Recess of the Ann Arbor city council’s May 6 meeting around 11:30 p.m.  – after eight public hearings and action on a few business items – paved the way for the council to resume the same meeting on May 13, with the 413 E. Huron project as the first item to be considered at that time. This photo shows Fourth Avenue between Huron and Washington streets, which will be repaired in the summer of 2013 as the result of a contract approved at the council’s May 6 session. (Photos by the writer.)

The council decided to suspend the proceedings around 11:30 p.m. – a different strategy than the one taken at the council’s April 15 meeting. On that occasion, councilmembers let the meeting continue until about 3 a.m. before deciding to end the session, postponing all remaining items until the next regular meeting on May 6.

At its May 6 meeting, the council voted unanimously to postpone until Sept. 3 one of the most controversial items on the agenda – revisions to the ordinance governing the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The most significant revision would clarify language from the original 1982 ordinance, which caps tax increment finance (TIF) revenue to the DDA. The clarifications would not allow for the kind of interpretation the DDA has given the ordinance for the last two years, which has resulted in no return of excess TIF to jurisdictions that have their taxes captured by the DDA.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off communications time early in the meeting by describing some further changes he was prepared to make to the DDA ordinance – which would earmark money to support affordable housing. During the public hearing on the ordinance changes, the council heard from speakers on both sides, including five members of the DDA board. A highlight was the apparent initial indication of a slightly moderated position by some opponents of the ordinance changes. The council’s relatively brief deliberations on postponement revealed only grudging support from some councilmembers for putting off the vote for four months. Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) made clear they did not support the proposed changes to the ordinance.

The council also postponed action on a revision to the city’s sign ordinance, which would allow only certain types of digital signs. The ordinance amendments would cap the total number of billboards in the city at 28 and allow them to remain in place as non-conforming signs. It would not allow for retrofitting any existing billboards with digital technology. The council has already given the ordinance initial approval, and will take up the issue again on June 17.

Another item postponed by the council was consideration of a video privacy ordinance, which has not yet been given initial approval. That will come back to the council’s May 20 meeting.

Receiving approval from the council was the site plan for Summit Townhomes, located on Ellsworth Road. The project has been working through the city’s review and approval process for more than a year.

The downtown section of Fourth Avenue was somewhat of a geographic highlight for the May 6 meeting. The council approved a $741,900 contract with E.T. MacKenzie Co. to make improvements on Fourth Avenue between Huron and Liberty streets this summer. And the council formally withdrew its objection to renewal of the liquor license for The Arena, a bar located at Washington and Fourth. The Arena finally paid back taxes, which led to the council’s vote – but not without complaint from some councilmembers.

Another highlight of the meeting was the general topic of appointments to city boards and commissions. A brief discussion of how appointments work was prompted by the observation during public commentary that none of the appointments are current for members of the downtown citizens advisory council. The city council put off voting to confirm Stephanie Buttrey’s appointment to the greenbelt advisory commission. And not reached on the agenda were nominations to replace Jesse Bernstein on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority and Eric Mahler on the city planning commission – with Susan Baskett and Paras Parekh, respectively.

413 E. Huron Site Plan

The site plan for 413 E. Huron – a proposed 14-story, 216-apartment building at the northeast corner of Huron and Division streets – was a major item on the council’s May 6 agenda.

Images for the proposed 413 E. Huron project, at the northeast corner of Huron and Division. On the left is an early rendering provided by the developer. On the right is an updated version presented to the city council on March 18, 2013.

The apartment complex was presented to the council as a “by right” project, which means that in the judgment of the city planning staff, it met all the zoning requirements.

The council had previously postponed a site plan decision on April 15, 2013, April 1, 2013 and March 18, 2013.

The planning commission had considered the project at its Feb. 5, 2013 and Jan. 15, 2013 meetings. The Feb 5 vote of 5-3 on the planning commission – with one commissioner absent – left the project one vote short of the six-vote majority it needed for a recommendation of approval.

On May 6, the council heard from 31 people during a continuation of the project’s public hearing, as well as from others during regular public commentary. This report organizes the commentary thematically.

413 E. Huron Site Plan: Development Process

During communications time at the start of the meeting, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) mentioned a proposed project on Glendale as a good model for proceeding in the future. If a developer meets with staff continually, the surrounding community might not be heard if residents don’t have a lot of expertise, he said. The city should provide representation for the community, Anglin said. He stated that citizens should not be asked to do all the work. Staff and councilmembers should be helping neighborhoods – as allies, not in an adversarial relationship. Public hearings are fine but they’re always too late, Anglin said.

Christine Brummer described the site plan approval process in Ann Arbor in years past as a meeting between the developer’s budget, the planning department’s vision and citizen complaints in front of the city council. She described how that process had been fractured into a half-dozen different meetings, as elements have been added to the site plan approval process – such as citizen participation meetings and design guideline review board meetings. She encouraged reexamining each of these different process elements as the D1 zoning undergoes review.

413 E. Huron – Public Hearing Mechanics

The public hearing on the 413 E. Huron site plan was continued from the April 15 meeting. Because it was the same public hearing, mayor John Hieftje explained toward the start of it (after the first speaker had addressed the council) that anyone who had spoken on April 15 would not be allowed to speak again.

Thomas Partridge was the third person who attempted to speak during the public hearing on the 413 E. Huron site plan. But Hieftje refused to allow him to speak – because it would have been Partridge’s second time speaking, as he’d addressed the council during the same public hearing on April 15. Partridge was reluctant to yield, and asked for a citation of the rule preventing him from speaking again. Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald advised Partridge that no amendments had been made to the site plan since the previous meeting and that Hieftje had indicated that Partridge did not have the right to speak. McDonald concluded: “We would ask you to sit down at this time.”

A recess was called while the issue was sorted out and Partridge was convinced he wouldn’t be allowed to speak.

When the meeting came back out of recess, John Floyd took the podium and observed that if the rule was that there was only a single opportunity to speak, then Partridge’s question – requesting to know what the statute number is – wasn’t unreasonable. Floyd continued by saying that calling in a policeman to stand as an intimidating presence was, he thought, “a little uncalled for.” [An officer from the Ann Arbor Police Department is often in attendance at council meetings, sometimes more visibly than others. On May 6, an officer was standing in the back of the council chambers.]

Floyd began his own remarks by stating: “The developers of 413 [E. Huron] are not evil people. They’re like the rest of us.” He continued with remarks on the site plan. As he reached the end of his turn, he perceived that not all councilmembers were paying attention to what he was saying, and he conveyed to them his thoughts on their inattention:

I see that several people have things to do other than to listen to the public speaking. I appreciate that it’s a hard and annoying thing – to pay attention to the people in front of you – but I think that’s what you get your pay for, among other things. If you don’t feel like you want to earn it, there’s a door over here – you might want to try walking through it!

[Floyd's blistering rebuke, which seemed directed toward Ward 4 council representatives Margie Teall and Marcia Higgins, elicited some gasps and a "Holy smokes!" from the audience.]

413 E. Huron – Legacy

The substance of Floyd’s remarks included one of the common threads that ran through several speakers’ comments – namely the legacy that the council would be creating for itself in its decision. Floyd’s remarks, before delivering a rebuke to those he didn’t think were listening, included the following:

[Developers have] got a way of making money, and they want to go where they can go and make money. They’re not any different than the rest of us this way. Nonetheless, the site plan approval requires adhering to things beyond the zoning … It’s entirely possible that I’ve missed something, because I haven’t been privy to your conversations over the last two weeks. But I have not yet heard of a substantive response to any of the points raised by the speakers who spoke two weeks ago, about the various ordinances they are required to meet. And I don’t think that the council or the developer gets to choose which ordinances they decide to obey or enforce. That doesn’t mean that they are evil people, it just means that there are ordinances that have not been met to approve a site plan. You know, every one of us is going to be remembered for something. One of the questions tonight – in addition to “Do the laws of Ann Arbor have any meaning?” – is “What is this council going to be remembered for?” Twenty years from now, will the Ann Arbor Observer be writing articles about you, and the way you decided not to follow the law, and destroyed, in consequence of that, one of the most important trees in town? … So what do you want to be remembered for? Following the law? Or not following the law and causing irreparable harm to one of the jewels of the city? Thank you for paying attention.

Reena Liberman cautioned the council that 10 years from now, if the building is constructed, it will be seen as a mark of poor city council management.

Cheri Alexander told the council that when she teaches, what she asks are simple questions: What result do you want to create? What will be your legacy? What will be the story that will be told about you?

David Olson told the council that a lot of people are concerned about the project. The implications go beyond this particular project, he said. Olson contended it would set a precedent for future downtown development. In particular, it would reflect how the letter and spirit of the A2D2 zoning would be adhered to. He characterized the proposal as disregarding the city’s design guidelines. He questioned whether it was worth it for him to participate in the community conversation, if there’s not follow-through on the vision that’s been agreed on.

413 E. Huron: Booklet

A nine-point booklet was distributed to councilmembers. Later in the week, on May 10, Ann Arbor city planning staff provided responses to the nine points. For an overview, see “413 E. Huron: 9-Point Booklet.”

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) receives her copy of a booklet listing out the nine points of objection to the 413 E. Huron project.

Hugh Sonk introduced the council to the booklet with nine topics. He noted that subsequent speakers would be citing specific points in the booklet.

Sonk highlighted sections in the city code that require a finding that the development complies with all federal, state and local standards and regulations. He also highlighted the natural features requirement that allows disturbance of such features only to the extent that it’s required for a reasonable, not maximal, use of the land. And finally he pointed out the requirement of a finding that there not be a detrimental effect on the public health, safety and welfare.

“Fact 1″ of the booklet was introduced by Liz Knibbe, who told the council that she’d worked for 35 years in architecture and urban planning. In her experience, the local jurisdictions work under the state’s enabling legislation. She quoted the definition of “site plan” from Michigan’s Zoning Enabling Act 110 of 2006:

“Site plan” includes the documents and drawings required by the zoning ordinance to ensure that a proposed land use or activity is in compliance with local ordinances and state and federal statutes.

She also quoted from Section 203 of the statute, which imposed requirements on the kind of local zoning laws that can be established:

A zoning ordinance shall be based upon a plan designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, to encourage the use of lands in accordance with their character and adaptability, to limit the improper use of land, to conserve natural resources and energy, to meet the needs of the state’s residents for food, fiber, and other natural resources, places of residence, recreation, industry, trade, service, and other uses of land, to ensure that uses of the land shall be situated in appropriate locations and relationships, to avoid the overcrowding of population, to provide adequate light and air, to lessen congestion on the public roads and streets, to reduce hazards to life and property, to facilitate adequate provision for a system of transportation including, subject to subsection (5), public transportation, sewage disposal, safe and adequate water supply, education, recreation, and other public requirements, and to conserve the expenditure of funds for public improvements and services to conform with the most advantageous uses of land, resources, and properties. A zoning ordinance shall be made with reasonable consideration of the character of each district, its peculiar suitability for particular uses, the conservation of property values and natural resources, and the general and appropriate trend and character of land, building, and population development.

“Fact 2″ from the booklet was introduced by Tom Stulberg, a member of the city’s historic district commission, who stated that the site plan doesn’t comply with city codes and ordinances:

Chapter 57, Section 5:122(6):
Standards for site plan approval. A site plan shall be approved by the appropriate body after it determines that: (a) The contemplated development would comply with all applicable state, local and federal law, ordinances, standards and regulations; and (b) The development would limit the disturbance of natural features to the minimum necessary to allow a reasonable use of the land, applying criteria for reviewing a natural features statement of impact set forth in this Chapter; and (c) The development would not cause a public or private nuisance and would not have a detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare.

“Fact 4″ from the booklet was introduced by Susan Morrison, acting as legal counsel for Norm and Ilene Tyler, who own a property on North Division to the north of the proposed project. The issue identified by Morrison was the application of the special exception use. Morrison contended that the parking structure component of the building should be analyzed as a “special exception use” – for which the project had not sought review and approval from the city planning commission.

“Fact 5″ was addressed by both Gwen Nystuen and Ingrid Ault. Nystuen is a former member of the park advisory commission, and Ault is a current member of that group. Nystuen cited the natural features plan, and stated that the development would remove 50% of the critical root zone of one of the landmark trees. The project also would condemn trees in that area to perpetual shade. Her call for the council to “do the courageous thing” elicited applause. Ault told the council that it was the legacy tree that had brought her to the table. She reported the assessment of an arborist who’d predicted the death of the 250-year-old oak tree within five years, if the building were constructed.

“Fact 6″ was addressed by Richard Peshkin, Ben Hooper, Emily Bellock, Carolyn Fahey and Cathy Hufano. The code provision they cited was the requirement that a development not cause a public or private nuisance. Their contention of a nuisance and detrimental effect on health, safety and welfare was based on traffic safety issues related to the configuration of the service drive entrance off Division, as well as the driveway entrance on Huron Street. Issued cited in the booklet included:

• No off-street drop-off area on Huron Street.
• Lack of provision for move-in/move-out student drop off days.
• Acute 81 degree turn-in for auto entry is a traffic hazard.
• Traffic delays for cars entering underground parking.
• Cars leaving the underground ground will impede Huron Street’s 23,000 cars per day.
• Cars going east will cut through Ann Street residential area.

On a related note later in the hearing, Barbara Bach questioned whether the logistics of move-in had been adequately addressed.

“Fact 7″ was addressed by Andrea Van Houweling. The ordinance provision cited is the city’s noise ordinance. Her contention was that the allowable noise level for construction activity is a hazard to health.

“Fact 8″ was addressed by architect Jan Culbertson. While she supported increasing density in the urban core, she contended that there are details missing on the site plan to indicate height and manner of construction for the retaining wall on the east side of the property.

“Fact 9″ was introduced by another member of the historic district commission – John Beeson. The objection to the project was based on the requirement that zoning ordinances ensure that “adequate light and air” are provided. The solar study showed that the properties immediately to the north would have an unreasonable amount of shade, he said.

Betsy Price told the council that it’s not the high-density zoning that has gotten people riled up. What citizens are pushing back against is the lack of conformance with specific clauses of the zoning code.

The owner of the property immediately to the north of the project, Steve Bellock, stressed that the objections that had been raised were not to the appropriateness of the zoning, but rather to the specific elements of the site plan.

Herb Kaufer introduced himself as a downtown resident. He disagreed with the conclusion that the project would not cause a public or private nuisance.

413 E. Huron: Risk of Lawsuit, Tough Decision

Norman Hyman characterized the recent letters that had been sent to the council by attorneys for the 413 E. Huron project – Pat Lennon and Susan Friedlaender – as a one-two punch. Hyman, who represents Sloan Plaza residents, noted that he’d sent a short letter of his own to the council in response to them. Hyman characterized Lennon’s letter as saying that the site plan proposal had to be approved because it conformed with all the standards, but Hyman contended that Friedlaender had told the council in her letter that the council should not follow one of the standards.

Piotr Michalowski told the council he walked by the corner of Division and Huron almost every day. He couldn’t imagine that the project might be built. He described himself as “shaken” by the fact that the council doesn’t have any choice. He felt that it wasn’t true that the council had to vote to approve the project. The council had heard various arguments from lawyers and he understands that councilmembers had to be concerned about the legal risks and whether it was worth spending the money to defend the city. He observed that the city already spent money to defend itself in various ways – by fixing potholes and hiring firefighters, for example. He felt that in the case of 413 E. Huron, it was worth risking.

Harvey Falit alluded to a quote from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) reported in AnnArbor.com to the effect that site plan review is an administrative process rather than a deliberative one, and did not allow for the council to exercise judgment as to whether the project was good for the neighborhood or Ann Arbor. Falit questioned whether that was true. Falit didn’t think anybody was encouraging anyone to go against the law, but he allowed that denying the project approval might lead to a lawsuit. He ventured that enough legal opinions had been offered to indicate that a lawsuit would be defensible.

Mark Koroi told the council that he thought only poor excuses had been offered as reasons for not being willing to defend a lawsuit. He pointed out the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority is willing to fight a lawsuit to keep an ad off a bus. He stated that if a lawsuit were filed, it would go to the Washtenaw County 22nd Circuit Court. Of the six judges for that court, he said, five are Ann Arbor residents. He told the council not to be afraid of a lawsuit.

Vivienne Armentrout wanted to respond to a comment quoted in the media – an apparent allusion to Taylor’s remark on the idea that site plan review is not a deliberative process but rather an administrative one. She invited the council to reflect on its function. Councilmembers don’t manage the city, collect the taxes or collect the garbage. Instead she said, “We depend on you for the heavy thinking.” She described city councilmembers as the “prefrontal lobes,” telling them that residents were depending on them to ensure that their answer to the dilemma is the best thing for the city and its residents.

Doug Kelbaugh, former dean of the University of Michigan college of architecture and urban planning, introduced himself as a nearby resident. [He lives at the old re-purposed armory building at Fifth Avenue and Ann Street.] He criticized the 413 E. Huron structure as crowding the “view corridors” from both the east and the west. The building “looms well above Sloan Plaza,” he said, and “hoards” the sunlight from the neighboring buildings to the north.

The revisions that had been made to the project by trimming off eight units at the top was, Kelbaugh said, “a haircut, not a redesign.” The issue is not a matter of architectural style or detail, he said, but rather a matter of urban design. He questioned the desirability of a “monocultural” building: Do we really want 500 of any one kind of resident – 500 empty nesters, 500 yuppies, or 500 architects? He challenged the council to make “a tough, hardball call.”

413 E. Huron: Quality of Neighborhoods

Trey Bailey told the council that he was opposed to “this slum in the sky.” But on the positive side, he quipped that the proposed building might displace city hall as the ugliest building in the city.

Marilyn Green told the council that when she’d seen recent University of Michigan graduates spilling out of the auditorium, she’d been reminded of what she likes about Ann Arbor. The city is charming, historic, cultural and cares for its students and its community. She asked councilmembers: Would you want to live next door to this building?

Kat Steih told the council she’d lived in Ann Arbor for seven years, and was now a student at the University of Michigan. She said she was speaking for students who’d chosen to live in the Kerrytown neighborhood because of the character of the neighborhood. She expressed the view that the proposed project would have a negative impact on that character.

413 E. Huron: Economics

Steve Beisheim told the council he’s 32 years old and has lived in a variety of cities and different places within Ann Arbor. He loves the walkable density of Ann Arbor, he said. What makes Ann Arbor attractive to students is what makes it attractive to professionals – walkability. He told the council that they were either supporting sprawl or they were supporting density. To regulate neighborhood character there are other options besides stopping the building, he said. He told the council they would be supporting affordable housing on the outskirts of the city where he lives, by allowing more units to be built downtown. That put downward pressure on rents in the periphery, he said. He allowed that the building is not going to be “the prettiest thing ever.” But he did not think that the building would have an impact on Kerrytown, as Steih had indicated in her remarks.

During public commentary reserved time, Peter Eckstein told the council that beyond the loss of Blimpy Burger, the new graduate student resident hall to be built at that location by the University of Michigan has other implications. The residence hall will offer 600 beds a short walk from the campus and will be subsidized by a $110 million gift, he noted. The student luxury housing market is already saturated – and will become more saturated even if 413 E. Huron is not added, he warned.

Peter Eckstein also addressed the council at a previous meeting, on April 15, when this photo was taken. At the time, he referred to an article on student housing published in The Ann Magazine, which he showed the council.

This suggested, Eckstein continued, that the council’s planned review of D1 zoning might not be enough. Whatever vote the council takes on 413 E. Huron – up or down – needs to be followed up by a moratorium on new downtown development in certain areas, he said. Any legal concerns surrounding a moratorium will become moot once 413 E. Huron is off the table, he said. A moratorium would ensure that no new proposal could come along and sneak a “camel’s nose under the tent” before new zoning can be enacted.

Speaking to the developer, Eckstein said it’s not too late to reconsider the risks of adding to a shrinking housing market. Undergrad enrollment at the university has been frozen, he contended, and other new buildings are coming on line. University dorms are being refurbished, and the new graduate student residence hall will offer more bang for the buck, he said. Ann Arbor has a lot of history a developer can learn from, Eckstein said, alluding to large real estate projects that have gone broke and been sold off for pennies on the dollar. He told the developer that the developer owed the financial backers an explanation of how risky the project really is. Eckstein cited mayor John Hieftje as someone with real estate experience, who’d said he’d have stopped investing in high-rise student housing about three buildings ago.

Outcome: The council recessed the meeting at 11:30 p.m. just as it reached the 413 E. Huron site plan review on its agenda. The item will be first on the agenda when the council resumes the May 6 meeting on May 13. That meeting will start at the usual time – 7 p.m.

DDA Ordinance

On May 6 the city council considered a final vote – for the second time – on changes to the ordinance regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

Ann Arbor DDA TIF revenue projections. The vertical line indicates the year when the clarified calculations would be implemented. The red line is the amount of TIF revenue assumed by the DDA in its FY 2014 and FY 2015 budgets, and in its 10-year planning document. The blue line is the estimated TIF revenue under the proposed clarified ordinance calculations. The yellow line is the estimated TIF revenue the DDA would receive if the DDA continued to interpret the city’s ordinance in its own way. (Numbers from the city of Ann Arbor and DDA. Chart by The Chronicle.)

Several revisions to Chapter 7, the DDA-governing ordinance, had received an initial approval from the city council at its April 1, 2013 meeting. If the revisions are given final approval, the result would be roughly $490,000 in additional annual revenue for the city of Ann Arbor – compared to what the city would receive under the DDA’s current interpretation of the ordinance.

After voting around 3 a.m. to postpone the item at its April 15, 2013 meeting, the council voted again on May 6 to postpone final consideration.

The ordinance revisions considered by the council fell roughly into two categories: (1) those involving board composition and policies; and (2) calculation of tax increment finance (TIF) capture in the DDA district.

