The Varsity is located at 425 E. Washington St. in downtown Ann Arbor. Based on zoning requirements, 76 off-street parking spaces are required. Only 69 were provided onsite. The others were provided through the contribution in lieu (CIL) program. The seven spaces were approved by the Ann Arbor DDA at its June 5, 2013 meeting. It falls to the DDA to make a decision on the CIL spaces, because the DDA administers the city’s public parking system under a contract with the city of Ann Arbor.

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]

Left to right: DDA board member Keith Orr, mayor John Hieftje.

The DDA had actually already adopted its FY 2014 budget – back on Feb. 6, 2013. And although it’s been customary in the past years for the DDA to adopt its budget in advance of the city council’s approval, the state enabling statute for downtown development authorities provides a different sequence: “Before the budget may be adopted by the board, it shall be approved by the governing body of the municipality.”

Considerable debate on the DDA’s budget had unfolded among city councilmembers at their May 20, 2013 meeting. And the council had ultimately decided on a 10-1 vote to approve a FY 2014 budget for the DDA that differed from the one the DDA had adopted in February. In addition to recognizing an additional $568,000 in tax increment finance revenue (TIF), the council’s action transferred an additional $300,000 from the DDA’s TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund.

At their June 5 meeting, some DDA board members balked at the council’s action, citing the replacement of rusting-out light poles on Main Street as a more pressing need than reserving funds for undetermined future housing projects. But ultimately the board adopted the council’s approved budget on an 8-2 vote – with dissent from Sandi Smith and John Mouat. Absent from the meeting were Russ Collins and Nader Nassif.

At the June 5 meeting, the board concluded that a portion of the more than $516,000 cost for the Main Street light poles would need to come from the city’s general fund. Mayor John Hieftje indicated at the meeting that in the next month he expected the city council would be presented with a budget resolution authorizing the difference between the $516,000 total cost and the $268,000 that the DDA considers available in its council-approved budget.

Also approved by the DDA board were annual routine adjustments to its current year’s budget, which are undertaken to ensure that actual expenses and revenues are reflected accurately. The adjustments are made so that expenses do not exceed revenues in any of the funds. During those deliberations, back-and-forth between board treasurer Roger Hewitt and Newcombe Clark indicated a realization that the kind of budget amendment they were undertaking for FY 2013, at the end of the fiscal year, might be used to work around the budget levels authorized by the city council. It’s not completely clear if that strategy is possible.

But in response to Hewitt’s assurance that budget amendments could be enacted for any reason – as long as expenditures didn’t exceed revenues – Clark made his comment about people staying up too late on Monday nights. [The city council meets on Monday nights, and the council's deliberations on the DDA budget have gone long into the evening. If the DDA board can change its budget after adopting the council-approved version, then the council's deliberations would seem to be moot.]

The June meeting was Clark’s penultimate one, as his term expires at the end of July and he’s moving to Chicago to take a job there. The board’s July 3 meeting will also be board chair Leah Gunn’s last meeting, which will mark the end of over two decades of service on the DDA board, beginning in 1991.

The parking revenue and patrons report from the public parking system was one of the regular highlights of the meeting. The DDA manages Ann Arbor’s public parking system under a contract with the city. The parking report was complemented by a board resolution that awarded five additional monthly parking permits to The Varsity residential project, bringing its total to seven. The DDA can assign monthly permits to residential projects under the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program – which provides a mechanism for building housing without providing parking spaces onsite.

Local developer Peter Allen addressed the board during public commentary, reporting that his company had been one of three to submit bids in response to the city’s RFP (request for proposals) for brokerage services to sell the former Y lot at Fifth and William streets. He told the board he thinks the parcel is worth $5-7 million or more.

Budget Issues

The board handled two major budget issues and entertained discussion on others. The main issues were: (1) the adoption of the city-council approved FY 2014 budget, on which the council had voted at its May 20, 2013 meeting; and (2) adjustments to the FY 2013 budget, which is the current fiscal year now drawing to a close on June 30.

During deliberations at the May 20 meeting, the council had ultimately decided on a 10-1 vote to approve a FY 2014 budget for the DDA that differed from the one the DDA had adopted in February. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) cast the sole vote of dissent. In addition to recognizing an additional $568,000 in tax increment finance (TIF) revenue, the council’s action transferred an additional $300,000 from the TIF fund to the DDA’s housing fund.

