of Ellsworth, approaching State and adjacent to the Tim Hortons site.

Mark Kellenberger, representing Tim Hortons, was the only speaker during a public hearing on the project. He said they’d found out about the roundabout plans late in the process, but are working to integrate their own plans to accommodate it. He indicated that if the company gets approval from the city, Tim Hortons hopes to open the location this August. Construction for the roundabout is expected to begin in the spring of 2013, with completion in the fall of that year.

Tim Hortons on State Street: Roundabout – Background

To put the roundabout issue in context, The Chronicle attended a Feb. 29, 2012 public forum about the project at Pittsfield Township Hall. The effort is a collaboration of the Washtenaw County road commission, Pittsfield Township and the city of Ann Arbor. Project manager Mark McCulloch told the crowded forum that the project is being driven in large part by the new Costco store, which is expected to open this summer just northwest of State and Ellsworth. That store will add traffic to the already congested intersection.

The roundabout would be funded by a $1.4 million federal grant from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program. Costco also plans to contribute $500,000. Building a roundabout is seen as a better alternative to accommodate increased traffic flow than widening the roads.

There are a few roundabouts within the city of Ann Arbor, including at the intersections of Huron Parkway and Nixon Road, Maple and M-14, and Geddes and US-23. The latter two were built in partnership with the Michgan Dept. of Transportation, which handles major trunklines through the city. Outside of the city, the road commission oversees road construction, and is handling the Ellsworth and South State roundabout. It previously built a roundabout in Ypsilanti Township, on Whittaker Road at Stony Creek Road.

Looking south on South State Street, at the intersection of State and Ellsworth.

The Feb. 29 forum included opportunity for questions and comments, and while some people supported the roundabout, many expressed a general dislike for the approach, based on their personal experiences and on concerns about its effectiveness. One resident asked how the roundabout would deal with 100,000 people on a football Saturday, for example. He said when he encountered a roundabout in Ontario, he was at a standstill for five minutes because he could not change lanes.

Some residents were concerned about how the roundabout will affect people using the Pittsfield Township senior center, which is located at the southwest corner of State and Ellsworth. One woman who spoke said she was an employee at the center, and asked if there would be information circulated to senior citizens. She said that understanding the project is crucial “to ease their worries, which will make them less scared.” McCulloch said he indicated he’d be willing to do both formal and informal Q&A sessions with seniors in the future.

Another concern raised at the forum related to the roundabout’s design. One man said he had used roundabouts for many years, having traveled in Asia, Europe, and South America. “The concept is good,” he said, “but size is the problem.” He argued that the proposed roundabout was too small.

Proposed location of Tim Hortons is indicated with the magenta arrow. (Image links to .pdf file.)

McCulloch replied that “we’ve tried to find a balance point.” A small roundabout means that vehicles will travel at a lower speed, which is good for safety. A roundabout that’s too large could be more dangerous, he said.

Another man also argued that the project was much too small. He asked if any thought had been given to widening Ellsworth. McCulloch said the road commission had “no jurisdiction over the city of Ann Arbor.” Ellsworth is located within the city.

Some residents at the forum expressed frustration that the decision to build a roundabout had already been made. “Is there anything I can do to stop this madness?” one woman asked. After laughing, McCulloch answered, “All you can do is tell my managers.”

She asked if she could circulate a petition. McCulloch answered that she could do that, but he indicated that he couldn’t promise any change in the plans.

Tim Hortons on State Street: Commission Discussion – Roundabout

At the March 6 planning commission meeting, Tony Derezinski asked whether the ingress and egress from this site has potential to conflict with the proposed roundabout at State and Ellsworth, especially during busy times of day.

Dave Dykman, a project manager with the city, told commissioners that a consultant team is looking at that issue now, particularly the access onto South State. They’re looking at the possibility of allowing only right turns out of the site, he said. They might also put in a northbound-to-southbound crossover in the median on State north of the intersection, which would allow cars going northbound on State to access the southbound lane. Now, there’s a southbound-to-northbound crossover on State just south of the Research Park intersection. Making lefthand turns out of the Tim Hortons site wouldn’t work, he said.

Dykman also said a short left turn lane from southbound South State is being considered for the turn into the Tim Hortons site.

