Residents who live near the proposed Glendale Condos development turned out to oppose the project, which was postponed by planning commissioners. (Photos by the writer.)

Nearly two dozen residents spoke during a public hearing to oppose the project at 312 Glendale, citing concerns about increased flooding and other stormwater problems, dangers of a proposed retention/detention pond, increased traffic, and a loss of landmark tress and green space.

The project had been previously postponed a year ago, at the planning commission’s July 16, 2013 meeting. That meeting had drawn about an hour of commentary from residents who opposed it then as well.

The current proposal has been scaled back – but still drew considerably opposition. The plan now calls for six duplexes, each with two two-bedroom condos. (The original proposal had been for eight duplexes.) Based on the size of the parcel and the site’s zoning, up to 39 units would be allowed by right.

It was a retention/detention pond that drew most concern from commissioners. Wendy Woods said the potential danger it posed would prevent her from supporting the project. Ken Clein questioned the contention of the architect, Scott Bowers, that the pond had been mandated by the office of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. Clein and other commissioners asked planning staff to get more information from the water resources commissioner about whether there are other options to handle all of the site’s water detention – such as additional underground systems.

The water resources commissioner is Evan Pratt, who formerly served on the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Also prompting some concerns – but ultimately gaining a recommendation of approval from commissioners – was a proposal for new condominiums on West Liberty Street, called The Mark. The proposal from developer Alex de Parry is to demolish an existing car wash at 318 W. Liberty and build an 11,910-square-foot structure with seven residential condominiums – five two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units. Each condo would have its own two-car tandem garage for a total of 14 parking spaces, although no parking is required.

The lot, on the north side of Liberty, is east of the historic Peter Brehme house at 326 W. Liberty and located in the Old West Side historic district. Concerns raised during a public hearing focused on the fact that a small portion of the site’s corner lies within the floodplain, as well as a general objection to high-end development in the downtown core. One woman also criticized the aesthetics and height of the project. The project’s architect, Brad Moore, responded to concerns about the floodplain by saying that none of the building is within the floodplain. The garages are out of the floodplain, and the living space is located above the garages, he noted.

Two other projects were recommended for approval during the 4.5-hour meeting. Delta Chi plans to tear down its existing fraternity house at the corner of Hill and Oxford and build a much larger structure in its place. The current occupancy of 23 residents would increase to 34 people, including a resident manager. A fraternity representative fielded questions about the decision not to make a voluntary parks contribution. Some commissioners expressed skepticism at the contention that fraternity members didn’t use city parks, and asked that the contribution be reconsidered.

Finally, a $10.5 million expansion of the Gift of Life Michigan facility on Research Park Drive is moving forward to city council, after planning commissioners recommended approval of a site plan and rezoning. The nonprofit wants to build a three-story, 40,786-square-foot addition to connect two existing buildings at 3161 and 3169 Research Park Drive. The additional space will accommodate offices, a special events auditorium and “organ procurement suites.” The nonprofit’s website states that the Gift of Life is Michigan’s only federally designated organ and tissue recovery program.

Glendale Condos

The July 1 agenda included a residential project at 312 Glendale, south of Jackson Avenue, which had been previously postponed a year ago at the planning commission’s July 16, 2013 meeting. That meeting had drawn about an hour of commentary from residents who raised concerns about the project, including increased flooding, the lack of pedestrian access, increased traffic and the loss of landmark trees. The site, owned by Jeffrey Starman, includes a former orchard.

Vacant houses at 312 Glendale. Nearby neighbors use the driveway as a cut-through to the west segment of Charlton Avenue. (Photos by The Chronicle.)

The project has been scaled back since then – but still drew considerably opposition. The plan now calls for removing two vacant single-family houses and building six duplexes, each with two two-bedroom condos. (The original proposal had been for eight duplexes.) Based on the size of the parcel and the site’s zoning – R4B (multi-family residential) – up to 39 units would be allowed by right.

Each unit would include two garage parking spaces, with 12 additional surface spaces on the site. That’s double the number of spaces required by zoning.

Sixteen of the 23 landmark trees would be removed, and 103 new trees would be planted. The developer has also agreed to make a voluntary $7,440 contribution to the city’s parks system. There are two areas on the north with steep slopes, which are considered natural features.

A public sidewalk would be built along Glendale. There would also be pedestrian connection between two buildings on the site, connecting the drive and the new public sidewalk on Glendale. Another sidewalk connection would be built between the end of the east/west portion of the drive and the Hillside Terrace property to the west.

There would be a new curbcut onto Glendale Drive, slightly north of the existing curbcut, which would be removed. A traffic study wasn’t done because the projected increase in traffic during peak hours wasn’t large enough to trigger that requirement.

Regarding stormwater management, the development agreement requires that the developer pay for disconnecting three footing drains from residences in the nearby neighborhood – or “an equivalent amount of sanitary flow removal.” On the site itself, the proposal called for stormwater facilities to be located on either side of the entrance driveway – an underground basin on the north, and a surface retention/detention pond on the south. The intent is for any stormwater runoff to be captured within the site, and not to affect the surrounding neighborhood.

Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff gave all the staff reports at the July 1 meeting.

Planning staff recommended approval of this project. [.pdf of staff report]

By way of additional background, a year ago, both Ward 5 city council representatives attended the planning commission meeting when this project was brought forward. One of them – Chuck Warpehoski – was among the speakers at that public hearing. He was cut off at that meeting by commissioner Diane Giannola, who cited the commission’s bylaws: “A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.” Warpehoski, who’d been unaware of that rule, stepped away from the podium.

The situation prompted additional discussion of that section of the bylaws, which were ultimately revised in an attempt to clarify the ability of councilmembers to address the commission, among other things. The planning commission approved a bylaws revision at its Feb. 20, 2014 meeting. The changes also require city council approval. However, the city attorney’s office held back the revisions and they have not yet been forwarded to the council.

At a July 8 working session, planning commissioners were provided with a new draft that had been developed by assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald. His changes focused on how to handle public hearings in general. [.pdf of McDonald's draft] It’s likely that the commission will reconsider these bylaws revisions later this summer.

Glendale Condos: Public Hearing

The public hearing drew 22 speakers – the project’s architect, and 21 residents who were opposed to the development. Issues that were raised were similar to those expressed a year ago, and included concerns about increased flooding and other stormwater problems, dangers of the proposed retention/detention pond, increased traffic, and a loss of landmark tress and green space.

No trespassing signs are posted in the former orchard.

In addition to commentary during the public hearing, the planning commission received several letters about the project, which were included in the online meeting packet.

Here’s a summary from the July 1 public hearing.

Vince Caruso introduced himself as the coordinating member for the Allen’s Creek Watershed Group. The neighbors have a lot of concerns, because the development would be on a de facto park, he said. He wondered if there’s a calculation comparing the amount of impervious surface in this new plan compared to the old one. There are major flooding issues on Glendale, he said.

Caruso said the developer, speaking at a public forum on the project, had to be directly challenged after making the statement that no stormwater would leave the site. The developer also hadn’t notified all residents of Hillside Terrace about the forum, Caruso said. His daughter worked there, and told him there’s a very active residents’ group.

The drive out of the site will result in cars shining lights directly into houses across the street, devaluing their property, Caruso continued.

Regarding stormwater management, he said the design hadn’t changed “but the labels have been swapped.” The retention/detention pond, which is 7 feet deep, is a hazard to the community and an eyesore. It’s an extreme solution and indicative of the fact that this is way too much development for the site, he said. These kinds of basins are notoriously under-managed, he added. In recent years, there was a drowning in a similar basin near Target, he said. In years to come, when the fence around the basin is in disrepair, he said, “children and pets will have access to a clear and present danger to the community.”

Caruso also said the models for flooding in the Allen’s Creek watershed aren’t very accurate, since they don’t reflect the stormwater problems in the Glendale area. When Hillside Terrace was build, residents in the Glendale neighborhood sued and eventually settled with the city for flooding damages. “I think that’s a fairly clear indication that there’s stormwater issues to be addressed,” he said.

Libby Hunter read aloud a letter from Charles Dunlop, who lives on Glendale Circle. [.pdf of Dunlop's letter] He opposed the project, having concerns about traffic and water run-off.

Diane Robins of Old Orchard Court told commissioners that several of her neighbors were also at the meeting. They lived just north of the proposed project. They had concerns about stormwater runoff, flooding and sewage overflow, which she said are already severe in the neighborhood. The development is likely to adversely affect downstream property owners, she said. They’re concerned that the development will damage the environment and neighborhood “beyond its already fragile state.”

Vince Caruso and Diane Robins.

To document these issues, the neighbors created a flood, stormwater and sewage survey, modeled after the city’s water survey. Results from the first survey were presented to the planning commission a year ago, she noted – on July 16, 2013. More recently, they did another survey and doubled the number of responses. About 135 surveys were distributed, with 70 responses – a response rate of over 50%. The vast majority of respondents had problems with water, she noted. Copies of this information were sent to commissioners. [.pdf of Robins' correspondence]

There’s extensive flooding in the neighborhood, Robins reported, and she hoped commissioners would take these concerns into consideration. She requested that the stormwater modeling and evaluation be completed by the city prior to further consideration of this development.

Ethel Potts also expressed concerns about stormwater issues, and described how the current trees, shrubs and lawn help contain the water on that site. The development would make most of the site impermeable, she said. Potts questioned whether the retention/detention pond was safe, even with a fence. She described other aspects of the project that she characterized as badly planned, and told commissioners they could not approve the development.

Kira Slovacek, another resident of Old Orchard Court, was also concerned about the threat to the health and safety of residents. The pond would be a breeding ground for mosquitoes, she said, and increases the risk of West Nile virus. Such ponds are also frequently described as an “attractive nuisance,” she noted, and given this one’s proximity to a public sidewalk, “the risks of exploration are even greater.” Drowning is the most serious risk, she said, especially in a neighborhood heavily populated with children. Fencing isn’t an effective solution, she added. As the mother of two small children, with another one on the way, Slovacek said she’s very concerned, and she wanted to know what additional safety measures will be taken.

Slovacek’s husband, Ian Hubert, spoke next. He referenced a handout that he’d given to commissioners. He’d also sent an email to commissioners prior to the meeting. [.pdf of Hubert's email] He said the proposed buildings are much larger than existing single-family homes, and don’t fit will with the neighborhood. Hubert also expressed concern about the proposed locations for snow storage, noting that melting snow would run down the hill or clog the retention/detention pond with debris.

Tom O’Connell told commissioners he’s lived on Orchard Street for 47 years. He expressed concerns about flooding in the neighborhood. He said he lived there when neighbors sued the city over the Hillside Terrace development. He wondered why the city would allow a retention pond in a residential neighborhood. The city should fix the existing flooding problem before starting a new problem with this development, he said.

Kathy Boris, a Charlton resident, asked about the detention apparatus and the retention/detention pond. The fact that this development requires so much stormwater management indicates to her that it’s too large for the site. There’s too much impervious surface in the site plan. She asked if the land would be graded so that stormwater would flow into the catch basins. She also wondered if the development agreement would stipulate what maintenance would be required for the stormwater system. She listed several types of maintenance that the EPA recommended for such systems. Is there a legal mechanism to ensure that this maintenance occurs? Who’ll be held accountable if the system fails?

Josh Greenberg opposed the Glendale development.

Another Charlton residents, Kris Kaul, said she also has a rental property at the corner of Abbott and Glendale – directly across from the proposed development. The neighborhood feels very quiet and enclosed, and not a place that would support this development. Her main concerns were traffic and stormwater. Right now, it’s very difficult trying to turn left onto Jackson from Glendale, she said. Adding possibly 24 more cars will only increase the problem. It’ll make the quality of life there much worse. She was also concerned about the retention/detention pond. “It’s just a matter of time before a pet drowns in that retention pond,” she said.

Josh Greenberg lives on Glendale, and said he moved to the neighborhood because it’s very quaint with beautiful trees that have been there for decades or even a century. This project will change the neighborhood and he didn’t know if the development was worth it.

Sandra Berman of Glendale Circle thought that one of Ann Arbor’s goals is to create green spaces. There’s a beautiful orchard there now. She walks past there and sees children playing in the orchard, neighbors talking to each other – but now a condo development is proposed, despite the concerns. “My question is why would we do it?” she asked. Maybe there are financial reasons, but “that’s really not what our town is about,” she said.

Priscilla Parker, another Charlton resident, said she carefully reviewed the city’s master plan land use element section, and it’s clear that this development doesn’t meet two of the goals. Goal A is “to ensure that development projects are designed and constructed in a way that preserves or enhances the integrity of natural systems.” But this project will destroy natural systems, she said. Goal D is “to support the continued viability, health and safety of City residential neighborhoods.” Parker noted that there are serious issues regarding the retention/detention pond. She said everyone pays taxes for green space inside the city, and 312 Glendale is the perfect place to do that. She asked anyone who opposed the project to stand up – almost everyone in council chambers did.

Kira Slovacek.

Several other residents spoke against the project, including Melissa Whitney, Mary Cronin, and Andrea Pertosa. They raised similar objections and concerns about the retention/detention pond, flooding, traffic, impervious surface, and the elimination of green space. Gretchen Hahn read a letter from Rita Mitchell, who advocated that the city use funds from the open space and parkland preservation millage to buy the land for a park and green infrastructure. Susan Cybulski agreed with other speakers, and expressed concern that residents of Hillside Terrace – many who are elderly and infirm – couldn’t attend this meeting so that their voices can be heard.

Steve Thorpe thought developers should foot the bill for sending out notices. He also noted that when he was chair of the planning commission several years ago, he allowed people to applaud – it was a discretionary matter, “and the city didn’t come to a grinding halt.” Thorpe then spent the remainder of his speaking turn applauding, and was joined by others in the room. [Thorpe was responding to a request by the current chair, Kirk Westphal, not to applaud speakers during the public hearing.]

Ed Vielmetti said he wasn’t directly affected by this project, except to the extent “that we’re all citizens of Ann Arbor and we’re all affected by everything that goes on.” He talked about sump pumps in residences throughout Ann Arbor, and problems related to them. Because of the city’s footing drain disconnect program, the risk of sump pump failure is put on the residents to mitigate. “There’s no Internet of sump pumps in this town, and maybe there should be.” The city might be able to do something to help citizens manage stormwater issues in some way, especially in cases where it’s being made worse by new development, he said.

Lynn Borset spoke on behalf of the Virginia Park neighborhood. She referred to a communication she’d sent to commissioners last year, titled “Speaking for the Trees.” The information is still relevant, she said. [.pdf of Borset's 2013 email] Borset noted that the city forester also has noted concerns about the impact of construction on this site. She also wondered why there wasn’t a vehicle connection between Hillside Terrace and the proposed development.

Lynn Borset raised several objections to the project.

Other concerns related to density, open space and the retention/detention pond. She had raised some of these issues in a recent email. [.pdf of Borset's 2014 email] The development is over-capacity for this site, she said.

Gus Teschke pointed out that the development will include dumpsters, even though there are no other places with dumpsters in the neighborhood. It doesn’t align with community standards, he said. He questioned whether the site would meet the county requirements for containing stormwater. Teschke also noted that the local chapter of the Sierra Club is opposing the project. [.pdf of Sierra Club letter]

The final speaker was Scott Bowers, the project’s architect. They haven’t taken the neighbors’ comments lightly, he said. There have been several iterations of this plan. The project has been scaled back, he noted, and they’d designed the stormwater management system based on direction from the county water resources commissioner. “This is what they told us we needed to do,” he said. He explained how the retention/detention pond worked, saying it was the best spot to be located. Maintenance would be the responsibility of the condo association. There is additional parking on the site, compared to the previous plan, in response to neighborhood concerns about parking on the streets, he said. Two buildings had been eliminated to protect the natural feature of the steep slope and vegetation on the north side.

Bowers said they’ve gone to great lengths to preserve the existing trees as well as they can, and they’re grading the site so that stormwater will drain into catch basins. He noted that the buildings are duplexes, and that there are duplexes in the neighborhood already. The initial plan had called for four-plex units, he said.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion

Commissioners discussed this project for about 90 minutes and covered a range of issues, including stormwater management, traffic, open space, and design. Kirk Westphal, the commission’s chair, said that commissioners aren’t unsympathetic to issues connected with this project, but their charge is to look at developments with regard to the city’s code and master plan. So while the site is pastoral and hasn’t been developed, it’s private property, he noted. “It’s not really in our purview to decide whether this should be a park or not, or whether the private property owner should develop it or not.”

This report organizes the commission’s discussion thematically.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Stormwater, Flooding

Diane Giannola asked how long water would remain in the retention/detention pond. Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff replied that it would depend on the size of the storm. Giannola wondered whether there would constantly be standing water – because that would determine whether mosquitoes would breed there.

Kirk Westphal.

Paras Parekh asked how common it is for ponds to be used in developments like this. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, explained that most recently within the downtown, most of the stormwater detention for developments has been below ground. But when land is available on a site, most of the post-1970s development – both residential and non-residential – has incorporated detention ponds. Sometimes the ponds have water, like those around Briarwood mall. A lot of times the ponds are dry, and simply appear as depressions within a development, she explained.

Parekh noted that the Glendale Condos site uses both underground detention as well as the pond. Was there a reason why it couldn’t all be handled below grade? Rampson replied that she thought it was because this site’s design is constrained by the steep slope.

Ken Clein asked if the soils are suitable for infiltration. Thacher said that was part of the county water resources commissioner’s review, and they determined that the soils were suitable. Clein wondered if there’d be any discussion about using more below-ground infiltration in the stormwater system, rather than a retention/detention pond. Rampson noted that the county water resources commissioner has jurisdiction over these issues. That’s why the planning staff isn’t able to answer questions in the same level of detail as they can on other issues, she explained. The county has jurisdiction because the stormwater system will be shared among several units within the site.

Wendy Woods asked for an explanation of the difference between retention and detention. Rampson explained that for detention, a pond is designed to hold water in a large storm. Water flows into the pond, then gradually goes into an underground pipe system. The idea is to hold it on the site as long as possible, so that all the water doesn’t feed into the city’s stormwater system at the same time.

A retention pond, in contrast, keeps water for a longer period while it infiltrates and evaporates. Examples are at Briarwood mall or large residential complexes, like Traver Lakes or Geddes Lakes. In some cases, detention ponds are attached to retention ponds, Rampson noted.

Aerial view of 312 Glendale.

Jeremy Peters asked if there was any oversight for maintenance. Thacher replied that the development agreement includes requirements for construction and management of the stormwater management. The responsibility will be assigned to the condo owners, with annual inspections to be conducted by a professional engineer. Written copies of those inspections must be provided to the city’s public services staff.

Kirk Westphal asked who would neighbors call if there are problems with the system? Thacher said they could call public services staff at city hall. He asked if there is any redress for the community, if something goes wrong. Thacher said that if the pond fails, the development agreement states that the city can force the owners to repair it, or put liens on the property for work that the city does.

Westphal then asked who should be contacted if someone has concerns about existing requirements for stormwater management – such as the open retention/detention pond. Rampson replied that the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner sets the rules that the city uses. Possible revisions to those rules will be discussed by the county board later this year. [The position of water resources commissioner is an elected countywide post with a four-year term. The current water resources commissioner is Evan Pratt, who served on the Ann Arbor planning commission before his 2012 election.]

Responding to another query from Westphal, Thacher explained that this project’s stormwater standards are slightly stricter, because of the neighborhood issues. That’s why there can’t be any net increase of water leaving the site, which required a beefed-up stormwater system. “They’ve taken the neighborhood concerns very seriously, and made the developers put in extra precautionary measures because of that,” she said.