Budget Issues: FY 2014

By way of background, according the state’s enabling statute for downtown development authorities, a DDA is supposed to adopt its budget after the governing municipality approves it [emphasis added]:

125.1678 Budget; cost of handling and auditing funds. Sec. 28. (1) The director of the authority shall prepare and submit for the approval of the board a budget for the operation of the authority for the ensuing fiscal year. The budget shall be prepared in the manner and contain the information required of municipal departments. Before the budget may be adopted by the board, it shall be approved by the governing body of the municipality. Funds of the municipality shall not be included in the budget of the authority except those funds authorized in this act or by the governing body of the municipality. (2) The governing body of the municipality may assess a reasonable pro rata share of the funds for the cost of handling and auditing the funds against the funds of the authority, other than those committed, which cost shall be paid annually by the board pursuant to an appropriate item in its budget

However, the Ann Arbor DDA board has typically adopted its budget before the city council approves the city’s fiscal year budget, of which the DDA’s budget is a component.

At the board’s June 5 meeting, Roger Hewitt led off the discussion on adopting the FY 2014 budget by noting that according to the state enabling legislation for DDAs, the city council approves the DDA’s budget, and then the DDA board formally adopts that budget. There were a couple of changes that the city council made compared to the budget that the DDA board had previously adopted in February, Hewitt said. So the board was being asked to consider a revised budget that reflected changes approved by city council. [.pdf of FY 2014 DDA budget adopted in February] [.pdf of revised FY 2014 DDA budget]

Income to the TIF fund was being revised in the budget based on new information from the assessor’s office – to a total of just over $4.5 million, Hewitt told the board. The council had also increased the amount of inter-fund transfers from the TIF fund to the housing fund from $100,000 to $400,000 – a $300,000 increase. The budget the board was being asked to consider, Hewitt said, showed capital costs would be increased from $300,000 to $568,000 – to replace the light poles on Main Street.

Ann Arbor Main Street rusted light pole. (Photo from April 2012 by city of Ann Arbor staff.)

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, indicated that only $268,000 of those capital costs were intended by the DDA currently to be used for light poles on Main Street. She told the board that she was in conversation with city staff about how to come up with the difference between $268,000 and the estimated cost of doing the replacement for the poles – which is $516,000, including warranties and labor. She thought that a resolution would be presented to the city council within the next month asking for a city council approval to appropriate the remaining money from the city’s general fund. Approval for the project would be coming back to the DDA board in July, Pollay said.

Looking at the housing fund in more detail, Hewitt noted that the total $400,000 transfer into the housing fund showed up as income to that fund. Another change to the budget was to move a different $400,000 to support affordable housing in Village Green’s City Apartments project, which had originally been part of the previous year’s budget. That leaves the housing fund balance for fiscal year 2014 at about $382,000, Hewitt concluded.

By way of background, the politics of the housing fund transfer involve pending revisions to the city ordinance that regulates how the DDA’s TIF capture is calculated. The existing ordinance language, enacted in 1982, indicates a cap to TIF revenue, calibrated to the anticipated increase in tax valuation in the TIF plan, which is a foundational document for any DDA. Revenue above the cap is supposed to be returned to the taxing jurisdictions in the district, whose taxes the DDA captures. The DDA contends that it only became aware of the cap in 2011, when it was pointed out by the city treasurer.

The DDA eventually adopted the position that it could give the ordinance language an interpretation that did not require the return of any TIF dollars to the taxing jurisdictions. The DDA’s response to proposed changes to the language to prevent its non-cap interpretation of the ordinance was to raise the specter of a diminished ability of the DDA to support affordable housing. Councilmembers who were pushing to clarify the ordinance responded to the DDA’s political argument, based on affordable housing, with a political move of their own – the forced transfer of money from the DDA’s TIF fund to the housing fund.

Sandi Smith led off deliberations by saying she had a problem transferring $300,000 to the housing fund when the DDA had been working pretty hard to contribute to affordable housing, without a clear path for doing that. It’s been a struggle for the last eight years sitting on the partnerships committee trying to find solid projects and a method to invest in affordable housing downtown, she said. The transfer seems “arbitrary,” Smith said, when there are other very clear needs, giving the light poles as an example. Smith felt the DDA had been very good about putting money aside for housing, but she allowed that the DDA had cut back a couple of years in order to build the new Library Lane underground parking structure. But the board had now begun again to invest in housing and to put some money aside.

It’s challenging now, Smith said, to accept what the council had done by moving an arbitrary amount of money over into the housing fund – without a project that is specifically ready to go. She described it as unfortunate that the city had not approached the DDA partnerships committee beforehand to have a discussion with the chair of that committee or the chair of the DDA board, to ask: “Is this a useful thing for you to do?” She said it had been done in an arbitrary and off-the-cuff way at the 11th hour.