Mark Kellenberger, the representative from Tim Hortons, said the last thing he wants to do is build a Tim Hortons on the site and have it functionally obsolete as soon as the roundabout is built. Although the business has other locations in this area, the location at State and Ellsworth will be the first free-standing Tim Hortons in Ann Arbor. They’ve been working with the county road commission to get the most updated roundabout plans and respond to those in the design, Kellenberger said. That’s their goal.

Diane Giannola noted that other roundabouts in the city don’t have businesses nearby. She wondered if it’s unusual to have a business near a roundabout. Dykman replied that it’s common in other parts of the country. He noted that one community in Indiana has more than 60 roundabouts. [That town is Carmel, a northern suburb of Indianapolis. A report on Carmel's roundabouts aired last year on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360.] A roundabout at State and Ellsworth will significantly improve traffic at that intersection, Dykman said.

Wendy Woods asked about the timeline for building the roundabout. The tentative start date for construction is in the spring of 2013, Dykman said, with completion in September of that year.

Tim Hortons on State Street: Commission Discussion – Pedestrian Access, Site Design

Kirk Westphal said it’s great that the company is adhering to requirements that are not yet in place, referring to the Chapter 59 amendments to the city code. He wondered whether a raised crossing would be possible, and asked if it could be designed with slope that’s gentle enough not to cause drivers to spill their coffee.

From left: planning commissioners Tony Derezinski, Evan Pratt, and Kirk Westphal.

Mark Kellenberger with Tim Hortons said the design is somewhat limited by where the patio area is located. The crossing from the Ellsworth sidewalk to the patio is only about 13 feet, so it’s not far to cross, he said. They’ve discussed striping it and putting in bollards, but not raising it.

Bonnie Bona suggested using something textural for the sidewalk, like brick or stamped asphalt. The Starbucks on Washtenaw has a pedestrian crossing that works well, she said. Painting stripes tends to look out of scale for pedestrians, she observed – it’s as though the stripes are sized for a semi-truck.

Erica Briggs wondered if there was an pedestrian walkway planned from South State into the site. Cheng replied that there are sidewalks along State, and the Tim Hortons building will have bike hoops and a bike locker. But there isn’t a pedestrian path from State to the building.

So if someone were walking along State and wanted to go to Tim Hortons, Briggs asked, they’d need to walk along the driveway into the site? Yes, Cheng said. Briggs asked if any accommodation could be made to separate the drive from a place for pedestrians to enter. Kellenberger said he wasn’t sure how they’d do that, given the amount of room they have to work with and the landscaping that would be required.

Wendy Woods asked about the number of cars that the drive-thru is designed to accommodate – a queue of 11 vehicles. That seemed like a lot, she said. If she saw 11 cars in the line, that would be a disincentive for her to stop in.

Kellenberger said Tim Hortons prides itself on quality and fast service. You might be the 10th car in line, but it would only take a couple of minutes before you’re served, he said.

Derezinski asked about plans he’d heard for Tim Hortons in other locations. He recalled approving a plan for a Tim Hortons at the intersection of Washtenaw and Huron Parkway a few years ago, but that project never materialized. Kellenberger said that project didn’t work out for a variety of reasons.

In response to another query from Derezinski, Kellenberger said the timeline for construction is to begin in early May, assuming approvals and permits are received from the city. That could lead to an August 2012 opening, he said. He told Derezinski the shop is expected to be open 24 hours daily – that’s what the business is proposing.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend the site plan for a Tim Hortons shop at 3965 S. State, near Ellsworth. The recommendation will be forwarded to the city council.

Revised Shell Station PUD

Commissioners were asked to consider a request regarding the Shell service station at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline and West Eisenhower Parkway.

City planner Chris Cheng gave the staff report. Owners of the station are asking for revisions to the site’s planned unit development (PUD), which would allow them to build additions onto the existing 1,000-square-foot convenience store. The new additions would total 4,089 square feet, including 2,189 square feet to the north and east of the store. Their plan also calls for converting the 900-square-foot carwash area into new retail space. The existing access drive to the carwash would be landscaped, and the parking lot would be reconfigured for a new total of 16 spaces.