In the first category, the revisions to Chapter 7 that had received initial approval by the council included: a new prohibition against non-mayoral elected officials serving on the DDA board except by agreement with the other taxing jurisdictions; term limits on DDA board members; and a new requirement that the DDA submit its annual report to the city in early January.

More significantly are the revisions to Chapter 7 that would clarify how the DDA’s TIF capture is calculated. While the interpretation of the ordinance language is disputed, it’s mostly acknowledged that the ordinance doesn’t provide explicit and clear enough guidance on those TIF calculations.

The “increment” in a tax increment finance district refers to the difference between the initial value of a property and the value of a property after development. The Ann Arbor DDA captures the taxes – just on that initial increment – of some other taxing authorities in the district. Those are the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College and the Ann Arbor District Library. For FY 2013, the DDA will capture roughly $3.9 million in taxes.

The ordinance revisions would clarify existing ordinance language, which includes a paragraph that appears to limit the amount of TIF that can be captured. The limit is defined relative to the projections for the valuation of the increment in the TIF plan, which is a foundational document for the DDA. The result of the clarification to the Chapter 7 language would mean about $360,000 less TIF revenue for the DDA in FY 2014 – compared to the $3.933 million shown in the DDA’s adopted budget for that year. But for FY 2015, the gap between the DDA’s budget and the projected TIF revenue – using the proposed clarifying change to Chapter 7 – is just $74,000.

However, an amendment to the ordinance changes – accepted as “friendly” at the council’s April 15 meeting – would apply the clarified calculations starting in FY 2015. That would result in minimal impact on TIF revenue to the DDA – compared with the DDA’s own recently adopted FY 2014-15 budgets and its 10-year planning document.

However, the total increment in the district on which TIF is computed has shown significant development growth. And under the proposed clarification of Chapter 7, that growth would result in a return of TIF money to other taxing jurisdictions (which would otherwise be captured by the DDA) totaling around $900,000 each year from FY 2015 through the next 10 years. The city of Ann Arbor’s share of that would be roughly $490,000.

These projections do not include the tax capture that would result in future years from completion of major downtown projects like City Apartments, 624 Church, 618 S. Main, or 413 E. Huron (assuming that it is approved).

The amount of TIF capture that’s returned to the other taxing jurisdictions is tied to growth in the valuation by the existing Chapter 7 language. Under Chapter 7, if the actual rate of growth outpaces the growth rate that’s anticipated in the TIF plan, then at least half the excess amount is supposed to be redistributed to the other taxing authorities in the DDA district.

In 2011, the DDA for the first time returned excess TIF capture to other authorities, when the existence of the Chapter 7 language was reportedly first noticed. At that time, the DDA made repayments of TIF monies to other authorities of around $400,000, which covered what was owed going back to 2003. When the DDA calculated the amounts owed in 2011, the city of Ann Arbor waived its roughly $700,000 share.

In 2011, the DDA used a year-to-year interpretation of the Chapter 7 language instead of computing rate of growth against the base year in a cumulative fashion. That is a point that the Chapter 7 revisions would clarify.

Before giving initial approval on April 1, 2013 – but then postponing the ordinance amendments on April 15 – the council had previously postponed voting at its March 18, 2013 and March 4, 2013 meetings.

DDA Ordinance Revisions: Public Hearing, Communications

During the April 15 public hearing on the DDA ordinance revisions, a number of speakers contended there was a connection between the ordinance revisions and support for affordable housing. During communications time at the start of the May 6 meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) announced that he had several possible suggestions to make that would could establish an actual connection between the ordinance revisions and affordable housing.

Kunselman sketched out three possible proposals: (1) 10% of the DDA’s TIF capture would be earmarked for affordable housing; (2) the DDA’s housing fund would be reserved for affordable housing at 30% of the area’s average median income; (3) 50% of the city of Ann Arbor’s TIF “rebate” would be deposited into the city’s affordable housing trust fund; and (4) for the FY 2014 budget, $0.5 million of the DDA’s TIF would be transferred to the DDA’s housing fund.

The public hearing on May 6 was continued from April 15.

DDA Ordinance: Public Hearing – Board Members

Five members of the 12-member Ann Arbor DDA board addressed the council.

DDA board chair Leah Gunn commended the council for making affordable housing one of its priorities. The DDA had supported affordable housing for the last 20 years, she said, and she was afraid if the ordinance were enacted the DDA’s TIF would be “destroyed.”

Joan Lowenstein told councilmembers that they had not allocated any money for economic development – saying the only economic development arm the council has is the DDA. She criticized the idea of cutting economic development money right at the time when the economy is starting to come back. She told the council if they wanted to be mired in the “toxic sludge of the status quo,” then they should enact the ordinance amendments, and do it in the middle of the night.

Other supporters of the DDA were somewhat more moderate in tone.

Newcombe Clark listed off his credentials beyond his service on the DDA board, which included stints on the boards of the Main Street Area Association and the Michigan Theater. He described himself as a three-time graduate of the University of Michigan. Downtown Ann Arbor is where he’s made his money and where he’s met his girlfriends, he said. His frustration that the downtown is not perfect has caused him a lot of pain, he said. The DDA is also not perfect, he allowed. But it’s that imperfection that causes him to wake up every day wanting to try to make it perfect. And he was working with so many smart people on various boards, and with the city council, who were working to make the downtown perfect. He called that the “greatest luxury of my life.” Whether or not the proposed ordinance amendments are the right way to try to make the DDA a little closer to perfect, he thanked councilmembers for trying.

Clark felt that the ordinance changes are not about money, telling the council that the city had already taken all the DDA’s money. [This was an allusion to the contract under which the DDA manages the city's public parking system.] He told the council they had appointed DDA members to be “your eyes and your hands, in the soil of the downtown.” The DDA board is supposed to think about a small part of the city, which is the downtown, so that the council can think about the broader good. He invited councilmembers to ask him questions and to practice inquiry over advocacy. If it’s about politics, then be honest about it, he said – noting that’s not his area of expertise. [It was perhaps an oblique self-deprecating allusion to Clark's unsuccessful candidacy for a Ward 5 city council seat in the 2010 election.] Clark told the council: “I’m happy to give you everything I have.”

Sandi Smith introduced herself as former city councilmember, a member of the DDA board and a resident of Ward 1. She told the council she’d served on the board of the DDA for more than two terms, so one of the proposed amendments to the DDA ordinance – on term limits – would affect her. About that she said, “It doesn’t matter.” Some of the things the council was considering, she said, “They’re passable, it’s fine – I don’t have a problem with them.” But she did have a problem with picking out amendments and adding them – calling it a moving target. If the goal was to achieve clarity in the ordinance, she said, “Let’s sit down and talk about it.” She understood that it’s tough to find money in the budget, so it looks easy to grab it and move it around. But she encouraged the council to celebrate the success of the downtown and create some more successes.

Russ Collins, executive director of the Michigan Theater, said he appreciated the city council’s interest in improving the DDA and in improving the city. He reviewed some of the facts surrounding how the DDA works. Members of the board are appointed to four-year terms, and the appointments are voted on by the city council. Collins said he believed that the DDA had been a very good partner of the city. He reviewed some of the history of the contract under which the DDA manages the city’s public parking system.

In 2005, the city and the DDA agreed to a contract under which the city received $1 million a year for 10 years, Collins explained. But the contract allowed the city to request up to $2 million in any given year, so long as the total didn’t exceed $10 million for the 10-year period. The city requested $2 million in each of the first five years, at which point the city requested that the contract be renegotiated, Collins said. Now the city receives over $3 million per year. [The amount is based on 17% of gross parking revenues. Not all of the roughly $3 million goes to the general fund. About $800,000 goes to the city's street fund. Historically, that amount had been paid to the city outside the terms of the parking contract. The connection to the street fund is related to the fact that the city turned over management of the on-street parking spaces to the DDA in the early 2000s.]

DDA Ordinance: Public Hearing – Non-board Members

Rita Mitchell expressed thanks to the DDA for 30 years of improvements to the parking system. She ventured that perhaps the work of the DDA is done. Perhaps the city should contract directly with Republic Parking for day-to-day operation of the system, which is what the DDA currently does. She thanked Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) for their proposed amendments to the ordinance, saying that it would bring clarity. No “interpretation” of the ordinance should be required. She pointed out that the city is more than just a downtown.

John Floyd said that to him, the proposed revisions to the ordinance seemed like they were low-key, good-governance proposals. Instead of having TIF revenue grow at 4% for the DDA, it would perhaps grow at a 2% rate. He didn’t see that as the end of the world. While there are pros and cons about term limits or who should sit on the board, he didn’t think those provisions were the end of the world. While Floyd thought it was great that the DDA was involved in affordable housing, he saw no reason why other government entities could not fulfill that function – the entities from which the DDA captures taxes. Floyd told the council the unfounded assumption was that affordable housing wouldn’t be funded unless the DDA did it. On the whole, the ordinance revisions seemed like a reasonable thing for the council to approve, Floyd said. He added that many arguments against the revisions had been made by people who have not read what they’re speaking about.

Rich Bellas – owner of Van Boven Shoes, a downtown shop – told the council to look to the past at what the DDA had accomplished, with an eye to the future. He felt that cutting the DDA’s funding would handcuff the organization.

Ali Ramlawi, owner of Jerusalem Garden, said he was not there to thank the DDA for building the Library Lane underground parking garage, but he was glad the project was done. [Ramlawi, whose restaurant is located almost immediately adjacent to the new garage, was party to a lawsuit about the parking garage before it was built and addressed the council and the DDA on several occasions during the course of the construction.]

Ramlawi described how he’d met with mayor John Hieftje and learned why the DDA was formed back in the early 1980s – when the downtown area was suffering. Back in the 1970s and early 1980s, downtown Ann Arbor was not the kind of place to bring kids or start a business. But today it’s different. Ramlawi contended that the DDA’s purpose needs to be altered and the organization needs to be reformed. He said he was there to speak against the status quo, saying that the DDA should reflect 2013 not 1982. Ann Arbor no longer has a suffering downtown, he said.

Mark Koroi thanked Kailasapathy and Kunselman for putting forward the ordinance changes. As some evidence that the DDA needs more oversight than it currently has, he offered the recently discovered situation with the downtown citizens advisory council, which exists under the DDA statute. None of the members have appointments that are current – because their terms have all expired. He characterized this as resulting from a failure of members to renew their applications.

Odile Huguenot-Haber expressed skepticism of the DDA’s support for affordable housing. She said she’d look at the budget and couldn’t find any money allocated for it. [The DDA's budgets for FY 2014 and FY 2015, adopted earlier this spring, include a $100,000 transfer into its housing fund for each of those years. The DDA's 10-year planning document also includes a $100,000 transfer into the housing fund.] Huguenot-Haber said in any case she was not sure the DDA is the appropriate agency to address the issue of affordable housing. She supported the ordinance changes, and would like to see the DDA have more accountability and transparency.

Brian Kelly spoke on behalf of young professionals like himself. Curtailing the DDA’s budget and not allowing the DDA to grow as Ann Arbor grows would be dangerous, he cautioned, and would ultimately result in the loss of young professionals.

Gwen Nystuen appreciated the fact that Kunselman and Kailasapathy had worked on the clarification of the ordinance. She felt those who’d spoken at the public hearing on April 15 about the DDA ordinance [many of whom had been recruited from the homeless community to appear and speak in support of affordable housing] were missing the point. She ventured that some of the people hadn’t read the proposed ordinance changes. It was not some drastic thing that would cause great damage, she said. And everyone seems to agree there’s ambiguity and a lack of clarity.

Frances Todoro-Hargreaves spoke on behalf of the State Street Area Association. She told the council she was happy to hear and to see the dialogue. She admired the creative thinking that the council had shown at its previous meeting. [This was an allusion to the friendly amendment Sally Petersen had put forth, which delays enactment of the clarified calculations until FY 2015 and essentially eliminates any shortfall of TIF revenue to the DDA, compared to the revenue the DDA has planned for over the next 10 years.] She’d been looking forward to that open dialogue between the council and the DDA. She encouraged a longer dialogue before making a long-term decision.

Maggie Ladd spoke on behalf of the South University Area Association. She called it dangerous to try to fix something that isn’t broken. She called the DDA an organization that gets things done, and listed out a number of the DDA’s accomplishments. Ladd urged the council to exercise caution, even with the wise amendment that Sally Petersen had made to the proposal on April 15. She urged the council to take a measured approach.

DDA Ordinance Revisions: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she was happy that Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had now taken steps to work collaboratively. She felt that additional time was needed to look at the issue. So she moved to postpone the question until the council’s first meeting in September, which falls on Sept. 3.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Kunselman agreed that there’s a lot to be discussed. He said it was worth trying to make sure that the council got things right.

Responding to previous statements from Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) that “the DDA ain’t broke,” Kunselman stated that clearly there is something broken – otherwise the council wouldn’t be having this discussion today.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) then read aloud from a 10-year old article published in the Ann Arbor News, which was still in publication at the time. [.pdf of Sept. 16, 2003 article retrieved from the Ann Arbor District Library online archives] The letter includes the following:

After holding the future of the Downtown Development Authority in limbo for 16 months, the Ann Arbor City Council on Monday approved a new 30-year deal for the DDA on the premise it will spend more of its money on affordable housing. With a 10-0 vote, the council extended what many hoped would be an olive branch to the DDA.

The city and the DDA have had a tense relationship that has been strained for years in arguments over parking structures, money and conflicting personal relationships. The City Council and the DDA both use tax money to keep Ann Arbor’s downtown chugging along in what both boast is one of the economic pearls of the state.

The nonprofit DDA captures a portion of property taxes from new development is built in its district, also known as tax increment financing (TIF). Just how to spend that nearly $3 million a year has been a source of friction between the city and DDA.

“There has been a history of cutting deals more than partnering,” said DDA board Chairwoman Rene Greff, who owns the Arbor Brewing Co.

Kailasapathy paraphrased Karl Marx by saying that history repeats itself – the first time as a tragedy and the second time as a farce. She highlighted Greff’s statement that the history had been more about cutting deals than partnering. Kailasapathy stressed the issue should be approached with sincerity. She asked that people not pretend the situation was created by her and Kunselman.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said that the issue was difficult for her because she doesn’t think the DDA is broken. She felt that the DDA has bent over backboards backwards to partner with the city. She was not particularly interested in delving into the issue. She did feel that there is some clarification that needs to be made in the ordinance language – but she felt that could be handled by staff even sooner than September. She said she would support the postponement, but not enthusiastically.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Taylor said that as a matter of “comity” he’d support postponement. But he felt that what he’d learned about the DDA from its actions since the time he’d been familiar with the organization is that it is “not fixed.” He then paused to recover from the mis-statement, and made clear that he’d meant to say that the DDA is “not broken.”

Responding to Kailasapathy’s citation of the 2003 newspaper article, Taylor contended that whatever happened in 2003, Greff had appeared in front of the council much more recently – at a previous public hearing – to speak against the proposed ordinance changes. What the DDA does is good for the downtown, and that’s good for the other taxing authorities, Taylor said.

Taylor claimed that the ordinance amendment would pull millions of dollars out of the downtown. That didn’t make any sense to him. He objected in particular to removal of a provision that he construed as putting a rebate to other taxing jurisdictions ahead of payments toward debt. He would not mind seeing the wording of the existing ordinance clarified – but he wanted the clarification to be to the downtown’s benefit.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) indicated she would support the postponement – although she had been prepared to vote in support of the ordinance revisions. She reiterated remarks she’d made previously to the effect that she did not think the proposal would harm the DDA and she would not support the proposal if it did that.

Outcome: On a unanimous vote, the Ann Arbor city council again delayed final enactment to changes in the city’s ordinance governing the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The postponement is until the council’s second first meeting in September – on Sept. 3, 2013.

Digital Sign Ordinance

The council considered final approval to changes in the city’s sign ordinance – to allow for only a limited type of digital signs. The council had given initial approval of the changes at its meeting on March 18, 2013. But at the council’s April 1, 2013 meeting, the council delayed action until May 6. [.pdf of proposed outdoor advertising ordinance]

A council-enacted moratorium on applications for digital signs was set to expire on April 11, 2013. At its April 1 meeting the council decided to extend that moratorium until July 1, 2013.

According to the resolution approved by the council on April 1, the purpose of postponing a decision on the ordinance amendment and extending the moratorium was to allow for additional time to review the proposed amendments and to “gather input from the public and interested parties, and to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of city residents.”

A town hall meeting on billboards, hosted by Ward 5 councilmembers Chuck Warpehoski and Mike Anglin at Downtown Home & Garden at Ashley and Liberty streets, took place on May 8. [.pdf of town hall flyer] Most of the existing billboards in the city are located in Ward 5.

If enacted, the changes would mean that a limited type of digital signs would be allowed in the city. But the effect of the proposed ordinance changes would be that no new billboards would be permitted – although the existing 28 billboards in the city would be allowed to remain as non-conforming signs. Existing billboards would not be allowed to be retrofitted for digital displays.

Under the proposed ordinance changes, new signs with an area greater than 200 square feet could not be constructed. And existing signs of that size could not have electronic features added to allow for changeable text or images.

The existing sign ordinance does not allow for any changeable text, except for “noncommercial information which requires periodic change” – like time and temperature. So the proposed changes to the ordinance would allow for changeable portions of a sign, subject to the limitation that the changeable portion of the sign not be more than half the area of any sign, and no more than 30 square feet per sign and 15 square feet per sign face. Additional limitations would prevent flashing and scrolling – by not allowing changes to content more often than 15 minutes. The proposed ordinance language states:

Changeable copy shall not and shall not appear to flash, undulate, pulse, blink, expand, contract, bounce, rotate, spin, twist, or otherwise move.

The proposed ordinance restrictions on dynamic elements of signs were motivated in part – based on remarks of city planning manager Wendy Rampson at the council’s March 18 meeting – by the perception that these elements are a distraction to motorists. That argument has been countered by Adams Outdoor Advertising in written communication to the city by citing studies that conclude any distraction does not cause a greater rate of traffic accidents.

The proposed ordinance changes would place a maximum brightness of any illuminated sign, including those that are digital/electronic: 5,000 nits during the day and 100 nits at night, and in no case greater than 0.1 foot-candles above the already existing amount of light at a residential property line. One nit is defined as one candela per square meter. A candela is about the amount of light produced by a common tallow candle.

By way of comparison, an iPhone 5 display is reported to have a brightness of about 500 nits.

The moratorium on digital signs was first enacted for 180 days at the council’s April 17, 2012 meeting. And the city council had extended the moratorium for an additional 180 days at its Oct. 1, 2012 meeting.

Falling under the moratorium are “billboards commonly referred to as ‘electronic message centers,’ ‘electronic message boards,’ ‘changeable electronic variable message signs,’ or any billboard containing LEDs, LCDs, plasma displays, or any similar technology to project an illuminated image that can be caused to move or change, or to appear to move or change, by a method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, including by digital or electronic input.”

Sign Ordinance: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge said the prohibition of digital signs reflected a lost opportunity to inform the public about public safety issues. He questioned whose signs and what messages might be limited? Was it messages from rival candidates for mayor or city council? Partridge contended that there hadn’t been adequate consideration of the proposed amendments and said the vote shouldn’t be taken at that meeting.

Ellen Ramsburgh, a member of the city’s historic district commission (HDC), began by saying that she was not familiar with the proposed amendments. Ann Arbor’s HDC had followed the leadership of Ypsilanti’s HDC, she said, by putting together a list of iconic signs in the city that should be preserved. She wasn’t sure where that list had gone, but the Beer Depot sign was an example of a sign that was on the list. The HDC had wanted to grandfather them in so they could be replaced if they fell down.

Christine Brummer told the council that she’d served on the sign board of appeals for at least a decade. During her time on that board, if a sign was iconic – like the sign for the Big 10 Party Store, which became that became Morgan & York, or the Beer Depot sign – the board had allowed them to be preserved as quasi-historic. She pointed out that the sign board of appeals had now been folded into the zoning board of appeals – so those kinds of sign issues would go before the zoning board of appeals.

Sign Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) indicated that he wanted to postpone the vote until June 17. He noted that a town hall meeting on billboards would take place on May 8 hosted by him and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) at Downtown Home & Garden at Ashley and Liberty streets. Most of the existing billboards in the city are located in Ward 5. Anglin noted that representatives from Adams Outdoor Advertising would be there.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) talk before the May 6 meeting started.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) got some clarification about the date to which it would be postponed. There’d been a staff recommendation to postpone until May 20. City planning manager Wendy Rampson indicated that postponing until June 17 would provide some additional time for staff to prepare its report.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked that the issue about iconic signs be addressed – which Ramsburgh and Brummer had raised during the public hearing. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – sponsor of the changes to the sign ordinance – said that the signs those two had talked about were not billboards, and were thus not in the scope of the ordinance changes.

Commenting on the fact that the majority of the billboards in the city are in Ward 5, Taylor quipped that the effect of the proposed ordinance changes would “for good or ill” allow Ward 5 to retain that honor.

Stephen Kunselman noted that there’s a billboard near Packard and US-23 in Ward 3 – which he represents – so he hoped that sign could be included in the discussion.

Outcome: The council again decided to postpone final action – this time until June 17.

Video Privacy Ordinance

The council was asked to give initial consideration of a new ordinance regulating the use of public surveillance cameras. The council had previously postponed the item at its April 15 meeting – due to the length of that meeting. [.pdf of ordinance as presented to the council on April 15, 2013]

The proposed video privacy ordinance would not apply to CTN cameras like this one mounted in the Ann Arbor city council chambers.

The new ordinance would apply only to a limited range of cameras – those used by the city of Ann Arbor “to monitor human activity without the physical presence of an operator, including cameras on remotely operated aerial vehicles.” The ordinance would not apply to a range of city of Ann Arbor cameras, for example: cameras used to improve traffic design, security cameras operating in jails, prisons, water treatment facilities, public housing facilities, or the Ann Arbor Airport and other governmental facilities.