Smith asked what kind of flexibility the board had at this point. She did not see the transfer from TIF to the housing fund as a benefit to anything the DDA is doing as far as affordable housing goes. She did not feel it benefits the downtown in any way to move the money over to the housing fund in a “holding pattern,” waiting for the DDA to find a project to invest in. Hewitt told Smith that he did not necessarily disagree with her, but the state law is clear that the DDA’s budget must be approved by the city council. The DDA adopts its budget after the city council approves it. “The law is the law,” Hewitt concluded.

Newcombe Clark talks with DDA executive director Susan Pollay before the June 5 meeting.

Newcombe Clark drew out the fact that in the council’s resolution passed on May 20, the housing fund transfer is explicitly required, but the council’s direction to spend money on the Main Street light poles is put in terms of a request. He concluded that one of the moves had been forced while the other had been merely requested.

Mayor John Hieftje, who voted with the 10-member majority in supporting the council’s resolution, told the board that these issues had been discussed at the council’s meeting. He had been unsuccessful in convincing other councilmembers that the amount of the housing fund transfer should not be as great, he said. His point at the council meeting had been to stress the importance of replacing the light poles on Main Street, he added. But he noted that the original resolution that had been put forward called for an even greater amount of $500,000 to be transferred to the housing fund, which would have made it unavailable to spend on light poles. What the council had approved had been a compromise. He described the number of light poles that had blown down as three or four. [City staff in the public services area responded to an e-mail query from The Chronicle about the exact number of light poles that had failed, by explaining that two had fallen while two more had been replaced when they were deemed on inspection to be in immediate need of replacement.]

Board chair Leah Gunn ventured that the city’s general fund will have to cover the balance of the expense for the light poles [$516,000 - $268,000 = $248,000]. Hieftje indicated that he was hopeful it would be possible, but he was not sure if that would have majority support on the city council: “I can’t predict that.” But he would be voting to support replacing light poles with general fund money, he said. Smith indicated that to her it was a priority to replace light poles. She characterized the housing fund transfer as “feel-good money,” because there’s pressure for affordable housing – without a commitment by the council to find a way to fund it. She indicated she would not support the budget change even though she knew it would pass. About the council’s fund transfer, she concluded: “It’s nonsensical to me.”

Clark floated the idea that light poles in front of Ashley Mews could be replaced with housing fund dollars. Pollay told Clark that the light poles in need of replacement are located on Main Street between Huron to the north and William on the south – so, no. [Ashley Mews is south of William.] Hieftje added that Craig Hupy, the city’s public services area administrator, had characterized the need to replace the light poles on Main Street as “urgent.” [The need is based on rusting of the poles, which apparently makes them susceptible to catastrophic failure.]

John Mouat indicated agreement with Smith – though he was not so much concerned about comparing replacement of light poles to investment in housing. He was more concerned about the process. He agreed with Smith’s characterization of the amounts as arbitrary. The DDA support of affordable housing needs to take place in the context of a process, he said. So he was not inclined to support the budget. John Lowenstein pointed out that this was for the fiscal year 2014 budget, and that meant that if there were no appropriate housing projects to spend the money on in that fiscal year, then the budget for next year would be amended based on experience rather than “random decisions.”

DDA board member John Mouat.

Gunn noted that the DDA’s partnerships committee would be meeting with representatives of the housing community later in June to find out what affordable housing projects are in the pipeline. But the DDA’s commitment to affordable housing is clear, and the light poles are an emergency, Gunn concluded. During her report out from the partnerships committee, Sandi Smith had noted that the June meeting would include representatives of the affordable housing community so that the DDA board can be as informed as possible about the joint city and county goals, and how the DDA can align its work plan to best help the process. That meeting will take place two hours later than it usually does – which puts the time at 11 a.m. on June 12.

Given that the meeting with representatives of the housing community was pending, and that the city council was going to be considering possible action on funding light poles, Hieftje ventured that the DDA board had the option of postponing the vote on the budget until its next meeting, in July. Bob Guenzel responded to Hieftje by pointing out it was not actually an option because the board needed to adopt the budget before the fiscal year started. Guenzel then stated, “But I assume we can amend the budget along the way if we decide to do that in July, and that can be done.” This comment set the stage for discussion later in the meeting – about the DDA’s ability to change its budget later in the year without city council approval.

Keith Orr agreed with Mouat’s point about the process. It struck him as odd that some councilmembers said they were looking for a more autonomous DDA [an allusion to comments by Jane Lumm (Ward 2)], but at the same time the council is also giving very specific direction about how to spend the money.

Outcome: The DDA board approved the fiscal year 2014 working budget on an 8-2 vote. Dissenting were Sandi Smith and John Mouat.