Rampson noted that much of that neighborhood was developed prior to the existing stormwater management requirements. So on most residential sites, the water runs off impervious surfaces and flows downstream. More modern development must meet requirements to manage the stormwater on-site, so that the new impervious surface doesn’t increase the runoff.

Architect Scott Bowers.

Sabra Briere asked whether the runoff from Hillside Terrace that flows onto the Glendale Condos site will be retained or detained. Architect Scott Bowers stated that the stormwater management system captures everything that come onto the site. The pond is open because it allows the water to evaporate or be sucked up by vegetation or percolate into the ground. That handles the water faster than simply an underground percolation system, he said. The system also has a mechanism that releases water into the city’s stormwater system at the “pre-development rate,” he said.

Responding to a follow-up question from Briere, Bowers said that all the runoff from roofs, sidewalks and other impervious surface enters the site’s retention/detention system through a stormwater piping system. Those are either catch basins in the roadway, or swales that lead to the retention/detention pond. All the downspouts are connected into this system directly or through swales.

Woods wanted to know the dimensions of the retention/detention pond. Bowers replied that it’s about 78 feet by 78 feet, and about 7 feet deep at its lowest point. Woods asked whether those dimensions were required by the county water resources staff. Bowers said the development team figured out the volume and provided that information to the water resources staff, and the development team’s engineers calculated the size of the pond that would be needed to deal with that volume.

Woods said she couldn’t get past the concerns about safety related to this pond. She pointed to a goal in the city’s master plan “to support the continued viability, health and safety of City residential neighborhoods.” A pond with those dimensions is a safety concern, she said – how would that be mitigated?

Bowers replied that there will be a six-foot security fence around the entire pond, with a locked gate. “Again, this was directed by Washtenaw water resources. This was a mandate for us to do this,” he said.

Woods imagined that children would be attracted to the water and fence, and climbing over it. She didn’t think she could overcome the concern, and didn’t think she’d support this project. “For me, it really is a hurdle.”

Giannola asked if it would be an actual pond, or whether it will be a grassy area in general that holds water only after a storm. Bowers indicated that the retention part of the pond will likely hold some water most of the time, until it percolates or evaporates. “It will constantly go up and down, depending on the weather,” Bowers said.

Ken Clein.

Clein questioned whether the water resources commissioner actually mandated the design. In his experience, that office typically tells a developer what the design must accomplish, but they don’t mandate a particular design.

Bowers replied that for this project, a year ago the planning commission sent the development team back to talk with the county water resources staff. Originally, all of the detention was underground, he said. But after talking with Evan Pratt and his staff, this design emerged – to hold the water while it either percolates or evaporates. The developer, Bowers said, was told to hold all water on the site – aside from the volume of water that leached off the site pre-development. It’s a very expensive system, he added. “This wasn’t something that we really chose to do, but this is where we were directed.”

Clein said that in his experience, open systems are typically less expensive than underground systems. Bowers replied that this site is doing both, because the project is being held to higher standards. “We’re off the charts on what we’re doing – this isn’t normal,” Bowers said. They even eliminated two dwelling units to be able to do this, he added.

Clein said he wasn’t comfortable moving forward with the petition, without getting further clarification from the water resources commissioner.

Susan Bowers, who’s also working on this project, said that Pratt and other county and city officials had held a closed meeting that the project’s civil engineers were not allowed to attend. That group decided that the project needed additional stormwater management, she said.

Clein pointed out that the city hall property also retained all of the water that fell on the site, but it’s all handled underground. [Clein is a principal with Quinn Evans Architects, which designed the city hall renovation.] He said he could imagine that the county water resources staff indicated that a pond would be the cheapest and easiest way to handle the additional stormwater capacity.

Wendy Woods.

The open pond approach is done elsewhere, Clein acknowledged, but considering that it’s a development that needs to fit into the neighborhood, it’s different from a pond in a commercial area like South State or South Industrial. “It is inconsistent with the fabric of the neighborhood to have a detention pond there,” Clein said – no matter how nice the fence looks. So he wanted to get more information about whether it was mandated by the water resources commissioner or just a suggestion.

Bonnie Bona clarified with Bowers that a security fence is required because of the pond’s depth and slope. She assumed that if there was more space on the site, the pond would be shallower and wouldn’t need a fence.

Clein said it wouldn’t be fair to reject the project because of something that the developer was mandated to do. On the other hand, if there was a misunderstanding and there are alternative ways to design it, then the planning commission should know that, he said.

Responding to a query from Westphal, Wendy Rampson said the commission could ask the water resources commissioner for documentation about the county’s decision-making process. Rampson wondered whether it would be more direct to ask the water resources staff if an underground system would be acceptable. Clein said that would be a good follow-up question.

Rampson clarified for Westphal that the city’s stormwater requirements, in Chapter 63 of the city code, state that projects must meet the standards of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner. If a project meets code, essentially the city is obligated to approve it, she said.

Woods responded, saying that even if a project is meeting code, if there are concerns about health and safety, then the planning commission – as an advisory group – needs to make its own determination about that. It would ultimately be up to the city council to decide, she said.

From left: Diane Giannola and Bonnie Bona.

Jeremy Peters asked if it would be theoretically possible to design a stormwater system that’s entirely underground and still meet the county’s requirements. Yes, Scott Bowers replied – though it takes more land mass, because it would need to hold more water. The water only percolates underground – it doesn’t evaporate, so it stays in the detention system longer than an above-ground pond.

Briere asked if it’s possible to put the detention system underneath the site’s internal streets. Yes, Bowers said. For large commercial projects, such systems are sometimes located under parking lots and drives.

Responding to a query from Giannola, Bowers said the system needs to be in that front corner because of the grade changes and slopes on the site – it can’t be placed in one of the higher elevations.

Giannola said she wasn’t afraid of these retention ponds. They’re ugly, she added, but she didn’t think they were dangerous. Most of the ponds she’s seen in her neighborhood, tied to commercial developments, aren’t full of water.

Bona asked what kind of contaminants would fill the retention/detention pond – and ultimately end up in the sediment. Bowers replied that sediment would include debris, sand, dirt, and petroleum from cars. Bona replied that if people didn’t want contaminant to collect, they should probably not fertilize their lawns and not drive cars. But people do drive cars, she added, so the good news is that the contaminants are being collected and not sent to the Huron River. She asked how often the sediment would get cleaned out. Bowers replied that in this case, the system will be checked annually, and cleaned out as needed.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Streets, Parking Pedestrian Issues

Sabra Briere clarified with staff that the streets inside the development would be private, not public. The developer is responsible for snow removal. Eleanore Adenekan asked where snow would be stored. Jill Thacher replied that one location is at the top of a hill, with another spot near the pond.

Eleanore Adenekan.

Briere noted that snow storage on the northeast side of the site is by a slope down to the public sidewalk. She wondered how the complex would deal with melted water, “because that new sidewalk should not get icy.” Scott Bowers acknowledged that it’s an issue, and said they could look at other areas of the site to designate for snow storage. Or they could eliminate some surface parking and put the snow in those spots, he said. They’d like to put it by the retention/detention pond, because it would then melt into the pond.

Responding to a query from Ken Clein, Thacher reported that the site plan was reviewed by the fire marshal, and the site is required to include a turnaround area for emergency vehicles. Permeable pavers will be used for that area, she noted.

Clein observed that the city requires 18 parking spaces for this size development, but the site plan includes 36 parking spaces. He wondered if the additional spaces are in response to community feedback. Thacher said she believed that was the case, because of concerns raised about overflow parking on Glendale. Clein noted that additional parking means more impervious surfaces, which in turn leads to more stormwater issues. “These things are tied together,” he said.

Briere noted that a year ago when this project was being considered by the planning commission, one of the issues was the location of the new drive into the site. Commissioners had talked about aligning the drive with Charlton, so that headlights from cars exiting the complex wouldn’t shine into houses across the way. She wondered why that alignment didn’t happen.

Architect Scott Bowers replied that there were issues with grading, and how to configure buildings on the site. That southeast corner has been difficult, he said. That’s where the detention system and retention pond will be located.

Adenekan asked whether there could be a traffic light at the intersection of Glendale and Jackson. Jerry Spears, one of the project’s developers, said they’d be willing to consider that.

Paras Parekh wondered how many parking spots were in the original plan. There were eight surface spaces in that plan, replied Susan Bowers, one of the project’s architects.

Susan Bowers, Jill Thacher

Parekh asked how many parking spaces per dwelling were in the original plan, noting that there are now three per unit – a total of 36 spaces. Scott Bowers replied that there were 24 spaces originally – eight surface spaces, and two for each of the eight dwelling units. Parekh asked if they’d consider reducing the number of surface spots to eight again, to decrease the amount of impervious surface – and potentially decreasing the cost of the stormwater management. Bowers replied they’d like to have some spaces for guest parking.

Bona also supported reducing the surface spaces. She noted that realistically, there are two spaces available in each driveway – though those aren’t counted in the total, for site plan purposes. Bowers explained that only three of the buildings have driveways with sufficient depth to allow two parked cars.

Clein asked about the retaining wall along the sidewalk. At its highest point, the wall is five feet tall, Scott Bowers said. It will be a masonry wall.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Trash, Recycling

Responding to a query from Briere, Thacher explained that dumpsters will be located at each end of the private drive “stubs.” There will be bins for recycling and solid waste. She wasn’t sure how composting would be handled.

Bona asked how the site would accommodate recyclables. Susan Bowers, an architect with the project, replied that recycling bins are located next to the dumpsters. The city’s solid waste staff told the developers that they needed 300-gallon containers.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Trees

Clein asked about the root zone of one of the landmark trees, and whether it would be impacted by the development – a point raised during the public hearing. Thacher replied that the city forester, Kerry Gray, had extensive discussions about that tree and others, and had ultimately signed off on the plan. The goal was to keep as many of the landmark trees as possible.

Bona asked what kinds of trees will be added. Susan Bowers listed several varieties, including Allegany serviceberry, balsam fir, American hornbeam, Dawyck beech, Princeton Sentry ginkgo and others. Bowers noted that the trees are being planted according to the city’s requirements.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Density, Open Space

Bona noted that only 12 units are proposed, but the zoning allows for up to 39 units for a parcel that size. She reviewed the density allowed for adjacent zoning districts. The Glendale Condo site and Hillside Terrace have the same zoning. She pointed out that the project is proposing about half of the allowable density.

Developer Jerry Spears.

Responding to a query from Bona, Thacher explained that in calculating the percentage of open space on a site, the elements that aren’t considered open space are all the structures, drives, and parking spaces. Sidewalks count as open space, as does the retention/detention pond.

Peters asked if the property has ever been a public park. No, Thacher said. It was annexed into the city in 1987, but not zoned until 1994. It was zoned R4B as part of a proposed expansion of Hillside Terrace. That project wasn’t constructed and the site plan for it expired in 1999. It’s been in private hands, she said.

Bona noted that the original condo proposal presented a year ago called for eight buildings, and now there are six. The zoning allows for a building height of 35 feet, but the proposed buildings are only 17.5 feet tall. She asked whether they’d considered making a couple of two-story buildings and eliminating another building, so that there would be more open area to work with for stormwater management.

Scott Bowers said they looked at that option, but it wasn’t favorable to the developers.

Bona said she didn’t have a problem with more density than what is proposed. The current proposal is less dense than the surrounding neighborhood, she noted. She pointed out that if there are fewer buildings, there will be less impervious surface.

“Land is scarce and precious in this community, and to put a few big units on a large lot of land is contrary to the way I think about Ann Arbor,” Bona said.

Bona told Bowers that she’d love it if the units were much smaller, “but we haven’t enacted that ordinance revision yet – I’ll work on it.”

Bona said she’d like Bowers or the developer to consider making some of the units taller, and possibly eliminating a building. She said she appreciated the financial and marketing balance that’s at play. But she hoped the developer would “at least take a shot at that.”

Sabra Briere (left) talked with Diane Robins (standing) and other residents during a break in the July 1 planning commission meeting.

Scott Bowers replied that the project’s first design was for four buildings, each with four smaller, two-story townhomes. Neighbors didn’t like it at all, he said. Bona noted that to be fair to the neighbors, the site feels like a park – they wouldn’t have liked it even if just two houses were being added, she said. “All I’m asking is just to open your mind and reconsider.”

Giannola said she liked how the buildings look. The ranch houses with garages are a style that Ann Arbor doesn’t have much of. But townhouses would also be great, she said. To her, the project actually fits into the neighborhood.

Later in the meeting, Jerry Spears – one of the project’s developers – responded to some of the issues that had been raised. He noted that this has been a two-year effort so far. The density has been decreased, and now it’s a very low-density project, he said. The engineers on the project have said that they’ve never developed such an extensive stormwater system for such a small development. Spears said he’s built many projects in Ann Arbor, and takes a lot of pride in them.

“These are not monstrous individual spaces,” he said, referring to the size of the units. “I don’t know how I could make them any smaller. I tried to make it taller – they [the neighbors] said it was too tall. I tried to make it denser – they said it was too dense.” The project has come full circle, he said, and he recommended that the planning commission vote on it that night. He said the project meets every county requirement, “so that’s my position.”

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Postponement

Kirk Westphal, the commission’s chair, said he understood the developer’s request to take a vote on the project that night, but it was still up to the commission as to whether they want to do that. Because the retention/detention system is unusual for a neighborhood like this, Westphal was in favor of getting more information about what other options are available. Westphal said he understood the concerns that have been raised – because he has small children, too.

Wendy Rampson.

Wendy Woods said she wanted to make sure her decision is based on the correct information. She moved to postpone the item, so that planning staff can get more information from the water resources commissioner.

Sabra Briere wanted to make certain that the planning commission gets a clear understanding of the options that the developer can choose from. The proposed stormwater management system works, but several commissioners aren’t happy with this solution, she noted. “We find a 7-foot-deep pond not a positive, in a residential neighborhood,” she said. “So if other things would work, it would be good to know that too.”

Ken Clein supported the motion to postpone. He had little doubt that the proposed system meets code. But he wasn’t sure it was the most appropriate solution for this location. He had no problem with the density and general layout of the site. The big issue for him is the retention/detention pond and security fence, and whether that’s appropriate for this neighborhood. He wanted to clarify whether the water resources commissioner had mandated this design, or whether an underground system would be an option.

Bonnie Bona said she typically didn’t support postponement unless the developer was willing to reconsider aspects of the plan. But in this case, if the planning commission voted that night, she thought they’d just be passing the buck to city council. While there might be a technical adherence to the code, Bona thought that Woods’ comments about the public’s health and safety is relevant. So she’d prefer to postpone and get the developer to take one more look at this proposal.

Bona also said she sympathized with the developers for responding to neighborhood concerns “almost to their own detriment.” All of the vacant sites that are close to downtown are difficult sites to develop, she said, so there’s no easy solution.

Paras Parekh also supported postponement. In addition to the stormwater issues, he’d like the developers to consider reducing the number of surface parking spots.

Westphal said that occasionally, a mismatch emerges between a project and the city’s code or master plan. In this case, it’s further complicated because the regulations in play – regarding stormwater management – are set by a body that supersedes the city’s jurisdiction. He supported postponement, but it gave him pause that they aren’t following the recommendations of the county water resources commissioner, who had signed off on the stormwater aspects of this project. “Hopefully we’re OK with the consequences of that,” he said.

Paras Parekh, Sabra Briere.

Jeremy Peters said he didn’t think the planning commission was not following the recommendation of the water resources commissioner. Rather, they’re just interested in seeing what all the options are for this project – especially since the depth of the proposed pond is a widely held concern. It’s definitely within the planning commission’s purview, he said, and appropriate to ask about other possible solutions.

Eleanore Adenekan asked if the postponement would be for a certain date. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, said the planning staff would try to get the requested information as quickly as they could.

Diane Giannola stressed that the commission should be very clear about the information that they want, and that it should relate to this specific site. There are tradeoffs, she said. If people want low density, it might have to include a pond in the front. The question is whether this is the only stormwater detention system that works, she said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to postpone the project.

Glendale Condos: Coda

At a July 8 working session, planning manager Wendy Rampson indicated that when the project is brought back to the planning commission it will incorporate a revised stormwater management system.

The Mark Condos

After being postponed by Ann Arbor planning commissioners in May, a site plan for new condominiums on West Liberty Street was back on the July 1 agenda.

The proposal from developer Alex de Parry is to demolish an existing car wash at 318 W. Liberty and build a three-story, 11,910-square-foot structure with seven residential condominiums – five two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units. Each condo would have its own two-car tandem garage for a total of 14 parking spaces, although no parking is required.

Rendering of Mark Condominium proposal, as viewed from West Liberty next to the former Moveable Feast building.

The 0.25-acre lot, on the north side of Liberty, is east of the historic Peter Brehme house at 326 W. Liberty – where the Moveable Feast restaurant was located several years ago. On the other side is a city-owned parcel that’s now used as a surface parking lot, connected to 415 W. Washington.

The site is located in the Old West Side historic district. The historic district commission issued a certificate of appropriateness for the project on March 13, 2014. It’s located in Ward 5 and is zoned D2 (downtown interface).

The project would require two footing drain disconnects on other properties or the equivalent mitigation, according to a planning staff report. [.pdf of staff report]

In May, De Parry was told that the existing six-inch water main in West Liberty Street would need to be upsized to a 12-inch water main. The city staff told him that the six-inch main wouldn’t have the capacity to handle the additional development, in particular the building’s fire-suppression system. That was the reason for postponement at the planning commission’s May 20, 2014 meeting.

At that time, De Parry told commissioners that the development team had just been informed about the issue, and they were analyzing the budget impact and alternatives that they might pursue.

The current agreement is for De Parry to pay for installation of an eight-inch water main, rather than the 12-inch water main.

The Mark Condos: Public Hearing

During the public hearing on July 1, four people spoke – three of them with concerns about the project.

Vince Caruso.

Vince Caruso introduced himself as the coordinating member for the Allen’s Creek Watershed Group. He noticed that the packet of material for this project doesn’t mention the floodplain, but the parcel is actually in the floodplain in the back corner, he said. Caruso urged caution with this development. There are several new developments in and around the Allen’s Creek watershed. He noted that the first plan for the homeless shelter on West Huron had to be scrapped because it was shown to be in the floodway, which would have been illegal, he said. It cost about $1 million to modify the plan. Even then, he added, they violated many city regulations that they initial said they’d meet. The shelter is built right up to the edge of the floodway, and is still in the floodplain, he said.

The city has received a letter of map revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding an area very close to The Mark project, Caruso reported, for an area that includes the YMCA site, 415 W. Washington and the homeless shelter. The revision raised the floodplain 33%, he said. The affordable housing project on North Main was also scrapped because of floodplain miscalculations, he contended. The Allen’s Creek Watershed Group is hoping to do a study that would provide better information about flood hazard issues. He described several initiatives that the group is involved with, saying “we can make big changes, but we need to make sure we don’t put people in harm’s way.” People have drowned in Ohio in recent years trying to get their cars out of buildings that were in the floodplain or very close to it, he said. People might not realize they’re moving into a structure that’s so close to the floodplain, he noted. The issue needs more study, he concluded.

Lynn Borset told commissioners that she hadn’t realized this project was on the agenda and she wasn’t planning to speak. But aesthetically, she thought it was a shame that this apartment building will be taller than adjacent historic building, and “will not have anything to recommend it, in terms of the exterior design.”