The new ordinance would allow for public surveillance cameras to be installed for 15 days or less at the discretion of the city administrator if the purpose is to address a specific criminal problem.

A period of longer than 15 days would require two-thirds of nearby residents to give written permission. Regardless of the period of the installation, onsite notice of the camera’s presence would be required. If a private residence is in the public surveillance camera’s range, then the residents of that property would have to give written permission for the installation.

Public surveillance cameras could not be used for live-monitoring, except in emergencies, and audio recording would not be permitted. Access to the recorded images would be limited to “employees of the police department and attorneys involved in criminal proceedings.” After 90 days, surveillance recordings would be deleted unless they are part of an ongoing investigation. A report on the effectiveness of a camera would be published on a public website after its removal.

The council had been alerted to the forthcoming ordinance proposal nearly four months ago, when Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) told his colleagues at their Dec. 20, 2012 meeting that he and wardmate Mike Anglin would be bringing a proposal forward.

At that Dec. 20 meeting, Warpehoski said that the Ann Arbor police department doesn’t currently use that technique, but there’d been some concerns in other communities.

By way of additional background, the ordinance has been long in the works but has been delayed. Former Ward 1 councilmember Sandi Smith had announced at a council meeting over a year ago, on Aug. 4, 2011, that she’d be bringing a video surveillance ordinance for consideration at the council’s Sept. 6, 2011 meeting. And a year before that she’d indicated the city’s human rights commission would be working on the issue.

During the brief deliberations on the issue on May 6, Warpehoski indicated that after discussion with city administrator Steve Powers and chief of police John Seto, he’d be asking for a postponement.

Outcome: The council postponed action on the proposed video privacy ordinance until May 20.

Summit Townhomes Project

On the council’s agenda was the site plan approval for the Summit Townhomes project.

Both the site plan and the new zoning for the parcel, located at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road, had appeared on the council’s April 15 meeting agenda. The council approved the R3 (townhouse) zoning at that meeting. But as the hour grew late, at around 3 a.m. the council postponed all remaining items, including the Summit Townhomes site plan, until May 6.

Both the site plan and zoning request previously had been postponed by the council at its March 18, 2013 meeting.

The parcel for the Summit Townhomes development (shaded yellow). The blue line is the boundary between the Malletts Creek and the Swift Run watersheds.

The developer plans to build 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings, with each building between 80 to 160 feet in length. Each of the 24 units would have a floor area of about 1,300 square feet, and an attached one-car garage. The plan includes two surface parking areas on the east and west sides of the site, each with 12 spaces. To do this, the property needed to be zoned as R3.

March 18 had been the first time the site plan had been before the council. But the R3 zoning for the property, annexed from Pittsfield Township, had been previously considered by the council, and referred to the planning commission for re-review. The planning commission then confirmed its original recommendation for R3 zoning.

In more chronological detail, the zoning item had first appeared on the city council’s Jan. 7, 2013 agenda, when it received initial approval. However, at its Feb. 4, 2013 meeting, the council heard from about a half dozen people who spoke during the public hearing, in opposition to the zoning – citing concerns about congestion and overcrowding. So councilmembers voted unanimously to refer the zoning issue back to planning commissioners for another look. The council indicated interest in hearing more detail on drainage issues, and the level of recreational services offered in that general area of the city, as well as information about public safety issues.

At their Feb. 21, 2013 meeting, planning commissioners voted again to recommend that the site be zoned R3 – the same zoning they had previously recommended at their Nov. 20, 2012 meeting.

The project has been working its way through the city’s approval process for several months. The site plan had been postponed by planning commissioners in June of 2012 and again on Nov. 20, 2012, but was ultimately recommended for approval at the commission’s meeting on Jan. 3, 2013.

Before recommending the site plan, planning commissioners had previously recommended approval of annexation and zoning of the site in 2012. At their June 19, 2012 meeting, commissioners had approved annexing the 2.95-acre site, just east of Stone School Road, from Pittsfield Township into the city of Ann Arbor. The annexation was subsequently authorized by the city council.

Outcome: Without discussion at the May 6 meeting, councilmembers approved the site plan for Summit Townhomes.

Fourth Avenue Improvements

The council was asked to consider a $741,900 contract with E.T. MacKenzie Co., to make improvements on Fourth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor between Huron and Liberty Streets.

The work is meant to deal with the poor pavement conditions as well as replace the existing 4-inch water main with about 320 feet of new 12-inch pipe. A stormwater management system will also be installed as part of the project, which will collect water in a stone reservoir under the street. Water in the reservoir will infiltrate into the ground from there. Besides construction of the street, the project includes replacement of the curb, curb ramps, and some sidewalk.

The work is to be paid from the water fund, the street resurfacing millage and the stormwater fund.

During the relatively brief deliberations by the council, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) inquired as to whether the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority was contributing to the project, and whether the DDA had been asked. City administrator Steve Powers indicated that the DDA had been asked and that the DDA was not contributing – because the Fourth Avenue project was not part of the DDA’s capital project budgeting.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the contract for Fourth Avenue improvements.

The Arena: Liquor License

The council was asked to consider withdrawing a formal objection it had made at its March 18, 2013 meeting, to object to the renewal of the liquor license for The Arena – a bar located on the northeast corner of Washington and Fourth in downtown Ann Arbor.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, The Arena paid all outstanding obligations to the city on April 30, 2013.

Those obligations had been the basis of the council’s objection to the renewal: The Arena’s failure to pay a combined $8,755 of 2011 taxes and an additional default judgment. The default judgment was made in the 15th District Court by then-judge Julie Creal in favor of the city for $1,659. It involved non-payment for police services.

The city’s objection had been forwarded to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission (MLCC) for final action. Because The Arena paid the taxes, the MLCC indicated a willingness to extend The Arena’s license, conditioned on the Ann Arbor city council’s withdrawal of the original objection by May 31, 2013.

During deliberations on the matter, several councilmembers expressed their concern about the amount of time and legal resources The Arena had consumed from the city by delaying its payment as long as it did.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to withdraw objection to The Arena’s liquor license renewal.

FY 2014 Budget Hearing

Three public hearings related to the FY 2014 budget – on fees for the public services, community services and public safety services areas – did not draw any speakers. The main hearing on the budget, however, had more participation.

Thomas Partridge said better thinking was needed on issues of homelessness and those who are disadvantaged.

Former city councilmember Jean Carlberg urged the council to add to human services funding.

Carole McCabe, executive director of Avalon Housing, and Julie Steiner, executive director of the Washtenaw Housing Alliance, both highlighted the need for affordable and supportive housing, especially in light of reduced funding due to federal sequestration.

Jeff Hanyer Hayner drew a comparison between downtown Springfield, Illinois, and the possible future of downtown Ann Arbor. For all the money that had been spent on downtown Springfield, they couldn’t keep it from turning into a ghost town. He noted that Ann Arbor doesn’t have a great amount of affordable housing, so that’s something that needs to be considered when deciding what to do with money that might come back to the city from the DDA. What are we going to do differently in Ann Arbor so that it stays vibrant and doesn’t have a feeling of decay? he asked.

Rita Mitchell thanked the council for its decision to remove expenses for a train station from the capital budget. She’d followed that issue since 2009, she said. She remained concerned that there was a continued focus on parkland as a possible location for a new train station. She noted that Amtrak owns the current train station and provides a functional station. She wondered why the city would build a new station for Amtrak, at a cost of $44 million.

Alan Haber allowed he had not studied the budget, but said probably a lot of people hadn’t. He highlighted the need for housing of low income and very low income residents. He called on the council to dedicate the gross proceeds of the sale of the Fifth and William city-owned parcel (the former YMCA lot) to affordable housing, not just some of the net proceeds. [For an account of the city council's policy on proceeds of land sales, enacted in October 2012, see "Proceeds of Land Sales: Mostly Case-by-Case."]

Appointments

The topic of appointments to city boards and commissions arose in a few different ways at the May 6 meeting. During the public hearing on the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority ordinance revisions, Mark Koroi pointed out that none of the members of the downtown citizens advisory council had current appointments. That group exists, based on the state enabling legislation for downtown development authorities.

The meeting’s agenda included nominations for re-appointment of all those members.

Another nomination of interest on the agenda was Susan Baskett to replace Jesse Bernstein on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. Baskett currently is a member of the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of education, an elected position. Her nomination was not surprising, given that her name had previously been put forward to serve on the board of the newly incorporated Act 196 transit authority last year – before that effort was discontinued.

During communications time, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) alerted people to vacancies on the community corrections advisory board. That group is supposed to “formulate a comprehensive plan for the development, implementation, and operation of the community correctional services in Washtenaw County/City of Ann Arbor and to develop a plan for the administration, monitoring, and control of the community correctional services under the comprehensive plan.”

The council postponed action on the appointment of Stephanie Buttrey as a member of the greenbelt advisory commission (GAC). This item also had been postponed from the April 15 meeting. The council considered its appearance on the agenda as a nomination. Action will take place on May 20. Appointments to GAC are somewhat different from those to other boards and commissions, in that the nominations are made by the council as a body, not by the mayor.

During communications time in response to Koroi’s point made at the DDA ordinance hearing, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) picked up on his phrasing, which implied that the members of the downtown citizens advisory council had failed to re-apply for appointment. She didn’t think that was an accurate way to describe the situation. When someone confronts the expiration of their appointment on any board or commission, they generally don’t know, she said. She asked mayor John Hieftje: “Is there a reapplication process that I’ve missed?” No, replied Hieftje. He said that sometimes he has a discussion with someone about whether they’d like to be reappointed.

For the more prominent boards and commissions like the park advisory commission or the planning commission, Hieftje continued, it’s generally known when appointments expire. But for other boards and commissions, he said, he depends on a staff person or the chair of the body to let him know. That doesn’t always happen in a timely way, he said. He also said some people continue to serve on boards through their expiration date until they’re re-appointed.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said this issue had been examined in the last couple of years to see whose responsibility it is to take action – in the case, for example, when board members aren’t attending regularly. There’s a committee she serves on where a member had been absent for a year. It’s hard for the mayor to fill the position, if he’s not aware the member isn’t attending, she said.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Regional Fire Protection

Mayor John Hieftje and Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who’d both attended a meeting earlier that morning of the Metro Alliance, reported out to the council about that meeting. The focus of the Metro Alliance meeting had been regional cooperation for fire protection. Briere described how the mutual aid system currently works: Firefighters arrive at the scene and they determine if they need additional support – if those arriving units needed a “box alarm,” they’d call it in at that point. A “box alarm” is a predetermined set of equipment and personnel that gets deployed from surrounding jurisdictions.

What’s being proposed, Briere continued, is to implement something more robust – a Mutual Aid Box Alarm System (MABAS). It would trigger automatically – at the point of the first dispatch – all the mutual aid response. If the first-arriving firefighters on the scene determined that the mutual aid was not necessary, then other units would be called off. But that means if it’s a serious fire, you get quick response, Briere said. She also pointed out that when there’s a “box alarm” summoning mutual aid from other jurisdictions, Ann Arbor’s off-duty firefighters are also called. But that’s time we can’t afford to wait, she said, and citizens shouldn’t be expected to wait. After hearing about how long it can take for off-duty firefighters to arrive, she’d concluded that first responders are welcome – whichever jurisdictions they come from.

Comm/Comm: Human Rights, Affordable Housing

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a resident of Ward 5, the 53rd District of the Michigan house of representatives and the 18th District of the Michigan senate. He told councilmembers they should place greater attention on affordable housing and supportive services. He called for protection of disability rights, human rights and for tax reform and zoning reform. Alluding to John Hieftje’s long tenure as mayor, Partridge said that if he had been mayor for 10 years, those kinds of issues would have been given primary importance. [Partridge did not mention it, but he'd taken out petitions to run for city council representing Ward 5 earlier in the day.]

Comm/Comm: Washtenaw Area Transportation Study (WATS)

During communications time at the start of the meeting, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), who is the city council’s representative to WATS, noted that comment is being sought on long-range planning and budgeting.

Comm/Comm: Palestine/Israel

Henry Herskovitz described recent events in and around Israel. Israeli forces had attacked Syria and the U.S. supported the move, he said. He also cited news reports about statements made by Carla Del Ponte, a member of a United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria, who’d said that they’d not seen evidence of government forces using chemical weapons, but there were suspicions that rebel forces had used sarin gas. And near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Christians had been prevented by Israeli security forces from worshiping on orthodox Easter, he said.

Herskovitz told the council that on April 17, 23 people had staged an anti-Israel protest outside the Michigan Theater, on the occasion of a performance by an Israeli singer. The protest had attempted to educate local residents to the idea that atrocities couldn’t be concealed by the beauty of a performer.

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski.

Next council meeting: The May 6, 2013 meeting will continue on May 13 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Both the site plan and the new zoning for the parcel, located at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road, had appeared on the council’s April 15 meeting agenda. The council approved the R3 zoning at that meeting. But as the hour grew late, at around 3 a.m. the council postponed all remaining items, including the Summit Townhomes site plan, until May 6.

Both the site plan and zoning request had been postponed by the council at its March 18, 2013 meeting.

The parcel for the Summit Townhomes development (shaded yellow). The blue line is the boundary between the Malletts Creek and the Swift Run watersheds.

The developer plans to build 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings, with each building between 80 to 160 feet in length. Each of the 24 units would have a floor area of about 1,300 square feet, and an attached one-car garage. The plan includes two surface parking areas on the east and west sides of the site, each with 12 spaces. To do this, the property needed to be zoned as R3.

March 18 had been the first time the site plan had been before the council. But the R3 zoning for the property, annexed from Pittsfield Township, had been previously considered by the council, and referred to the planning commission for re-review. The planning commission then confirmed its original recommendation for R3 zoning.

In more chronological detail, the zoning item had first appeared on the city council’s Jan. 7, 2013 agenda, when it received initial approval. However, at its Feb. 4, 2013 meeting, the council heard from about a half dozen people who spoke during the public hearing, in opposition to the zoning – citing concerns about congestion and overcrowding. So councilmembers voted unanimously to refer the zoning issue back to planning commissioners for another look. The council indicated interest in hearing more detail on drainage issues, and the level of recreational services offered in that general area of the city, as well as information about public safety issues.

At their Feb. 21, 2013 meeting, planning commissioners voted again to recommend that the site be zoned R3 – the same zoning they had previously recommended at their Nov. 20, 2012 meeting.

The project has been working its way through the city’s approval process for several months. The site plan had been postponed by planning commissioners in June of 2012 and again on Nov. 20, 2012, but was ultimately recommended for approval at the commission’s meeting on Jan. 3, 2013.

Before recommending the site plan, planning commissioners had previously recommended approval of annexation and zoning of the site in 2012. At their June 19, 2012 meeting, commissioners had approved annexing the 2.95-acre site, just east of Stone School Road, from Pittsfield Township into the city of Ann Arbor. The annexation was subsequently authorized by the city council.

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

The March 18, 2013 city council meeting did not adjourn until nearly 2 a.m. From left: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and city administrator Steve Powers. (Photos by the writer.)

The council decided to conduct a review of D1 zoning, without imposing a moratorium. That cleared the way to consider the 413 E. Huron project, which the council eventually voted to postpone – at roughly 1:30 a.m. Because of the amount of time spent on just those items, they’ll be included in a separate Chronicle report.

Apart from those two items, the council’s agenda still included a planning and land use focus, as well as a downtown theme. An additional theme was the city council’s relationship to two other public bodies – the city planning commission and the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

In the case of the planning commission, the council for a second time balked at the commission’s recommendation of R3 (townhouse) zoning for a recently annexed parcel on Ellsworth near Stone School Road – planned as the site of Summit Townhomes, which would be a 24-unit development. The council postponed consideration of the Summit Townhomes site plan and the zoning, having previously postponed the zoning. The council also had previously referred the zoning recommendation back to the planning commission for re-review. The council’s second postponement on March 18 came after the commission’s re-affirmation of its original recommended R3 zoning. The council sent no explicit communication to the planning commission requesting action, beyond the implicit message of postponing the vote.

In the case of the DDA board, the council is weighing changes to the city ordinance governing the composition of that body, but postponed those changes for a second time at its March 18 meeting. The more significant of the ordinance changes involves clarifying how the Ann Arbor DDA’s tax increment finance capture is calculated, which has implications for millions of dollars for the DDA, the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College and the Ann Arbor District Library.

Also related to the DDA, early in the council’s meeting an oral report was given on a session of the council’s audit committee – held the previous week to review the DDA’s FY 2012 audit. In the middle portion of the council meeting, councilmembers postponed the ordinance changes. And in the early morning hours of March 19, after the voting agenda was concluded, a member of the audit committee – Sally Petersen (Ward 2) – announced her intention to propose a task force on the DDA.

Related to other boards and commissions, the council confirmed the appointment of a chair for the zoning board of appeals (ZBA): Alex Milshteyn. He replaces Carol Kuhnke, who resigned in December 2012 after being elected judge of the 22nd Circuit Court.

In other business, the council gave approval for the zoning and site plan of The Shoppes at 3600, a proposed retail development on Plymouth Road.

The council also voted to object to the renewal of a liquor license for The Arena, a downtown bar located at Division and Washington streets. The basis for the objection – which will be forwarded to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission for final action – was non-payment of taxes.

The council also gave initial approval to a revision to the city’s sign ordinance. It would essentially maintain current conditions, but provide for certain limited digital signs with a restricted range of changeable elements.

Council communications included a briefing on upcoming changes the council will be asked to consider for the city’s public art ordinance. In other communications, the council will be giving a fire station reconfiguration plan some additional explicit discussion at a future working session – although it appears that the idea has insufficient traction to move forward.

Public commentary at the meeting covered a range of topics, including a call for the council to waive privilege on legal advice that councilmembers had received on the D1 moratorium issue – because they’ve now voted not to enact the moratorium.

DDA-Related Issues

Items related to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority came up at three points during the meeting. During council communications at the start of the meeting, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) – a member of the council’s audit committee – gave a report from the committee meeting held on March 14. Later, the council voted on DDA ordinance revisions that were on the agenda. And sometime around 1:30 a.m. the topic came up again, during the council communications at the end of the meeting.

This report begins with the agenda item.

DDA: Ordinance Revisions

Before the council for its consideration were several revisions to Chapter 7, a city ordinance governing the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA). The ordinance amendments had been postponed at the council’s March 4, 2013 meeting.

A chart by the city of Ann Arbor financial staff showing Ann Arbor DDA TIF (tax increment finance) revenue under various methods of calculation.

Among the revisions to Chapter 7 that are being considered by the council are: a new prohibition against elected officials serving on the DDA board; term limits on DDA board members; a new requirement that the DDA submit its annual report to the city in early January; and a requirement that all taxes captured by the DDA be spent on projects that directly benefit property in the DDA tax increment finance (TIF) district.

But most significant of the revisions would be those that clarify how the DDA’s TIF tax capture is calculated. The “increment” in a tax increment finance district refers to the difference between the initial value of a property and the value of a property after development. The Ann Arbor DDA captures the taxes – just on that initial increment – of some other taxing authorities in the district. Those are the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County, Washtenaw Community College and the Ann Arbor District Library. For FY 2013, the DDA will capture roughly $3.9 million in taxes.

The proposed ordinance revision would clarify existing ordinance language, which includes a paragraph that appears to limit the amount of TIF that can be captured. The limit is defined relative to projections for the valuation of the increment in the TIF plan, which is a foundational document for the DDA.

If the actual rate of growth outpaces the growth rate that’s anticipated in the TIF plan, then at least half the excess amount is supposed to be redistributed to the other taxing authorities in the DDA district.

DDA board members at their March 6, 2013 meeting indicated that they did not think any reason had been given to amend the ordinance. At a meeting of the city council’s audit committee held on March 14, city CFO Tom Crawford indicated that it was the view of many people, including his own, that the ordinance language on TIF calculation was not clear. During that meeting of the audit committee, Crawford indicated that the FY 2012 audit of the DDA did not include a review of Chapter 7 compliance.

What the proposed ordinance revisions clarify is which estimates in the TIF plan are the standard of comparison – the “realistic” projections, not the “optimistic” or “pessimistic” estimates. However, the ordinance revisions as currently formulated do not clarify whether a “cumulative” method of performing the calculations should be used or if a year-to-year method should be used.

Use of the cumulative method has an impact on whether the redistribution of excess TIF is made on a one-time or recurring basis. Under the cumulative method, other taxing authorities in the Ann Arbor DDA TIF district would see a total on the order of $1 million in additional tax revenue, compared to the way the DDA currently calculates the TIF capture. The city of Ann Arbor’s annual share would be more than half of that amount, around $600,000.

Method: Year-to-Year                   
Refunds                                                         
       City       County      WCC       AADL      Total Ref    DDA TIF
FY14   $429,409   $149,392    $94,257   $40,163   $713,221     $3,964,457
FY15    $11,958     $4,160     $2,625    $1,118    $19,862     $4,774,758

===============================

Method: Cumulative                     
Refunds                                                      
       City       County     WCC        AADL      Total Ref    DDA TIF
FY14   $613,919   $213,583   $134,757   $57,421   $1,019,680   $3,657,998
FY15   $635,108   $211,673   $139,195   $58,539   $1,044,515   $3,773,043

-

The clarification of the ordinance crucially strikes two paragraphs related to bond and debt payments. One of the two paragraphs was key to the DDA’s current legal position – which is that no redistribution of TIF is required under the ordinance, given the DDA’s financial position. The DDA interprets the stricken paragraphs to mean that no redistribution to other taxing authorities needs to be made, until the total amount of the DDA’s debt payments falls below the amount of its TIF capture. At the DDA board’s March 6 meeting, board member Bob Guenzel alluded to this in the context of remarks on the TIF calculations when he observed that the DDA is “on the hook” for some bond payments.