Budget Issues: FY 2013

The board was also asked to consider amendments to its current year’s budget to reflect the actual revenues and expenses through the year – mainly to avoid the possible circumstance that has arisen in the past in which expenses might exceed revenues in a particular fund, which is a violation of state law. Hewitt noted that the board had already undertaken a midyear budget adjustment – to reflect some of the costs of the Library Lane parking garage construction. Changes considered at the June 5 meeting included items related to the Zingerman’s brownfield grant, pushing a $400,000 payment for Village Green’s affordable housing units to the next fiscal year, adding in grants to the Ann Arbor Housing Commission for Baker Commons improvements.

Hewitt noted that the maintenance fund for the parking system was getting down to its lowest level. The DDA has been using maintenance funds, Hewitt said, to pay for the new Library Lane parking structure. But for the next year’s budget there is a transfer of $4.4 million back into the parking maintenance fund, he reported.

Then came Clark’s inquiry about the possibilities for amending the budget generally, given that the board was amending that year’s budget to adjust it for variances near the end of the fiscal year. Clark questioned what the requirement was for amending the budget: Was the DDA required to amend its budget twice a year? Hewitt indicated that it was only necessary once, but the DDA had amended the budget previously this year – because a huge amount of construction costs had come in that were not reflected in the budget for this year. So a midyear revision was done to give a clearer idea of where the DDA would be at the end of the year.

Clark asked if the requirement was only that expenses be updated that were above budget, or if adjustments to revenue were also required to be made. Hewitt indicated that both kinds of revisions were supposed to be made – for revenues and expenses. The important thing is that the expenses can’t be above what were budgeted. Clark then made clear why he was asking question: Does it need to go back to the city council for approval? he asked. The answer Hewitt gave Clark was no. The council approves the DDA’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year, Hewitt said. But the council does not need to approve the DDA’s final budget, which reflects the DDA’s actual expenses and revenues, Hewitt contended.

Clark inquired whether there was some threshold for a reason the DDA might change its budget. Does the state of Michigan care why the DDA might change its budget? Clark asked. Not that he was aware of, Hewitt said: “It’s up to us.” The important thing is that the DDA can’t have negative fund balances, Hewitt said, stressing that the DDA can’t spend more money than it has budgeted for. Clark’s summary of what he’d drawn out: “Too many people’ve been staying up too late on Mondays, then.” The allusion was to the fact that city council had debated issues of DDA budget control at its Monday meetings, long into the night.  If the DDA retains the ability to amend its budget later, that would allow the board to work around the council-approved budget parameters.

Outcome: The DDA approved the adjustments to its FY 2013 budget.

Budget Issues: Police Funding

At its June 3, 2013 meeting, the city council had voted 8-2 to encourage the DDA to consider allocating $270,000 to fund three police officers for the downtown area. During her communications time, board chair Leah Gunn reported the council vote, which had been approved two days earlier. Gunn told the board that she was referring the request to the board’s operations committee. She indicated that the board needed to talk to the chief of police and other community members in order to weigh the council’s request.

Budget Issues: DDA Ordinance Revisions

During communications time, Roger Hewitt noted there had been quite a lot of discussion about modifying the ordinance regulating how the tax increment finance (TIF) capture for the DDA is defined. The issue had been postponed until September, he noted. [That vote by the city council postponing final consideration until Sept. 3 came on May 6, 2013.] The previous day, he and Bob Guenzel along with Susan Pollay had some informal discussions of the ordinance along with some councilmembers, Hewitt reported. [The proposed ordinance revision would clarify the existing language in Chapter 7 of the city code, originally enacted in 1982, so that the DDA's preferred interpretation – which does not cap the DDA's TIF revenue – would not be possible.]

Budget Issues: Third Quarter Update

The third-quarter financial report was also delivered by Roger Hewitt. He noted that the $1.28 million increase in parking revenue was due to the loan that the DDA had received for parking equipment from Republic Parking. Accounting rules required the DDA to show that money as revenue, with interest to be deducted as expenses. He noted that utility costs have been higher than anticipated, as were bank charges. The increased bank charges, he said, were attributed to the increased use of credit cards by parking customers. Fees charged for those credit card transactions continue to go up, he said. Hewitt also highlighted that the $400,000 payment to Village Green to support affordable housing in the City Apartments project would not take place this fiscal year. That would be pushed to the following year.

Parking for The Varsity

The DDA board was asked to consider assigning monthly parking permits to The Varsity, a residential high-rise building at 425 E. Washington St. in downtown Ann Arbor. The request was for five additional monthly parking permits in the public parking system, bringing The Varsity’s total to seven.

The right to purchase monthly parking permits – under the city’s “contribution in lieu” program – is administered by the DDA.