Brad Moore, the project’s architect, noted that the civil engineer for this development was available to answer questions. The floodplain is below the level of the garages, and all of the living space is above the garages. The entrances to the living space are on the west side of the building, a level above the garages. Even if there were some adjustments to the existing floodplain boundary, there wouldn’t be a problem, Moore indicated. The developer’s team has worked closely with Jerry Hancock, the city’s stormwater and floodplain program coordinator, he said. There wouldn’t be water on the site even with a 100-year storm event, he added, so that issue had been addressed adequately.

Architect Brad Moore showing plans for The Mark condominiums on West Liberty.

In terms of aesthetics, Moore described the design as a long negotiation process with the city’s historic district commission, which has jurisdiction over design issues and placement of the building. He noted that the HDC had given approval to the project, and at those meetings, Moore said the president and vice president of Old West Side association had spoken in favor of the project. He hoped that planning commissioners would also vote in favor of it.

Steve Thorpe supported what Caruso had said. If any portion of the site is within the floodplain, the city has a legal obligation to address it, he said. He’d noticed that the staff report had included excerpts of goals from the city’s downtown plan. But he thought two of the goals that were cited weren’t compatible with this development. One of the goals was to “encourage a diversity of new downtown housing opportunities,” but Thorpe expressed skepticism that The Mark’s units would be affordable for median income families or individuals. “When is this gonna stop?” he asked. More high-end residences downtown are being built, and it seems like that’s changing the city’s character, at least in the downtown core, he said. He thought one of the objectives of the downtown plan is to emphasize diversity.

Thorpe also pointed to this goal cited in the staff report, excerpted from the downtown plan: “Protect the livability of residentially zoned neighborhoods adjacent to downtown.” He’s been a resident of one of these neighborhoods for 30 years, and there are traffic and parking issues that are directly related to downtown development, he said. Also, property taxes are going up because property values are going up – and downtown development might be contributing to that, he contended.

Thorpe said he walked by the site recently, and the developer’s sign had some graffiti on it that said something like “More yuppified housing for Ann Arbor.” To him, that said a lot. “I just think at some point we’ve got to put the brakes on this and try to rectify the imbalance that’s taking place,” he concluded.

The Mark Condos: Commission Discussion

Commissioners discussed a range of issues, including the floodplain and stormwater management, traffic, design, and aspects related to the Old West Side historic district. This report organizes the discussion thematically.

The Mark Condos: Commission Discussion – Floodplain, Stormwater

Ken Clein began the discussion by asking about the floodplain issues that had been raised during the public hearing. City planner Jill Thacher described the floodplain as located in a small area in the rear corner, in the northeast portion of the site. She noted that no development is proposed in that corner.

Alex de Parry.

Clein clarified with Thacher that even if a portion of the site is in the floodplain, there’s no prohibition to building on the site. You just can’t build residential or inhabitable space within a certain distance of the floodplain. That’s the reason this development’s building won’t be in that part of the site, Thacher said.

At Clein’s request, architect Brad Moore showed the commission drawings of the buildings in relation to the floodplain. There’s no habitable space on the lower level, Moore noted – just garages, bike parking and trash bins.

When Clein observed that he only saw stairs on the architect’s drawings for two units, Moore explained that the other units will have private elevators – operated by hydraulic lifts. Only the north and south units will access the garage via stairs.

Bonnie Bona said it was important to explain to the public the differences between floodway and floodplain. A floodway is where water “moves like a river” during a flood, she said. A floodplain is the area where water backs up. Even if the floodplain cut through the middle of the site, she noted, you could still build residential units there – they would just need to be elevated above the floodplain.

Bona asked Moore to explain how the floodplain line was determined. Kathy Keineth of Perimeter Engineering came to the podium – she’s the project’s civil engineer, and described how the analysis was conducted using computer models.

Jeremy Peters.

Bona then asked what the project will do to mitigate the risk of flooding – not just for this site, but for the rest of the city. Moore replied that currently, the site has no stormwater management and water just sheets off the pavement. For the condo project, there will be a detention system so that all stormwater falling on the site will be contained there and allowed to infiltrate.

Sabra Briere asked staff about the footing drain disconnects, saying that there’s been a lot of discussion about that program. “Are we helping developers find alternatives to the developer offset mitigation program?” she asked.

Thacher replied that the program continues to operate. Briere indicated that she knew it was still operating, but also that it’s under review.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the residential footing drain disconnect program is under review, and “there’s been a lot of discussion on the developer side of the equation.” Staff have been meeting almost weekly for the past few weeks, she said. In the development agreements, the staff is trying to leave the language flexible and to refer to sanitary sewer mitigation, Rampson explained, adding that “it may or may not be footing drains.” The staff is also trying to identify some multi-family buildings that could be disconnected, rather than performing work on individual homes.

The Mark Condos: Commission Discussion – Landscaping

Bona noted that aside from the public land that abuts the site, the other adjacent parcels were zoned D2 – so there was no requirement for landscaping buffers. She asked about the plans for landscaping, adding “I hope it’s not lawn.” Kathy Keineth of Perimeter Engineering reported that two street trees will be planted in front, with some landscaping closer to the building. A series of terraced walls will be located in front, and an existing retaining wall on the west side will be removed.

The Mark Condos: Commission Discussion – Historic District Commission

Bonnie Bona confirmed with the developer’s team that they didn’t go through the city’s design review process. Architect Brad Moore said that if a project requires approval from the historic district commission, it’s not required to go to the design review board. He noted that compliance with the design review board is voluntary, but a developer must comply with the HDC recommendations – or the HDC won’t issue a certificate of appropriateness.

Jeremy Peters asked about the guidelines for new buildings within an historic district. He said aesthetics weren’t in the planning commission’s purview, but he knew there are guidelines for historic districts. Jill Thacher replied that the Secretary of the Interior’s standards are the guiding principles for the HDC. Summarizing, she said, the HDC is looking for new construction that’s compatible with the district – in terms of height, massing and materials – that doesn’t overwhelm or detract from the district’s historic structures.

Bonnie Bona.

In this case, Thacher said, the height of the building was one issue, but the biggest issue for the HDC was the front setback. The zoning requirement is for a 15-foot setback, but the HDC pushed for a larger setback of about 30 feet. The point was to set back the building so that the new construction didn’t completely obscure the historic house to the west, she said. One of the HDC’s charges is to preserve viewsheds, she noted.

In terms of design, new buildings are supposed to look “of their time,” Thacher explained, and should not try to mimic something that was built a long time ago.

Ken Clein said the design had done an admirable job in finding a nice moderation between modern and historic. Pushing it back off the street helps make the new building feel more in context with the neighborhood, he said.

Clein clarified with Moore that mechanicals will likely be small rooftop units, but Moore noted that the mechanical design hasn’t been completed. Clein also asked about the exterior building materials. Moore explained that there will be traditional glazed windows, some ironwork, brick and some smooth panels that are similar to a hardiepanel. The accents around the windows and copings would match the ironwork, he said. Responding to a query from Clein, Moore said the brick will be four-inch and one-inch veneers, depending on where it’s located. He stressed that there will be no visual difference between the different types of brick.

Bona said it would have been nice if Moore had considered using some other lightweight material, rather than a thin brick veneer. She said perhaps the HDC could be more critical of that in the future. Moore replied that the design originally didn’t include that brick, but the HDC requested that they add it. Bona quipped: “I guess ‘of our time’ means playing tricks.”

The Mark Condos: Commission Discussion – Diversity of Housing

Bona addressed the comments made by Steve Thorpe during the public hearing, about the master plan’s goals for increasing housing diversity. That’s something that the planning commission is continuously challenged with, she said – trying to put something affordable on high-valued property is difficult. The city’s zoning code currently includes a premium that developers can earn, getting more floor area if they provide affordable housing in their development. But that premium isn’t being used, Bona noted.

So the commission is working on how to create incentives for getting more affordable housing throughout the city, she said, including downtown. “The current premium mechanism we have in place just is not working.” She noted that the commission would completely agree about the need for more diversity, but it can’t always happen on site – especially on smaller sites, like the one for The Mark condos.

Regarding Thorpe’s comments that development is raising property values and creating hardships for people paying higher property taxes, Bona pointed out that recently the planning commission heard from residents who were concerned about an action that they thought might lower property values. She hoped that values wouldn’t move in either direction very quickly.

The Mark Condos: Commission Discussion – Traffic

Bona also disputed Thorpe’s claim that more density causes more traffic problems. “Denser housing tends to produce less traffic – most of the studies are saying that,” she said. The traffic issues downtown are more likely related to the attractiveness of Ann Arbor for people who live outside the city, she said. Personally, she thought that downtown development was helping improve the traffic situation.

Wendy Woods wanted to know what will happen to traffic on West Liberty when the new water main is installed. Kathy Keineth of Perimeter Engineering said they haven’t yet designed the water main. That will happen after the city approves the site plan, she said. The tentative plan is to install the water main about 3 to 5 feet behind the curb, then just abandon the old water main that’s located under West Liberty. However, that plan hasn’t been cleared with city staff yet, Keineth said. The goal is to minimize work on West Liberty, so the intent is to keep at least one lane open. Brad Moore clarified that the work would only take a few days at most.

Outcome: The project was unanimously recommended for approval. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Delta Chi Fraternity

Planning commissioners considered a proposal to tear down the existing Delta Chi fraternity house on Hill Street and build a much larger structure in its place.

The Delta Chi fraternity house at 1705 Hill St. was built in 1915, designed by the architect Samuel Stanton.

The fraternity plans to demolish the existing 4,990-square-foot house at 1705 Hill St. – at the northwest corner of Hill and Oxford. It was built in 1915 for a University of Michigan professor and designed by the architect Samuel Stanton. Delta Chi has owned it since 1947.

The house would be replaced with a 12,760-square-foot structure on three levels, including a basement. The current occupancy of 23 residents would increase to 34 people, including a resident manager.

The house is now on the northwest corner of the site, and a curbcut for the driveway is located at the intersection of Hill and Oxford. The proposal calls for building the new house closer to the southeast corner of the lot, with a parking lot on the west side and a new curbcut onto Hill – away from the intersection. [.pdf of staff report]

The minimum parking requirement is for seven spaces, but the plan calls for 16 spaces on the parking lot. There will be a shed with spaces for 20 bikes, and another four bike spaces in the back yard. Stormwater would be detained beneath the parking area.

The site is zoned R2B (two-family dwelling and student housing). All of the neighboring parcels are also zoned R2B, and contain fraternity houses or duplex residential homes.

The project is estimated to cost $2.2 million.

None of the large trees on the site will be removed. The fraternity declined to make a recommended voluntary parks contribution of $3,100 to the city.

Aerial view of Delta Chi site.

A statement from the fraternity gives their rationale for that decision: “While we can see the merit of such a donation for a large, new development that may bring additional residents to the city, we feel that this is not fitting in our situation. The Delta Chi Building Association has owned this property continuously since 1947, and during that time has consistently paid our property taxes and special millage assessments designated for Parks and Recreation. During our 67 years of ownership, we believe that we have contributed much more than the contribution suggested to support the Ann Arbor Parks and Recreation system.”

The planning commission was asked to recommend approval of a site plan and, in a separate resolution, to grant a special exception use for the project. A special exception use is required because the property is zoned R2B (two-family dwelling district and student dwelling district). Fraternities are allowed in R2B districts only if granted special exception use by the planning commission. No additional city council approval is required for that.

The site plan does require city council approval.

Delta Chi Fraternity: Commission Discussion

Wendy Woods asked about the decision to reject the voluntary contribution to parks and recreation. She encouraged the fraternity to rethink that position. She asked that a representative of the fraternity talk about that decision.

John Levinson, treasurer of the Delta Chi alumni board.

John Levinson introduced himself as treasurer of the Delta Chi alumni building corporation, which owns the house. He’s been a member of the fraternity since 1969, and has been on the alumni board since he graduated from UM in the mid-1970s. It’s their experience and belief that students don’t use any of the city parks and recreation facilities, he said.

Levinson noted that city staff had explained that increased density on the site would result in additional use of the parks, so the fraternity should “pay to play.” But “we just don’t think we’re going to be playing,” he said, and that’s why they declined to make the voluntary contribution.

Woods asked whether that meant the fraternity members don’t ever go to Gallup Park, Argo Park, the new skatepark, or any of the other city parks and recreation facilities. Levinson said that’s their opinion, though he hadn’t surveyed members. He said he keeps in close contact with the house, and most of the activities are with the university’s intramural sports and facilities.

Woods said it would be highly unusual for any residents of the city not to use the city’s parks and recreation facilities at some time. Levinson replied that he knows the fraternity members use the city’s golf courses, but he characterized that as “pay to play” because they pay fees to use the courses.

It’s true that the parks contribution is voluntary, Woods noted, “but when you have a public good, it’s always worth a conversation.”

Levinson explained that the fraternity hasn’t raised all the money it needs for this project. He said after they know whether they have enough money for the project, they’d be willing to reconsider the parks contribution.

Site plan for the new Delta Chi fraternity house at 1705 Hill.

Bonnie Bona pointed out that the golf courses are subsidized by city taxes – the fees that players are charged doesn’t cover the expenses. She noted that she works near Argo Pond, and there are a lot of university students who use the Argo Cascades. She also observed that The Rock is located on a small city park at the corner of Hill and Washtenaw. Levinson acknowledged that fraternity members have used that park. “And who pays to maintain that little park? The city of Ann Arbor,” Bona replied. Levinson stressed that it was indeed a very little park, however.

Levinson told commissioners that he never said the parks weren’t valued, but he didn’t think fraternity members used the parks as much as “regular citizens of Ann Arbor.” He noted that the fraternity also pays taxes, which supports things like the golf courses.

Levinson explained that although the new house will hold more residents, they won’t be increasing the overall population. The fraternity members will just be relocating from university housing or other non-university housing. Bona pointed out that the spots vacated by the fraternity members will be filled by others, so the change will, in fact, be adding more residents to the city.

It’s a good thing to increase density and to have students living near the university, so that they can walk and use public transit, Bona said. It’s also a very nice project, she added.

Levinson said they’re trying to fix problems that exist with the current house. “I go to sleep at night wondering what’s going to happen if that old place burns, to be very honest – because it’s old.” The house contains plaster and lathe, and although there are functional smoke alarms, there’s no sprinkler system, he noted.

Sabra Briere reported that she also lives in a house with original plaster and lathe, which was built in the 1830s. She appreciated the fraternity’s efforts to “retain the charm of the existing house” and to retain some tradition. Levinson said it had been a somewhat selfish motivation, because they knew that contributions from alumni would be tied to the look of the house.

Ken Clein clarified that there would be no retention/detention pond on the site – a reference to the controversial Glendale Condos project that had been postponed earlier in the meeting.

In response to another query from Clein about ADA features, Levinson explained how the first floor is designed to include an accessible residential unit, and that there’s a lift that allows access to the first and second floors.

Outcome: In separate votes, commissioners unanimously approved the special exception use and recommended approval of the site plan. The site plan proposal will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Gift of Life Expansion

A $10.5 million expansion of the Gift of Life Michigan facility on Research Park Drive was on the July 1 agenda.

Aerial view of Gift of Life Michigan site.

The proposal calls for building a three-story, 40,786-square-foot addition to connect two existing buildings at 3161 and 3169 Research Park Drive, which are owned and occupied by the nonprofit. According to a staff report, the additional space will accommodate offices, a special events auditorium and “organ procurement suites.” The nonprofit’s website states that the Gift of Life is Michigan’s only federally designated organ and tissue recovery program.

The proposal includes a site plan and a request to rezone the properties from office (O) and research (RE) to office/research/limited industrial (ORL). The parcel at 3161 Research Park Drive is currently zoned O. The parcel at 3169 Research Park is zoned RE. The plan is to combine those lots before the city issues building permits.

The project would reduce the four existing curb cuts to Research Park Drive to three, connecting one of the loop driveways to an existing driveway at the east end of the site. A parking lot at the back of the site will be expanded by 38 parking spaces. Two alternate vehicle fueling stations are proposed in parking spaces near the main entry, with the driveway at the center of the site providing access for ambulances. A new shipping and receiving facility will be located on the northeast corner of the site. [.pdf of staff report]

The only speaker during the public hearing was Curt Penny of Eckert Wordell, a Kalamazoo-based architectural firm. He stated that the project team was on hand to answer any questions.

Gift of Life Expansion: Commission Discussion

This item was considered late in the meeting – after 11 p.m. – and discussion was brief. Wendy Woods praised the Gift of Life’s work. Jeremy Peters said he appreciated a reduction in the number of curbcuts, saying that it helped promote pedestrian usage.

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

Communications & Commentary

Every meeting includes several opportunities for communications from planning staff and commissioners. Here are other highlights from July 1.

Communications & Commentary: Public Commentary

In addition to the public hearings held for specific projects, there were two opportunities for general public commentary. Steve Thorpe spoke during the first slot for public commentary, introducing himself as a downtown resident and former chair of the city’s planning commission 14 years ago.

Steve Thorpe.

He wanted to raise the issue of height limits. He thought that D1 and D2 districts are a good idea, although the city made some mistakes on the location of those downtown zoning districts.

When he was chair, Thorpe said, the public and the commission were moving fairly rapidly toward considering height limits. At that time, commissioners felt that the public was receptive to height limits, he said. “Unfortunately, I think city council kind of pulled the rug out from under us” and instead established the downtown residential task force, which he was a member of. Thorpe said he resigned before the task force issued its final report, because he didn’t agree with its projections for the number of downtown residents.

The buildings that are being constructed downtown are changing the density, he noted, and that’s bringing other problems. It’s beginning to alienate people and how they remember Ann Arbor. He said he wasn’t resisting change, but the city needs to manage it better. “Let’s not close the door on downtown height limits,” he said, and perhaps something can be done that’s consistent with the D1 and D2 districts. [The overlay character districts for D1 and D2 include height limits of 180 feet and 60 feet, respectively.]

Communications & Commentary: Affordable Housing

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters gave an update on work that’s being done to add affordable housing units to the city. He and planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Eleanore Adenekan are working with members of the city’s housing & human services advisory board and staff of the Washtenaw County office of community & economic development. The intent is to look at issues where these three groups have similar interests, and eventually to provide some strong guidance for city and county leaders.

Based on the last needs assessment, about 1,500 more units of affordable housing are needed in this community, he said. The group is trying to identify questions that they need to have answered, as well as information that each of their respective boards and commissions might want. One of those questions is the definition of affordable housing, which he noted could mean a wide range of things.

Another issue is to look at the city’s premiums that are offered to developers, and how to modify those so that the premiums are more effective as a tool to build more affordable housing units.

The group’s next meeting is on July 24 at the county annex, 110 N. Fourth Ave., starting at 6:30 p.m.

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

Next meeting: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 at 7 p.m. in council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

An urban forest is defined as all the trees, shrubs and woody vegetation growing along city streets, in public parks and on institutional and private property. In Ann Arbor, about 25% is on public property, with 75% on private property. Based on a U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service i-Tree Eco Analysis done in 2012, Ann Arbor’s urban forest has an estimated 1.45 million trees. It creates a 33% tree canopy – the layer of leaves, branches and stems of trees that cover the ground when viewed from above.

The city manages 43,240 street trees and about 6,900 park trees in mowed areas. A tree inventory conducted in 2009 didn’t include natural areas, she noted, so there are thousands of trees that aren’t counted. The urban forest includes over 200 species, representing 82 genera.