In the FY 2014 budget, adopted by the DDA board at its Feb. 6, 2013 meeting, about $6.5 million is slated for bond payments and interest. That clearly exceeds the amount of anticipated TIF capture in the FY 2014 budget – about $3.9 million. The DDA is able to make those debt payments because about half of that $6.5 million is covered by revenues from the public parking system. The DDA administers the public parking system under contract with the city of Ann Arbor.

This issue first arose back in the spring of 2011. The context was the year-long hard negotiations between the DDA and the city over terms of a new contract under which the DDA would manage the city’s parking system. The Chapter 7 issue emerged just as the DDA board was set to vote on the parking system contract at its May 2, 2011 meeting.

When the issue was identified by the city’s financial staff, the DDA board postponed voting on the new contract. The period of the postponement was used to analyze whether the DDA’s Chapter 7 obligations could be met – at the same time the DDA was ratifying a new parking system contract, which required the DDA to pay the city of Ann Arbor 17% of gross parking revenues. The DDA manages the city’s parking system under contract with the city.

Initially, the DDA agreed that money was owed to other taxing authorities – not just for that year, but for previous years as well. And the DDA paid a combined roughly $473,000 to the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw Community College and Washtenaw County in 2011. The city of Ann Arbor chose to waive its $712,000 share of the calculated excess.

The Chronicle recently learned that during this timeframe in 2011, the TIF calculation topic was the subject of a meeting attended by representatives of all the taxing authorities in the DDA district, as well as by representatives of the DDA. The outcome of the meeting was an expectation by some in attendance that the DDA would work with the other taxing authorities to arrive at a consensus interpretation of the ordinance. But subsequently, the DDA completely reversed its legal position, and contended that no money should have been returned at all. That decision came at a July 27, 2011 DDA board meeting.

The following spring, during the May 21, 2012 city council budget deliberations, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) proposed an amendment to the city’s FY 2013 budget that stipulated specific interpretations of Chapter 7, with a recurring positive impact to the city of Ann Arbor’s general fund of about $200,000 a year. Kunselman wanted to use that general fund money to pay for additional firefighters. That year the budget amendment got support from just two other councilmembers: Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

For a Chronicle op-ed on this topic, see: “Column: Let’s Get DDA TIF Capture Right.”

DDA: Ordinance Revisions – Council Deliberations

On March 18, Stephen Kunselman began deliberations on the ordinance amendments by indicating he’d be asking for an additional postponement. [The ordinance changes are sponsored by Kunselman and Sumi Kailasapathy.] One reason for postponing, he said, is that answers to certain questions are still being sought from the DDA. He also noted that there would be a council work session on the DDA budget. [This is now scheduled for March 25.] There’s a lot of concern about how the amendments he’s proposing would affect the DDA budget and its debt obligations. He wanted to reiterate that his goal was to bring some stability, trust and confidence in the DDA as an institution. His intent is that the DDA budget would remain whole.

Based on figures from the city treasurer’s office, Kunselman noted that using the year-to-year method to calculate the excess TIF capture, the city would receive $429,409 in FY 2014. The DDA’s total TIF capture would be $3.9 million for that year. But for the following year, FY 2015, the DDA’s total capture was anticipated to jump to $4.7 million. That’s due to recently completed projects within the geographic areas of the TIF district, which will increase the tax base.

But in the proposed two-year budget the DDA passed recently [at its Feb. 6, 2013 meeting], the anticipated total TIF capture by the DDA was $3.7 million in FY 2015. What had caught his attention was the $1 million increase between the approved budget amount and the projection for actual TIF capture, Kunselman said. So he wanted to have a good discussion about the cumulative method of calculating the excess TIF. Sample language for a further revision to the TIF ordinance – which would stipulate the cumulative method of calculation – had been forwarded to councilmembers, Kunselman said. The following revision would have the effect of clarifying that a cumulative method of calculation should be used [deleted text indicated with strike-through, and added text in italics]:

If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction, and increase in value of property newly constructed or existing property improved subsequent thereto, grows at a rate faster is greater than that anticipated in the tax increment plan, at least 50% of such additional amounts shall be divided among the taxing units in relation to their proportion of the current tax levies. If the captured assessed valuation derived from new construction grows at a rate of over is greater than twice that anticipated in the plan, all of such excess amounts over twice that anticipated shall be divided among the taxing units.

Kunselman pointed out that under the cumulative calculations, the approved DDA budget of $3.7 million for FY 2015 could be covered as adopted. So that wouldn’t “hamstring” the DDA in its ability to pay its bills, Kunselman concluded.

Regarding the other amendments to the DDA ordinance that he’s proposing – involving membership, term limits and a report filing requirement – he reminded people that for many years the DDA didn’t file its annual report as required by state law. He pointed out that the state-enabling statute for DDAs contemplated the possibility that the DDA could enter into an agreement with the taxing jurisdictions whose taxes are captured – to share a portion of TIF revenues with one of the jurisdictions. How can you do that if an elected official of one of the taxing authorities is on the DDA board? Kunselman asked. He saw this as an ethical conflict.

Kunselman noted that last year, on Jan. 27, 2012, the Ann Arbor District Library sent a letter to the city, expressing the library’s disappointment that a method of TIF calculation was chosen that would return the smallest amount of TIF possible to the taxing jurisdictions whose taxes are captured by the DDA. Kunselman felt that if the method could be clearly specified in the ordinance, the concern of others can be relieved. Kunselman said he didn’t want to wind up in court with the other taxing authorities on the issue.

Kunselman indicated that he hoped councilmembers could take the initial vote on the proposed amendments at the council’s April 1 meeting.

Mayor John Hieftje expressed concern that the city’s general fund could see a negative impact as a result of the ordinance amendments.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the question of revising the DDA ordinance until its April 1, 2013 meeting. Even if the council votes to approve any of the proposed amendments on April 1, a second and final vote would be required to enact the ordinance changes.

DDA: Council Communications – Audit Committee

Early in the meeting during council communications time, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) gave an update on the audit committee’s session held on March 14. She told the council that the meeting had to be called under Robert’s Rules by members of the committee – because the chair of the committee didn’t see a need for the meeting. By way of background, the chair of the committee is Margie Teall (Ward 4). Under Robert’s Rules – which govern all procedures of the council not otherwise addressed in the council’s own rules – a committee meeting can be called by the chair or by two of its members. In addition to Teall and Kailasapathy, other members of the committee include Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Kailasapathy said that she and Kunselman had concerns about the TIF calculations and compliance by the DDA with Chapter 7 of the city’s ordinance. She quoted from the DDA TIF plan, which states that: “The DDA submits an annual audit to the City of Ann Arbor that includes the status of the (tax increment finance) TIF account in compliance with the requirements of Section 15(3) of the State of Michigan Downtown Development Authority Act.” Kailasapathy indicated that the result of the audit committee’s conversation was that compliance with TIF regulations was not tested during the FY 2012 audit. The question arose about why that compliance was not part of the audit’s scope, she said.

She went on to say that she and Kunselman had found mistakes in statements from the FY 2012 audit report, giving as an example what she called a “significant error”: a statement that parking bonds are serviced out of the DDA’s parking fund – when TIF funds are also used to service parking bonds.

Kailasapathy indicated a desire to meet with the auditors to discuss that and other statements – to determine if the report needs to be re-issued. She was also interested in understanding why Chapter 7 compliance is not tested as part of the audit procedure. She indicated she was “alarmed” at the delays in getting financial information from the DDA during the audit committee’s inquiry, which had been attributed to the fact that the DDA’s deputy director, Joe Morehouse – who is directly responsible for the DDA financial records – is on medical leave. Kailasapathy questioned why there was no succession plan to provide for his absence. She stated that the nature of her interest in the DDA was compliance with financial standards and was not about “us versus them.” Her remark about “us versus them” could be understood as an allusion to some of the discussion at the March 14 audit committee meeting.

On that occasion, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) had highlighted the portion of the FY 2012 that described the DDA’s relationship to the city: “The Authority is considered a component unit of the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan and is discretely presented in the City of Ann Arbor’s (the primary government) financial statements.” That had been a good reminder to Petersen that “them is us.”

Kailasapathy concluded her remarks during the early council communications by indicating that her interest is in compliance with legal requirements and fairness to the other taxing jurisdictions, whose taxes are captured through the DDA’s TIF.

DDA: Council Communications – TIF/Parking Fund

The FY 2012 audit report statement – which Kailasapathy referred to as inaccurate – was this:

The parking structure bonds are to be serviced with revenues from the parking fund. The City Hall bonds are to be serviced from future tax increment revenues of the general fund.

The use of not just parking revenue, but also TIF revenue, to pay for parking structure bonds also came up near the end of the meeting during council communications.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), alluding to the late hour, said he would like to make clear for that “one member of the public who’s still listening” that the TIF fund has been used for parking-related infrastructure for decades and that use of the TIF fund has been perfectly proper. He thought it was useful to state that fact going forward. The DDA is proud of what it does and, for his part, Taylor felt the DDA should be proud.

Kunselman took the opportunity to make clear that the actual issue at stake was not the use of TIF funds to service parking structure bonds per se, but rather the combination of that practice with a transfer of parking revenue to the city. Under the contract between the city and the DDA, the city receives 17% of public parking system gross revenues. Kunselman said that as he understood the state-enabling statute, a sharing of TIF revenues with one of the taxing jurisdictions required an agreement with the other jurisdictions. The part of Act 197 of 1975 to which Kunselman was referring reads as follows:

The authority may enter into agreements with the taxing jurisdictions and the governing body of the municipality in which the development area is located to share a portion of the captured assessed value of the district.

There’s no agreement among the city and the DDA or the other taxing authorities to share the DDA TIF, Kunselman pointed out. Yet through its parking fund, the DDA is providing money to the city – under the parking contract – and also to the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, through grants to the getDowntown program. At the March 14 meeting of the council audit committee, Kunselman called this “TIF laundering.” This was “very questionable” in Kunselman’s mind. He noted that the way that DDAs operate is starting to catch the attention of the state legislature. [By way of background, HB 4459, if passed, would exclude from capture taxes levied under the state's enabling legislation on zoological authorities or art institute authorities.]

DDA: Background – TIF/Parking Fund

While Taylor’s characterization of the DDA’s historical use of TIF funds to invest in the city’s parking structures was accurate, much of that history predates the transfers of parking system revenues to the city, which began in earnest in 2005.

That’s the year the DDA agreed to transfer $1 million a year to the city for the next 10 years, with the possibility of transferring up to $2 million in any one year, so long as the total through 2015 did not exceed $10 million. With all $10 million paid in the first five years, the city sought to renegotiate the contract – resulting in an agreement ratified finally in May 2011, which now annually transfers 17% of gross public parking system revenues to the city of Ann Arbor.

The payments to the city from the parking system were made in the context of a consistent narrative, beginning at least around 2003 when the DDA’s TIF plan was renewed, around the notion of self-sufficiency for Ann Arbor’s public parking system. From the 2003 TIF plan:

In 2002, the DDA took over operation of the on-street parking meter system in order to meet the community’s goal of a self-sustaining downtown parking system. The DDA is now working to establish rates and policies that will ensure the long-term viability of the full system while serving the special needs of downtown stakeholders.

From the Nelson\Nygaard study of the Ann Arbor parking system completed in 2007:

The public parking system operations can and should be financially self-sustaining, with no need for tax subsidy.

From the DDA’s “Public Parking & Transportation Demand Management Strategies Plan,” written in April 2010:

The public parking system operations are now and should continue to be financially self-sustaining, with no need for tax subsidy. The users of the system should pay for the system, including operation, maintenance, repair, and eventual additions to the system.

And mayor John Hieftje campaigned for re-election in 2010 in part on a contention that the bonds to be issued for the new Library Lane underground parking garage would be serviced with parking system revenue, not with tax money. [See Chronicle coverage of candidate forums on July 10, 2010 and July 1, 2010.]

However, when the city council voted on Feb. 17, 2009, to approve issuance of the bonds for the new Library Lane underground parking structure, the staff memo had indicated that a combination of parking revenue and TIF capture would be used to pay the bonds:

Debt service on the bonds is expected to be paid from revenues of the City’s public parking system and tax increment revenues collected by the Downtown Development Authority.

From an accounting point of view, the DDA’s financial system was set up to reflect a commitment that all parking system expenses would be covered by parking system revenues. But that entailed allowing the parking fund to show a deficit – with the balance in the other DDA funds (including the TIF fund) keeping the DDA solvent in aggregate. However, deficit fund balances are counter to Michigan’s Uniform Budgeting and Accounting Act. And the result of the FY 2010 audit was that the DDA shifted away from that deficit-funding practice.

The required adjustment to the accounting, to show positive balances for all the funds, meant that the accounting showed clearly that TIF tax capture would be used to help pay for the Library Lane underground parking garage.

At the council’s audit committee meeting on March 14, 2013, the city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford, sketched out the general history of the DDA, when it used TIF funds at the beginning of its life to repair and construct parking structures. Then the DDA reached a point where the DDA had decided by policy, Crawford explained, that the TIF funds wouldn’t be used for parking, and that TIF revenue would only be used for economic development and other activities. But around 2008-09, Crawford said, when the underground structure was being planned, that approach “was just not going to work.” So the DDA had changed its policy – which is the DDA’s purview, Crawford said.

About the statement in the FY 2012 audit report, which indicated that only parking revenues are used to pay for parking structure debt, Crawford allowed that “the words could be improved.”

DDA: Council Communications – Task Force

During the council communications at the end of the meeting, audit committee member Sally Petersen (Ward 2) alerted her colleagues on the council that she’d be proposing a task force on the DDA, in order to get better alignment between the city and the DDA. She indicated that Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) was aware of her desire to form a task force. She felt the task force could run in parallel with consideration of the changes to the DDA ordinance. She described the ordinance changes as tactical, implying that the task force would focus on strategic approaches. The task force proposal would likely come to the council on April 1, she said.

Mayor John Hieftje volunteered that every time the city had asked the DDA to do something, the DDA had helped.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) responded to a remark made by Hieftje earlier in the meeting, during the brief deliberations on the ordinance amendments, about his concern that the city’s general fund might be put at risk by the kind of changes she and Kunselman were proposing. She said that for her, it was a matter of making sure that compliance with the state statute was ensured, and that the numbers were right. The first step, she indicated, was to make sure the calculations were correct and that there was compliance with the regulations. After that, the question could be opened about whether money comes back to the city. The city’s motivation should not be to turn the DDA into “a cash cow,” she concluded.

Hieftje told Kailasapathy that he didn’t disagree with what she was saying, but he’d just wanted to make the point that the DDA had been very cooperative.

Summit Townhomes Zoning and Site Plan

At the March 18 meeting, the council was asked to consider the site plan and necessary zoning for the Summit Townhomes project. The property is located at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road.

The parcel for the Summit Townhomes development (shaded yellow). The city council voted to postpone a final decision on zoning the parcel to R3 (townhouse dwelling district). The blue line is the boundary between the Malletts Creek and the Swift Run watersheds.

The developer plans to build 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings, with each building between 80 to 160 feet in length. Each of the 24 units would have a floor area of about 1,300 square feet, and an attached one-car garage. The plan includes two surface parking areas on the east and west sides of the site, each with 12 spaces. To do this, the property needs to be zoned as R3 (townhouse district).

March 18 was the first time the site plan had been before the council. But the R3 zoning for the property, annexed from Pittsfield Township, had been previously considered by the council, and referred to the planning commission for re-review. The planning commission then confirmed its original recommendation for R3 zoning.

In more chronological detail, the zoning item had first appeared on the city council’s Jan. 7, 2013 agenda, when it received initial approval. However, during a public hearing at the council’s Feb. 4, 2013 meeting, about a half dozen people spoke in opposition to the zoning – citing concerns about congestion and overcrowding. So councilmembers voted unanimously to refer the zoning issue back to planning commissioners for another look. The council indicated interest in hearing more detail on drainage issues, and the level of recreational services offered in that general area of the city, as well as information about public safety issues.

At their Feb. 21, 2013 meeting, planning commissioners voted again to recommend that the site be zoned R3 (townhouse district) – the same zoning they had previously recommended at their Nov. 20, 2012 meeting.

The project has been working its way through the city’s approval process for several months. The site plan had been postponed by planning commissioners in June of 2012 and again on Nov. 20, 2012, but was ultimately recommended for approval at the commission’s meeting on Jan. 3, 2013.

Before recommending the site plan, planning commissioners had previously recommended approval of annexation and zoning of the site in 2012. At their June 19, 2012 meeting, commissioners had approved annexing the 2.95-acre site, just east of Stone School Road, from Pittsfield Township into the city of Ann Arbor. The annexation was subsequently authorized by the city council.

Summit Townhomes Zoning, Site Plan: Public Hearings

Thomas Partridge wanted civil rights amendments attached to the rezoning request, as well as for all similar requests, that would ensure access to affordable housing.

Ethel Potts told the council that they’d “wisely” sent the question back to the planning commission for a second look. She said she wouldn’t characterize the commission’s “discussion or lack of discussion.” There are three or four townhouse developments in that area of town, she said, and she didn’t think that part of town needed more townhouses.

Summit Townhomes Zoning, Site Plan: Council Discussion

When the council reached the rezoning item, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated she wanted to have the city attorney look into a question before voting, so she moved to lay the question on the table. The council voted unanimously to lay the question on the table.

Later in the meeting, when the council reached the agenda item about the site plan, the council took the zoning back up off the table.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) led off deliberations by reciting the history of the council’s previous postponement, based on concerns about the already-existing density of the area. He mentioned the council’s decision to refer it back to the planning commission, and the commission’s re-affirmation of the recommended R3 (townhouse) zoning. Taylor stated that he was “unwilling to take that at this time.” So he wanted to postpone the question another 30 days to allow for additional time to reflect on the appropriate zoning for that area – in the context of the city’s master plan and the existing density.

Higgins indicated support for the postponement. She pointed out that it’s the first time the city is applying zoning to this parcel, because the city had just recently annexed the property from the township. There is no pre-existing city zoning. She wanted to see it “a little less dense.”

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who is the city council’s representative to the planning commission, told the council she would carry the message to the planning commission at its next meeting.

Higgins noted that she didn’t know that there was a particular message to convey to the planning commission, but she encouraged Briere to inform the planning commission that the council had postponed the question and to relate the reason for the postponement.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said that just because there’s already R3 zoning in the area with several dense townhome developments doesn’t mean it warrants more. At some point, the infrastructure can’t handle it. The traffic on Ellsworth already gets backed up, especially now that Costco has opened, he said. He was looking forward to different zoning. He allowed that R1C might not fit, but said that the topography of the property had to be respected. Townhomes on a hill would require a significant amount of earthmoving – and that has consequences for everybody downhill. As downhill properties he noted Arbor Oaks and Forest Hills. There’s a need to think outside the box, when it goes back to the planning commission, Kunselman concluded. [This remark by Kunselman may have contributed to confusion about expectations for possible planning commission action. According to planning manager Wendy Rampson, who was contacted by The Chronicle later in the week, there has been no direction given to planning staff or the commission to consider the matter further.]

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the zoning until its April 15, 2013 meeting. The site plan was also similarly postponed, in a separate vote.

Zoning Board of Appeals Chair

On the March 18 agenda was a resolution to appoint a chair for the zoning board of appeals (ZBA): Alex Milshteyn, who already serves on the ZBA. He’s a replacement for Carol Kuhnke, who resigned in December 2012 after being elected judge of the 22nd Circuit Court. The ZBA is somewhat different from most other city boards and commissions, which elect their own chair from within the body. The council appoints the chair of the ZBA.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who previously served on the zoning board of appeals, introduced the item. She said she’d enjoyed having the leadership of Carol Kuhnke as chair. Briere was confident that Milshteyn would also be an effective and capable chair of the ZBA.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to appoint Alex Milshteyn as chair of the ZBA.

The Shoppes at 3600

Before the council for its consideration was the site plan as well as the rezoning for a proposed retail development at 3600 Plymouth Road, just west of US-23 – called The Shoppes at 3600.

Aerial map of the location for The Shoppes at 3600, located off of Plymouth Road west of US-23.

The developer hopes to build a 9,490-square foot, one-story retail building, to be constructed in what’s now the parking lot and front yard for a hotel, at an estimated cost of $1 million. The building would have space for several businesses, including a restaurant with a one-lane drive-through window and outdoor seating. An existing shared driveway off of Plymouth Road would be used to access the site. The site plan calls for 33 parking spots and four covered bike parking spots near the entrance.

The March 18 agenda items on the site plan and the rezoning – from R5 (motel-hotel district) to C3 (fringe commercial district) – followed an initial vote of approval for the zoning at the council’s Feb. 19, 2013 meeting. Voting against the rezoning on the initial consideration was Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

The planning commission had recommended approval at its Jan. 15, 2013 meeting. The project had been postponed by the commission on Nov. 7, 2012.

The site is located in the same complex as the Holiday Inn North Campus. Responding to some planning commissioner concerns voiced at the November 2012 meeting, the developer had provided an alternative site plan that was reviewed on Jan. 15. But the developer sought approval for the original layout, which was ultimately recommended for approval by the planning commission. The owner is listed as Ann Arbor Farms Hotel Corp., with property being developed by Diverse Development in Holland, Ohio.

The Shoppes at 3600: Public Hearings

Thomas Partridge questioned the idea that the item could appear on the council’s agenda without the sponsorship of a councilmember or the mayor. He called for an amendment to zoning that would ensure access to the property for affordable transportation.

Warren Attarian addressed the council and objected to the site plan. He noted that it’s the first thing you see coming into the city, and there were five shops squeezed into a little more than an acre. The back of the buildings is up against the sidewalk, with no setback, while the front of the buildings is interior to the development. He noted that the planning commission had asked the developer to present an alternate layout, which the developer did. Although the planning staff had determined the alternate plan was feasible, the developer didn’t pursue it. He asked the council not to approve the site plan, venturing that the real problem was trying to squeeze five stores into one acre.