The DDA had previously approved two permits for The Varsity, which is a 13-story, 173-unit, 178,380-square-foot apartment building for approximately 418 people. Construction is nearing completion.

The project needs to provide a total of 76 parking spaces. That parking is required in order to qualify under the city’s zoning code for the additional floor area that the project contains, beyond a basic 400% floor area ratio (FAR). If the parking is not provided onsite, a developer can meet a parking requirement by making an upfront payment of $55,000 per space or by purchasing monthly permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% of the current rate for such permits – with a commitment of 15 years.

The Varsity’s developer had originally planned to meet part of the 76-space requirement with two spaces that were assigned to a car-sharing service. That arrangement fell through. And the developer lost a space due to physical constraints related to ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance. Car-sharing spaces can count as four spaces apiece for satisfying parking requirements.

That led to the request for an additional five spaces, for a total of seven for The Varsity.

The Varsity is the second project to use the parking CIL. On Oct. 3, 2012, the DDA board voted to approve the purchase of up to 42 monthly permits by the 624 Church St. project, another residential development.

Parking for The Varsity: Public Commentary

Brad Moore introduced himself during public commentary time as the associate architect on The Varsity. He noted that the project had previously requested some spaces but had not requested enough of them – so they were now back to ask for a few more. He told the board that he was available to answer questions when the item was reached on the agenda.

Parking for The Varsity: Board Deliberations

When the item was reached on the agenda, Roger Hewitt asked Moore to come to the podium to answer questions. After reciting the history of the requests, Hewitt asked Moore what happened to the two physical spaces that were intended to be used for the car-sharing service. Moore explained that the deal with Zipcar had fallen through because Zipcar had wanted the spaces to be available to the general public – whereas The Varsity wanted the cars to be available just to residents of The Varsity.

What Hewitt wanted to know is what happened to the two physical spaces that prevented The Varsity from including them in its current count of parking spaces. Moore explained that the spaces are located on an adjacent property that is under the same ownership. However, because those two spaces are not a part of the project’s site plan, Moore indicated there was a problem in counting those spaces to satisfy the parking requirement. Newcombe Clark expressed some puzzlement that the spaces themselves could not count as one space apiece for the parking requirement, yet those same spots had been intended to count as four spaces apiece under the Zipcar arrangement.

Hewitt ventured that it might be possible to create some kind of an easement in perpetuity that would allow for the inclusion of those two spaces has part of the parking requirement tally for the project. John Splitt questioned whether the developer for The Varsity was even interested in pursuing such an easement. John Mouat expressed some skepticism about the idea of pursuing an easement, saying it seemed like an encumbrance on the adjoining property. Joan Lowenstein added that pursuing an easement could take several months.

Hewitt allowed that there was somewhat of a timing issue, and indicated that he would have preferred for The Varsity to have approached the DDA sooner. Still, Hewitt indicated that he would support allocating the permits. Sandi Smith added that the permits under the CIL program are purchased at a premium cost of an extra 20%. She characterized the permits as no different from any other permits. Clark questioned Smith’s characterization – venturing that the permits being granted to The Varsity would allow jumping to the front of the monthly permit line, or else would require reducing the amount of hourly parking available in the structure where the permits were being granted.

Hewitt responded to Clark by indicating his understanding was that The Varsity would need to have the permits in hand in order to receive its certificate of occupancy. Hewitt indicated that either The Varsity monthly permit requests would jump to the front of the monthly permit waitlist, if there were a list, or that the amount of hourly parking would decrease. He indicated that the waitlist turned over relatively quickly these days – but he noted that it depends on the structure. Given the small number of spaces and the hold-up it would mean for the development of a large building, Clark indicated that he would support the allocation of the spaces. However, he wanted to see the operations committee address the policy issue sooner rather than later.

Hewitt said that the operations committee is very focused on the issue of trying to rationalize needs within the system. He characterized the CIL program as stemming from an ordinance passed by the city council – saying it was not a DDA policy. However, the DDA has veto power if there are no spaces available in the system, and the DDA has the right to decide in which structure the spaces are allocated, Hewitt said. In this respect, the DDA is responding to a city ordinance, he said.

Clark asked if the developer would care if the parking permits were assigned to a structure further away from the building under construction. Moore replied that he figured the developer would prefer that the permits not be assigned to the most remote location. Clark ventured that if he were on the waitlist and he kept getting bumped for something like this, “I’d be frustrated.” Approaching the issue in a piecemeal fashion was not advisable, given the amount of construction that’s taking place downtown, Clark felt. Hewitt told Clark he agreed with him completely. He contended that demand in the public parking system is increasing at a significant rate and the DDA is trying to catch up with a very dynamic and changing system. But he agreed that the DDA needs a rational system for making the decision on permits.