Map of selected tree variety by The Chronicle from city of Ann Arbor 2009 survey. Image links to dynamic map hosted on geocommons.com

PAC had been briefed on the 135-page Urban & Community Forest Management Plan at its Feb. 25, 2014 meeting by Kerry Gray, the city’s urban forest & natural resources planning coordinator. The management plan includes 17 recommendations, listed in priority based on community feedback for implementation. Each of the 17 recommendations includes action tasks and implementation ideas, case studies, and resources that are needed, including funding. The recommendations are:

1. Implement proactive tree maintenance program.
2. Strengthen tree planting and young tree maintenance programs.
3. Monitor threats to the urban and community forest.
4. Increase landmark/special tree protections.
5. Secure adequate city‐funding for urban forestry core services.
6. Develop street tree master plans.
7. Pursue grant and philanthropic funding opportunities.
8. Strengthen forestry related ordinances.
9. Update tree inventory and canopy analysis.
10. Develop urban forest best management practices.
11. Increase urban forestry volunteerism.
12. Strengthen relationships with outside entities who impact trees.
13. Implement community outreach program.
14. Obtain the best use of wood from removed trees.
15. Create city staff working groups to coordinate projects that impact trees.
16. Engage the city’s Environmental Commission in urban and community forestry issues.
17. Review the urban forest management plan periodically and update as needed.

The infiltration standards are here: [.pdf of green streets infiltration policy]

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

“Do not touch” reflects the attitude of some Ann Arbor homeowners toward their houses in the context of the city’s footing drain disconnection program. These class projects from Johanna Nader’s material science class at Slauson Middle School were on display at the Slauson media center. That’s where the most recent meeting took place for the city of Ann Arbor’s citizens committee that is advising the city’s sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study. (Photos by the writer.)

The group’s charge includes making recommendations to the city council about the best way to manage the impact of rainfall on the city’s sanitary sewer system. Flows in the sanitary system are related to wet weather, even though the city has separate pipes for its sanitary and stormwater systems. That’s due to a variety of factors, including cracks in sanitary system pipes. Cracks can allow rainwater to soak into the pipes from above, and groundwater can come in from below.

But the factors that can increase the amount of water in the sanitary system during wet weather also include direct connections from stormwater systems into sanitary pipes. An example is a connection between a footing drain – part of a homeowner’s stormwater system running around the perimeter of basement foundations – and a sanitary sewer pipe. That’s a connection now prohibited by current building code, but still present in an estimated 16,000 houses in Ann Arbor.

If a deluge of water flowing into the sanitary system during a heavy rain becomes large enough, that can lead to two problems: (1) the extra volume can come up through the sanitary pipes in a homeowner’s basement, flooding the basement with a mixture of raw sewage and stormwater; and (2) the extra volume can overwhelm the city’s wastewater treatment facility, leading to the discharge of untreated sewage into the Huron River.

Over a decade ago, the city’s legislative response to this issue was to enact an ordinance that created a program requiring the systematic disconnection of property owners’ footing drains from the sanitary system. The city also created a way to pay for the work that uses funds from two sources – the city’s utility funds, or contributions from the owners of new developments. New developments help pay for the work because the city also created a program requiring that the developer of any new building in the city compensate for the additional load that the new building places on the sanitary sewer system. And the main way that developers choose to mitigate a new building’s added load on the sanitary system is to pay for footing drain disconnections.

So literal backups – of raw sewage in people’s basement, in the past and possibly in the future – were part of the basis for the committee’s work. But the group’s Jan. 9 meeting was devoted to “backups” in other ways as well. Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias presented the group with a couple of different assurances: (1) that the city would back the committee up if a lawsuit were to be filed against its members as a result of their recommendation; and (2) that she felt the city’s footing drain disconnect program had an adequate legal backup.

Meanwhile, rumblings that a lawsuit over the program could be filed continue to percolate to the surface.

Elias appeared before the group on Jan. 9 as a consequence of the committee’s interest in getting answers to questions raised by an email sent by Ann Arbor resident and attorney Irv Mermelstein on Oct. 29, 2013. In advance of the Jan. 9 meeting, which was originally scheduled for Dec. 17, 2013, Elias provided a written memo to the committee on Nov. 25, 2013. Elias’ memo responded to the arguments made by Mermelstein, which are based in part on the idea that the city’s program amounts to an unconstitutional taking of private property by the government.

And in a Nov. 27, 2013 email, Elias also provided written answers responding to follow-up questions from the committee about her memo from two days earlier. Those questions related to whether the citizens committee members had any legal exposure as a result of their participation in the committee. Elias was fairly emphatic in her written response, as well as in her remarks on Jan. 9, that she did not think such a lawsuit filed against the committee or its members could possibly have any merit.

Also surfacing during the committee’s Jan. 9 meeting was the notion of “backup” in the sense of a secondary system that activates if the primary system fails. The city’s footing drain disconnect program relies on installation of an interior basement sump – to collect water that gravity previously led away from the foundation through sanitary sewer pipes. The approach requires an electric pump to transfer stormwater collecting in the sump to the surface – because the interior sump would otherwise overflow, flooding the basement. The city’s program does not currently pay for a battery backup system for the pump. But Elias stated at the Jan. 9 meeting that she was exploring the possibility that the city could legally fund such a backup system.

Part of the committee’s discussion on Jan. 9 focused on how a backup system could improve peace of mind for homeowners who had a sump pump installed as part of the city’s footing drain disconnection program. That peace-of-mind discussion came in the context of a survey sent to 2,350 participants in the city’s footing drain disconnection program as a part of the current study project. Based on initial analysis of survey results presented at the Jan. 9 meeting, 40% of the 819 survey respondents reported an increase in anxiety after the installation of a sump and a pump as part of the footing drain disconnection program.

Finally, the meeting agenda included “backup” in the sense of backing up to review the committee’s mission. Resident Cy Hufano addressed the committee during public commentary made to the committee at the end of the meeting. Hufano described himself as “perplexed” that several months into the study, the citizens advisory group was still raising questions about their vision and purpose. Hufano also challenged the committee to make clear to themselves whether the city’s footing drain disconnection program exists to support developers at the expense of citizens.

This report is organized partly in terms of these various notions of “backup.” It begins with an overview of the physical mechanics of footing drains and how they work.

Footing Drains

The city of Ann Arbor has separate sanitary and stormwater conveyance systems. That is, the city has built separate pipes for (1) carrying human waste flushed down toilets to the wastewater treatment plan; and (2) moving rainwater from higher elevations to the Huron River.

However, during construction of new developments before roughly 1980, footing drains were frequently connected directly to the sanitary sewer pipes. Footing drains are permeable pipes buried around the perimeter of a foundation, roughly at the depth of a basement floor. The purpose of footing drains is to lead water – that soaks into the ground during a rainfall – away from the foundation of the building.

Those footing-drain-to-sanitary-sewer connections were convenient to make, because the footing drains and the sanitary sewers are typically buried at roughly the same depth. That means that gravity can be used to lead stormwater away from a building foundation by connecting footing drains into the sanitary system. Storm sewer pipes are typically not as deep, so gravity works against moving water from footing drains into the stormwater system.

Figure 1 shows a connected configuration.

Figure 1. Footing drains connected to the sanitary system. (Original illustration from screenshot of YouTube video by Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, modified by The Chronicle.)

However, during very heavy rains, that connected configuration can conceivable lead to a volume of stormwater flow into the sanitary sewer system that it’s not designed to handle. That can cause two problems.

First, near the point where the extra water is entering the sanitary system, it can cause raw sewage to back up through the floor drains of basements. Second, farther downstream at the wastewater treatment plant, the amount of water flowing into the plant can exceed the plant’s capacity. That can result in only partially-treated wastewater being discharged into the Huron River. Such connections are now against city code.

The city’s footing drain disconnection program was established in the early 2000s in the context of basement backups and sanitary sewage overflows during heavy rainstorms. Two key steps of the procedure are to disconnect the footing drain from the sanitary pipe, and then to install a sump outfitted with a pump to transfer the water to a higher elevation, where it can then flow into the city’s stormwater system.

Figure 2 shows a disconnected configuration with a sump and a pump.

Figure 2. Disconnected footing drains with installation of a sump pump. (Original illustration from screenshot of YouTube video by Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, modified by The Chronicle.)

The contrast between the pre-FDD configuration and a post-FDD configuration – a combination of Figures 1 and 2 – is shown in the animation of Figure 3.

Figure 3. Animation of contrast between the pre-FDD configuration and the post-FDD configuration. (Original illustration from screenshots of YouTube video by Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, modified by The Chronicle.)

To see something close to a full-screen version of the animation, use this [link].

Disconnecting footing drains of individual buildings from the sanitary sewer system is not the only possible way to address the issue. Instead of trying to reduce the additional wet weather flow in the sanitary system, it’s possible to accept as a given that there will be a certain amount of stormwater entering the sanitary system during wet weather. And given that flow, the response would be engineer larger sanitary sewer pipes or to create temporary storage facilities to handle that flow. At the Jan. 9 meeting, one committee member ventured that this is the sort of solution the city should have pursued – because “the solution should be in the right-of-way, not in people’s homes.”

But those were not the approaches that were ultimately implemented by the city of Ann Arbor. Instead, the approach Ann Arbor took was to use footing drain disconnection, to reduce the amount of additional wet weather volume in the system.

The citizens advisory committee is now weighing a range of different approaches to the issue, while the current program is partially suspended. It will be up to the committee to make a recommendation – about whether to continue the footing drain disconnection program at all, and if so, in what form.

Historical Overview: Narrative

A basic sketch of the history of the city’s footing drain disconnection program (FDDP) begins in the mid-1990s with a series of backups of raw sewage into residents’ basements and overflows of sewage into the Huron River during heavy rainfalls. That obviously drew the attention of residents who had raw sewage sitting in their basements, but also of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

The city council appointed a task force in 1999 to study the issue and make recommendations. Five localized areas of the city, where more than half of the basement backups had occurred, were targeted: Orchard Hills, Bromley, Morehead, Dartmoor and Glen Leven. The first two of those areas are adjacent to each other in the northeast part of the city. The other three are clustered in the southwest part of the city.

The initially recommended solutions in the five targeted geographic areas were a mix of footing drain disconnections (Bromley, Dartmoor, Glen Leven), upsizing pipes and creating storage facilities (Orchard Hills, Morehead). The final recommendations of the sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) prevention task force were for footing drain disconnections across the board.

In response to an emailed query from The Chronicle, assistant city attorney Abigail Elias indicated that it’s possible to contemplate a program that would require FDD in some areas of the city but not others, if there were a rational basis for doing so. The question and Elias’ response are as follows:

Question: The SSO report of June 2001 contains initial recommendations for implementation of FDDs in three geographic areas of the city but for storage and upsizing of sanitary sewers in two other areas. From a legal point of view, would it have been possible to establish an FDD ordinance that applied in just some areas of the city but not in others?

Elias: It might be possible to require footing drain disconnects in only certain areas of the City if there was a rational basis for defining each of the areas included or excluded. Because of the nature of flow in both sanitary and storm sewer systems, and based on our experience with heavy rains not necessarily repeating where they fall or where the flow has occurred and backed up within the sanitary sewer system, the areas designated for removal might have to expand or change. The City has shifted some areas in terms of priority for disconnect based on experience with certain areas having sanitary sewer backups into basements that did not have them during the 1998 and 2000 heavy rain events.

To support the program of footing drain disconnections, the city council passed an ordinance in 2001 that states the city can compel a homeowner to disconnect a footing drain from the sanitary system. The city also set up a reimbursement program to cover the cost of the plumbing work, and an option for a homeowner to pay $100 a month not to have the disconnection done.

The ordinance on FDDs was already in place by 2003 when the city signed a consent order with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality on the issue of sanitary sewage overflows. The consent order required the city to disconnect at least 155 footing drains a year for four years for a total of 620. The 620 required disconnections were to be done in addition to 179 disconnections that had already been completed by the city by the time the consent order was signed.

Five target areas with the majority of basement backups citywide. The colored dots indicate locations of flow-monitoring meters.

The 2003 consent order also required the city to implement a developer offset mitigation program. That program requires developers of new projects to compensate for their additional load by reducing the flow elsewhere in the sanitary system. The option chosen by a developer to mitigate additional flow is not mandated to be footing drain disconnections elsewhere in the city. But as public services area administrator Craig Hupy put it at the Jan. 9 committee meeting, the “coin of the development realm” has become FDDs. Hupy described options like retrofitting toilets with lower-flow models as not being as cost-effective for developers as FDDs.

Based on information presented to the citizens advisory committee at its Aug. 21, 2013 meeting, as of July 1, 2013 the mandate of the consent order has already been satisfied with nearly three times as many FDDs as the consent order required. Specifically, 1,834 footing drain disconnections had been completed in the city’s FDD program by July 1, 2013. Another 805 FDD equivalents had been completed in the developer offset mitigation program.

Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias confirmed at the Jan. 9 citizens advisory committee meeting that as far as FDDs currently required by the MDEQ: “The state is not requiring it – that part of the administrative consent order is no longer in effect.”

In terms of the target geographic areas where the majority of basement backups had occurred back in the late 1990s, footing drain disconnections in two areas in the northeast part of Ann Arbor – Orchard Hills and Bromley – are about 99% complete. Footing drain disconnections in the southwest target areas of the city are all at least halfway done: Glen Leven (56%), Dartmoor (89%), and Morehead (63%).

On March 15, 2012 an especially heavy rain hit Ann Arbor, which caused extensive overland flooding in the southwestern part of the city in the vicinity of the southwest target areas. Questions were raised by residents about the possibility that the FDD program had exacerbated the overland flooding issue.

An Aug. 22, 2012 public meeting was held at the Pittsfield branch of the Ann Arbor District Library – located in the southwest part of the city. Some residents at the meeting complained that they were experiencing flooding of their previously dry basements after participation in the city’s FDD program.

The city council voted on Sept. 17, 2012 to partially suspend the city’s FDD program, and it remains suspended. The developer offset mitigation requirement remains in place. The council also authorized three water-related studies around the same time: (1) a stormwater study for upper Mallets Creek; (2) a citywide stormwater model calibration study; and (3) a study of wet weather on the sanitary sewer system.

The citizens committee that met on Jan. 9, 2014 is providing advisory input on the third study.

Historical Overview: Timeline

The timeline below is not exhaustive.

• 1997-03-31 200 gallons of sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) due to sewer blockage.
• 1997-09-05 Unknown amount of SSO due to sewer blockage.
• 1998-03-09 Unknown amount of SSO due to surcharging manholes at three separate locations due to heavy rains. Basement floodings also occurred.
• 1998-07-08 150-200 gallons of SSO due to sewer blockage.
• 1998-09-06 168,000 gallons of SSO due to bypass at outfall 002 due to heavy rains. Hydraulic pumping capacity exceeded.
• 1998-09-29 Unknown amount of SSO due to broken sanitary sewer line.
• 1999-03-30 Unknown amount of SSO due to sewer blockage.
• 1999-04-23 1.12 million gallons of SSO due to bypass at outfall 005 due to heavy rains.
• 1999-07-06 City council establishes an SSO prevention task force with specific membership of city staff and others, with five slots for residents of the five affected neighborhoods.
• 2000-07-10 Unknown amount of SSO on Swift Run Trunk Line due to heavy rains.
• 2001-07-06 Unknown amount of SSO due to sewer blockage caused by roots.
• 2001-07-09 City council is presented with final SSO prevention study report done by CDM. [.pdf of SSO report] [.pdf of SSO report appendices] The report includes initial recommendations for a mix of footing drain disconnections (FDDs) and upsizing of pipes and creation of storage facilities, but the final recommendations in the report are for FDDs across the board.
• 2001-08-20 City council approves FDD ordinance.
• 2001-10-17 2,000 gallons of SSO due to heavy rains causing flows to inadvertently enter influent channel at plant, which was under construction and overflow to storm sewer.
• 2002-04-22 200 gallons of SSO due to plugged sanitary sewer main.
• 2002-06-24 700 gallons of SSO due to force main break.
• 2002-09-03 City council revises FDD ordinance with respect to reimbursements.
• 2003-08-18 City council authorizes MDEQ administrative consent order.
• 2003-08-18 City council authorizes developer offset mitigation program as part of resolution authorizing MDEQ administrative consent order.
• 2003-08-14 Region-wide power outage and generator failure at wastewater treatment plant leads to 13 million gallons of partially-treated sewage being discharged into the river, 4 million of it undisinfected.
• 2003-09-04 MDEQ administrative consent order entered. [.pdf of MDEQ consent order]
• 2005-01-03 City council revises FDD ordinance with myriad other ordinances in context of citywide reorganization.
• 2008-06-16 City council increases FDD reimbursement cap from $3,700 to $4,100.
• 2008-08-07 City council revises FDD ordinance to allow for cap to be set by council resolution. [.pdf of city of Ann Arbor FDD ordinance]
• 2009-11-03 MDEQ consent order is terminated.
• 2010-06-07 Public commentary at city council about overland flooding near Village Oaks Court and Chaucer Court, located off Ann Arbor-Saline Road.
• 2010-08-5 [24 FDDs] City council approves Zaragon Place 2 with 24 required FDDs.
• 2011-01-03 [140 FDDs] City council approves contract amendment with CDM Michigan using money paid by University of Michigan associated with 127 required FDDs and 13 supplemental FDDs as a part of the Michigan Stadium renovation project.
• 2011-11-10 [41 FDDs] City council approves The Varsity residential development with 41 required FDDs.
• 2012-03-15 Rainfall of nearly 2 inches, all of which fell between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. as measured at the city’s Jackson Road rain gauge.
• 2012-04-16 Public commentary at city council meeting about March 15, 2012 and other localized overland flooding events.
• 2012-05-07 Public commentary at city council meeting about March 15, 2012 localized overland flooding.
• 2012-09-17 City council suspends a part of the FDD program.
• 2013-02-04 City council authorizes contract with OHM for sanitary sewer wet weather evaluation study.
• 2013-03-04 [20 FDDs] City council approves 624 Church St. with 20 required FDDs.
• 2013-05-13 [59 FDDs] City council approves 413 E. Huron with 59 required FDDs.
• 2013-08-08 [5 FDDs] City council approves Kerrytown Place with 5 required FDDs.
• 2013-12-02 [1 FDD] City council approves Running Fit expansion with 1 required FDD.
• 2014-01-06 [8 FDDs] City council approves Montgomery Building expansion with 8 required FDDs.

Backup (Secondary Systems): Peace of Mind

At the first meeting of the citizens advisory committee, on Aug. 21, 2013, committee member Frank Burdick’s sentiments in favor of a win-win solution were fairly representative of the group.

Frank Burdick at the initial meeting of the wet weather sanitary sewer citizens advisory committee on Aug. 21, 2013. He’s describing how a gravity-based back-up system would work.

The win for a homeowner would include having peace of mind – that the disconnected footing drain configuration would not result in a risk of basement flooding.

What is the nature of that risk? After a footing drain is disconnected from the sanitary pipe, the water that collects in the drains is conveyed to an internal sump, and then pumped up and out to the surface – where the water eventually finds its way into the stormwater system. If the pump fails or the electrical power goes out, the sump will overflow into the basement and flood the area.

Losing electric power is a plausible scenario exactly when a pump might be called on to perform under heavy load – during a very heavy rainfall, oftentimes associated with electrical storms.

Burdick drew an analogy to the dam-in-dam-out controversy associated with Argo Dam a few years ago. That divisive issue was resolved by leaving the dam in place, but constructing the Argo Cascades, which allows kayakers to paddle from Argo Pond around the dam and continue on down the Huron River.