The Shoppes at 3600: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to explain the landscaping requirements. Rampson explained that the site has frontage on M-14, which requires right-of-way buffering. Some mitigation was also required for some landmark trees. There would be trees around the perimeter, Rampson said, as wells as some lilacs and shrubs on Plymouth. She thought that red oaks would be planted along the M-14 on-ramp.

Rampson explained that the back of the building is the north side.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the rezoning. Later in the meeting, the council voted to approve the site plan over the lone dissent of Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Liquor Licenses

The Ann Arbor city council considered a resolution objecting to the renewal of the liquor license for The Arena – a bar located on the northeast corner of Washington and Fourth in downtown Ann Arbor.

Jane Lumm at the March 6, 2013 hearing on the non-renewal recommendation of The Arena’s liquor license. She served as hearing officer.

The basis of the objection to the renewal, which needs to be forwarded to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission for final action, was The Arena’s failure to pay a combined $8,755 of 2011 taxes and an additional default judgment. The default judgment was made in the 15th District Court by then-judge Julie Creal in favor of the city for $1,659. It involved non-payment for police services, in connection with outdoor tents for an Oktoberfest event.

A hearing on The Arena’s liquor license renewal was held on March 6, 2013 – presided over by hearing officer Jane Lumm, who represents Ward 2 on the city council. Based on evidence presented by assistant city attorney Bob West, who called city clerk Jackie Beaudry and city treasurer Matt Horning as witnesses, Lumm concluded that the recommendation of non-renewal should be placed on the March 18, 2013 city council agenda.

Also on March 6, a hearing was conducted on the non-renewal of the license for Banfield’s Bar & Grill. Lumm issued a similar verdict on that case, but in the meantime, Banfield’s paid the taxes owed. So Banfield’s was on the agenda with three other establishments that were recommended to have their licenses renewed. The three other establishments recommended for renewal by the council on March 18 – all of which had rectified any issues prior to the March 6 hearings – included Aut Bar, Bagger Dave’s Legendary Burgers & Fries, and Café Zola.

At the council’s March 18 meeting, Lumm introduced the item on objecting to renewal of The Arena’s license. She took the occasion to thank the staff in the city attorney’s office, the building department, fire department, police department, the city clerk’s office and the treasurer’s office. She also thanked her fellow liquor license review committee members, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

Outcome: On separate votes, the council recommended renewal of four liquor licenses, and objected to the renewal of The Arena’s license. Based on a subsequent Chronicle visit to The Arena, the owner’s intent is to pay the outstanding bills before the state liquor control commission rules on the license renewal.

Sign Ordinance Amendments

The council was asked to give initial approval to changes in the city’s sign ordinance. If the changes are ratified at a second and final vote, certain kinds of digital signs with specific limitations would be allowed in the city. [.pdf of proposed outdoor advertising ordinance]

Billboards on West Liberty Street at First, near the edge of downtown Ann Arbor, looking east. (Photo illustration by The Chronicle.)

But under the ordinance revisions, new billboards – signs with an area greater than 200 square feet – could not be constructed. And existing signs of that size could not have electronic features added to allow for changeable text or images.

The existing sign ordinance does not allow for any changeable text, except for “noncommercial information which requires periodic change” – like time and temperature. So the proposed changes to the ordinance would allow for changeable portions of a sign, subject to the limitation that the changeable portion of the sign not be more than half the area of any sign and no more than 30 square feet per sign and 15 square feet per sign face. Additional limitations would prevent flashing and scrolling – by not allowing changes to content more often than 15 minutes.

The proposed ordinance changes would place a maximum brightness of any illuminated sign, including those that are digital/electronic: 5,000 nits during the day and 100 nits at night, and in no case greater than 0.1 foot-candles above the already existing amount of light at a residential property line. One nit is defined as one candela per square meter. And a candela is about the amount of light produced by a common tallow candle.

By way of comparison, an iPhone 5 display is reported to have a brightness of about 500 nits.

The ordinance revisions come in the context of a moratorium on digital billboards that’s currently in place throughout the city, but is scheduled to expire on April 11, 2013. The city extended the moratorium for an additional 180 days at its Oct. 1, 2012 meeting, after the moratorium was first enacted for 180 days at the council’s April 17, 2012 meeting.

Falling under the moratorium are “billboards commonly referred to as ‘electronic message centers,’ ‘electronic message boards,’ ‘changeable electronic variable message signs,’ or any billboard containing LEDs, LCDs, plasma displays, or any similar technology to project an illuminated image that can be caused to move or change, or to appear to move or change, by a method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, including by digital or electronic input.”

The moratorium resolution passed by the city council acknowledges that such signs are prohibited by the city’s current sign ordinance. From that ordinance, the list of prohibited signs include those that “… incorporate in any manner or are illuminated by any flashing or moving lights other than for conveyance of noncommercial information which requires periodic change.”

Sign Ordinance Amendments: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) recited the history of the moratorium. The proposed revisions essentially preserve the status quo, he said, by allowing no new billboards. The current ordinance allows for up to 30 billboards citywide, and there are currently 28. That meant that the change eliminates the possibility of an additional two billboards. He stressed that existing billboards could continue to exist as nonconforming signs and continue to be repaired and maintained.

Gas station price signs are covered by the ordinance revisions, he said. There are also a number of changes intended to improve clarity.

He noted that the moratorium expires April 11. If the ordinance revision were given initial approval that evening, and final approval on April 1, then the ordinance changes would be enacted before the expiration of the moratorium.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked for some clarification of the ordinance revisions. Are digital signs permitted as long as they’re not scrolling? How big can they be?

City planning manager Wendy Rampson explained that the ordinance revisions dealt with digital components, because it’s become a popular sign form in the industry. The ordinance would allow for a small amount of changeable copy both for on- and off-premise signs. But the amount of the changeable area could not be more than 50% and could not total more than 15 square feet per side. It would allow for different worship services to be displayed at a church, she explained, or gas station price changes. But she pointed out that the ordinance language specified the changeable part couldn’t change more frequently than once every 15 minutes and couldn’t “scroll, explode, dance” – because that’s perceived as a distraction to vehicular traffic.

The ordinance language states:

Changeable copy shall not and shall not appear to flash, undulate, pulse, blink, expand, contract, bounce, rotate, spin, twist, or otherwise move.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked for some illustrations to make clear what the ordinance language meant, saying, “our imaginations aren’t that fertile” and “the words don’t help.” He felt it was entirely too complicated for someone not familiar with the industry.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) wanted to know if the Pioneer High School sign at Stadium and Main would be affected, venturing that the city did not have jurisdiction over the school. Rampson confirmed that was the case, just as the city had no jurisdiction over the signs at the University of Michigan football stadium.

Petersen wanted to know if Anglin was interested in postponing the vote. Anglin didn’t feel a need to postpone – as long as the staff provided the council with the information he’d requested by the time of the second vote. Anglin ventured that the corner of Madison and Main was “beginning to look like Coney Island.”

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) expressed tentative support for the changes – and were content to vote yes at first reading.

Petersen said she was “hard-pressed to support this at first reading.” She felt that the use of signs is an opportunity to impact economic development. She also pointed out the school district and the University of Michigan don’t have to comply and that would result in a lack of uniformity.

Outcome: The council voted to give initial approval of the revisions to the sign ordinance. Dissenting were
Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Argo Parking Lease

A resolution on the council’s March 18 consent agenda related to a $3,000 lease to accommodate overflow parking for the Argo canoe livery. The lease had been recommended for approval by the city’s park advisory commission at its Feb. 26, 2013 meeting. The lease of a parking lot at 416 Longshore Drive – with about 40 spaces – will cover Saturdays, Sundays and holidays from May 25 to Sept. 2, 2013, with an option to renew administratively for two successive one-year periods.

City parks staff reported that the overflow parking at this lot had been used during the 2012 season, and they recommended continuing the lease. According to city records, the land is owned by the Stewardship Network.

Items on the consent agenda are voted on as a group by the council, but any of the items can be separated out for separate discussion. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked that the item be separated out.

Briere had heard concerns that the lot is not very well-graded and that there’s a lot of runoff. She wondered if there was a way for the city to enforce maintenance of the lot through the lease. Sumedh Bahl, the city’s community services area administrator, told Briere that would have to be negotiated, and had not been a part of the conversation that went into the lease that the council was being asked to approve.

Briere asked for postponement.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the parking lot lease.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Fire Department Resource Deployment

At the request of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) during communications time, city administrator Steve Powers summarized the feedback that had been heard on a proposal made about a year ago to reconfigure fire stations in the city. The proposal called for deploying a total of three out six existing fire stations – instead of five, which is the current deployment. Powers said what was heard at the seven public meetings and on the online A2 Open City Hall was a lot of divided opinion. He indicated that the significant policy question emerging from that discussion related to the responsibility of the fire department for emergency medical response.

Powers characterized the feedback that staff had received as consistent with the council’s discussion at its March 11, 2013 work session. At that session, there seemed to be a clear majority view that the 3-station plan would not go forward. Higgins indicated interest in exploring alternate ideas and wanted an opportunity to ask more questions. [At the work session, she'd mooted the idea of getting a cost analysis for restoring staffing to six stations.] The result of the back-and-forth between Higgins and Powers was an understanding that deployment of fire department resources might be part of the council’s work session on March 25.

Comm/Comm: Transparency

Between 1:30 a.m. and 2 a.m., two people weighed in on the topic of transparency. Mark Koroi recalled the issue that had arisen in 2009 in connection with emails sent between councilmembers during council meetings. Currently, he said the council has a problem with the way it conducts its closed sessions. He told the council more public commentary was needed – an allusion to the fact that the council does not allow public commentary at its work sessions.

[Under Michigan's Open Meetings Act, a gathering of more than a quorum of councilmembers does not necessarily constitute a "meeting" under the statute, which would require that members of the public are allowed to address the body. However, at work sessions, councilmembers engage in deliberations toward decisions, which makes their work sessions meetings under the statute.]

Koroi also mentioned an appeal that’s been filed on the Dream Night Club case. [The city objected to the renewal of the club's liquor license last year – alleging that the establishment was an ongoing nuisance – and the state liquor control commission followed that recommendation.]

John Floyd led off his comments on a lighthearted note, saying that in deciding his NCAA basketball tournament picks, he’d wanted to go with Michigan, but Wisconsin seems like they’re really starting to gel.

On the topic of transparency, he noted that people speak about how important transparency is. With respect to the legal advice that the council had received on the possible moratorium for D1 site plans, he allowed that it makes sense to receive the attorney’s advice in private. Councilmembers had indicated they’d based their vote on that advice. Now that the council had received the advice and voted, he suggested, the council could choose to release the written advice to the public. It’s not about what council is required to do, Floyd said, but rather about what the council may do. [The sentiment expressed by Floyd had been incorporated in The Chronicle's commentary and questions on the city's draft FOIA policy.]

Comm/Comm: Skating Rink

Alan Haber reminded the council of a continuing effort to have a public skating rink on top of the Library Lane underground parking garage, for people to have fun. [Recent Chronicle coverage of this topic includes the Feb. 26, 2013 park advisory commission meeting when public commentary was delivered advocating for a park atop Library Lane, and a more formal discussion at PAC's March 19, 2013 meeting.]

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski.

Next council meeting: Monday, April 1, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor 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 Ann Arbor city council. If you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and coworkers to do the same. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

The parcel for the Summit Townhomes development (shaded yellow). The city council voted to postpone a final decision on zoning the parcel to R3 (townhouse dwelling district). The blue line is the boundary between the Malletts Creek and the Swift Run watersheds.

The developer plans to build 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings, with each building between 80 to 160 feet in length. Each of the 24 units would have a floor area of about 1,300 square feet, and an attached one-car garage. The plan includes two surface parking areas on the east and west sides of the site, each with 12 spaces. To do this, the property needs to be zoned as R3.

March 18 was the first time the site plan had been before the council. But the R3 (townhouse district) zoning for the property, annexed from Pittsfield Township, had been previously considered by the council, and referred to the planning commission for re-review. The planning commission then confirmed its original recommendation for R3 zoning.

In more chronological detail, the zoning item had first appeared on the city council’s Jan. 7, 2013 agenda, when it received initial approval. However, at its Feb. 4, 2013 meeting, the council heard from about a half dozen people who spoke during the public hearing, in opposition to the zoning – citing concerns about congestion and overcrowding. So councilmembers voted unanimously to refer the zoning issue back to planning commissioners for another look. The council indicated interest in hearing more detail on drainage issues, and the level of recreational services offered in that general area of the city, as well as information about public safety issues.

At their Feb. 21, 2013 meeting, planning commissioners voted again to recommend that the site be zoned R3 (townhouse district) – the same zoning they had previously recommended at their Nov. 20, 2012 meeting.

The project has been working its way through the city’s approval process for several months. The site plan had been postponed by planning commissioners in June of 2012 and again on Nov. 20, 2012, but was ultimately recommended for approval at the commission’s meeting on Jan. 3, 2013.

Before recommending the site plan, planning commissioners had previously recommended approval of annexation and zoning of the site in 2012. At their June 19, 2012 meeting, commissioners had approved annexing the 2.95-acre site, just east of Stone School Road, from Pittsfield Township into the city of Ann Arbor. The annexation was subsequently authorized by the city council.

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

University of Michigan students with Beyond the Diag, a neighborhood outreach program. They attended the Feb. 21, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission, which included a brief presentation about the program. (Photos by the writer.)

The vacant lot at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road is the location for the proposed Summit Townhomes project, where the developer wants to build 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings. Because it’s being annexed into the city from Pittsfield Township, the parcel needs to be given a zoning designation. Planning commissioners had recommended R3 zoning (townhouse district) at their Nov. 20, 2012 meeting.

The zoning request was on the council’s Feb. 4, 2013 agenda for final approval, but during a public hearing on the item, several people raised concerns related to increased density in that part of town. So councilmembers voted unanimously to refer the zoning issue back to planning commissioners for another look.

At the commission’s Feb. 21 meeting, planning staff reviewed two other zoning options that would fit with the city’s master plan for that area. But even those options with lower density – for single-family homes – would result in more driveways accessing Ellsworth, causing more traffic concerns. Nor would stormwater management be improved with the other options. So planning staff again recommended the R3 zoning.

Three people spoke to commissioners during a public hearing on the zoning reconsideration, including two residents who live at the nearby Forest Hills Cooperative. They expressed concern about broader issues with the area – including crime and a lack of recreational facilities – as well as the specific proposed zoning and project for that site. Planning manager Wendy Rampson indicated that based on the council’s discussion, city administrator Steve Powers is asking the city’s parks and police staff to look into concerns raised about that area. There is also the opportunity for input on the city’s master plan, she said, when the planning commission holds a public hearing on that topic each May.

In other action at the Feb. 21 meeting, commissioners recommended that the city council approve a site plan for an expansion of the Theta Delta Chi house at 700 S. State St. The historic structure, built in 1922, is located at the southwest corner of State and Monroe, across from the University of Michigan law school. The building had been leased to another fraternity after the Theta Delta Chi chapter at UM became inactive in 1997. The chapter “recolonized” a few years ago, then took possession of the building again in May of 2012. The local architecture firm HopkinsBurns Design Studio has been hired to handle the expansion. It includes making a rear addition to the building, although there are no plans to increase the current occupancy of 33 residents.

The Feb. 21 meeting included another UM connection. Commissioners heard a presentation about Beyond the Diag, a relatively new neighborhood outreach program. It’s a student-initiated effort to build community among students and non-students, and to raise safety awareness on campus and near-campus neighborhoods. One of the program assistants – Matt Lonnerstater, a graduate student in urban and regional planning – also works as an intern with the city’s planning staff.

Zoning on Ellsworth

Zoning for property at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road – where the Summit Townhomes project is proposed – was back on the Ann Arbor planning commission’s agenda for another look, following a city council directive to reconsider zoning for the residential project.

The developer wants to build 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings, with each building between 80 to 160 feet in length. Each of the 24 units would have a floor area of about 1,300 square feet, and an attached one-car garage. The plan includes two surface parking areas on the east and west sides of the site, each with 12 spaces. To build this project, the property needs to be zoned as R3.

Aerial photo of property for Summit Townhomes, outlined in black. The property fronts Ellsworth Road and lies southeast of the Cloverly Village condominiums. The north/south road to the left is Stone School. The north/south road to the right is Shadowwood Drive, leading into the Forest Hills Cooperative townhome development. The structure in the top center of this image is Bryant Elementary School.

The project has been working its way through the city’s approval process for several months. The site plan had been postponed by commissioners in June of 2012 and again on Nov. 20, 2012, but was ultimately recommended for approval at the commission’s meeting on Jan. 3, 2013.

Before recommending the site plan, planning commissioners had previously recommended approval of annexation and zoning of the site in 2012. At their June 19 meeting, commissioners had approved annexing the 2.95-acre site, just east of Stone School Road, from Pittsfield Township into the city of Ann Arbor. The annexation was subsequently authorized by the city council. And at the commission’s Nov. 20 meeting, the R3 zoning for the property had been recommended for approval.

The zoning item appeared on the city council’s Jan. 7, 2013 agenda, when it received initial approval. However, at its Feb. 4, 2013 meeting, the council heard from about a half dozen people who spoke during the public hearing, in opposition to the zoning – citing concerns about congestion and overcrowding. So councilmembers voted unanimously to refer the zoning issue back to the planning commissioners for another look. The council indicated interest in hearing more detail on drainage issues, and the level of recreational services offered in that general area of the city, as well as information about public safety issues.

At the planning commission’s meeting on Feb. 21, city planner Jill Thacher gave the staff report, noting that the item related to the property’s zoning, not the Summit Townhomes site plan. She briefly reviewed the history of the property, noting that city council had requested this additional review by commissioners to focus on whether lower-density zoning would lessen impacts on the surrounding area.

Staff had looked at the city’s master plan and the zoning alternatives that are available for the site, she said. The three zoning designations that align most closely with master plan recommendations are R1C (single-family dwelling), R2A (two-family dwelling) and R3 (townhouse dwelling), which was the previously recommended zoning.

On the 2081 E. Ellsworth Road site, R3 would allow for 29 units – but only 24 are proposed in the Summit Townhomes project, she noted. Thacher reported that according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers manual, the average daily trips for the type of townhome proposed is 5.9 trips per day. By comparison, if the parcel were zoned R1C (single-family dwelling), it would allow for up to 17 units with a maximum of eight driveways leading directly onto Ellsworth Road. Each of those 17 units might generate up to 9.6 trips per day, according to the ITE manual.

The R2A zoning for duplexes would allow a maximum of 30 units on 15 lots. The ITE manual doesn’t give a specific trip estimate for this type of housing, she said, but the city’s traffic engineer estimated it would fall in the middle between the number of trips for single-family houses and townhomes.

Staff still recommends R3 zoning for this site, Thacher concluded.

Zoning on Ellsworth: Public Commentary & Hearing

Two people associated with the nearby Forest Hill Cooperative – Aiji Pipho and Claudia Myszke – spoke to commissioners during both the general public commentary as well as the public hearing on the zoning issue.

During general public commentary, Pipho told commissioners that there were some side issues she wanted to discuss, tangential to the Summit Townhomes project. She felt there’s been some misunderstanding between planning commissioners and residents. Commissioners seem to be under the impression that there’s not enough parkland in the southeast part of town, she said. In fact, there’s plenty of parkland in the area, Pipho said, but the recreation facilities on that parkland are inadequate.

From left: Aiji Pipho, a resident of Forest Hills Cooperative, and Claudia Myszke, the cooperative’s managing agent.

She also noted that although there is a community center in the area that does laudable work – Bryant Community Center – which mostly deals with getting food to people who need it. What’s more, that center’s size isn’t sufficient to meet the needs of the overall neighborhood. The area needs a community center where latchkey kids can go after school, so that they won’t be prey to gangs. She reported that her son was beaten up when walking through the park at Arbor Oaks, and that gangs are a growing concern. A real community center would help address those needs, she said.

Myszke, the managing agent of Forest Hills Cooperative, said the southeast side of Ann Arbor often ends up being reactive, not proactive, and is put into an adversarial role with the city. “That is not what we want to do,” she said. She’d like the area to be looked at as a whole, with the same approach that’s being taken with the South State Street corridor study or the North Main Huron River task force.

The southeast side is a low- to moderate-income area that’s known for crime, Myszke said, and residents would like to work with city staff to look at all the issues there. Myszke noted that the city council had given directive to look at numerous issues in the area, not just zoning. Those topics include crime and parks. But when some residents have met with planning staff, “they got a less-than-warm reception,” she said. It’s not clear how residents can voice their concerns without offending anyone, Myszke said. “I think it’s a process of education, and I really would like to see some help.”

At the public hearing about the parcel’s zoning, both women again addressed the commission. Pipho cited concerns over the possibility of the city zoning other nearby parcels for higher density too. Residents want to have more input on this, “and I don’t think that’s unreasonable,” she said. Pipho supported the idea of forming a committee with residents to work on these issues. It’s important that the community as a whole be healthy, she said, no matter where you live. For low-income people to be relegated to a part of town that has high crime “is a terrible thing,” she said. “And the fact is that high density, low income and no services equals crime.” With less density and more services, you can form a stronger community, “and that’s what we’re talking about doing,” Pipho said. She advocated for a real community center for children as well as senior citizens.

Myszke said she was representing not just the 306 families at Forest Hills Cooperative, but also the 630 families at University Townhouses, the 427 families at Colonial Square, and the 150 units in the Bryant neighborhood. The area needs help, and shouldn’t just be viewed on a parcel-by-parcel basis, she said. For a long time, low-income people were looked at as ignorant, she said, “and we’re not.”