Keith Orr indicated his agreement on the need for a policy so that decisions are not seemingly random. He indicated that he would be the “gadfly vote” and would vote against the allocation of permits to The Varsity just as a reminder that there needs to be a policy in place.

Outcome: The DDA board voted to allocate a total of seven monthly parking permits to The Varsity, over dissent from Keith Orr.

Routine Parking Reports

Delivering the parking report as usual was Roger Hewitt. The monthly parking report for March 2013 was up first. For that month, and he described overall revenues as up 7% compared to March 2012, although the number of hourly patrons was down by about 2%. He called 7% roughly the equivalent of the rate increase over the previous year. That translated to a flat performance on the revenue side. However, he offered some mitigating factors – one less business day, worse weather than last year, and the timing of the university’s spring break. And that accounted for the flat performance in revenue, he contended.

March was the last month of the third quarter. So Hewitt gave an update for the third quarter. For that three-month period, the number of hourly patrons was roughly flat, but revenue was up about 11%, which was above the level of the rate increases, he said. For the quarter, Hewitt characterized the parking system as having continued strong demand and good revenue growth. That was a trend that has persisted for about two years, he said.

Hewitt then reviewed the nine-month period year-to-date. Overall revenues are up 12%, though the number of hourly patrons is down a little bit, he noted. From that he concluded that people who are visiting downtown are staying longer. Revenue growth is above the level of the parking rate increases. The new Library Lane underground parking garage is showing stronger performance than had been anticipated – so it is almost to the point of starting a waitlist for monthly parking permits, Hewitt said. That’s good news and bad news, he said. It shows strong demand, but it is filling up faster in the DDA ever anticipated. And that forces the DDA to face problems down the road sooner than the DDA thought it would. John Mouat ventured that instead of “problems” they might be “opportunities.” Hewitt also indicated that downtown looks strong based on his own personal business. [Hewitt owns the Red Hawk restaurant on South State Street, and the revive + replenish grocery and cafe at Zaragon Place on East University.]

Also during his discussion of revisions to the current year’s budget, Hewitt had noted that parking revenues were higher than budgeted – attributable mostly to better-than-expected revenues from the Library Lane structure. Typically a new structure won’t generate a lot of revenue in the first couple of years, he said, because people take a while to find the structure and to change their habits. But people are changing their habits at a much more rapid pace than the DDA had anticipated, Hewitt said.

Mayor John Hieftje picked up on an earlier comment that Hewitt had made – that it might be necessary to create a waitlist for monthly parking permits for the Library Lane structure. Hewitt responded to Hieftje, saying that the challenge in coming up with a policy on that issue is that the DDA does not ask people on their way into a parking structure who they are and why they are here. Trying to balance monthly demands and hourly demands between workers and guests is not a simple thing. Clark ventured that nothing the DDA does is simple.

The following charts were generated by The Chronicle with data provided in regular monthly parking reports.

Ann Arbor public parking system total revenue.

Ann Arbor public parking system hourly patrons.

Ann Arbor public parking system surface lots.

Ann Arbor public parking system structures.

Ann Arbor public parking system total revenue by facility.

Ann Arbor public parking system. Number of hourly patrons by facility for selected facilities.

Communications, Committee Reports

The June 5 meeting included the usual range of reports from the board’s standing committees and the downtown citizens advisory council, as well as public commentary.

Comm/Comm: Economic Development Task Force

During her communications time, board chair Leah Gunn notified the rest of the board that the city council had passed a resolution establishing an economic development task force. [That action had come at the council's May 20, 2013 meeting. The task force, which includes membership from the city and Ann Arbor SPARK, as well as the Ann Arbor DDA, will consist of up to nine members. Three of the members will come from the Ann Arbor DDA board.] Gunn indicated that she was appointing board members John Mouat and Bob Guenzel, as well as executive director of the DDA Susan Pollay, to represent the DDA on the task force. [The city will be represented by city administrator Steve Powers, and city councilmembers Sally Peterson and Marcia Higgins.]

Reporting out from the partnerships committee, Joan Lowenstein said that Paul Krutko, CEO of Ann Arbor SPARK, had spoken to the committee. One thing he had stressed is the fact that “place making” matters. He’d said it’s important to “create place.” The idea is that nowadays people figure out a place they want to live and then find a job there, instead of the other way around, she said. There are a lot of businesses that SPARK talks to who want to locate downtown, but the right kind of space is not available for them, Krutko had also told the group, according to Lowenstein. And corporate leaders often raise the issue of the availability of hotel and meeting space in downtown Ann Arbor. He’d said it is a real obstacle, because other communities have the ability to host large conferences, and can then attract people who become aware of the community through their attendance at the conference.