Several other committee members at the initial meeting also introduced themselves by saying they wanted to see some kind of compromise solution. Committee member Peter Houk, for example, said he was in favor of a solution that was acceptable to present and future participants in the FDD program.

Gravity-based backup system for sump pump sketched out by Frank Burdick.

Burdick sketched up one possibility for a compromise solution that relies on a specific plumbing configuration for the sump. The plumbing he sketched would – if the water reached a certain level in the sump – allow it to drain into the sanitary pipe. That way, if the pump fails or if the electricity goes out, a homeowner would have peace of mind that a gravity-based system would prevent the sump from overflowing.

At the Jan. 9 meeting, Burdick expressed some frustration that the city staff had not given his idea for the gravity-based backup system fair consideration. The facilitator for the study, Charlie Fleetham of Project Innovations, responded to Burdick by telling him that he thought the city had responded to his suggestion. Burdick characterized the response from the city as brief with no opportunity for dialogue.

Burdick said he wanted the city staff to get to the point of discussing what might work instead of simply concluding that something wouldn’t work. Fleetham reiterated that the city staff had concluded that Burdick’s design wouldn’t work. Burdick responded by saying that if the committee was really going to pursue a win-win solution, then there are technical resources in the city that need to participate more actively in the committee’s work. Though it was not made clear during the Jan. 9 meeting, the problem with Burdick’s design does not appear to involve its fluid dynamics, but rather whether it would meet city code.

At the Jan. 9 meeting, assistant city attorney Abigail Elias reported that making a battery backup system eligible for reimbursement under the FDD program is something the city is considering. She told the committee it’s a disadvantage to not have all the paperwork from 12 years ago when she’d initially researched the issue. [Elias was serving as city attorney when the FDD program was created. She held that position from 1996 to late 2002.] She told the committee that the legal research she’d done previously was not the kind of thing the city kept forever and ever. But she’s now taking a very serious look at whether there’s a reason not to be funding the battery backups.

A battery backup for a sump pump is not part of the building code, Elias said, so the city couldn’t require one. But Elias said her view is that if the battery backups are necessary for the sump pump to actually work and to function, then the city ought to be able to cover that cost. Elias said the city knew that backup systems are a concern – from looking at the data that’s coming back from a recent survey of participants in the FDD program.

The preliminary survey results were presented at the Jan. 9 meeting. The survey was sent to 2,350 participants in the city’s footing drain disconnection program and 819 people had responded by the time of the Jan. 9 meeting. [.pdf of preliminary, draft survey results]

Those results show many residents are very satisfied after participating in the FDD program, but many residents are also very dissatisfied. Several FDD program participants who’d previously had no basement water problems reported having water problems in their basements after the sump pump was installed. And several participants reported that their previous water problems have persisted even after participation in the FDD program. Anxiety about the installed sump pump was also an issue identified in the survey – that’s the aspect of the survey to which Elias alluded in her remarks.

But Elias said the city needs to make sure that it wouldn’t be getting into trouble by giving someone a backup system that exceeds code requirements and that violates some requirement in terms of who’s paying for it. “We would love to be able to cover the battery packs,” she said. That would be one more thing for people not to worry about, she noted. Elias indicated that the question of whether a battery backup system could be paid for by the city would be resolved by the time the committee made its recommendations – if FDDs are still one of the options the committee recommends.

Burdick seemed somewhat skeptical of the battery backup as a solution, saying that a gravity-based system is really the only way you can truly have a backup. He ventured that a battery would only last for a few hours, “and then you’re bailing your sump!” he said.

Legal Backup Issues: Citizens Committee

Abigail Elias of the city attorney’s office attended the Jan. 9 citizens advisory committee meeting in part to address concerns that had been prompted by a memo she’d written for the committee explaining why she thinks the city’s FDD program has a solid legal foundation. The memo drew questions about the possibility of a lawsuit being filed against members of the citizens committee.

Elias provided a written response to those questions in advance of the Jan. 9 meeting. [.pdf of Elias' response to questions about the committee's possible legal liabilities]

The three questions Elias answered were as follows:

1. Does the memorandum mean that the City legal staff now represents CAC members?
2. If the above is true, am I now prohibited from talking to other lawyers?
3. If the City is sued regarding this project, will I be required to support the City’s position even if I do not agree with it?

To summarize her responses briefly – written, as well as remarks made at the Jan. 9 meeting – the memorandum does not establish an attorney-client relationship between the city attorney’s staff and committee members. And the fact that Elias wrote a memo does not prohibit a committee member from talking to other lawyers. Further, if the city were sued, committee members would be eligible for representation, provided they responded to phone calls and emails and showed up for required meetings.

But Elias stressed throughout that she did not think a lawsuit of that type – filed against committee members over the performance of duties in connection with the committee – could possibly have any merit, and would almost certainly be thrown out of court at the start.

By way of background, the citizens advisory committee associated with the wet weather sanitary sewer study is a different kind of committee from other groups that are sometimes established by the city council for advisory purposes. For example, the pedestrian safety task force that the city council established last year through a council resolution included an application process, after which selected members were nominated to serve. Confirmation by the council of those pedestrian task force appointments is on the Jan. 21 city council meeting agenda.

The original sanitary sewer overflow prevention task force from the late 1990s was also established and partly populated by a council resolution passed on July 6, 1999. Membership of that original group was established partly through the resolution establishing the task force:

• Utilities Senior Engineer Peter Perala
• Utilities Field Services Superintendent Craig Hupy
• Acting Utilities Director Sumedh Bahl
• City Engineer Sabah Yousif
• Public Services Director William Wheeler
• Associate City Administrator Ronald Olson
• Huron River Watershed Council Executive Director Laura Rubin
• County Drain Commissioner Janis Bobrin
• Lee Roberts, plumbing expert
• One representative from each of the five affected neighborhoods
• An engineering professional

The city’s online Legistar records don’t reflect a subsequent city council action appointing the representatives of the five affected neighborhoods. But some of the subsequent meeting minutes of the task force reflect the following as task force members: Stephen Rapundalo, Barbara Bruemmer, Wendy Carman, Jim Nieters. Fran Alexander is mentioned as both a subcommittee member and the person handling public relations. [Those minutes also reflect a discussion of the desirability of having private contractors retain data, instead of the city, in order to prevent access to it via Michigan's Freedom of Information Act.]

The current citizens advisory committee was not established through a separate council resolution. Instead, a citizens advisory committee was part of the public engagement strategy in the scope of work for Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment Inc. approved by the city council about a year ago, on Feb. 4, 2013.

At the study’s kickoff meeting on April 23, 2013, an invitation was made for anyone to join the committee who wished to participate. And at the first meeting on Aug. 21, 2013, the meeting information packed lists 21 members of the committee: Kathe Atkins, Stan Baker, Mary Rinne Barnett, Peter and Marilyn Batra, Kathy Boris, Colin Breed, Frank Burdick, Vince Caruso, Joe Conen, Ted Dorr, Iris Floyd, Bruce Geffen, Thomas Holden, Peter Houk, Michelle Lovasz, Patricia Marten, Jim Osborn, Frank Pelosi, Frank Richardson, Beverly Smith, Mark Wagner and Matt Wherry. Not all of those listed have chosen to continue as members.

Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias.

Addressing the committee on Jan. 9, Elias indicated that she didn’t think a potential lawsuit filed against the citizens committee could have any merit. “I could give you a glib comment,” she said, “which is: It doesn’t take much to file a lawsuit. Anyone can file a lawsuit against anybody.”

She told the committee that courts do not like cases that do not have merit. That’s a huge discouragement to lawyers against filing lawsuits that they shouldn’t be filing, she said. As the citizens advisory committee, she told the members, “you are part of the city government in the sense that you’ve been asked to engage in what is a quintessential governmental function.” That function includes planning, recommending, studying, looking at the data, and looking at the information.

Governments in Michigan have broad governmental immunity for what they do, she said. “And that means, we can be negligent, but we are not liable.” Elias allowed that sounded very crass, but said that is basically what governmental immunity is.

The reason for governmental immunity is that the government performs core functions to serve the residents, and it needs to be able to do those things when the government is the only one doing them – without liability hanging over its head. “Does that mean we say, ‘Fine, we’ll go out and be negligent?’ Absolutely not,” Elias assured the committee. She allowed there are some exceptions – if the city doesn’t maintain streets properly or if there is a defect in the sewer system that causes a backup under limited circumstances. She also noted that drivers of city vehicles don’t have immunity if there’s a car accident.

But sitting on a planning committee making recommendations is the kind of function and action for which there should be no liability at all, Elias said. That doesn’t stop someone from filing a lawsuit, she allowed, but that means the lawsuit should be kicked out almost immediately. She concluded that it’s not something a committee member should be losing any sleep over.

As far as representation if the committee were sued, Elias said, “We’ll represent you. You’re part of the city process.” But she cautioned that did not mean that she and the committee had an attorney-client relationship. “I represent the city; you’re advising the city,” she said.

Elias said there could be exceptions to the city’s willingness to represent a committee member: “If one of you gets so excited at the meeting that you punch the guy sitting next to you, no, we’re not going to help you out in that case.” She said she didn’t want to make light of the issue, but indicated that punching someone is not part of the duties as a committee member.

Committee member Vince Caruso asked Elias if there were any cases where a citizens committee has been sued. Elias told Caruso that part of the problem in researching cases is that only the court of appeals cases are easily accessible. Some of those opinions are published, and some are not published. Elias felt that a case where a citizens committee had been sued would have been dismissed at the get-go and would never have gotten to the appellate court. There would be no way to find it except by word of mouth. She told the committee she had never heard of any such a lawsuit.

Committee member Peter Houk asked Elias: If a family member of yours were serving in a similar capacity on a similar board or position, would you tell them they shouldn’t do it because of the liability issue? Elias responded by saying that she would never tell them that. “If it was my sister in her town, I’d tell her to go for it, you should,” Elias said.

Committee member Jim Osborn ventured that another key issue is that the committee was not making policy, but rather just advising. Elias agreed: “Right. Somebody else is going to be making the decision. If someone messes up, it’s not going to be you guys.”

Committee Frank Burdick wanted to entertain the worst-case scenario – that the city was sued and lost. He wanted to know if the city paid the judgment. Elias told Burdick that the city’s policy is to indemnify, which is the legal term for paying a settlement. Elias also explained that the city has a policy that as long as an individual is cooperative – which did not mean someone has to agree with the city’s final position – the city will represent a committee member.

Elias said the city had experienced a couple of situations where employees didn’t respond to emails, they were supposed to show up for depositions in the discovery process and refused to show up, or refused to talk to the attorney. At that point, that’s not cooperation, Elias said. Elias also said that the city’s representation did not depend on how someone voted on the committee. Whether the recommendation is unanimous or not doesn’t make anyone ineligible for representation, if the group as a whole were sued, Elias said.

Burdick asked for Elias’ assurance in writing, saying that right now it’s just a verbal and emailed assurance. Houk observed that Elias’ remarks would be part of the minutes of the meeting. Elias indicated that her email was in writing. Elias also said that in terms of the city’s policy on indemnification, variations of it are worked into the city’s collective bargaining agreements.

Caruso thanked Elias for coming to talk to the committee. He said he didn’t think there was much standing for someone to threaten this committee with a lawsuit. He thought it was unfortunate that the threat was made, and even more unfortunate that people gave it credibility. Caruso thought it’s important that if people want to join in and help find viable solutions, they’re not threatened with lawsuits.

Legal Backup Issues: Unconstitutional Takings

In addition to the indemnification of the citizens committee, the other legal issue Elias addressed at the Jan. 9 meeting was the question of whether the city’s footing drain disconnection program is an unconstitutional taking of private property by the government.

One aspect of the unconstitutional takings legal theory, in broad strokes, is that the city is occupying space in a homeowner’s basement with sump pump equipment without compensation or due process for such an occupation. The theory is based in part on the Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. et al U.S. Supreme Court case, which found that a required installation of cable wiring amounted to an unconstitutional taking. An email from Irv Mermelstein on Oct. 29, 2013 – sent to facilitator Charlie Fleetham and others – lays out some aspects of his legal arguments in more detail.

In a Nov. 25, 2013 memo, Elias responded to the arguments made by Mermelstein, which are based in part on the idea that the city’s program amounts to an unconstitutional taking of private property by the government.

At the Jan. 9 meeting, Elias explained the notion of “taking” by telling the committee that under the U.S. Constitution, a government cannot take private property without compensation. [It's specifically the Fifth Amendment that guarantees that right.] Elias told the committee: “If I condemn your land because I need to run a street through it, I have to pay you for that land.”

In the case of a water main easement, she said, the city might not need to pay for the use of the land – because the resident is getting water from the water main. The resident will say: Go ahead and take that part of the property you need to install the water main, and I’m not going to make you pay for it, because now I finally get water.

Elias also explained that a regulatory taking – which would prevent someone from being able to use their property – could also be unconstitutional. She described a case where a city required commercial property owners to contribute part of their land to a greenway along the riverfront. The regulatory requirement prevented the beneficial use of the commercial property along the riverfront of that city, she said. And even though the city had a good reason for it, the amount of land that was required to put into the greenway prevented property owners from being able to use their property. And that was considered a regulatory taking, she said.

Legal Backup Issues: Unconstitutional Takings – Pump Ownership

Elias began her explication of the legal framework for city’s footing drain disconnection (FDD) program by saying that the situation is “very, very different” from the Loretto case. Elias described how, when the Loretto case was decided, everybody said: Oh my goodness, they’re talking about a couple of inches on the side of a building! That couple of inches was considered a taking because New York City had required building owners to allow the local cable provider to attach its antennas to the building so that the tenants could get service – whether the landlord wanted it or not. The court in the Loretto case said that the requirement of allowing installation of cable equipment might be for a public purpose, but it involved a third party occupying space with its equipment – and that’s not allowed because that’s a taking.

In the Loretto case, if the ordinance had required landlords to provide cable installations, or if the landlord owned the equipment, it would have been decided differently, Elias said. In the Loretto case, the cable company – not the landlord – still owned the equipment. If you consider the sump pumps in the city’s FDD program, they are owned by the homeowner, Elias said. The sump pumps are not a part of the city’s system. The pumps become part of the property owner’s house. The fact that the Loretto case was a physical occupation by a third party was what made the difference – tipping Loretto over the edge to being analyzed as a taking that was prohibited.

Responding to an emailed query from The Chronicle about the ownership of the pumps, Elias wrote that the homeowner becomes the owner of the pump at the point when it’s installed and the work is accepted by the homeowner [Jan. 9, 2014 email exchange]:

Question: It was reiterated at the Jan. 9 meeting that a key difference between the city’s FDD program and the set of facts in the Loretto case involves the ownership of the installed equipment. From a legal perspective at what specific point in the transaction does the Ann Arbor homeowner become the owner of the FDD equipment?

Elias: The property owner owns the sump pump and lead lines as soon as they are installed and the property owner accepts the work done by the plumbing contractor with whom the property owner contracted to do the work. Except as inventory for the plumbing contractor, they are never owned by anyone else.

Committee member Frank Burdick noted that Elias was stressing the fact that the Loretto case involved third-party ownership of the equipment. In the case of the city’s FDD program, Burdick said, the sump pumps are owned by the homeowner, so it’s not third-party ownership. But Burdick told Elias: “It just doesn’t stand up for me very well, that the city makes it mandatory that the homeowner has one of [the pumps] installed, the city pays for it, but then you say … that it belongs to the homeowner.”

Legal Backup Issues: Unconstitutional Takings – Power to Compel

Elias responded to the part of Burdick’s comment about the mandatory nature of the city’s FDD program by pointing out an amendment that had been made [in 2002, a year after the city's FDD ordinance was enacted] to Michigan’s Home Rule City act. It says you can require property owners to separate footing drains from the sanitary sewer. From the amended statute:

117.5j Sewer separation; authorization; ordinance; special assessment.
Sec. 5j. A city, in order to protect the public health, may adopt an ordinance to provide for the separation of storm water drainage and footing drains from sanitary sewers on privately owned property. The legislative body of a city may determine that the sewer separation authorized by this section is for a public purpose and is a public improvement and may also determine that the whole or any part of the expense of these public improvements may be defrayed by special assessment upon lands benefited by the public improvement or by any other lawful charge. A special assessment authorized by this section shall be considered to benefit only lands where the separation of storm water drainage and footing drains from sanitary sewers occurs.

Elias pointed out that the amended statute also says a city can impose a charge on those who benefit, and can even impose the cost only on the homeowners who benefit from the separation. About the city’s FDD program, Elias said: “So we could make the homeowners pay.” But she said the policymakers in Ann Arbor didn’t think that making property owners pay was the right way to do it, and the policymakers’ choice was to fund the program.

Legal Backup Issues: Unconstitutional Takings – Retro Compliance, Health, Safety, Welfare

Elias also noted that some people had raised the issue about requiring retroactive compliance with building codes. Houses built to code, say in 1967, were allowed to have footing drain connections to the sanitary sewer. The current building code disallows such connections. But how is it that a requirement can be imposed retroactively to bring a building up to current code?

Elias said that a lot of the Loretto case actually talked about how governments can impose regulations for health, safety and welfare that are reasonable and that are not takings. She said the courts distinguish exercising police powers – which are for health, safety and welfare of the community and its residents – from takings by a third party by occupying somebody’s property. The health, safety and welfare argument is based at least in part on the risk of sanitary sewer overflows into the Huron River.

There was a case after Loretto where asbestos abatement was required if there was renovation of the property, Elias said. The person who sued said: Wait a second, my property was in compliance with the code when it was built, so why are you making me do retroactively the asbestos abatement that I wasn’t required to do before? And the court said that case had nothing to do with Loretto, Elias said. Rather, the asbestos abatement was legitimate regulation for public heath, safety and welfare that is not a taking.

Elias said about 6,600 cases have mentioned Loretto since the opinion had come out [in 1982]. She had looked at the cases in Michigan where Loretto had been referenced. And Elias said she’d found nothing that says that requiring residents to bring a building into compliance with a building code would be considered a taking.

Courts that have looked at retroactive application of building codes, Elias said, look at a couple of things: (1) Is there a public safety, health and welfare reason for doing it? and (2) Is it an overwhelming or undue burden on the property owner?

Elias said referenced a 1946 case, which she said was still good law after Loretto, that said the extraordinary cost of a retrofit was not a reason not to do it. She allowed that she’d found one case out of Ohio – a trial court decision, not a court of appeals decision – where a city that was requiring disconnects was making residents pay the cost of the disconnects. And for one elderly woman who was on a fixed income, her cost was something like $30,000 – because she had to build a line down to the road in order to do the disconnect. And on that one instance, the court had said that given the inordinate burden on that individual, the disconnection requirement was not legitimate as applied to that individual.

By way of background, the kind of case that might see litigation in Ann Arbor could stem from the city’s FDD program as applied to specific individuals. The website a2underwater.org describes a participant in the FDD program, Mrs. Y, who has limited financial resources for maintaining the sump pump system, is elderly, and has physical disabilities preventing her from easily accessing the location of the crawl-space sump pump.

Committee member Frank Burdick implicitly challenged the welfare part of the health, safety and welfare argument by questioning whether a sump with a pump adds value to a house. If he has the same floor plan as his neighbor, but his neighbor has an FDD sump pump and the neighbor’s basement now continually floods – because the pump has failed or there is water that was never there before – then Burdick’s house has more value than his neighbor’s, Burdick said. His neighbor has to disclose that when he tries to sell his house.

Elias responded by saying if the sump pump is working properly, it’s going to help prevent sanitary sewer backups. If stormwater is getting into the house through the sump, that at least is clean water, she said. It’s still wet, Elias allowed, but it’s not unsanitary in the way it would be if water were backing up through the sanitary system.