Myszke said she was shocked by the support from the city council, especially after not having gotten any support from the planning staff or commissioners, she noted. Residents want to work with the city, and “we need someone to show us the way.” She also said residents want to work with the developer. She described him as a “wonderful man,” saying that the issues in that area are not his problem. [The developer's representative – Leonard Michaels of CIW Engineering in Rossford, Ohio – attended the Feb. 21 meeting but did not formally address the commission.]

Also speaking at the public hearing was Ethel Potts. She said the density in that area was caused by a “major planning error,” which in turn caused a zoning error. It started with Colonial Square, then other townhouses were built there. The land was available and developers wanted to build. But at no point did anyone question why people of a certain income were being clustered in one part of town, she said.

It took years for AATA to provide bus service to that part of town, she said, and recreational facilities there are still lacking. “It was like out-of-sight, out-of-mind social engineering,” Potts said. The map of the area provided in the commission’s meeting packet is very misleading, she said, because it doesn’t show the other housing complexes further east toward Platt Road. It’s a very large neighborhood that people say is “out by the dump,” Potts said, referring to the former city landfill. She disputed the traffic estimates, saying that the proposed Summit Townhomes development would generate a lot more traffic than indicated. The old problems are coming home to roost, she concluded, and it’s up to planning commissioners to do something about it.

Zoning on Ellsworth: Commission Discussion

Planning commissioners touched on several issues during their deliberations, including traffic, density, crime and services to that part of town. This article organizes their discussion thematically.

Zoning on Ellsworth: Commission Discussion – Traffic

Sabra Briere, who also serves as a Ward 1 representative to the city council, reported that there had been a lot of discussion about this site at the council meeting. There had also been a lot of talk about the level of services in that area, which didn’t related to this particular zoning request.

Sabra Briere, a Ward 1 city councilmember who also serves on the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Briere wondered whether planning staff had considered R1D, which allows for smaller units clustered closely together. It seemed to her that R1D – another type of single-family zoning – might be a level of density between the townhomes and duplex.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson said that staff had been asked to look at R1C, not R1D. However, R1D would be essentially the same density as R2A (duplexes), she added. R1D would also have the same issues with traffic, she said, as well as the concerns related to multiple driveways onto Ellsworth. The potential for those multiple driveways was the biggest concern that city planners had for single-family zoning in that area, she said. [The Summit Townhomes project would have one access drive to Ellsworth.]

Diane Giannola clarified with staff that a single-family house is estimated to generate almost twice as many trips as a townhouse. In that case, she said, it would indicate that more traffic would be generated if single-family homes are built there. Rampson replied that it depends on the number of units – it might not be possible to put the maximum 17 single-family units allowed on that site. But in general, single-family homes generate more trips, according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Rampson noted that ITE estimates are taken from figures across the country, so it’s not possible to say that the same number of trips would be generated at any one specific site, “but that’s what we have to start with.”

Kirk Westphal asked whether the additional trips for single-family homes reflect the fact that most single-family homes have more occupants per unit than townhomes do. Rampson replied that average household size is part of it – the average number of residents for single-family homes is generally greater than for townhomes.

Zoning on Ellsworth: Commission Discussion – Stormwater Management

Bonnie Bona pointed out that the Summit Townhomes project would be required to include stormwater management on the site. If the property were zoned R1C (single-family) or R2A (duplex), would that kind of stormwater management be required?

Rampson replied that if the property owner divided the site into individual parcels – up to four – then no stormwater management would be required. However, if it’s a “cluster development” of single-family houses along one drive, then it would require a site plan and stormwater management. So it depends on the site configuration, Rampson explained.

Bona noted that if the lots are separated for single-family homes, there would be no stormwater management. So the tendency would be for R3 zoning to require more stormwater control, she said, “which is important all over the city.”

Zoning on Ellsworth: Commission Discussion – Crime

Giannola said it’s always an issue for her when people associate townhouse developments automatically with low-income residents and higher crime. She noted that she lives in a townhome in a different neighborhood, and she doesn’t consider herself low income. The first step in helping the southeast side is to not assume that everything being built there will be for crime-ridden, lower-income families, Giannola said. She didn’t think that the nearby Cloverly Lane townhomes were lower income, and said it helps to mix in different types of income levels.

Westphal also objected to correlating crime with high density. In many cases, higher density actually leads to a safer environment, he said, but it wasn’t an issue that the planning commission could address. He hoped the neighbors could have a fruitful conversation with law enforcement about it.

Zoning on Ellsworth: Commission Discussion – Density, Broader Concerns

Giannola argued that there’s very little difference between R3 (townhouse) zoning and single-family zoning – 24 units in the proposed Summit Townhomes compared to a maximum of 17 units for single-family housing. [By way of clarification, the Summit Townhomes proposal calls for 24 units, but the maximum number of units allowed on that site – if zoned R3 – is 29.] She couldn’t see how that difference in units would make any difference in the lives of the people who already live in that neighborhood.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

Most of the issues brought up during the city council meeting are issues that planning commissioners can’t do anything about, she said – crime, parks, and city services. “I don’t see how rezoning this R1C fixes those things,” Giannola said. The R3 zoning seems appropriate, she concluded.

Bona said she agreed with many of Giannola’s points. It’s unfortunate that neighborhood groups are often created because of a problem, but she hoped this would be the start of some positive activity to improve the area. Even though these other issues don’t directly affect the zoning decision, Bona felt that the planning commission does have some responsibility to look at broader issues, primarily tied to their responsibility for the city’s master plan.

Responding to a query from Bona, planning staff indicated that the city’s south area plan – which is part of the master plan – is more than 20 years old. Bona noted that while the planning commission has been focusing on corridors, this southeast neighborhood might be one that deserves more attention. She’d like commissioners to think about asking council to put together a task force to look at this neighborhood. “I think it’s complicated, and I wouldn’t want to try to fix it right here,” she said.

Bona supported the R3 zoning, citing the single drive onto Ellsworth and the clustering of the townhomes, which leaves more open space. She also told the developer that she thought the design of the townhomes could have an impact on the neighborhood. If garages are in front and there are no front porches, then there are no “eyes on the street,” she said. It would add great value to the townhomes if they weren’t dominated by garages, she said. Perhaps a neighborhood group could make suggestions about how the design could help the community function better, Bona concluded.

Westphal said it always feels deflating not to be able to address all the concerns brought forward by neighbors. He asked planning staff to explain briefly the commission’s purview in terms of master planning, and give some indication of where a broader discussion might take place.

Rampson said that city planning staff have had some initial discussions with the neighborhood representatives who were attending that night’s meeting. The staff has been focused on this specific project request, she said, and there’s not necessarily the opportunity in the development review process to have the kinds of broader discussions that Westphal mentioned. But the staff would be open to meeting with residents about what their options are, she said.

One example is getting involved in the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) process, she said, to advocate for infrastructure improvements in a particular neighborhood. Rampson also noted that each May, the planning commission considers a resolution to update the city’s master plan, and a public hearing is held as part of that process. People can come and advocate for reviewing aspects of the master plan.

Rampson pointed out that the parcel at 2081 E. Ellsworth is the last one in that area to be annexed into the city from Pittsfield Township. But the property on the south side of Ellsworth is outside of the city’s water and sewer area, she said. So if that property is developed, it will be developed under Pittsfield Township’s jurisdiction. Most of the area on the city’s side is developed, Rampson noted, so this particular parcel is somewhat unusual.

It might be that the focus going forward is to look at capital improvements in the area, as well as some of the non-planning issues that relate to crime, Rampson said. She reported that as a result of the city council’s discussion, city administrator Steve Powers planned to coordinate with the policy chief, John Seto, and with parks staff on issues related to city facilities and crime in that area.

From left: Ann Arbor planning commissioners Eric Mahler and Bonnie Bona.

Westphal noted that an adjacent parcel to the east of the Summit Townhomes project is zoned R1C (single-family). He wondered why it had been zoned that way, even though the master plan indicates a higher zoning is preferred. Could it be “up-zoned” in the future, to allow for higher density?

Rampson replied that it would be possible to up-zone that property – at 2195 E. Ellsworth – if the landowner requested it. She explained that a few years ago, that property was allowed to be annexed into the city without incurring improvement charges. It was one of several properties that took advantage of the annexation offer before the city’s deadline for doing that expired in 2005, Rampson said. At the time, the property owner of 2195 E. Ellsworth had no plans to develop it, so they opted for R1C zoning. Rampson said if the owners eventually wanted to develop that parcel and rezone it, they’d have to go through the city’s planning approval process and show how their proposal fits into the master plan for that area.

Westphal clarified with Rampson that R3 zoning might be requested for that site in the future, and that if neighbors are concerned about a pattern of development in that area, they should start getting involved now in raising issues related to the master plan.

Outcome: Commissioners again voted unanimously to recommend zoning the parcel at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road as R3 (townhome dwelling). That recommendation will be forwarded to the city council.

Theta Delta Chi Expansion

An expansion of the Theta Delta Chi house at 700 S. State was on the planning commission’s Feb. 21 agenda. Commissioners were asked to grant a special exception use for the building, and to review the project’s site plan.

The proposal includes expanding the square footage from 12,386 square feet to 14,752 square feet by making an addition at the rear of the fraternity house, which is located on the southwest corner of Monroe and South State. The property is zoned R2B (two-family dwelling district and student dwelling district), and the size of the lot would allow for occupancy of up to 50 people. However, the fraternity is not proposing to increase its current occupancy of 33 residents.

Aerial map of Theta Delta Chi fraternity (outlined in black) at the southwest corner of Monroe and South State.

The new addition will include an expanded restroom and shower facilities, common space, a resident manager’s apartment, and a bike room with nine bicycle spaces in the basement. According to a staff memo, the project entails moving the driveway, which is accessed off of Monroe Street, about five feet to the east. To do this, the fraternity will need to enter into an agreement with the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and shift two on-street parking meters a few feet to the east.

The project also will require several variances from the city’s zoning board of appeals, including: (1) permission to alter a nonconforming structure (due to height and setbacks); (2) variances from Chapter 59 (off-street parking) to reduce the number of parking spaces required from 7 to 5, and allow one parking space in the front open space; (3) a variance from Chapter 47 (streets) to reduce the drive opening width; and (4) a variance from Chapter 62 (landscape and screening) to reduce the conflicting land use buffer width. The neighbors have requested that the height of a required fence on the east and south sides be reduced to four feet.

Other changes planned for this project include converting a yard on the south side of the house into a large patio. That area is currently used for parking. A bollard and gates would be installed to ensure that the back patio wouldn’t be used for parking. A new shed for a dumpster, recycling carts, and storage for 11 bikes is proposed near the southwest corner of the site.

The fraternity is across the street from the University of Michigan law school, which is located on the east side of South State. The Chi Psi fraternity house is north of Theta Delta Chi, across Monroe Street. In giving the staff report, Jill Thacher noted that to the south and west of the site are a “hodge-podge” of apartment buildings, built in the 1960s and ’70s, as well as older single-family houses that have been converted into student apartments.

The materials used on the addition are proposed to be brick, with limestone at the base.

By way of historical background, Thacher told commissioners that the house was built in 1922 and used to be on the opposite side of South State, where UM law school’s Hutchins Hall is now located. On Aug. 6, 1930, the building was moved intact to its current location. She said there’s a photo at the Bentley Library showing the house sitting in the middle of South State Street, but she wasn’t able to get a copy of it for the meeting.

Theta Delta Chi Expansion: Public Hearing

Arthur Saulsberry introduced himself as a director of the Gamma Deuteron Building Association, which is owned by the fraternity’s alumni. The association’s directors administer the fraternity house property on behalf of the alumni.

From left (seated): Planning commissioners Eleanore Adenekan and Tony Derezinski. In the background is Gene Hopkins, an architect who’s working on the Theta Delta Chi expansion.

The fraternity is part of the city’s history, originally founded in 1889. Saulsberry said they view the house primarily as a platform for the fraternity’s educational mission, and they’d like to make the building safe and attractive for that purpose. As background, he told commissioners that the fraternity “endured continuously” until 1997, when the chapter became inactive. The building was leased, and then was subleased to another fraternity, he said. “It turned out that both those moves were rather grievous mistakes.”

A few years ago, undergraduates “recolonized” the fraternity at UM. In 2008, the association’s board was reconstituted and regained control of the house in May of 2012. Some initial renovations were done last summer, he said.

Currently, the chapter has 49 undergraduates, with some members who’ve been living in the house since September.

There are three significant priorities with this project, Saulsberry said. The first priority is life safety, health and security. That includes installing fire-suppression systems, new emergency egress, improvements in cleanliness and ventilation, and increased security. Part of the site plan is designed to address security issues associated with being on the corner of two highly-traveled streets, he said.

Because the building is historic, the fraternity is very interested in the historic preservation aspects of the project, Saulsberry said. That’s why the architecture firm HopkinsBurns Design Studio has been hired. “We’re looking forward to restoring 700 South State Street to its former glory,” he said.

Another priority is sustainability – both as an organization and for the physical facility, Saulsberry said. So the building’s operation is being handled more like a business enterprise, rather than an “informally administered social organization.” That’s intended to avoid the boom-and-bust cycle of fraternities, he said. There will be a capital fund to allow the organization to make continual renovations and improvements to the building. They’ve also engaged a professional management company to handle cleaning and maintenance, and to enforce the rules for acceptable use of the facility, Saulsberry said. Sustainability also relates to environmental responsibility, he said, so the project includes installing energy-efficient lighting fixtures and plans to install a geothermal heating and cooling system.

Architect Gene Hopkins spoke briefly, saying he was on hand to answer any questions about the project.

Theta Delta Chi Expansion: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona asked for clarification about the location of bike parking, and wondered how many bikes are being used now. Only three, Saulsberry replied, adding that he hoped to push fraternity members to use more alternative transportation. The 11 outdoor bike spaces are in a shed in the southwest corner of the site, with an additional nine spaces in the addition’s new basement storage room.

Bona characterized the proposal as a great one, and even the variances seemed like things the city would like to see anyway, she said – like less impervious pavement, a narrower driveway, and fewer parking spaces.

Noting that it was good that the fraternity had talked with its neighbors about this project, Kirk Westphal wondered whether there were any outstanding issues with the neighbors. Saulsberry reported that it seemed to be better for both the fraternity and its neighbors not to have a larger fence, because of the potential for graffiti and general security. The properties have security cameras on the outside of their buildings, he said, so the entire grounds can be monitored. The fraternity’s cameras can be monitored remotely, he noted, saying that has proven to be useful.

Tony Derezinski complimented the fraternity on renovating a building “which has a little bit of age to it.” He said he used to live in that neighborhood, in the UM law quad. He’d hate to see any of those buildings torn down if they can be saved, and it was great to see that they were preserving the structure, he said.

Kirk Westphal remarked on a bay window planned as part of the addition, and thanked the fraternity for investing in that “extra amenity.”

Outcome: In one vote, commissioners unanimously granted the special exception use and recommended that the city council approve the site plan. The special exception use does not require city council approval.

Beyond the Diag

Benjamin Rosebrock, program manager of the University of Michigan’s Beyond the Diag, made a brief presentation at the beginning of the commission’s Feb. 21 meeting. He described the program as a student-initiated effort to build community among students and non-students, and to raise safety awareness on campus and near-campus neighborhoods. Operated out of UM’s dean of students office, it focuses on 12 areas: Elbel, Yost, North Ingalls, Tappan, West Murfin, East Packard, South University, Germantown, Old West Side, North Burns Park, Old Fourth Ward and Oxbridge.

Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson.

As background, Rosebrock noted that in the 2011 academic year, students living off campus were victims to a number of crimes, which caused some students to request additional resources for safety, including lighting and security communications on campus. Those concerns escalated in the summer of 2011 when a series of sexual assaults by strangers occurred near campus. As a result, Rosebrock said, a parent donated funds to the dean of students office, which launched Beyond the Diag.

Currently 14 students serve as neighborhood ambassadors, covering nine of the off-campus neighborhoods. (There are no ambassadors yet for the Old West Side, North Burns Park or West Murfin neighborhoods.) There are also two program assistants who help manage the effort, Rosebrock said, which includes door-to-door canvassing in the fall, distributing safety information and other resources. They also hold neighborhood events to help build community, and promote the program at UM’s Festifall, Winterfest and other venues.

The program emails a monthly newsletter to 31,000 off-campus students, with tips on safety and healthy living, articles and other information.

Rosebrock said the program is fairly new, and it’s growing. When he became program director in November of 2012, there were eight student ambassadors.

About a dozen students stood up and introduced themselves to commissioners, and indicated what neighborhood they worked with. One of the program assistants, Matt Lonnerstater, also works as an intern with the city’s planning staff. He is a graduate student in urban and regional planning.

Beyond the Diag: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere, who also represents Ward 1 on city council, requested that all city councilmembers be added to the monthly emailed newsletters. She indicated that the council is interested in learning more about issues that affect the student population.

Eleanore Adenekan praised the program, calling it very ambitious. When she commented that she liked the yellow T-shirts that the students were wearing, Tony Derezinski corrected her – the color is maize, he joked.

Bonnie Bona asked that whenever projects or plans come up in the neighborhoods represented by Beyond the Diag ambassadors, “it would be nice to hear back from you” with feedback. Especially with master plans, she noted, “safety is a part of the mix.”

City planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that Matt Lonnerstater is assisting the planning staff with its R4C zoning project. It makes sense, she said, because “we often miss the student perspective in the work that we do.” There are many potential upsides to having a liaison between the city and Beyond the Diag, she added.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Kirk Westphal.

Absent: Ken Clein, Wendy Woods.

Next regular meeting: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

The developer wants to build 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings, with each building between 80 to 160 feet in length. Each of the 24 units would have a floor area of about 1,300 square feet, and an attached one-car garage. The plan includes two surface parking areas on the east and west sides of the site, each with 12 spaces. To do this, the property needs to be zoned as R3.

The project has been working its way through the city’s approval process for several months. The site plan had been postponed by commissioners in June of 2012 and again on Nov. 20, 2012, but was ultimately recommended for approval at the commission’s meeting on Jan. 3, 2013.

Before recommending the site plan, planning commissioners had previously recommended approval of annexation and zoning of the site in 2012. At their June 19 meeting, commissioners had approved annexing the 2.95-acre site, just east of Stone School Road, from Pittsfield Township into the city of Ann Arbor. The annexation was subsequently authorized by the city council. And at the commission’s Nov. 20 meeting, the R3 zoning for the property had been recommended for approval.

The zoning item appeared on the city council’s Jan. 7, 2013 agenda, when it received initial approval. However, at its Feb. 4, 2013 meeting, the council heard from about a half dozen people who spoke during the public hearing, in opposition to the zoning – citing concerns about congestion and overcrowding. So councilmembers voted unanimously to refer the zoning issue back to planning commissioners for another look. The council indicated interest in hearing more detail on drainage issues, and the level of recreational services offered in that general area of the city, as well as information about public safety issues.

On Feb. 21, planning staff reviewed two other zoning options that would fit with the city’s master plan for that area, but even options with lower density – for single-family homes – would result in more driveways accessing Ellsworth, causing more traffic concerns. Nor would stormwater management be improved with the other options.

Three people spoke during a public hearing on the zoning reconsideration, including two residents who live at the nearby Forest Hills Cooperative. They expressed concern about broader issues with the area – including crime and recreational facilities – as well as the specific proposed zoning and project for that site. Planning manager Wendy Rampson indicated that based on the council’s discussion, city administrator Steve Powers is asking the city’s parks and police staff to look into concerns raised about that area.

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

Current zoning of properties surrounding the parcel at 2081 E. Ellsworth Road – denoted with a “?” Owners are requesting the parcel to be zoned as R3 (townhouse dwelling district). (Map labeled by The Chronicle.)

Dependent on the R3 zoning is Summit Townhomes – a proposed project for the 2081 E. Ellsworth Road site, located in the southern part of the city just east of Stone School Road. The townhouse project’s site plan is expected to come before the council for approval later this month. The planning commission has already recommended that the Summit Townhomes project be approved, and previously recommended the R3 zoning. The council itself had already given the zoning its initial approval at a previous meeting.

But during the public hearing about the zoning on Feb. 4, the council heard from several people who spoke against the zoning and the project, reprising many of the same objections that had been raised more than seven months ago at the June 19, 2012 meeting of the planning commission. Concerns included overcrowding and congestion in the area, and a lack of adequate city services. Also weighing in with general support for zoning that fits with the desires of residents was Washtenaw County commissioner Andy LaBarre, who represents the county district where the site is located.

Another item related to future land use was council action to authorize the distribution of the draft South State Street corridor plan to neighboring jurisdictions and other stakeholders, such as the University of Michigan, the Ann Arbor Public Schools, and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. After a mandated comment period, the city planning commission will have the opportunity to make revisions to the plan, before the commission and the city council make a decision to adopt it.

A major infrastructure study, with a roughly $1 million budget, was also authorized by the council – to give the city a clearer understanding of how flows behave in the sanitary sewer system, especially during rainy periods. The study is prompted by a desire to measure the impact of a footing drain disconnection program that the city has implemented for over a decade. In the last year, the program has generated strong protest from the Glen Leven neighborhood. The footing drain disconnection program was created in part to remedy the backup of raw sewage in basements during heavy rains.

The city council also authorized revisions to two existing technology agreements. One was an agreement between the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to act as a purchasing consortium. The modification to the agreement will allow other participants to be added to the consortium in a streamlined way. The second agreement was the extension of a contract with the city of Chelsea to provide various IT services.

The council put off a decision on issuing bonds to support energy improvements for its property assessed clean energy (PACE) program. The item had been added late to the agenda, and several councilmembers had questions they wanted answered before voting on it.