Lowenstein cited Greenville, South Carolina, as an example of a city that has a lot of hotel and conference space downtown. A big automotive conference is hosted there, which was attended recently by six people from the University of Michigan, who spoke at the conference. It was in South Carolina, not here – where the auto industry is, Lowenstein said. Ann Arbor SPARK sees a lot of opportunity to partner with the DDA, Lowenstein said – on the topic of benchmarking against comparative communities and working to understand how places like Greenville are doing a better job than what Ann Arbor is doing, and to see what Ann Arbor can do better.

Ann Arbor SPARK has also made themselves available for RFP (request for proposals) processes like the one for the former Y property, so that SPARK can help look for appropriate businesses to locate there. Lowenstein characterized the partnerships committee session with Ann Arbor SPARK as beneficial. Sandi Smith pointed out that four councilmembers had been present at the partnerships committee meeting [Sabra Briere, Sally Petersen, Marcia Higgins, and Jane Lumm]. She described the councilmembers as engaged in the whole discussion, saying it was a very powerful meeting.

Comm/Comm: Sale of Former Y Lot

By way of background, on March 4, 2013 the city council had authorized the city administrator to issue an RFP (request for proposals) for brokerage services to sell the former Y property located at Fifth and William. It’s currently owned by the city, which it had purchased for $3.5 million. On Oct 15, 2012 the council had voted to allocate the net proceeds of the sale of the Y site to the city’s affordable housing trust fund.

During public commentary at the end of the DDA’s June 5 meeting, local developer Peter Allen reported that the bids for the RFP for brokerage services had been opened last Friday. There had been three bidders, he said: Jim Chaconas of Colliers International; Tim Guest with CB Richard Ellis Inc.; and Allen himself with his company, Peter Allen & Associates. The timetable is to interview in late June or early July, Allen said. A recommendation was supposed to go to the city council around Aug. 1, he continued.

Allen reported that he heard interest from boutique hotels and from grocery stores. Certainly ground-level retail is in demand, he said. He thought that a mix of uses would be very consistent with the connecting William Street (CWS) project – a recent planning effort that had been led by the DDA. From a market standpoint, he felt that the CWS recommendations are very solid, thorough and achievable. One of the implications for the DDA board to think about, he said, was the fact that the proceeds from the sale go to the city’s affordable housing trust fund. He felt that the market value of the parcel could be in the neighborhood of $5-$7 million, or more depending on how it is configured. The idea of adding air rights on top of the new Blake Transit Center is very feasible, Allen said. The topic of possibly updating the CWS study in the context of possible proceeds would be a suitable topic for a future meeting of the DDA, he said.

Comm/Comm: A2D2 Zoning Review

Ray Detter reported out from the previous evening’s meeting of the downtown area citizens advisory council. He noted that the DCAC had supported the passage of the A2D2 zoning and the downtown design guidelines two years ago. He recited a description of how the design guidelines provide a mandatory process, but only voluntary compliance with recommendations of the design review board.

Detter characterized the city council’s May 13, 2013 vote on the 413 E. Huron project as a 6-5 approval. But he said that the council’s opposition to the design, mass and scale of the building had been unanimous. The six members who voted for the project, Detter said, feared a possible lawsuit over a denial. From that episode, Detter concluded that there was something lacking in the city’s D1 zoning definition. [D1 is the city's zoning district that allows for the highest density development.] Detter highlighted other areas zoned D1 in the city that he felt warranted further review – including sites to the east of Sloan Plaza, and the former YMCA site at William between Fourth and Fifth avenues.

He characterized the problem as conflicts between the D1 zoning category and the nearby residential neighborhoods. He allowed that there had been a lot of public input throughout the earlier A2D2 process, but he said that the city needs to do a better job now at correcting areas where D1 zoning needs improvement. Detter then alluded to the city council’s resolution, approved on April 1, 2013, that directed the planning commission to conduct a review of D1 zoning.

The recommendations resulting from that review should not be left up to the planning commission’s ordinance revision’s committee, he said. He contended that a lot of people did not believe that floor area ratio (FAR) premiums should be provided for “things we don’t want as a community – student housing, for one thing.” [Currently, the D1 zoning category allows for 400% FAR by right, with additional by-right FAR provided for residential use.] Some people say that a moratorium is needed while the community makes up its mind about these things, Detter said. “We don’t want 413 [East Huron] to happen again,” Detter concluded.