Cheng noted that although the current plan shows a proposed cut-through between the site and the adjacent Cranbrook Shopping Center, the grade change is too steep between the two parcels, and that part of the plan will be removed.

Planning staff had recommended postponement because additional information and analysis was required, including: (1) a trip-generation evaluation, with a statement on the impact to the adjacent intersection (West Eisenhower and Ann Arbor-Saline); and (2) an evaluation of sewer flow data comparing the proposed flow (as a result of this project) to the existing flow. If the proposed flow is greater than the existing flow, the increased flow must be mitigated.

In addition, planning staff are writing an amendment to the PUD’s current development agreement to remove limitations on uses allowed at the site. Instead, the limitations would be handled in supplemental regulations to the PUD.

Revised Shell Station PUD: Commission Discussion

No one spoke during a public hearing on the proposal.

Evan Pratt noted that commissioners had provided feedback at a Dec. 13, 2011 working session, before the owners submitted this proposal. He wondered if that feedback had been incorporated into the proposal.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, suggested that commissioners review changes in the PUD’s supplemental regulations. Planning staff had drafted some design guidelines for the site, to provide direction for future development. It would be helpful for commissioners to provide feedback on that draft, she said. [.pdf of supplemental regulations] Beyond that, there haven’t been any changes since that December session.

Bonnie Bona noted that she’d asked that accommodations be made in the plan for the location of propane tanks and ice chests. If those are located in front of the building, access ramps would be blocked.

Erica Briggs wondered why vehicle access between the site and Cranbrook Shopping Center is no longer included. Cheng said there’s a severe drop between the Shell site and Cranbrook, and a cut-through wouldn’t be possible, given the grade. Briggs asked whether a pedestrian passage could be built. Cheng agreed to explore that possibility, but noted that it would likely require steps.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone the request for PUD revisions for the Shell service station at Ann Arbor-Saline and West Eisenhower Parkway.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Erica Briggs, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, March 20 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

Chronicle intern Hayley Byrnes contributed to this report. The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the city 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.

In the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), the intersection improvement is categorized with bridge projects – it’s immediately adjacent to the Maiden Lane bridge over the Huron River.

In 2009, the city studied the intersection in the context of increased traffic load due to possible construction of the Fuller Road Station – an intermodal transit center and parking deck proposed for the area between Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive. The city’s online meeting packet includes drawings of the current configuration of the intersection as well as the possible roundabout configuration.

The engineering and design of the roundabout project will be funded out of the FY 2011 capital budget for the city’s street reconstruction millage. Construction is expected to be funded out of a combination of: (1) millage revenues in future years; (2) possible funds from a federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant; and (3) a contribution from the University of Michigan.

In a telephone interview Monday morning before the evening council meeting, Homayoon Pirooz, in the city’s project management unit, told The Chronicle that construction on any project would not begin before the summer of 2012, with 2013 a more likely timeframe. Pirooz ballparked the construction cost of a project like this – once all the traffic lanes leading to the intersection are modified, and the pedestrian amenities are installed – as possibly more than $2.5 million.

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

The southern-most roundabout on North Maple Road was the site of teeter totter ride No. 170.

[Editor's Note: HD, a.k.a. Dave Askins, editor of The Ann Arbor Chronicle, is also publisher of an online series of interviews on a teeter totter. Introductions to new Teeter Talks appear on The Chronicle.]

I first met Zak Branigan outside the UPS store at Westgate shopping center, when I was dropping off a load in the course of my bicycle delivery duties. He’d recognized me by the sign on my bicycle trailer for ArborTeas, which is run by a friend of his, and alum of the totter, Jeremy Lopatin.

Subsequent email correspondence to recruit Zak to ride the totter led him to suggest the middle of a roundabout as a place to teeter totter. With three such junctions recently constructed on North Maple Road, and others planned at Nixon and Plymouth as well as on Geddes and US-23, Ann Arbor area drivers are getting more familiar with these road intersections where traffic flows one-way around a central island. I figured Zak was kidding. He wasn’t. It turns out he’s something of a roundabout geek.

It’s one of the briefer Talks on the Totter, but we were out in the middle of the roundabout for long enough to see people we knew drive by. Zachary Branigan’s Talk also touches briefly on his work with Habitat for Humanity.