Legal Backup Issues: Unconstitutional Takings – Developer Offset Mitigation Program

At the conclusion of the Jan. 9 meeting, during the time allotted for public commentary, Cy Hufano addressed the committee.

[Hufano is a resident of Sloan Plaza, which is just to the east of 413 E. Huron – a 14-story, 216-apartment building at the northeast corner of Huron and Division that's currently in the beginning phases of construction. The project was controversial but eventually won approval on a 6-5 city council vote. As part of the developer mitigation offset program, the 413 E. Huron project is required to complete the equivalent of 59 FDDs.]

Hufano told the committee that they needed to make clear to themselves why developers have a responsibility to mitigate their additional burden on the sanitary system. “I think you should know that,” he said. “Who mandates that they have to mitigate?” Hufano noted that the 413 E. Huron project required the equivalent of 59 FDDs. His understanding was that the University of Michigan stadium renovation also required FDDs. Hufano wanted to know: Is the city of Ann Arbor involved in FDDP with developers? His perception was that the FDD program exists to support developers, at the expense of citizens.

By way of additional background, the perception that the FDD program now exists to support developers is partly due to the fact that the city has now completed nearly three times the number of FDDs that were required under the 2003 MDEQ consent order. So it might be argued that the risks to health, safety and welfare that led the MDEQ to seek that agreement with the city have been addressed through FDD activity up to now. Part of the goal of the current wet weather study is to assess accurately the current risk of sanitary sewer overflows – that is, to assess the current level of risk to health, safety and welfare posed by footing drain connections.

It’s not absolutely clear if it’s legally possible to have a requirement that developers mitigate their additional load on the sanitary system without having an FDD ordinance in place. That’s a question posed by The Chronicle to Elias via email:

Question: The Administrative Consent Order with the MDEQ, which was authorized in 2003, requires implementation of an offset mitigation program – but it does not appear necessarily to require a local ordinance to be in place involving FDDs. Is that a fair statement? From a legal point of view (without regard to the practicalities), wouldn’t it possible to require developers to mitigate their new sanitary flows by convincing residents through direct financial negotiation to disconnect their footing drains from the sanitary system – without an FDD ordinance in place?

Elias: From a practical standpoint, if the only issue were to achieve zero (or a modest improvement over zero) impact from new development, then the developer offset mitigation program would serve that purpose – if developers chose to do residential FDDs instead of other possible mitigation measures. However, the overflows that resulted in the ACO were from existing conditions, and it was those existing conditions that needed to be addressed to try to prevent future overflows. Similarly, the sewer backups experienced by property owners in 1998 and 2000 were due to existing conditions and, as with the overflows, it was those existing conditions that needed to be addressed.

Requiring a developer to mitigate beyond mitigation of the new flow their development is contributing (plus 20%) would be inconsistent with the concept of developer offset mitigation. More important, the volume of flow to be removed by the number of FDDs mandated by the ACO within the amount of time mandated by the ACO would have imposed on developers an arguably substantial burden, not necessarily related to their development. The developer offset mitigation program serves to prevent new developments from undermining the removal of flow that is being accomplished by the FDD program. The FDD program operates separately from the Developer Offset Mitigation Program – even though a decision to perform FDDs for residents who agree is an option and commonly used by developers to comply with the mitigation requirements.

While the ACO did not mandate an ordinance, (1) the FDD ordinance was already in place, (2) an FDD ordinance was required to provide the ability for the City to enforce the program requirements, and (3) an ordinance also helps to make sure the FDD program requirements were spelled out clearly so that it is understood, in addition to being managed and applied uniformly and consistently. Adoption of the ordinance also meant it was subject to City Council review and approval through the usual ordinance approval process, including public input at the public hearing on the ordinance in addition to the input from the SSO Task Force.

Legal Backup Issues: Unconstitutional Takings – Specific Prior Case Law?

Committee member Joe Conen asked Elias if she was aware of any cases where a sump pump had to be installed, and then that issue was tried and judged – and where the installation was upheld or overturned. Elias referred the committee to her written memo. [The memo does not appear to cite any cases where an analysis of an FDD program as an unconstitutional taking was specifically presented to and ruled on by a court.]

Elias said that one of the cases was heard by John Feikens, a federal judge in Detroit, who managed the litigation of the Detroit Water and Sewerage System. The case that came before Feikens dealt with issues that had to do with cost, but not with legality of the disconnection that was required. Elias ventured that Feikens would not have hesitated to strike something down that was unlawful. [City attorney Stephen Postema once clerked for Feikens.]

Elias’ favorite case from those described in her memo, she said – partly because she thought the judge had a bit of a sense of humor – was Magnuson v. City of Hickory Hills in Illinois. [The judge's sense of humor is reflected in this quip from the opinion: "It didn't matter much to Noah, but Hickory Hills, Illinois, cares very much where the water goes." The reference is to the biblical Noah who built an ark in advance of a flood that resulted from 40 days and 40 nights of rainfall, not to Noah Hall, an environmental law professor at Wayne State University.]

In the Magnusun case, Elias said, the court did find that using water service is directly related to discharge to the sanitary system, so it’s a perfectly legitimate consequence for refusing to comply with the footing drain disconnection requirements that the water service to a house could be shut off.

The current citizens advisory committee is expected to submit its recommendations to the city council when the study concludes. The final study report is due in July of 2014.

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of municipal topics like sanitary sewer pipes. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already helping The Chronicle sift through the sewage, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

Aerial view of Germain Motors site, outlined in green. South State Street is on the left (west) side of this property. Expansion is proposed for the two smaller buildings on the north and center of the site that fronts South State.

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

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

The owner also wants a variance from Chapter 62 (landscaping) to eliminate the requirement for interior landscape islands in the car inventory and display areas.

The total expansion is estimated to cost $5.5 million. In a staff memo, city planners called the project an upgrade to the appearance of the site, but also cited several concerns.

The work would result in the loss of three out of four landmark trees on the property, to be mitigated by planting 11 additional trees. City staff were concerned by that reduction in landmark trees, as well as by the proposed request for planting fewer interior landscaping trees. Another concern was the additional amount of impervious surface that would be created by this expansion.

That was also an issue cited by the Malletts Creek coordinating committee, a group that includes representatives from the city, the office of the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, the Huron River Watershed Council, and Pittsfield Township. That committee, which is focused on improving the condition of the Malletts Creek watershed, felt that a variance might be justified or mitigated only if the project included offsetting stormwater management on the site – such as green roofs, sand filters, or other low-impact development techniques.

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers at city hall, where the planning commission holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

From left: Bill Higgins, Harry Sheehan and Mike Anglin, a Ward 5 Ann Arbor city councilmember. Sheehan is environmental manager with the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner, and gave an update on the Upper Malletts Creek stormwater management project. Higgins lives in the neighborhood that’s the focus of the project. (Photos by the writer.)

The report of the downtown parks subcommittee includes several broad recommendations based on feedback gathered over the past few months, with an emphasis on “placemaking” principles that include active use, visibility and safety. The most specific recommendation calls for developing a park or open space on top of the city-owned Library Lot underground parking structure, adjacent to the downtown library.

A park at that location should exceed 5,000 square feet, according to the report, and connect to Library Lane, a small mid-block cut-through that runs north of the library between Fifth and Division. That connection offers flexibility, because the lane can be closed off for events to temporarily increase the size of a park or open space at that location.

Commissioners discussed and made some minor amendments to the subcommittee’s recommendations, which they then unanimously voted to approve. Most of the discussion focused on the Library Lot site. The recommendations will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Also on Oct. 15, Harry Sheehan briefed PAC about how a stormwater management project for Upper Malletts Creek might impact three city parks: Eisenhower, Churchill Downs and Lawton. The project, overseen by the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner, is still in the planning phase. It’s intended to help control flooding in a neighborhood that’s roughly bounded by I-94, Scio Church Road and Ann Arbor-Saline Road, on the city’s southwest side.

Park planner Amy Kuras updated commissioners on capital projects throughout the parks system, highlighting projects that were completed this summer as well as work that’s ongoing, like construction of the Ann Arbor skatepark.

Missy Stults, PAC’s representative on the city’s environmental commission, reported that the commission has developed a work plan with strategies that are mostly tied to the city’s sustainability framework and climate action plan. For example, the plan includes work to promote re-useable water bottles and to discourage the use of plastic water bottles. One idea is to develop an app that would show people where to get public water, including water fountains in city parks. Tying in with that work plan item, Colin Smith – the city’s parks and recreation manager – reported said the city is looking to replace several water fountains at parks and recreation facilities with fountains that indicate how many plastic bottles have been saved by people using the water fountains. He noted that similar fountains are used at the University of Michigan.

Oct. 15 was the final meeting for Julie Grand, who is term limited after serving six years on PAC. Grand, who served on the downtown parks subcommittee, thanked commissioners for passing the recommendations, saying “it’s a great way to go out.”

Downtown Parks Recommendation

A group that’s been meeting since early 2013 – to explore the possibilities for a new downtown park – delivered a set of recommendations at the Oct. 15 meeting. [.pdf of 21-page full subcommittee report]

Ingrid Ault, who chaired the downtown parks subcommittee, began the presentation by reviewing the genesis of this effort. This subcommittee – Ault, Julie Grand, Alan Jackson and Karen Levin – has been meeting regularly since early February. Their work relates in part to a request that mayor John Hieftje made last summer. It’s also meant to supplement the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s Connecting William Street project. Ault noted that the city’s parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan also identified a desire for downtown open space.

The subcommittee’s work was guided by this mission statement:

To determine whether and what additional parks are wanted and/or needed in downtown Ann Arbor, focusing on city-owned parcels in the DDA district while maintaining awareness of additional nearby properties, for example: Liberty Plaza, 721 N. Main and 415 W. Washington. The “deliverable” will be a set of recommendations for the City Council.

In addition to conducting research, inventorying existing downtown and near-downtown parks, and holding focus groups and public forums, some subcommittee members also attended a “placemaking” seminar in Lansing, held by the Michigan Parks & Recreation Association.

Ingrid Ault, chair of the park advisory commission, also chaired PAC’s downtown parks subcommittee.

Ault said that placemaking principles helped guide the recommendations. Examples she cited include places that have surrounding “active uses” with high pedestrian traffic and good visibility, places that promote activities that the community desires, and that are easily accessible and flexible. Spaces also need to feel safe and comfortable, she said.

Julie Grand continued the presentation, reviewing results of a survey conducted by the subcommittee that yielded more than 1,600 responses. [.pdf of 110-page downtown park survey results] The subcommittee recommendations were based in part on that feedback. Grand noted that most respondents lived in the 48103 zip code area, which might reflect proximity to the downtown or that residents there just like to take surveys, she quipped.

The eight recommendations are wide-ranging, but include a site-specific recommendation to develop a new park/open space area on the top of the Library Lot underground parking structure. Now a surface parking lot, the site is owned by the city and is situated just north of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown building. The recommendation calls for only a portion of the site to be used for a new park/open space, and stresses that AADL should be involved in the planning process.

The subcommittee’s eight recommendations, as amended during the meeting, are as follows [added text in italics, deletions in strike-through]:

1. The development of any new downtown park or open space should prioritize community preferences. The most commonly expressed community-based priorities include: a central location; sufficient size for passive recreation/community gatherings; shade; and natural features.

2. New downtown parks and open space should adhere to placemaking principles. Necessary criteria for a successful downtown open space include: high traffic/visibility; flexible programmable space; active use on at least three sides; the ability to provide activities desired by the community; and funding for maintenance and security.

3. Any new downtown park should enliven the downtown, complement existing parks and development, and serve the community desire for a central gathering space.

4. Any additional downtown park space should not come at the expense of the quality or maintenance of Ann Arbor’s existing parks. Downtown parks are expected to be more costly to develop and maintain. Further, existing downtown parks are not currently utilized to their potential. Given the limits of current parks funding, the development of new parks should not be approved without an identified funding source for capital development, ongoing maintenance, and programming.

5. Significant capital/structural improvements to Liberty Plaza should only be made in concert with the adjacent property owner. Short-term efforts should continue to focus on smaller-scale incremental changes (removal of shrubbery) and programming opportunities (fee waiver). Future improvements should also work to create a permanent and highly visible connection between the Library Lot and Liberty Plaza.

6. The downtown could benefit from the addition of small “pocket” parks and flexible spaces. The City should work with potential developers of city-owned properties to identify opportunities, create, and maintain privately funded, but publicly accessible open spaces. (e.g., the Y and Kline lots). As a part of this effort, staff should develop recommendations for how development contributions can better serve to provide and improve downtown passive recreational opportunities, including proposals such as flex space (parklets), streetscape improvements, and public art.

7. The public process for downtown parks and open space does not end with these recommendations. Any additional park/open space would require robust public input regarding the design, features, and proposed activities.

8. Based on the aforementioned criteria, the Downtown Parks Subcommittee recommends that a park/open space be developed on the Library Lot that takes advantage of the flexibility offered through temporary closures of Library Lane. The size of this space should exceed the proposed allocated open space in the Connecting William Street study (5,000 square feet). However, the subcommittee is strongly in favor of a mixed-use vision for the Library Lot that utilizes the city’s investment in development-ready foundation and infrastructure. Adjacent Development of the site and adjacent parcels, including the accompanying increases in activity, is essential for the future success of this site additional downtown open space. In order to adequately address issues of safety and security, the Ann Arbor District Library must also be strongly represented in the planning process.

The Library Green Conservancy has been advocating for a park atop the Library Lot, but conservancy members envision a much larger footprint than the one proposed by the Connecting William Street report. During deliberations on Oct. 15, it emerged that the subcommittee hoped for more than the minimum size of 5,000 square feet that was mentioned for a park or open space on that site in the Connecting William Street report.

The subcommittee’s report also described the input received from several groups that gave feedback about possible downtown parks, including from Library Green Conservancy members and officials of the Ann Arbor District Library. The AADL’s downtown building is adjacent to the Library Lot. From the report:

The AADL representatives shared issues they have experienced with security, drugs, and loitering both inside and outside of the downtown library branch. They shared that they employ four full time security guards to deal with these issues, and have concerns about adding a large public open space outside of their building. Although in concept a park sounds like it would complement the library and its programs, without continuous security, high level of maintenance and continuous programming, there was concern that the space would create another venue for the behavioral issues they experience on a daily basis at the library and at Liberty Plaza.

For additional background, see Chronicle coverage: “Parks Group To Weigh In On Downtown Need,” “Committee Starts Downtown Parks Research,” “Survey Drafted for Downtown Parks,” as well as coverage included in the PAC meeting reports for March 19, 2013 and May 21, 2013.

Downtown Park Recommendation: Commission Discussion – Library Lot

Christopher Taylor, an ex officio, non-voting member of PAC who serves on the city council, kicked off the discussion by asking about the Library Lot recommendation. He asked whether the proposal includes Fifth Avenue access to the parcel. Julie Grand replied that she intentionally made that recommendation vague. In writing up the recommendations, she didn’t feel comfortable making it more specific, because she felt there should be a conversation about it at PAC. She noted that in the Connecting William Street plan, there’s the idea of potentially opening up any open space on Library Lot more on the Fifth Avenue side.

Christopher Taylor, an Ann Arbor city councilmember and ex officio member of the park advisory commission.

Taylor pointed out that there’s always been open space anticipated in the plan for the top of the Library Lot, and that the heavy foundation of the underground parking structure was created with the idea that part of the surface would be open space, as well as development that would have access to Fifth Avenue from the north side of the Library Lot parcel. He asked whether that plan is consistent with the subcommittee’s recommendations.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, read a related recommendation for the Library Lot site in the Connecting William Street plan: “Must have a plaza/open space on site. (Minimally, develop the 5,000-square-foot intended plaza/park space.) Could expand plaza space north along Fifth Avenue (up to 12,000 sq. ft.) at the developer’s/City’s discretion.” [.pdf of Connecting William Street report]

Smith said that as a departure point for PAC’s discussion about size, the subcommittee felt it should be no smaller than 5,000 square feet. Beyond that, it’s worth discussion by PAC, he said.

Grand noted that the most important point was that any open space should connect to Library Lane, so that the lane could be temporarily closed off and used as flexible space for events.

Alan Jackson said the subcommittee didn’t want to constrain the creativity that might occur later in terms of how the site is developed. Nor did they have the ability to assess things like the structural limitations of the site, he noted. The subcommittee’s intent is to identify the kind of open space that is needed, and the general size, he said.

Karen Levin emphasized that the subcommittee’s task was to look at all of the potential downtown open spaces. Most of the other spaces had greater limitations, and that’s why the subcommittee decided that the Library Lot was the best site in terms of placemaking principles. The next step would be to design the open space, “which was not our task,” she said.

Taylor asked subcommittee members to talk about placemaking principles as applied to the current built environment around the Library Lot.

Ault replied that there are already some best practices in place. The Ann Arbor District Library, for example, already draws over 600,000 visitors to that location – adjacent to the Library Lot – every year, “so that’s huge,” she said. But placemaking principles would call for having eyes on a park at that location 24/7, she added, and for having a reason to stop and use the space rather than traveling through it. That’s the part that’s critical, but not currently in place, she said. There’s a bus station across the street, and two restaurants – Earthen Jar and Jerusalem Garden – nearby. But neither of those restaurants face the Library Lot, she noted, and they are separated by an alley.

Colin Smith, Ann Arbor’s parks and recreation manager.

Smith added that the majority of buildings and businesses that surround the Library Lot currently face away from that site, not toward it. Grand added that urban open space is different from neighborhood parks, and successful open space includes things like having at least three sides of active use facing the space. Right now, she added, the Library Lot has zero active sides. If placemaking principles aren’t part of designing an urban park or open space, then it can actually detract from the downtown experience, she said, rather than enhance it.

In terms of developing the Library Lot site, Jackson stressed that a key feature should be to have the development relate to the open space on the site. Mike Anglin recalled that when the city was deciding where to locate a new courts and police facility, the Library Lot site was considered. But opponents argued that having a municipal facility there would create dead space at night, he said. [The Justice Center was eventually built next to city hall, at Fifth and Huron.]

Now, Anglin said, the Library Lot area is pretty active at night. He was encouraged that the subcommittee recommended the Library Lot for a new park or open space. He said the parks millage and the library millage “go hand in hand – we love both of them.” Last year, the library “took a really bad hit,” he said – a reference to the failed bond proposal that would have funded a new downtown library.

Now, Anglin said, the library can work with the city in helping design the Library Lot space.

Taylor said what he’s heard is that placemaking principles would recommend three sides of active use, but this location has none. Also, his understanding was that “material development” on the site and adjacent to the site is critical for the success of any open space at this location.

Smith affirmed Taylor’s understanding, saying that those sentiments are expressed in recommendation (8). The subcommittee wants to see open space on the Library Lot site, but the property needs to be developed to some level before that space will be successful. An opportunity might exist to include language in any development agreement about including open space, as well as long-term care of it, Smith said.

Downtown Park Recommendation: Commission Discussion – Liberty Plaza

Missy Stults asked about recommendation (4), which indicated that existing downtown parks aren’t currently used to their maximum potential. She wondered whether the subcommittee had discussed how to remedy that.

Ingrid Ault replied that the subcommittee had discussed the issue, and had specifically looked at Liberty Plaza, located at the southwest corner of Liberty and Division. Some improvements have already been made, she noted, such as removing tall shrubbery to increase visibility, and installing a sensory garden. The activation of the space is important, with the Bank of Ann Arbor’s Sonic Lunch being a “perfect example” of that, Ault said. The fee waiver for using Liberty Plaza – which was recommended by PAC at its June 18, 2013 meeting, and subsequently approved by council – is another way the city is trying to improve the space, she added.