Although the agenda itself was light, several significant communications were included, either as written attachments or conveyed verbally. The written reports attached to the agenda included a revised auditor’s letter and a report on how the street resurfacing millage money was spent during the 2012 season.

Conveyed verbally was a report from the council’s budget committee chair, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who alerted councilmembers that on Feb. 11 and Feb. 25 the council would hold budget work sessions starting at 6 p.m., with each meeting consisting of two 2-hour sessions with a break.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), chair of the city’s taxicab board, called for enforcement of the city ordinance that is meant to prevent the operation of “rogue limousines” – in the context of a reported sexual assault of a University of Michigan student by the driver of either a taxicab or limousine.

Kunselman also called for a number of revisions to the city ordinance that establishes the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, including stricter regulations on membership of the board, but more significantly a limitation on the way the DDA’s tax increment finance (TIF) capture is calculated.

Townhouse Zoning

The council considered a second and final approval of zoning for a recently-annexed city parcel as R3 (townhouse dwelling district). It’s a roughly 3-acre site, just east of Stone School Road, that was previously part of Pittsfield Township.

The city’s planning commission had voted to recommend the zoning at its Nov. 20, 2012 meeting and the city council gave initial approval at its Jan. 7, 2013 meeting.

Parcel (shaded yellow) is requested to be zoned as R3 (townhouse dwelling district). The blue line is the boundary between the Malletts Creek and the Swift Run watersheds.

When the council gave its initial approval, Christopher Taylor had indicated that while he was voting for the zoning on that occasion, he wanted to alert his council colleagues to the fact that he’d heard some concerns about the type of progress and development that the zoning represents. Taylor represents Ward 3, where the proposed project is located. So Taylor said the issue might be a point of discussion when the council was asked to give the zoning its final approval. That reflected concerns also expressed at the planning commission’s June 19, 2012 meeting from residents of the nearby Forest Hills Cooperative.

R3 zoning is consistent with the intended development of the site – to be called Summit Townhomes – for which the city’s planning commission recommended approval at its Jan. 3, 2013 meeting. The developer wants to build 24 attached residential units in four separate buildings, with each building between 80 to 160 feet in length. Each of the 24 units would have a floor area of about 1,300 square feet, and an attached one-car garage. The site plan includes two surface parking areas on the east and west sides of the site, each with 12 spaces.

Townhouse Zoning: Public Hearing

Andy LaBarre told councilmembers he was addressing them as a city resident and also as a Washtenaw County commissioner. The parcel is in the district he represents on the county board of commissioners – District 7. [LaBarre is serving his first term as a Washtenaw County commissioner, having been elected in November 2012.] In the course of the campaign and since then, LaBarre said, he’d had a chance to meet Claudia Myszke [managing agent of the Forest Hills Cooperative] and other leaders of neighborhood and homeowners associations in the area.

Left to right: Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Washtenaw County commissioner Andy LaBarre.

LaBarre believed that residents hoped to have as little dense development as possible. He allowed that city councilmembers have hard jobs with the number of constituents that they have to respond to, and they have different ideas amongst themselves on the council and “frankly, within your own heads at times.” So he wanted to offer any and all assistance that he could provide – in his capacity as a resident or as a single commissioner on the county board – to work to make sure there’s some level of future use of that land that fits with the desire of current residents there. LaBarre said he’d follow up later with Ward 3 councilmembers Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman.

Aiji Pipho introduced herself as a resident and committee member of Forest Hills Cooperative. The project planned for the 3-acre parcel will be the fifth to be “shoe-horned” into a quarter mile, she said. The city’s goal is that everybody is supposed to be able to walk to a park that’s within a quarter mile of their home. The park that is walkable from her house, she said, is one where people get attacked. Her son got his jaw and nose broken in the park closest to their house. The city should be thinking about providing services to a poor community, she said – something that would create a separation from “gang members” who hang out in the parks and the “latch-key children” who come home from school and have to manage without their mom and dad being there. What’s shown itself to be a positive influence in other areas, she said, are good community services. So she wanted part of the land to be reserved for a community center – in this part of the city, where many poor people are concentrated.

Flo Hepola told the council she had concerns about the population density. She described the traffic on Ellsworth as horrible – saying it was bad to begin with, even without the new development. She asked for more infrastructure support for the growing and expanded population. She said it was difficult to find a decent park to take her granddaughter, so she’d wound up driving to a county park. There’s only one drinking fountain in the closest park – Southeast Area Park. The kids in the neighborhood liked to hang out at that park, she said, but there’d been incidents of kids having heat stroke while playing basketball. She wanted to see the land developed for use by the community. She thanked Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski and Andy LaBarre, who she said have been very helpful.

Claudia Myszke, managing agent of the Forest Hills Cooperative, told the council she was there representing her board of directors and the 306 limited-income families who live in Forest Hills. She was also there on behalf of the “sister cooperatives” – Colonial Square Cooperative and University Townhouse Cooperative – which have 427 and 630 limited-income families, respectively. She thanked Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski and Andy LaBarre for working with members of the Forest Hills community as they’ve tried to educate themselves. She also thanked Leonard Michaels, who represents the Summit Townhomes development.

Myszke told the council she was there to oppose zoning of the land as R3. She told the council that within a five-mile radius, there are over 2,400 units of multi-family housing. All of it is limited-income, affordable housing. She calculated that this translated to about 6,000 people. She had major concerns about the potential zoning to accommodate more people in an area that is already saturated.

Thomas Partridge told councilmembers he wanted them to take the zoning proposal back and make sure that it provided for some prospect of integrated affordable housing with retail or community services and affordable, accessible transportation for the most vulnerable residents.

Townhouse Zoning: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), who is the city council appointee to the city planning commission, briefed the council from her perspective serving on the planning commission since December 2012. When the planning commission had deliberated on the Summit Townhomes site plan in early January, planning commissioners had not heard from residents with the kind of objections that they’d expressed that evening to the city council, Briere said. [Later in deliberations, city planning manager Wendy Rampson pointed out that these issues had been raised at a meeting earlier in 2012, in the summer before Briere had been appointed to the planning commission.]

Planning commissioners had discussed transportation and congestion issues and whether there was a way for children to walk to school without having to walk along Ellsworth or Stone School roads, Briere reported. The planning commission had not discussed whether property should be acquired for a city park, she said.

Briere allowed that it’s a very congested area and the zoning is intentionally for multi-family use. Since she lived in the area 40 years ago, it’s been an “entry level” of housing for people with low incomes, she said. She noted that the Community Action Network (CAN) provides services in this neighborhood. [CAN runs the nearby Bryant Community Center, under contract with the city.] The requests from residents for more services and more thoughtful planning were reasonable, she said. But Briere also noted that the proposed project absolutely fits the zone and the master plan. She noted, however, that the council had options – including saying that it was the council’s desire to step back and think about it.

Councilmembers Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) allowed that the proposed zoning is probably consistent with the master plan because that’s generally what is in the area now. But it’s important to acknowledge the feelings of the residents who live there who’d expressed concerns about the livability of the area. He ventured that perhaps the implementation of the city’s master plan had “outstripped” the master plan itself.

Taylor asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to address the rationale for the parcel’s R3 zoning. Rampson indicated that the project had been reviewed by the planning commission and staff several times before it had come before the city council. When the parcel was under Pittsfield Township’s jurisdiction, it had a single-family home. Upon annexation, the city must assign appropriate zoning, she explained. The city’s South Area Plan, which she allowed was somewhat dated, identified 20 acres at the corner of Ellsworth and Stone School as being appropriate for single-family attached and detached use. The R3 zoning designation, which was being requested, is single-family attached housing – which translates to a maximum density of about 10 units per acre, she said. The Summit Townhomes project is actually about 8 units per acre. The other alternatives would be single-family or duplex. At the planning commission, there hadn’t been a suggestion that either of those should be applied.

The report from the city traffic engineers, Rampson said, indicated that the impact from a single-family attached development is minor compared to a Tim Hortons at the corner of Ellsworth and South State. The Summit Townhomes development would add a small amount of traffic to what’s already there.

Taylor got clarification from Rampson that application of single-family or duplex zoning to the parcel, instead of townhouse zoning, would reduce the number of allowable units by half to a quarter. She note that there’s a slope on the land that makes it a challenging site to develop, so she ventured that a certain minimum number of units would be required in order to make it financially feasible.

Two-foot contour map for the area on Ellsworth Road that’s requested to be zoned R3 (townhouse dwelling district).

Responding to a question from Taylor about drainage, Rampson indicated that the parcel drains to the south and west side, so the drainage doesn’t affect Arbor Oaks to the north – because water from the parcel flows toward Ellsworth. Later in deliberations, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) questioned whether the parcel had a different drainage area from Arbor Oaks, saying that he believed that both were a part of the Mallets Creek watershed. Rampson agreed that both pieces of land were part of the Mallets Creek watershed, and that the drainage from the Summit Townhomes parcel went to Mallets Creek, but not through Arbor Oaks.

Public services area administrator Craig Hupy was not able to recall what the topographic maps for the area looked like to settle the question for Kunselman.

Kunselman also pointed to the parcel zoned R1C to the east, which would become isolated as an R1C area if the council approved the R3 zoning for the Summit Townhomes parcel. He asked Rampson if assigning R1C zoning to the parcel would stop the Summit Townhomes development. Yes, Rampson confirmed. Kunselman asked if there’d be any legal issues associated with a council decision to do that. Rampson declined to speculate, saying that the zoning decision is discretionary on the council’s part. She ventured that if the council was not inclined to support the R3 zoning, the item could be rescheduled or postponed. The zoning and the site plan could be considered together at the council’s Feb. 19 meeting.

Kunselman and Taylor both indicated a willingness to postpone the zoning question.

There was no opposition to postponement expressed by other councilmembers. The ensuing discussion centered around the nature of the direction to be given to the planning commission. The consensus coalesced around the idea that the planning commission should consider lower density zoning – without specific direction from the council to consider specific zoning options.

Leonard Michaels of CIW Engineering was present at the meeting on behalf of the developer and asked to comment.

Michaels described how the project began more than a year ago, noting that Taylor had been present for the required citizens participation meeting. The location of that meeting had been changed to accommodate as many people as possible. He noted that the report from Claudia Myszke, managing agent of the Forest Hills Cooperative, had been included in the developer’s report about the citizens participation meeting, without any omissions. He noted that the Summit Townhomes proposal adds less density than is allowed by R3. The drainage is still being designed, he said, but it will not increase the runoff into the Ellsworth ditch.

Michaels reported that he’s still “playing phone tag” with the Ann Arbor Public Schools, trying to understand where to put a pedestrian connection to the school.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) said he was comfortable with having the planning commission take another look at the zoning. He summarized the concerns as involving three issues: driving, drainage, and public services. He noted that the area is not in the ward he represents, but he knows people who live there.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to refer the issue back to the planning commission. The commission’s next regular meeting is on Thursday, Feb. 21.

Distribution of South State Street Plan

The council considered a resolution to distribute a draft of Ann Arbor’s South State Street corridor plan to neighboring jurisdictions and other stakeholders, such as the University of Michigan, the Ann Arbor Public Schools, and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. The planning commission had voted to recommend the corridor plan’s distribution at its Jan. 3, 2013 meeting. [.pdf of draft South State corridor plan]

The plan includes more than 40 overall recommendations for the corridor, which stretches about 2 miles between Stimson Street at the north end down to Ellsworth in the south. Recommendations are organized into categories of the city’s sustainability framework: Land use and access, community, climate and energy, and resource management.

Among the recommendations are: (1) Evaluate use of vacant parcels for alternative energy generation; (2) Evaluate integration of public art along the corridor; (3) Evaluate use of open land for community gardens; (4) Assess and improve high crash areas along the corridor; (5) create boulevard on State Street between Eisenhower and I‐94 to enable safer automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian movement; (6) consider utilizing vacant parcels for athletic fields and recreation facilities; (7) develop a pedestrian and bicycle path along the Ann Arbor railroad that will connect the planned Allen Creek bikeway to Pittsfield Township through the corridor; and (8) resurface roads in the corridor.

Each recommendation includes several related action items. The plan also provides a section that organizes the recommendations into each of three distinct sections of the corridor: (1) from Stimson on the north to Eisenhower Parkway; (2) from Eisenhower south to the I-94 interchange; and (3) from I-94 to Ellsworth. In addition, there are nine site-specific recommendations for areas including Briarwood Mall, the complex of hotels near Victors Way and Broadway, and the research park development near the corridor’s south end.

The city planning commission and staff have been discussing this project for several years, but have accelerated work on it within the past 12-18 months. See Chronicle coverage: “South State Corridor Gets Closer Look,” “Sustainability Goals Shape Corridor Study,” and “Ideas Floated for South State Corridor.”

South State Street Plan: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) clarified with planning manager Wendy Rampson that the plan to be distributed is a draft plan, and asked that the word “draft” be inserted in one instance where the plan was described in the resolution. Higgins also confirmed with Rampson that a comment period would follow the draft plan distribution, which would include possible comments from the public. Revisions to the draft could be undertaken, but the planning commission and the city council would then need to adopt the plan to make it final, following a public hearing.

Rampson noted that the planning commission and the city council would need to adopt the same plan. She noted that in the past, the city council hadn’t agreed with the planning commission’s version of a plan and had returned the plan to the commission. [She was referring to the downtown plan, which was most recently adopted in 2009.] Rampson said she’d prefer for that not to happen again, and for differences between the council and the commission to be sorted out before voting.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to authorize distribution of the draft South State Street corridor plan.

Sanitary Sewer Flow Study

The council was asked to consider authorizing a study of Ann Arbor’s sanitary sewer flows – meant to assess the impact of a decade-long footing drain disconnection program. The study is to be conducted by Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment Inc. over the next year-and-a-half to two years.

The $968,348 contract with OHM is part of a project budget that includes a $192,000 contingency and $85,000 to account for city staff time. The money will come from the city’s sanitary sewer capital fund.

The city of Ann Arbor’s footing drain disconnect (FDD) program was implemented in 2001, prompted by repeated incidents of raw sewage backing up in residents’ basements and the discharge of only partially treated sewage into the Huron River.

The city of Ann Arbor has separate sanitary and stormwater conveyance systems. However, during construction of new developments before 1980, footing drains – permeable pipes buried around the perimeter of a foundation, roughly at the depth of a basement floor – were frequently connected directly to the sanitary sewer pipes. Those connections were convenient to make, because the footing drains and the sanitary sewers are buried at roughly the same depth.

However, during very heavy rains, that configuration leads 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.

It was wastewater discharges into the river that led the city to agree to an administrative consent order with the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to establish a way to offset the impact of new connections to the sanitary system required by new developments. That program essentially requires developers who are building projects that place additional burdens on the sanitary sewer system to pay for a number of footing drain disconnections elsewhere in the city, according to a formula.

The footing drain disconnect program was targeted initially in five neighborhoods that accounted for about half of all reported basement sewage backups. Since implementation, 2,538 footing drains have been disconnected, including nearly all of the houses in three of the five areas. In the two other areas, between 55% and 60% of footing drains have been disconnected.

Cresson Slotten, engineer and unit manager in systems planning for the city of Ann Arbor.

In one of the remaining areas – the Glen Leven neighborhood – overland flooding during heavy rains in the spring of 2012 resulted in basement flooding in some houses that had been included in the disconnection program. The procedure includes the installation of a sump to collect water from the footing drains – which previously fed into the sanitary system – and a pump to move the water from the sump to the stormwater system.

Emphatic protest came from residents of that neighborhood, which has in recent weeks included rumblings of possible litigation. The litigation would be based on the legal theory that the city’s footing drain disconnection program has proceeded without valid contracts with homeowners, and that the installation of the wells and pumps constitutes an illegal “taking.” The city council decided on Sept. 17, 2012 to suspend temporarily the footing drain disconnection program.

It’s in that context that the city is now undertaking the study to be done by OHM – to determine if the footing drain disconnect program needs to continue and if so, where the efforts should be focused.

The scope of OHM’s work includes: (1) perform flow monitoring on the sanitary sewer in the five priority areas; (2) update, calibrate, and validate the existing sanitary sewer model; (3) evaluate the effectiveness of the current FDD program; (4) provide recommendations for reducing or eliminating wet weather flow impacts; and (5) do public engagement throughout the entire project, including a citizen advisory committee, a technical oversight committee, focus groups, and the general public.

Sanitary Sewer Flow Study: Council Deliberations

Cresson Slotten, an engineer and manager in the city’s systems planning unit, responded to questions about what the study would entail. The first part of the study, he explained, would include monitoring the sanitary system during heavy rains.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) drew out the fact that the city has also undertaken a study of the stormwater system – which is separate and distinct from the study of the sanitary sewer system. Teall encouraged members of the public to attend the public outreach meetings for the stormwater project.

Left to right: Ward 5 councilmembers Chuck Warpehoski and Mike Anglin.

Responding to a question from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) city administrator Steve Powers indicated that the sanitary sewer project could be part of the council’s discussion of the capital improvements plan (CIP) at a working session on Feb. 11.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) observed that when people live in a neighborhood, they expect that it’s not going to flood. He felt like the measurement study should have taken place earlier.

The Landsdowne neighborhood had paid for the fact that this study was only now taking place, he contended. Anglin asked Slotten why the city staff couldn’t undertake the study: Why did an outside contractor need to be hired? Slotten explained that the project is very intensive with respect to the equipment and staff resources.

A lot of human resources are required to gather all the data – to analyze and check for errors ,and to maintain the devices that are deployed out in the sanitary sewer system, Slotten said. The devices require a high level of expertise to operate, and a lot of expertise to take the data and analyze it with a computer model.

Slotten allowed that the city did have a computer modeler on staff – but his role is to maintain and utilize the existing model. The study is an effort to “advance” the city’s model of the system, to see how the system has evolved in the last 10 years – over the period when the footing drain disconnections have taken place. If the city’s one modeler were tasked with the study, it’d take a longer time and he wouldn’t be able to perform his usual duties.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) concurred with Anglin, saying that for the homeowners who’d been impacted by it, this situation has been a nightmare. She allowed that $1 million is a lot of money, but said the city needs to do what it can to remedy the situation.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the contract with OHM to conduct the study of flows in the sanitary sewer system.

Tech Agreements

Two technology agreements were before the Ann Arbor city council for consideration – a three-way agreement with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority and Washtenaw County, and another two-party contract with the city of Chelsea. Both agreements existed previously.

The three-way accord had been approved by the council on May 2, 2011. This interagency agreement for collaborative technology and services (IACTS) is meant to provide a way to procure and maintain common technology platforms and services centrally.

The modification to the agreement, approved by the city council on Feb. 4, allows for adding other entities into the agreement in a more streamlined way, by “giving each founding member the ability to approve a process to enable an administrative individual to sign on behalf of that founding member for purposes of this adding new participants.” Other members could thus be added without modifying the agreement itself. With the amendment, Ann Arbor’s process for adding a new participant would include simply the approval of the city administrator on recommendation of the IT director and chief financial officer.

According to city of Ann Arbor IT director Dan Rainey, responding to an emailed query, one of the entities interested in participating in the IACTS is the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD).

In May 2011 – when the Ann Arbor city council approved the IACTS with AATA and Washtenaw County – the council was also asked to consider the approval of an agreement with Washtenaw County for data storage services and for backup services. At the May 2011 council meeting, Rainey explained the nature of the shared storage and shared backup – there will be one machine at city hall and one at the city’s Wheeler Center.

The topic of backup and disaster data recovery issues was identified as one area of minor concern in the city’s most recent audit in late 2012. In chief financial officer Tom Crawford’s response to the auditor’s note on that topic, he outlines how the city uses a “separation of risks” approach and has always been able to backup and recover data in individual computing environments. Crawford’s written response also describes the city’s current work to improve its disaster recovery plan in terms of the IACTS: “Because of the nature of our interdependences, the information technology departments of the city of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County and the AATA are collaborating on developing a common disaster recovery plan. The current state of the plan is that all parties know what is being backed up, where it is stored and that there is the ability to recover backed up data on a small number of servers.” [.pdf of revised auditor's letter] [.pdf of Crawford's Jan. 24, 2013 response]

Responding to an emailed query, Washtenaw County IT manager Andy Brush explained that certain IT services are already provided by Washtenaw County to various entities – like the city of Ypsilanti, Dexter’s fire department, and the 14B District Court – although they aren’t yet parties to the IACTS agreement.

The agreement between Ann Arbor and the city of Chelsea, which the council also considered on Feb. 4, dates back to 2011. Under the agreement, the city of Chelsea will pay the city of Ann Arbor up to $55,614 for the following services: helpdesk, management of the city’s website, server hosting, data backup and recovery, overseeing IT contractors, project management, and representing the city of Chelsea in regional technology efforts and meetings.

Tech Agreements: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she supported the concept of intergovernmental cooperation, and was supportive of this specific resolution. It’s nice to see other agencies joining in partnership with the city of Ann Arbor, so she ventured that the city’s approach to IT must be working.

But she noted that one of the aspects of the arrangement is that it’s a procurement cooperative. She wanted to know what other procurement cooperatives the city was part of, how the city decided to use them and when. She asked Dan Rainey, head of IT for the city, how can adding new members benefit the city?

Rainey explained that in the past there were occasionally opportunities to collaborate between the city and the county. The two entities would generate contracts and they’d done that one, two, three times. They’d then decided to come up with a platform to handle things in a more streamlined way. The benefit to the city is that the city’s expenses have been offset by investments the county has already made. In the other direction, other entitles have benefited from the investment the city has made in its data center. The council was being asked to consider a revision to the agreement that evening, because the existing partners are trying to get other entities to participate in the mindset of sharing. The idea is to not make other organizations feel like they’re being bullied into joining. They can join of their own accord, Rainey said.

Outcome: The agreement with Chelsea was on the consent agenda, which was approved unanimously. Separately, the council also unanimously approved the revision to the IACTS agreement.