Map from PAC’s subcommittee report showing locations of sites that were examined as possible new downtown parks.

Colin Smith noted that the general recommendations of the subcommittee are a good departure point for activities that PAC will be undertaking in the future. That includes developing recommendations for the budget, he said. A recurring theme is that to make spaces successful, it requires programming – and that requires people and effort. “It doesn’t just happen,” Smith said.

Karen Levin noted that one of the positives for putting a new park or open space on the Library Lot is that potential exists for a connection to Liberty Plaza. Ault pointed out that the Kempf House Museum is also in that area, adjacent to Liberty Plaza.

Bob Galardi said he didn’t think the city has yet realized the full potential of the fee waiver. No one has yet approached the city to put in a month-long art installation, for example. That fee waiver is something in the offing to help the plaza, he said. Smith noted that a musician had reserved the plaza for a performance recently, using the fee waiver.

Stults reported that the environmental commission’s work plan includes a recommendation to work with neighborhoods, as something that’s critical for building more resilient, stable communities. All neighborhoods have parks, so there’s a very interesting connection to be made, she said. Stults plans to make a budget recommendation to fund a park programmer, to make sure that all neighborhood parks are activated in a way that builds community and a sense of place.

Downtown Park Recommendation: Commission Discussion – Amendments

At the suggestion of Christopher Taylor, one change was made to the second recommendation – adding the word “necessary”:

2. New downtown parks and open space should adhere to placemaking principles. Necessary criteria for a successful downtown open space include: high traffic/visibility; flexible programmable space; active use on at least three sides; the ability to provide activities desired by the community; and funding for maintenance and security.

All other changes focused on the final recommendation (8) about the specific Library Lot site. The original recommendation stated:

8. Based on the aforementioned criteria, the Downtown Parks Subcommittee recommends that a park/open space be developed on the Library Lot that takes advantage of the flexibility offered through temporary closures of Library Lane. The size of this space should exceed the proposed allocated open space in the Connecting William Street study. However, the subcommittee is strongly in favor of a mixed-use vision for the Library Lot. Adjacent development, including the accompanying increases in activity, is essential for the future success of additional downtown open space. In order to adequately address issues of safety and security, the Ann Arbor District Library must also be strongly represented in the planning process.

Taylor pressed to include language that acknowledged the need for development on the Library Lot, not just on adjacent sites. He also suggested adding the word “density” to the phrase “accompanying increases in activity” so that it would read “accompanying increases in activity and density.”

Alan Jackson wasn’t sure the word “density” captured what the subcommittee intended. Taylor described the word as a proxy for “more people doing more things” downtown, and he thought it was consistent with what the subcommittee was recommending. However, there was little enthusiasm among commissioners for adding the word, with the sense that it was restrictive because it typically refers to residential development.

Ann Arbor park advisory commissioner Bob Galardi.

Julie Grand said the subcommittee recognized the need for development on that space in order to activate the area. They also didn’t want to ignore the real investment in infrastructure that had been made to support a building on the Library Lot site, she said. “I think those are two very strong reasons to support development on it,” she added.

Bob Galardi didn’t want the recommendations to go forward without including a mention of development. If something isn’t built on that site that faces the open space area, “that is a real problem, at least for me,” he said. The library will draw people past the site, he noted, but a mixed-use development could draw people into the space.

There was some discussion about the size of the open space, with consensus that it should exceed the minimum 5,000 square feet that was recommended in the Connecting William Street report. By way of comparison, Smith reported that Liberty Plaza is nearly 12,000 square feet, while Sculpture Plaza is slightly smaller than 5,000 square feet. Beyond indicating a desire to exceed a minimum amount of space, Smith didn’t think it was necessary to make a specific size recommendation. What really matters is the quality of the design, he said.

Taylor made some suggestions for changes, including a mention of the city’s investment in infrastructure and adding a reference to density. He noted that as an ex officio non-voting member of PAC, he was not in a position to move amendments himself.

After additional back-and-forth about possible wording, commissioners ultimately agreed to several friendly amendments in the eighth recommendation [added text in italics, deletions in strike-through]:

8. Based on the aforementioned criteria, the Downtown Parks Subcommittee recommends that a park/open space be developed on the Library Lot that takes advantage of the flexibility offered through temporary closures of Library Lane. The size of this space should exceed the proposed allocated open space in the Connecting William Street study (5,000 square feet). However, the subcommittee is strongly in favor of a mixed-use vision for the Library Lot that utilizes the city’s investment in development-ready foundation and infrastructure. Adjacent Development of the site and adjacent parcels, including the accompanying increases in activity, is essential for the future success of this site additional downtown open space. In order to adequately address issues of safety and security, the Ann Arbor District Library must also be strongly represented in the planning process.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the downtown parks subcommittee report and recommendations, as amended. It will be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

Upper Mallets Creek Project

Harry Sheehan – environmental manager with the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner – briefed commissioners about how a broad stormwater management project for Upper Malletts Creek might impact three city parks: Eisenhower, Churchill Downs and Lawton.

After the March 15, 2012 major storm in this region, he said, coupled with chronic flooding problems in this neighborhood, the water resources commissioner’s office – in partnership with the city of Ann Arbor – began to look at potential stormwater management solutions. The area is roughly bounded by I-94, Scio Church Road, and Ann Arbor-Saline Road, on the city’s southwest side.

The Upper Malletts Stormwater Conveyance Study has tentatively identified three major projects to help manage stormwater and control flooding. Two of those projects would affect local parks:

• Building two stormwater detention basins along the north and south ends of Eisenhower and Churchill Downs parks, which are connected. These basins – covering about 2.5 acres – would help manage the stormwater flow from the north along Scio Church Road and from the drainage area west of I-94. (Eisenhower Park is located along I-94, just south of Scio Church Road. Churchill Downs Park is a 1.18-acre neighborhood park located between a residential area and I-94.) Estimated cost: $1.7 million.
• Building a large underground detention basin at the north end of Lawton Park, which is located on Mershon between Delaware and Scio Church. The basin would manage storm flows from both north and south of Scio Church. Existing park amenities – including the baseball/softball diamond – would be replaced and upgraded. Estimated cost: $4.125 million

A third project, which would not involve a city park, entails building a detention basin north of Scio Church Road and east of Seventh Street, on property south of Pioneer High School that’s owned by the Ann Arbor Public Schools. That piece would cost an estimated $1 million and cover about 2.8 acres.

The total project would cost about $10 million, Sheehan said – $2 million for design and $8 million for construction.

In the animated .gif below, which loops continuously, the first frame indicates in black the March 15, 2012 flooded areas. The next three frames show the modeled cumulative effect of adding each of the proposed stormwater detention facilities. That is, the maps show what the flooding would have been like, if the proposed stormwater detention facilities had been in place on March 15, 2012.

Maps by Spicer Group, the engineering consultant for the upper Mallets Creek stormwater study. Scans and animation by The Chronicle.

The overall project would require city council approval, and it’s not yet clear when a proposal will be brought forward. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, characterized Sheehan’s presentation to PAC as informational, given the potential impact on some parks. When funding is secured, the commission would be briefed on a more detailed plan and would be asked for a recommendation to be forwarded to the city council.

For additional background on stormwater management in this area, as well as related issues, see Chronicle coverage: “Sidewalks: Repair, Build, Shovel.”

Sheehan told commissioners that at public meetings held about the project, residents seemed generally positive. Amy Kuras, the city’s park planner who attended the most recent forum, said she had expected it to be a contentious meeting. People generally were relieved to see someone there from the city’s parks staff, she said, and generally it was a positive meeting.

Upper Mallets Creek Project: Commission Discussion

Missy Stults asked if the project is looking at projections for future storm events, to make sure that the stormwater management system will be able to handle the potential impact of climate change.

Harry Sheehan, environmental manager with the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner.

Harry Sheehan replied that the study entailed looking at several different storm events. In Ann Arbor, the March 2012 storm was extremely localized to this neighborhood. In contrast, earlier this year when there was heavy flooding along the Miller Avenue corridor, he’d driven down the Upper Malletts Creek neighborhood and it was fairly dry. The impact of climate change makes these storm events more intense over a shorter period of time, he noted.

What makes stormwater management more challenging is that the ground is generally saturated in the spring when these types of intense storms typically occur, Sheehan said, and there will likely be more of this due to global warming.

Julie Grand asked for more information about the impact on parks, noting that Lawton Park is located near an elementary school.

Amy Kuras reported that at Lawton Park, the biggest impact will be on the open field, which would be taken out of use during construction. Afterward, it won’t change the use of the park because it’s an underground detention basin.

At Churchill Downs Park, the paths, basketball court and playground would be removed for construction. However, Kuras said, those facilities are ready to be replaced anyway.

In response to a question from Graydon Krapohl, Sheehan explained that if approved, construction likely would happen in the fall of 2014 and finish up in the spring – but no specific year has yet been determined for the project. Kuras added that for the sports field, it would be seeded in the fall after construction, then probably reseeded again in the early spring.

Alan Jackson said he’d gone to one of the meetings, and that it would be helpful to show park commissioners where exactly these projects would occur in the parks. He agreed with the assessment that there seemed to be a lot of positive feedback from residents, though there were concerns about work that would be done in close proximity to Lawton Elementary.

Christopher Taylor asked about the cost, wondering how much of the $10 million is for the parks compared to stormwater, and whether grant funding might be available. Sheehan replied that the project would likely use two of the state funding sources that the county has used in the past for similar projects. The project would pay for any replacement due to disruption in the parks.

Kuras added that if the parks system wanted to do improvements that went beyond the replacement of existing parks facilities, then the city would pay for that.

Mike Anglin said he noticed that the Spicer Group did the analysis for this project. He wondered if Sheehan had records of where the major flooding has occurred, and how close that flooding is to the city’s parks. Sheehan replied that the office of the county’s water resources commissioner has compiled that information, but not necessarily in a readily searchable way.

Sheehan said the outcome of a stormwater calibration study that’s being done now would be useful in graphically representing previous flooding so that future improvements and the impact on reducing that flooding could be shown.

Anglin said he’s hearing that residents don’t want to report when there’s flooding in their homes, because that has financial implications regarding insurance, he noted. He wondered if there was a way of doing some kind of “secret recording” because it seems like the city needs the data. Sheehan told Anglin he’d get a response on that question from the city’s systems planning unit.

Anglin said he’d like to continue to look for possible land acquisition in the city’s watersheds, adding that the city should “buy them, as fast as we can.” The city can’t afford to keep doing projects like this stormwater management work, he said, nor can the city afford the drop in property values that results from people leaving the community because of potential flooding.

Praising Sheehan and others who’ve been working on this issue, Anglin said the city needs to get the word out that they’re working “aggressively” on the problem.

Taylor said he noticed that there doesn’t seem to be work planned for the area east of Seventh Street. He wondered if there are any plans for that neighborhood. Sheehan replied that they looked at that area, but when the analysis was done, doing stormwater detention in that area provided only very limited benefit. The project would require that pipe running underneath Seventh to be replaced, to create a clearer flow path for the water, Sheehan said, but that’s the only thing planned at this point.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Upper Mallets Creek Project: Public Commentary

At the end of the meeting, Bill Higgins addressed the commission during public commentary. He said he lived south of Scio Church Road, near Pioneer Woods and Greenview Park. Residents are concerned about the appearance of the woods after the work is done. He said he knows it’s not a city park, but somehow the school system needs to get involved in the design process. Scio Church Road is a “disaster,” he said, and now the city is putting money into it for sanitary sewer, water problems, sidewalks and gutters. [See Chronicle coverage: “Sidewalks: Repair, Build, Shovel.”]

Higgins wondered how many of the commissioners had visited Eisenhower Park, especially on the north side, which fronts Scio Church Road. People have to bypass the park and walk along the road to get to the bridge over I-94 – to get to the Ice Cube and Pittsfield branch library. That park could be enhanced and developed, and it would be good for the city to start looking at that possibility, he said. There could even be a small parking lot put in there, he said. Very little attention has ever been paid to people who live south of Scio Church Road, he noted. Higgins said he personally has “waterfront property” occasionally, so he’s very interested in the proposed impounds. Unless all of the impounds are built, “it won’t work,” he concluded.

Capital Projects Update

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, told commissioners that in the late fall or early winter, staff will typically give an update to PAC about projects that have been worked on during the construction season. On Oct. 15, the presentation was given by park planner Amy Kuras.

Highlights from her report:

• In Esch Park – a roughly 4.5-acre neighborhood park located near Packard Road – asphalt paths were replaced with concrete and a new pathway to the play area was constructed to provide barrier free access. The basketball court was reconfigured and replaced, landscaping was added, and several pieces of playground equipment were replaced.
• The first phase of a major renovation at Gallup Park‘s livery and dock area is finished. The second phase started on Labor Day and will continue until the weather gets bad. It will include entry road improvements and separating the service drive from the pedestrian path. The project is funded in part by a $300,000 state grant.
• Work is underway at the urban plaza next to the Forest Avenue parking structure in the South University area – known as “Transformer” Plaza, because there are several utility transformer boxes located there. As part of the site plan approval process for the Landmark and Zaragon II apartment complexes in that area, developers were asked to make donations to the parks system. That funding is being used to improve the plaza, Kuras said. The project – repaving the plaza with colored, patterned concrete – was done in conjunction with street improvements to Forest Avenue this summer.
• A major donation had been made to the city for landscaping in the parks, so that funding was spent to “spruce up” the entrances to several recreational facilities, Kuras said, including Bryant and Northside community center, the senior center near Burns Park, the ice arena at Buhr Park, the golf courses, and the rain garden at Gallup.
• Roofs were replaced at Mack pool and Veterans ice arena.
• Ballfields were renovated at West Park, Veterans Memorial Park, and Southeast Area Park.
• Work continues on the skatepark in the northwest corner of Veterans Memorial Park. Kuras described the partnership of the city, Washtenaw County parks & recreation, and the Friends of the Ann Arbor Skatepark, as well as funding from the state. Here’s a short video clip provided by the parks staff of workers recently applying “shotcrete” to one of the bowls.

Capital Projects Update: Commission Discussion

Alan Jackson asked whether the solar panels on the roof of the Veterans ice arena were re-used. Amy Kuras said she met with members of the city’s energy commission and energy staff, to try to figure out what to do with the panels. About a third to a half of the panels no longer function. In addition, the previous installation of the panels is believed to have contributed to the roof leakage, she said. So the staff will continue to work on that issue, but at this point the panels are being stored outside of the building.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, commended Kuras for her work on these projects, as well as other staff, including Jeff Straw, Matt Warba and Nicole Woodward.

Ingrid Ault said she’s been hearing “unbelievably positive” feedback from residents about these improvements, and it’s exciting to see.

Outcome: This was not a voting item.

Communications & Commentary

There were several opportunities for communications from staff or commissioners during the Aug. 20 meeting. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: Environmental Commission Work Plan

Missy Stults, PAC’s representative on the city’s environmental commission, reported that the commission has developed a work plan with about 10 strategies that are mostly tied to the city’s sustainability framework and climate action plan. [.pdf of environmental commission's work plan] The plan includes work to promote re-useable water bottles and to discourage the use of plastic water bottles. So the idea is to develop an app that would show people where to get public water, including water fountains in city parks. There’s also work to map the city’s vulnerability to climate change, she said, such as flooding.

From left: Park advisory commissioners Missy Stults and Karen Levin.

Stults also said there’s a community visioning process underway to understand what a resilient Ann Arbor would look like. It includes how the city would bounce back from events that impact residents, she noted, but also how the city can “bounce forward” and prepare for the future. This will be about an 18-24 month process. In a related item, she reported that the city council recently approved applying to be designated as one of 100 Resilient Cities by the Rockefeller Foundation.

There are also preliminary discussions about how to handle smoking in the city’s parks, Stults said. It was an issue that one of the city councilmembers who serves on the commission has raised, because it had been raised by constituents. [Two councilmembers – Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) serve on the environmental commission.]

The commission is also looking at recommending a resolution to the city council advocating to ban fracking in the city.

Tying in with the work plan item regarding water use, Colin Smith reported said the city is looking to replace several water fountains at parks and recreation facilities with f0untains that indicate how many plastic bottles have been saved by people using the fountain. He noted that the city took the idea from similar fountains used at the University of Michigan.

Mike Anglin, a Ward 5 city councilmember who serves as an ex-officio member of PAC, noted that councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) recently brought forward a resolution to the council regarding the Pall-Gelman 1,4 dioxane plume. He felt the environmental commission should always keep that situation in mind, even though it’s embarrassing to the city. You can’t control the weather, he said, but you can probably control this issue with sustained interest.

Anglin said “we’re about to replace a judge who has been responsible for the administration of this for years. He’s going to resign, and we have the chance to appoint a new judge, who may be assigned to this.” [Anglin seemed to be referring to Donald Shelton, chief judge of the Washtenaw County 22nd circuit court, who oversees a consent judgment between the state and Pall Corp. However, circuit court judges are elected, not appointed – unless they resign mid-term. Because of his age, Shelton will be ineligible for re-election when his term ends next year. The state constitution requires that judicial candidates at the time of election must be younger than 70 years old. However, Shelton has not indicated that he will be resigning before the end of his term.]

No one likes to hear that there’s something bad in the community that people should be paying attention to, Anglin said. But the fact is that a mature society faces these issues, he said. There’s a group that’s hoping to vet the judges who might handle this case, Anglin said. That will have an impact on the judge who will ultimately handle this, he added, “because once they’re in, you can’t vet them. You can’t say anything about cases that they’ll handle. But we have a lot to say now.”

Anglin indicated that it’s important to appoint a judge who’s an environmentalist and who’ll enforce regulations. “What we have to do is get a strong set of marching orders that everybody agrees to, from the governor down,” to look at best practices. He noted that the city of Ann Arbor handles 1,4 dioxane at the former landfill, located at Platt and Ellsworth. The technology to do this is available, he said.

Anglin hoped the Ann Arbor city council would appoint at least three councilmembers to an oversight group, including someone from Wards 1 and 5, which are the wards most affected by the Pall Gelman plume, he said. They could look at what can be done and how to move forward. That’s something the environmental commission can explore, he said.

Communications & Commentary: Dog Park Update

Karen Levin, chair of PAC’s dog park subcommittee, reported that the group has now held two public forums, with a lot of good feedback. The subcommittee will be using that feedback, along with survey responses, to continue evaluating possible sites for a new dog park. [.pdf of 306-page dog park survey results] [.xls file of dog park survey results]

Communications & Commentary: Manager’s Report

Parks and recreation manager Colin Smith noted that on Wednesday, Oct. 23 there will be an appreciation potluck for volunteers of the city’s natural area preservation program. It will be held at Cobblestone Farm at 2781 Packard Road from 6:30-9:30 p.m.

Communications & Commentary: Farewell to Julie Grand

The Oct. 15 meeting was the last one for Julie Grand, PAC’s former chair who is term limited after serving six years. Ingrid Ault, who was elected chair to replace Grand at PAC’s Sept. 17 meeting, called her “an amazing force” for the commission. Ault thanked Grand for her work.

Oct. 15 was the last PAC meeting for Julie Grand, who is term limited.

Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, noted that Grand’s service on PAC almost exactly parallels his own tenure as manager. He said they’ve worked well and collaboratively on several projects, and have seen many improvements over the years. The parks staff have appreciated working with Grand and the support she’s provided to the city’s parks system, he said.

Grand recalled that people would ask her why she attended so many meetings. It’s actually been a pleasure the entire time, she said. That’s because PAC supports a service that the community is really engaged with, Grand said. The parks staff is phenomenal, and the city is fortunate to have that.

She noted that there’s been a transition on PAC, as she’s watched old members leave and new members arrive. Before the new members were appointed, she’d felt a lot of stress, she reported, and had been a “bug in the mayor’s ear” for about a year, urging him to find good appointments. So she’s relieved now that she sees the commission will be left in such good hands.

She told new commissioners that they were fortunate, because in past years PAC had to focus on budget cuts. Now, from that foundation the commissioners can build on it and work on new policies to improve the existing system, she said, without having to make cuts every year.

Grand thanked commissioners for passing the recommendations on downtown parks, saying “it’s a great way to go out.”

She received a round of applause from staff and commissioners, who after the meeting took Grand out to Arbor Brewing Company for a farewell celebration.

Present: Ingrid Ault, Bob Galardi, Julie Grand, Alan Jackson, Graydon Krapohl, Karen Levin, Missy Stults, Jen Geer and councilmembers Mike Anglin and Christopher Taylor (ex-officio members). Also Colin Smith, city parks and recreation manager.

Absent: Tim Berla.

Next PAC meeting: Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2013 at 4 p.m. in the city hall second-floor council chambers, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listing to confirm date]

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

The Upper Malletts Stormwater Conveyance Study, which is overseen by the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner, has identified three major projects to help manage stormwater and control flooding on the city’s southwest side. Two of those projects would affect local parks:

• Building two stormwater detention basins along the north and south ends of Eisenhower and Churchill Downs parks, which are connected. These basins – covering about 2.5 acres – would help manage the stormwater flow from the north along Scio Church Road and from the drainage area west of I-94. (Eisenhower Park is located along I-94, just south of Scio Church Road. Churchill Downs Park is a 1.18-acre neighborhood park located between a residential area and I-94.) Estimated cost: $1.7 million.
• Building a large underground detention basin at the north end of Lawton Park, which is located on Mershon between Delaware and Scio Church. The basin would manage storm flows from both north and south of Scio Church. Existing park amenities – including the baseball/softball diamond – would be replaced and upgraded. Estimated cost: $4.125 million

A third project, which would not involve a city park, entails building a detention basin north of Scio Church Road and east of Seventh Street, on property south of Pioneer High School. That piece would cost an estimated $1 million and cover about 2.8 acres.

Harry Sheehan, environmental manager with the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner, made a presentation to park commissioners on Oct. 15 and answered questions about the project, which is still in the planning phase.

The overall project would require city council approval, and it’s not yet clear when a proposal will be brought forward. Colin Smith, the city’s parks and recreation manager, characterized Sheehan’s presentation to PAC as informational, given the potential impact on some parks.

For additional background on stormwater management in this area, as well as related issues, see Chronicle coverage: “Sidewalks: Repair, Build, Shovel.”

This brief was filed from the second-floor council chambers at city hall, where PAC holds its meetings. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Top: Example of a cross-lot walkway, leading from street to school. Middle: Sidewalk that was cut flush funded by the city’s sidewalk repair millage. Bottom: Recommended detention ponds in Eisenhower Park near the proposed Scio Church sidewalk.

Yet these existing and future slabs of concrete are themselves a constant topic of confusion and controversy: Who’s responsible for repairing the busted slab in front my house? Who’s supposed to shovel snow off the sidewalk in the winter?

Sidewalks also connect up to other equally important if also dull components of local governance – like stormwater management and public art.

So here’s a quick rundown of some specific sidewalk-related issues that the Ann Arbor city council will be considering.

The council’s agenda for Monday, Oct. 7, includes an item on the definition of sidewalks. If an existing walkway meets the definition of a “sidewalk,” then the city bears responsibility for its repair for the duration of the sidewalk repair millage. All other things being equal, the adjacent property owner would be responsible for snow removal in the winter.

The Oct. 7 agenda item focuses on walkways that aren’t really on the “side” of anything – walkways that connect a street to a park or school, or that connect two parallel streets. The city calls them “cross-lot” walkways. If such walkways were added into the definition of “sidewalk” – as the city council is contemplating – then the city would be responsible for repair. That’s a result welcomed by property owners. But it would put the burden for snow removal on those property owners – a less welcome result. That was the sentiment that led the council to postpone final consideration of a change to the definition of “sidewalk” three months ago, on July 1, 2013.

So on Oct. 7, the council will be asked to consider a different approach to that definitional change – one that would allow the so-called “cross-lot” paved pathways to qualify as sidewalks under the city’s ordinance, but not trigger a winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners.

The fresh look would mean that the council’s possible action on Oct. 7 would be considered only an initial approval of the ordinance change. Final enactment of the change would require a second vote at a subsequent council meeting. If approved, the ordinance would allow cross-lot paths to be repaired under the city’s sidewalk repair program – funded through the five-year millage approved by Ann Arbor voters in November 2011. That program is noticeable to residents in the form of pink markings that appear on sidewalk slabs – an “R” for replace and a “C” for cutting an out-of-alignment section so that it lines up flush with the next slab.

The millage can pay for repair or replacement of existing slabs of sidewalks, but not for the construction of new sidewalks. So that millage money isn’t available to build a new stretch of sidewalk along the south side of Scio Church Road (or to fill in a smaller gap on the north side) – a section of sidewalk that residents have petitioned the city to build. The petition for a sidewalk there is based on several considerations, including a desire to connect to amenities west of I-94, like the Ice Cube, Wide World of Sports and the Ann Arbor District Library’s Pittsfield branch. It’s also seen as a pedestrian safety issue, because the lack of a sidewalk on one side of the road could induce pedestrians to cross the road at places where motorists don’t expect pedestrians to cross.

The city council authorized $15,000 of general fund money for the study of alternatives along that stretch – alternatives that were presented at a meeting held on Sept. 18 at Lawton Elementary School and attended by about two dozen people. Next up for the city council, likely on Oct. 21, will be a request for a design budget, so that costs of the project can be estimated with more precision.

Among the alternatives that were considered, but not pursued in much detail, was construction of a pathway through Eisenhower Park. That’s where the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner is now recommending that a pair of detention ponds be constructed – to help mitigate overland flooding in the area. That recommendation was presented to a group of about 80 neighbors on Sept. 30 – also held at Lawton Elementary School.

And a fence that that might need to be constructed along the proposed Scio Church sidewalk – to prevent people from falling down the steep incline – received a glancing mention at a recent meeting of the Ann Arbor public art commission. A proposal to fund a public art project that would be integrated into the fence was tabled by the commission at its Sept. 25, 2013 meeting.

Cross-lot Sidewalks

The city council had given initial consideration to the change in the definition of a sidewalk at its June 3, 2013 meeting. When the final decision came before the council on July 1, 2013, councilmembers heard from residents like John Ohanian and Miranda Wellborn Eleazar, whose properties abut cross-lot walkways.

Under the ordinance change the council considered that evening, the city’s sidewalk repair millage could be used to fix any defects in the slabs – but Ohanian and Wellborn Eleazar would have to shovel the walkway during the winter. That concern led to a postponement by the council until Oct. 7.

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

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

This is the cross-lot path that the Eleazars would become responsible for shoveling, if the change to the definition of sidewalk is adopted.

The cross-lot path that leads from Roon the Ben in the Turnberry neighborhood to the ballfields for Scarlett-Mitchell schools. A pending ordinance change could eventually place responsibility for capital repairs on the city, but give adjacent property owners the responsibility of shoveling snow.

On Oct. 7, the council will be asked to consider a revised approach to these cross-lot walkways. The ordinance would still be changed to include them in the definition of a “sidewalk” – so repairs could be paid for with sidewalk millage money. But the ordinance change would not assign responsibility for snow clearance to the adjacent property owners. The staff memo accompanying the Oct. 7 ordinance proposal estimates that the total city cost for repairs and snow clearance for 34 cross-lot walkways would be $7,000 – $5,100 for plowing and $1,900 for repair.

The 34 cross-lot walkways that would be affected by the ordinance change would need to be accepted by the city for public use, in order for the ordinance language to apply. That’s a companion resolution the council will also need to approve.

Because the change to the ordinance is substantively different from the approach the council had previously given initial approval, any action taken on Oct. 7 by the council would be considered another initial approval, according to the staff memo. For the ordinance change to be enacted, it would need a second, final vote by the council at a subsequent meeting.

Construction of New Sidewalks

As part of the current fiscal year 2014 budget approved on May 20, 2013, the city council included $75,000 for a sidewalk gap prioritization study.

But before and after the adoption of the budget, the city council approved money related to specific gaps – for an alternative study or actual design work. The council has made such allocations on three occasions in the last year, starting on Nov. 19, 2012. That’s when the council approved $15,000 for an alternatives analysis of a stretch along Scio Church Road, west of Seventh Street and east of I-94.

Purple indicates stretches of Scio Church Road where no sidewalk exists.

Residents who live on and near Scio Church had submitted a petition asking for the construction of a sidewalk along the south side of the road. That petition prompted the city council allocation of money for an alternatives analysis.

For some of the other specific sidewalk projects, the council allocated a design budget. For Scio Church Road, the alternatives analysis comes first, because the design won’t be straightforward – due to the physical challenges involved, related to the sloping terrain.

In fact, those physical challenges were cited by city senior project manager Liz Rolla at the Sept. 18 Lawton Elementary School meeting as one possible reason why the sidewalk gaps exist along that stretch. One resident, who described herself as new to the area, asked for a nutshell explanation of why, on the south side of the road, there’s a sidewalk heading west until halfway between Delaware and Churchill, “and then there’s nothing.”

In addition to the physical challenges, Rolla ventured that when the sidewalks were constructed, the perceived need for pedestrians to go west all the way to I-94 and beyond was not as great. Facilities like the Ann Arbor Ice Cube, Wide World Sports Center and the Pittsfield branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, she said, were from her perspective relatively new – but for her kids, they seem like they’d been there forever. Those facilities create a need for pedestrian travel westward.

One resident at the meeting traced the problem to the city’s failure to install proper sidewalks when the land was annexed from Pittsfield Township, citing the city’s requirements that regulate how public sidewalks and driveway entrances are constructed. He was reluctant to see just the gap on the south side of Scio Church addressed, reasoning that the city should provide sidewalks on both sides of the street.

An outcome of the Sept. 18 meeting is that the staff will request that the city council provide money for a design budget – for both sides of Scio Church, including the shorter gap on the north side of the street. That request is supposed to be on the council’s Oct. 21 agenda, according to the staff summary of the meeting. [.pdf of Sept. 18, 2013 staff summary of Lawton Elementary School sidewalk meeting]

The sentiment of the attendees at the Sept. 18 meeting was that – while they very much wanted to see sidewalks constructed to eliminate the gap – they were reluctant to see what they viewed as unreasonable costs imposed on adjacent property owners, who would bear some of the project’s cost. That cost is typically imposed by the city through a special assessment of properties that front the sidewalk. Because much of the south side of Scio Church, where the proposed sidewalk would be constructed, is adjacent to city parkland or the rear of cul-de-sacs, few property owners would be special assessed.

Lawton Elementary School sidewalk meeting on Sept. 18, 2013.

One resident who attended the Sept. 18 meeting, and whose property would be special assessed, indicated he had not signed the petition, nor had he known about it: “The funding of this is a very, very big deal to me,” he said. “This is money that I’m hoping that my son can use to go to college. A portion of that would have to go to this project if this property is assessed.”

Rolla and city engineer Nick Hutchinson, who also attended the meeting, stressed throughout the discussion that the numbers they’d provided should not be seen as the amounts that residents would have to pay – because the estimates were only very rough, and not all elements of the project would be subject to special assessment. Retaining walls, for example, would likely not be assessed, Hutchison indicated.

Another factor reducing the potential burden to local property owners is the possibility that federal surface transportation funds could be used to offset part of the cost. But Hutchinson stressed that even if the city was successful in obtaining such federal funds – which are administered through the state of Michigan – a 20% local match would still be required.

Residents at the meeting appeared sensitive to the potential financial burden that just a few residents might have to bear. The resident who had organized the petition to the city reported that he got the feeling from talking to the neighborhood that there are ways to share the burden of the assessment – either formal or informal ways among those who wouldn’t ordinarily be special-assessed. Speaking for himself, he said, “I’m eager to do it.” Another resident chimed in, quickly: “I was just going say the same thing. I am perfectly willing to chip in,” she said. “I definitely want sidewalks,” she continued. “Me, too!” added another. “Yes, I am in favor of that as well,” another resident said.

Rolla told attendees that the preliminary conversation with the city attorney’s office had indicated that a formal arrangement of those neighbors – people contributing to the sidewalk who wouldn’t ordinarily be specially assessed – would best be done through a single point of contact for a group of property owners, like a neighborhood association.

The dollar figures that residents reacted to were the following for the three numbered alternatives – as the option of building a pathway through Eisenhower Park wasn’t pursued in any detail. Even the staff’s preliminary consideration led to the conclusion that the park path option would be cost prohibitive.

0. Build Path through Park
   Challenges: Slope issues (Americans with Disabilities Act); it would require removal of many
   trees; it’s isolated with no streetlights; requires crossing of creek.
   Cost: Cost prohibitive. Not pursued.
1. Pedestrian Crossing Island near Churchill
   Estimated cost: $56,000
   Funding mechanism: In the past, pedestrian islands have been funded in conjunction with major road reconstruction projects, safety funds, street millage, MDOT. Not specially assessed to residents.
   Responsibility for snow shoveling: City of Ann Arbor
2. Fill-in North Side Gap
   Requires: Grading, retaining wall, tree removal.
   Rough estimated cost: It’s about 370 feet long, with estimated cost of $90,000, which means about $245 per lineal foot.
   Funding mechanism: In the past, this type of project is funded by special assessment to fronting properties or installed by the property owner.
   Responsibility for snow shoveling: Property owners who have property that fronts the sidewalk.
3. Extend South Sidewalk to Maple
   Requires: Grading, retaining wall, tree removal, replacement of guardrail, addition of curb and gutter and fence.
   Rough estimated cost: It’s about 2,000 feet long, with estimated cost of $360,000, which is about $180 per lineal foot.
   Funding mechanism: In the past, special assessment has been used, but only a few of the properties along the stretch could be special assessed, as the rear of cul-de-sacs would not be subject to the assessment. Federal surface transportation funds could be used, requiring a 20% local match.
   Responsibility for snow shoveling: Property owners who have property fronting the sidewalk (corner lots). This does not include cul-de-sac lots with no connection to the sidewalk. The city would plow the sidewalk where no other adjacent property owner is responsible

Next up for the city council, on Oct. 21, will be a request for a design budget, so that costs of the project can be estimated with more precision.

Detention Ponds, Art

The project extending the Scio Church sidewalk to Maple Road includes a fence – to keep pedestrians from falling down the embankment. That fence was the subject of deliberations by the Ann Arbor public art commission at its  Sept. 25, 2013 meeting.

The art commission tabled the proposal. [.pdf of AAPAC's intake form for the Scio Church fence] Typically the city would, at this kind of site, install a standard kind of chain link fence. But Craig Hupy – the city’s public services area administrator – had previously told the public art commission that there might be an opportunity for something more creative, if AAPAC wanted to explore that possibility. The AAPAC budget for the tabled fence enhancement was recommended to be between $40,000 and $80,000 from the remaining Percent for Art street funds.

Those funds won’t be replenished after they’re spent, because the city has ended the Percent for Art approach to funding public art. In the future, public art funding will come from partnerships, fundraising and any money that the city council allocates to “enhance” capital projects. The remaining Percent for Art funds are supposed to be spent on projects that are tied thematically or physically to the funds of origin.

Although the Scio Church fence art project was tabled on Sept. 25, the city’s public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves, told art commissioners he could put together a more detailed proposal for AAPAC’s October meeting.

The end of the sidewalk near Maple, where the fence and a guardrail would need to be reconstructed, received comment at the Lawton Elementary School meeting of Sept. 18 – in connection with a pair of potential detention ponds in the adjacent Eisenhower Park. The Washtenaw County water resources commissioner is recommending that the ponds be constructed there as part of recommendations for mitigating flooding in the area.

At the Sept. 18 meeting, one resident suggested that the earth that would need to be excavated to create the detention ponds could be used to help soften the angle of the slope from Scio Church Road down into the park, possibly helping to meet the challenge of sidewalk construction there. The same resident expressed desire for the sidewalk construction to be coordinated with the detention pond construction, so that the city does not construct a new sidewalk, fence and guardrail, and then tear it out to gain access to Eisenhower Park for the detention pond project.

While the sidewalk construction project could be undertaken in late 2014, the detention pond probably entails a longer timeline. The final report from the upper Mallets Creek stormwater study isn’t due until early 2014. And from that point, the recommendations would need to be adopted into the city’s capital improvements plan, which is the purview of the city planning commission. And after that, the city council would need to decide whether to approve funding allocations for any or all of the recommended projects. [For previous coverage of that project, see: "County Gets Info on Flooding, Shares Options"]

Those recommendations, however, have been developed and modeled. They were unveiled at a meeting on Sept. 30, 2013 – also held at Lawton Elementary School. Although the three proposed stormwater facilities were described as “alternatives,” project manager Harry Sheehan, who’s managing the project in the water resources commissioner’s office, indicated that all three projects are being recommended:

Proposed Pioneer High School detention pond. Cost estimate: $1.2 million. Surface area: 2.8 acres. Total volume: 400,000 cubic feet.

Proposed Lawton detention pond. Cost estimate: $5.15 million. Surface area: 1.1 acres. Total volume: 280,000 cubic feet.

Proposed Eisenhower Park detention ponds. Cost estimate: $2.1 million. Surface area: 2.5 acres. Total volume: 470,000 cubic feet.

At the Sept. 30 meeting, the effect of each project on the mitigation of flooding was presented as modeled for the March 15, 2012 storm, which had resulted in significant overland flooding in the Landsdowne neighborhood.

In the animated .gif below, which loops continuously, the first frame indicates the March 15, 2012 flooded areas in black. The next three frames show the modeled cumulative effect of adding each of the proposed stormwater detention facilities. That is, the maps show what the flooding would have been like, if the proposed stormwater detention facilities had been in place on March 15, 2012.

Maps by Spicer Group, the engineering consultant for the upper Mallets Creek stormwater study. Scans and animation by The Chronicle.

The Chronicle is like a sidewalk – because we can’t survive without concrete (financial) support. The kind of support we hope you’ll provide is through voluntary subscriptions. Those voluntary subscriptions support our coverage of public bodies like the city of Ann Arbor. 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 projects will be managed by the county’s office of the water resources commissioner, Evan Pratt. Three projects relate to stormwater control along the Allen Creek, with the goal of reduced flooding downstream and decreased e. coli and phosphorous entering the Huron River. They include: (1) up to $435,000 for stormwater control along South Fourth Avenue between Huron and Liberty streets; (2) up to $1.155 million for stormwater control along Madison Avenue between South Seventh and Main streets; and (3) up to $575,000 for stormwater control along South Forest from South University to an area north of Hill St.

The county board also approved bonding for up to $465,000 to design and build rain gardens in Ann Arbor, and up to $700,000 to plant trees throughout the city. No specific locations were identified for these projects, which are part of the Huron River Green Infrastructure initiative.

All five projects have been approved to be funded through the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality’s Clean Water Revolving Funds low-interest loan program.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow: [link]