Bonds for Clean Energy (PACE)

The Ann Arbor city council was asked to approve a step that would help owners of commercial property make improvements designed to help save energy under the city’s property assessed clean energy (PACE) program.

That step was to authorize the issuance and sale of up to $1 million in bonds in support of energy improvements to be undertaken by five property owners. In broad strokes, the PACE program is enabled by state legislation – the Property Assessed Clean Energy Act 270 of 2010. Property owners take out loans to make energy improvements to be repaid through regular installments as part of their taxes. Municipalities like the city of Ann Arbor administer the program. More than a year ago, on Jan. 9, 2012, the city council set the fees for participation in the program. Prior to that, on March 7, 2011, the city set up a loan loss fund with about $430,000 granted by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Properties for which owners have applied for improvements under Ann Arbor’s PACE program include: (1) Arrowwood (2566 Arrowwood Trail) for new HVAC equipment, insulation, occupancy sensors and lighting upgrade for the clubhouse; exterior lighting upgrade to LED; and solar shingles on one apartment building; (2) Big Boy (3611 Plymouth Road) for HVAC upgrade, lighting upgrade, cooking equipment replacement with energy efficient equipment, and controls; (3) Bivouac (330-336 S. State) for interior lighting upgrade; (4) Goodyear Building (118-124 S. Main) for HVAC replacement (boilers and A/C units), and lighting upgrade; and (5) Kerrytown Market & Shoppes (403 N. Fifth Ave.) for lighting upgrades in tenant areas and common areas.

Bonds for Clean Energy (PACE): Council Deliberations

The item was not added to the agenda until the day of the council meeting. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she wanted to postpone the item, in light of the many questions she’d heard about the program. She reported that the city’s chief financial officer, Tom Crawford, had indicated that a two-week postponement wouldn’t present a problem.

Mayor John Hieftje, who’d co-sponsored the addition of the agenda item, said he didn’t know why it had been added late to the agenda. He said he thought it was to be added to the agenda that’s publicized on the Wednesday before the following Monday’s council meeting.

Hieftje said he had been working on the PACE program for years and would be “joyful” when it finally was implemented.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the issuance of the PACE bonds.

Reports, Written Communications

Every council agenda includes a raft of written reports and communications. Here are two highlights from the Feb. 4 agenda.

Reports: Revised Auditor’s Note

A revised auditor’s letter to the city of Ann Arbor was attached to the city council’s Feb. 4, 2013 agenda, and has been formally received by the council as a written communication from the city administrator.

The original version of the letter had indicated three instances of an employee with a vehicle allowance also being reimbursed for mileage, and characterized those reimbursements as a “violation of city policy.” It was subsequently revealed that it was the mileage reimbursements of city attorney Stephen Postema that had caused the auditor to flag the issue.

But after further review – pushed by Postema and chief financial officer Tom Crawford – auditor Mark Kettner agreed that there was no written policy per se that disallowed the dual claims. Kettner is a principal at Rehmann, the city’s auditor, which is in the first year of a five-year contract.

But Kettner also noted that his original conclusion of inappropriateness was based on his view that the dual claims would be “illogical,” whether a policy existed or not. Kettner also indicated in reaching his conclusion of inappropriateness that he had not reviewed Postema’s employment contract, which Postema and Crawford contend would have permitted Postema to claim mileage reimbursements in addition to the vehicle allowance.

Postema’s contract was altered last year, chronologically after the contested mileage reimbursements, so that his vehicle allowance was eliminated.

The new wording of Kettner’s letter omits the characterization of the mileage claims as a “violation” but still calls attention to the issue, and adds language to highlight the problematic character of the reimbursements – that “… in each instance the expense report was not subject to independent review and approval.”

Postema’s contract stipulates that his reimbursements for travel are to be made according to standard city procedures. And one new procedure recommended by Crawford in his written response to the auditor’s report would address the lack of independent review. The recommendation is to require that reimbursements claimed by the city attorney or the city administrator – who are the city council’s two direct reports – be approved by the chair of the council’s administration committee.

[.pdf of original letter] [.pdf of revised letter] [.pdf of Crawford's Jan. 24, 2013 response]

Reports: 2012 Street Millage

The city of Ann Arbor’s street millage expenditure report for the 2012 construction season indicates that approximately 25 lane miles on 36 different streets were resurfaced or reconstructed this past season. Total construction cost was about $8.2 million, allocated between major streets (one-third) and local streets (two-thirds).

The street repair millage, renewed by voters in 2011, is levied at a rate of 2 mills, which generates about $9 million annually. The street millage expenditure report was attached to the city council’s Feb. 4, 2013 meeting agenda as a communication.

According to city project manager Nick Hutchinson, responding to an emailed query, the miles of streets resurfaced as reported in the city’s comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) is a different measure – in two ways – from the lane miles reported in the 2012 millage report. First, the CAFR statistic (which has typically ranged between 4 and 7 miles over the last six years) reflects simply the length of the roadway. Second, the CAFR statistic is based on fiscal years (starting on July 1), whereas the millage report is a based on the activity in a calendar year.

Also approved by voters in 2011 was a new 1/8 mill sidewalk repair millage, which generated roughly $500,000 in revenues. According to the city’s report, about $561,000 worth of work was done under the sidewalk repair program, which included replacement of 1,475 slabs of sidewalk and the trimming of an additional 6,380 slabs.

Work also completed that was funded by the street millage program – not the sidewalk millage – were sidewalk ramps on 395 street corners, which are on a list to be replaced under a consent decree. The consent decree requires curb ramps to be installed on all street corners where the city resurfaced or reconstructed streets between 1992 and 2004. The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in 1990. [.pdf of street millage report] [.pdf of map showing streets resurfaced in 2012]

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Downtown Parcels – Library Lot, Y Lot

During public commentary, Alan Haber ventured that the council had heard from the “fringe” pressing on issues with thoughts that the council didn’t particularly want to hear – concerns about the homeless and about Palestine and about an energy farm.

Haber referred to a written statement he’d circulated to councilmembers about the interim use of the top of the Library Lane underground parking garage. [.pdf of Haber's message to the council.] Haber’s remarks came in the context of a presentation by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to the city council on Jan. 14 about the Connecting William Street project. The presentation had included the DDA’s recommendations for the future use of five city-owned downtown parcels, which includes the top of the new Library Lane underground parking garage.

Haber called for allowing people to begin to have activities on top of the structure. If it were allowed to be open, he told councilmembers they’d be surprised by the creativity that Ann Arbor shows. He told them that Ann Arbor really needs a place for the community to come together, and asked councilmembers to take a look at his ideas – including a temporary skating rink with artificial ice.

Two days later, at the Feb. 6, 2013 meeting of the DDA board, Haber reprised his comments.

By way of additional background, at its Dec. 19, 2012 meeting, the DDA’s operations committee was provided with a draft of ideas for a policy on special events at the Library Lane mid-block cut-through and the top of the Library Lane parking garage.

The preamble to the draft includes the expectation that the site would eventually include a building with public open space, but indicates support in the interim for the kind of activity that Haber called for:

The structural component of the underground Library Lane structure was designed to anticipate the construction of a future building and a future public open space area. In the meanwhile, until such time as these elements are designed and constructed, the DDA is supportive of community groups using the Library Lane surface parking lot and the adjoining Library Lane for events, public gatherings and meetings.

In the draft, the main bureaucratic requirement is approval by the city of Ann Arbor for a special events permit, which currently costs $34.

During his communications time at the Feb. 4 council meeting, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) addressed a second parcel that’s part of the Connecting William Street project – the former Y lot at Fifth and William streets. Kunselman contended that it was pretty clear that “the DDA missed the boat on what to do with the Y lot.” Kunselman said the city needed to get that parcel listed for sale, so he’d be bringing forward a resolution directing the city administrator to solicit a real estate broker so that the Y lot can be offered for sale before the balloon mortgage payment on the property comes due at the end of this year. [The site is known as the Y lot because it was the former location of the YMCA. The property was sold to the city when the Y moved to its current location at 400 W. Washington.]

Comm/Comm: Budget Sessions

During communications time, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) reported that the council’s budget committee had met and has mapped out the next few council work sessions.

City administrator Steve Powers and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

The Feb. 11 session will consist of two 2-hour sessions, starting at 6 p.m. The first session will cover affordable housing and the 15th District Court. The second session will cover the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP).

By way of additional background on pending proposed changes to the Ann Arbor housing commission’s housing stock, see: “Housing Commission Selects Co-Developer.”

For additional background on the 15th District Court, including an explanation of its responsibilities and funding sources, see coverage from the budget planning session two years ago: “Ann Arbor 2012 Budget: 15th District Court.”

For additional background on the status of the CIP as a planning document and the recent history of inclusion in the CIP of a proposed runway extension at the city’s municipal airport, see “Ann Arbor Budget Process Starts Up.” According to Craig Hupy, public services area administrator with the city, the fact that the runway extension is listed in the CIP for 2014 – with $2.135 million of funding – means that all other things being equal, $2.135 million will be spent on the runway extension in 2014 (i.e., it will be done in 2014), provided that funding is available. One factor that could change that would be for the city council to exercise its budgetary control and not to fund the project.

On Feb. 25, the work session will cover the specific budget impacts to individual service units and the council’s five key priority areas. The top three priority areas are: (1) city budget and fiscal discipline; (2) public safety; and (3) infrastructure. Two additional areas are: (4) economic development; and (5) affordable housing.

On March 11, Higgins continued, the council would talk about conflicting issues and would have a much larger discussion. That will give the city administrator time to finalize the budget. [Under the city charter, the city administrator must submit the budget for the next fiscal year, which begins on July 1, at the second regular council meeting in April. The council then must amend and adopt any changes by its second meeting in May.]

Higgins noted that the night of March 25 would be reserved for a possible additional working session, but she recognized that it’s the first night of Passover. She observed that no votes would be taken.

Comm/Comm: Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority

During communications time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that for the previous meeting’s agenda, the council had received the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s annual report. [.pdf of FY 2012 DDA annual report]

That had reminded him that in August of 2011, he’d indicated to his colleagues that he’d wanted to make some amendments to the city ordinance establishing the DDA.

[That was on Aug. 4, 2011, two days after Kunselman won the Democratic primary election, on a campaign that was partly based on criticism of the DDA. That primary was a three-way race that included Marwan Issa and Ingrid Ault. Ault was subsequently appointed to the city's park advisory commission. The current chair of the city's park advisory commission, Julie Grand, could provide some competition for Kunselman in his re-election bid for 2013 – as she is now mulling a possible candidacy. Kunselman took out petitions on Nov. 3 to run for re-election to council for Ward 3.]

On Feb. 4, Kunselman highlighted the $2.1 million in the 2012 annual report from the DDA that was labeled “administration.” To have $2.1 million going toward administration seemed “a little outlandish,” Kunselman maintained.

By way of background, the line item labeled “administration” in the DDA’s annual report does not correspond just to those items typically associated with administrative overhead, like staff salaries and benefits. The amount includes, for example, about $0.5 million as a grant to the city for the police/courts building, as well as the subsidy of bus rides taken with the getDowntown’s go!pass. Responding to a request from The Chronicle, DDA executive director Susan Pollay provided the following breakdown of that amount:

Staff, office, professional services    $1,018,259
Grant to the city for the Municipal Ctr   $508,608
Other TIF grants and projects             $110,267
Grant for go!passes, other alt programs   $467,392
Total                                   $2,104,526

-

Among the revisions to the DDA ordinance Kunselman described were changes to DDA governance, which would include term limits on board members, a prohibition against elected officials serving on the board, a requirement that any TIF (tax increment finance) expenditures outside the DDA district boundaries need the council’s approval, and a stipulation that TIF “rebates” for projects require city council approval.

Councilmembers Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

But more significantly, Kunselman is proposing to change the way that the tax increment finance (TIF) capture by the DDA is calculated. The change to the way that TIF is calculated would be based on a different interpretation of the existing language in the ordinance, but would result in roughly $600,000 a year less in TIF capture by the DDA. It’s the same proposal Kunselman made on May 21, 2012 – as a proposed amendment to the city budget last year. On that occasion, his proposal received just three votes on the 11-member council; however, the current composition of the council includes three new councilmembers. For additional Chronicle reporting of the TIF calculations, see: “Column: TIF Capture Is a Varsity Sport.”

Kunselman’s view on the correct interpretation of the TIF calculation is one that was shared at least at one time by the Ann Arbor city attorney’s office. An apparently overlooked clause of the city’s ordinance on DDA TIF capture led the DDA board nearly two years ago, on May 2, 2011, to delay a vote on the new contract between the city and the DDA, under which the DDA administers the city’s public parking system. The Ann Arbor District Library, whose taxes in the district are subject to the DDA’s TIF, has also questioned the correct interpretation of the ordinance.

Kunselman concluded his Feb. 4 remarks on the DDA by saying that the ordinance needs some teeth to “rein in” the DDA board and the amount of TIF that is captured.

Comm/Comm: Taxicab Sexual Assault, “Rogue Limos”

During communications time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) noted that he was chair of the city’s taxicab board and also the parent of two teenage daughters. He’d recently received a crime alert through the University of Michigan, reporting a sexual assault of a young woman, in either a limo or a taxi. Kunselman said the incident raises the issue that the taxicab board has been grappling with – the issue of “rogue limos.” He was describing limos that “impersonate taxis” with their marking and top lights, and pick up passengers as taxicabs do, but are not licensed as taxicabs under the city’s ordinance.

The city council had amended the taxicab ordinance [on Nov. 10, 2011] so that tickets could be written for limos that “impersonate” taxicabs by using top lights. If they’re not licensed, Kunselman said, the city doesn’t know who those drivers are. Kunselman thought it’s time the city do something about it. As chair of the taxicab board, he would ask for a monthly report of enforcement activities – how many limos are pulled over and how many have been ticketed. Kunselman identified two companies as having “rogue limos” – Yellow Car and Green Cab.

Responding to a question from mayor John Hieftje, Kunselman said there’s a state law that the city is trying to get strengthened and that he’d forwarded the crime alert to the city’s lobbyist, Kirk Profit. But Kunselman said he wasn’t sure it’s not possible to take action under existing laws and ordinances. At the most recent meeting of the city’s taxicab board, which took place before the reported sexual assault, the issue of limos impersonating taxis also arose.

Comm/Comm: Coleman Jewett, Public Art

During his communications time, mayor John Hieftje mentioned the memorial service for Coleman Jewett held the previous Saturday. Hieftje noted that Jewett had been a member of the Pioneer High School championship basketball team in the early 1950s. Hieftje passed along a suggestion that a bronze Adirondack chair be placed at the city farmers market as a remembrance to Jewett, who had sold Adirondack chairs and other furniture there for many years. Hieftje indicated that he hoped the public art commission would follow up on the idea.

Comm/Comm: Ending Homelessness, Cold Weather

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a resident of Ann Arbor and a recent candidate for the state senate and house. He was there on a frigid night to urge the mayor and the city council to show immediate concern for the homeless in Washtenaw County. He expressed concern for people who show up on local news programs as causalities, hospitalized with frostbite or in the morgue frozen to death. He called on the council to empower the disenfranchised, and to give voice to continued union representation in contracts. He called on the city council immediately to end homelessness in Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County and Michigan. The Ann Arbor police department, fire department, Washtenaw County sheriff’s office and other organizations should be out looking for people who need shelter. He called for affordable transportation. Partridge observed that Feb. 4, 2013 was the 100th anniversary of the birthday of the most famous public transit rider in history – Rosa Parks.

During his communications time, mayor John Hieftje cited a report he’d received from Ellen Schulmeister, executive director of the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County, saying that no one has been turned away from the shelter system this winter. There’s outreach going on, done by a group that goes out and looks for people who might need shelter. But Hieftje said that some people won’t come in.

Comm/Comm: Energy Farm

Kermit Schlansker described again his concept of an energy farm as a showplace where many people could come together to work out ideas that would support a comfortable, sustainable society that could last 1,000 years. Beyond a multipurpose building, one of the first projects would be to construct a bunk house where people could stay while they are working on projects. The ultimate goal of the farm would be the construction of an energy efficient apartment building that could last 1,000 years, he said.

Comm/Comm: Israel, Palestine

Three people spoke on the issue of Israel and Palestine during public commentary at the council’s Feb. 4 meeting.

Henry Herskovitz told the council that Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends, a group he’s a part of, has been holding peaceful vigils for over nine years outside the Beth Israel congregation. The group is known for raising the issue of Palestinian sovereignty and what he described as Israeli war crimes. When a member of the city council lashes out with false accusations, he continued, he felt the need to “play a little defense.” He alluded to an Ann Arbor Chronicle article that reported comments from Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5). From that report of the city council’s Jan. 7, 2013 meeting:

In Ann Arbor, Warpehoski said, we like to assume we’ve got everything all worked out, but when a Muslim woman driving home from her job at the university hospital had a gun pulled on her and was told to “go home,” that indicates that there’s work yet to be done. Another example he gave was the idea of putting a swastika over the Star of David, or circulating literature saying that Jewish religious observances turn boys and girls into “monsters.”

Herskovitz said that a website dedicated to ending his group’s demonstrations did not show any photographs of a swastika over a Star of David, and that if such a photograph existed, he was sure that it would be posted on that website.

Herskovitz then characterized the claim about religious observances turning boys and girls into monsters was out of context. Herskovitz indicated that the context should include Ovadia Yosef’s remarks as quoted in the Jerusalem Post: “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.” Herskovitz noted that Yosef is former Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel and spiritual leader of the Shas political party in Israel.

Herskovitz pointed to another work by an Israeli rabbi, Yitzhak Shapira, who wrote “The Complete Guide to Killing Non-Jews.” Herskovitz quoted another former chief rabbi, Mordechai Eliyahu: “It is important to make one thing clear – the life of one yeshiva boy is worth more than the lives of 1,000 Arabs.”

Herskovitz concluded that those quotations were “monstrous” and ventured that those who’d said those words were probably indoctrinated into an ideology that makes such statements possible – likely at an early age. Herskovitz contended that Beth Israel rabbi Robert Dobrusin takes Jewish children on tours of Israel and poses them with armed soldiers. Dobrusin indoctrinates children into a Zionist ideology, Herskovitz contended.

[Based on the Anti-Defamation League's frequent condemnation of various remarks by Yosef (including those cited by Herskovitz), Shapira's book and remarks by Eliyahu, the views expressed by the men could fairly be considered to be inconsistent with the mainstream.]

Blaine Coleman began his remarks by saying that Warpehoski had made a promise not to vote for any resolution that criticized Israel – at a time when Israel is, Coleman contended, massacring Palestinians. Coleman described that as a “monstrous” promise to make, and hoped that Warpehoski would retract that promise. Coleman hoped that Warpehoski would support a resolution to boycott Israel, to divest from Israel or at least divest from companies that supply arms to the Israeli military. Coleman pointed out that Warpehoski’s own organization, the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, had approved a resolution to divest from Israel’s military, and he said that it’s Warpehoski’s responsibility to support that resolution as a city councilmember. Coleman described Israel as a “monstrously racist state” that could be compared to the racist ideology of Nazism.

Coleman showed the council a map of Palestine, which existed before Israel was established. One day, Coleman said, the Palestinian people would be free again to walk “in every inch of their land as free people.” That could only happen if “the racist state of Israel” were abolished, he said, in the same way that racist South Africa was abolished.

Coleman called on Warpehoski to lead the way by retracting his promise not to support a resolution critical of Israel. He closed by asking to whom Warpehoski had made the promise, and if someone had asked him to make such a promise.

Mozhgan Savabieasfahani called Israel a “racist state” and contended it could be compared to a Nazi state. What Israel is doing to the people of Palestine, she said, is nothing less than what Nazis did to Jews. She contended that people were being kicked out of their homes in East Jerusalem by the Israeli military, with the full support of the U.S. She said the U.S. contributes $5 billion a year to Israel so that Israel can kick “regular people” out of their homes. Addressing the several high school students who were attending the city council meeting as part of a class assignment, Savabieasfahani told them that thousands of Palestinians their age were in jail without any charges being pressed against them.

Among the councilmembers, one had said he’d be in favor of cutting funding to the “racist, Nazi state of Israel,” Savabieasfahani continued – Chuck Warpehoski. That’s to his credit, she said. Now she wanted to see him push forward and act on that, given that he now has a position where he can do that. Nothing has changed, since Warpehoski made that statement. She concluded with a call for a boycott of Israel.

During council communications time, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) responded to the commentary about Warpehoski. She said that in the five years she’s served on the council, one councilmember or another has been singled out for “less than positive feedback” during public commentary – something that always makes her “squirm.”

Left to right: Ward 1 councilmembers Sumi Kailasapathy and Sabra Briere.

She was told when she ran for the city council that no matter how liberal she might be as a person, to please try hard not to bring resolutions to the council that have nothing to do with local government. When she brought a resolution to the council about immigration reform, she heard from a lot of people who felt that was really none of the council’s business. She has brought other items like that in the last five years, because she thinks that they’re important when they have a “local connection.” But at the same time, she allowed that there were a lot of people in the community who think the council should be “focused on the business of doing business in Ann Arbor.”

Briere thanked Warpehoski for recognizing that there’s no city investment in Israel, and that there’s no money the city is sending to Israel. She thanked him for recognizing that without some kind of local connection – unlike the boycott of South Africa over apartheid – there is no “local hook.” The city’s ability to influence federal spending decisions is very limited, Briere contended. She said she had wanted to say something, because she’d been on the receiving end of occasional “interesting communication” with members of the public. [.pdf of city council resolution rescinding South Africa boycott]

Present: Jane Lumm, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Sumi Kailasapathy, Sally Petersen, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Chuck Warpehoski.

Next council meeting: Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. The meeting date is pushed back a day to accommodate the Presidents Day holiday on Feb. 18. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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