He allowed that the council’s resolution directing the review set Oct. 1 as a deadline. But Detter contended that no real schedule had been set for getting it done.

Comm/Comm: July 3 Meeting Date

During communications time, board chair Leah Gunn raised the question of the board’s regular monthly meeting date in July – which this year falls on July 3. She offered the choice of changing the date or keeping it as it is: “What is your pleasure?” John Mouat indicated that he would not be able to attend. With no further comment from the board, by apparent mutual assent the established meeting date of July 3 remained unaltered.

During communications time Gunn also pointed out that no regular meeting was scheduled for the month of August, which is the board’s custom.

Comm/Comm: A2 Downtown Blooms Day

Nancy Stone, who handles communications for the public services area of the city of Ann Arbor, addressed the board during public commentary time to thank the DDA for its annual support of A2 Downtown Blooms Day. She highlighted the contrast between now and 25 years ago, when the annual volunteer date was called Downtown Cleanup Day. Whereas 25 years ago people were using brooms to sweep up litter, today it’s a festival of planting flowers and beautifying the city, she said. In addition to the DDA she thanked the merchant associations and Pizza House, which provided pizzas for the volunteers. She showed the board a video that had been created by 2|42 Kids Care Club assisting with the event last month.

Comm/Comm: Stipends for Street Performers?

During communications time toward the start of the meeting, mayor John Hieftje, who also sits on the DDA board, told other board members that he wanted to share an idea he had also discussed briefly at the downtown marketing task force the previous day. He described being at the farmers market a few weeks ago, when it was a beautiful sunny day, and he had gone over to Sculpture Plaza where a group of University of Michigan students were playing an interesting array of instruments – an accordion, an upright bass, and a saxophone. It was very nice music, he continued, and they were drawing a crowd. He characterized it as very pleasant.

Hieftje recalled a few summers ago being in Montreal and seeing some street performers. In talking to them afterwards, he said, they revealed that they had received a stipend for performing. So he wanted to see the DDA board explore the idea, which might amount to a few hundred dollars per occasion, to sponsor some “spontaneous” street performances – though he allowed they would not be exactly “spontaneous.” He ventured that such a program might cost $2,000 a year. That kind of thing might make it more interesting to be downtown, he said.

Present: Newcombe Clark, Bob Guenzel, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Keith Orr, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat.

Absent: Nader Nassif, Russ Collins.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, July 3, 2013, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [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 Downtown Development Authority. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The right to purchase monthly parking permits – under the city’s “contribution in lieu” program – is administered by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The action came at the DDA board’s June 5, 2013 meeting.

The DDA had previously approved two permits for The Varsity, which is a 13-story, 173-unit, 178,380-square-foot apartment building for approximately 418 people. Construction is nearing completion, with plans to open by the fall.

The project needs to provide a total of 76 parking spaces. That parking is required in order to qualify under the city’s zoning code for the additional floor area that the project contains, beyond a basic 400% floor area ratio (FAR). If the parking is not provided onsite, a developer can meet a parking requirement by making an upfront payment of $55,000 per space or by purchasing monthly permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% of the current rate for such permits – with a commitment of 15 years.

The Varsity’s developer had originally planned to meet part of the 76-space requirement with spaces that were assigned to a car-sharing service. That arrangement fell through. And the developer lost a space due to physical constraints related to ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance.

That led to the request for an additional five spaces, for a total of seven for The Varsity, which the DDA board approved at on June 5. DDA board member Keith Orr offered the sole vote of dissent. He characterized it as a “gadfly” vote to remind the board that it needs to formulate a general policy on the issue.

The Varsity is the second project to use the parking CIL. On Oct. 3, 2012 the DDA board voted to approve the purchase of up to 42 monthly permits by the 624 Church St. project, another residential development.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices at 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301, where the DDA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report of the meeting will follow: [link]

The vote by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board came at its Jan. 9, 2013 meeting. The DDA manages the public parking system – including parking permits – under contract with the city. The DDA in turn subcontracts out the day-to-day parking operations to Republic Parking.

The developer of The Varsity had originally planned to satisfy its parking requirement through a contract with Zipcar, a car sharing service. That arrangement turned out not to be feasible.

The purchase of the two monthly permits will be arranged through the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program, which allows a developer to meet a parking requirement by making an upfront payment of $55,000 per space or by purchasing monthly permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% of the current rate for such permits – with a commitment of 15 years.

The D1 zoning district where The Varsity is located does not have a parking requirement for construction that has less than a 400% floor area ratio (FAR). However, if a development exceeds 400% FAR – which is allowed for projects that include residential units – then parking spaces must be provided. The number of spaces provided is based on a formula of 1 space per 1,000 square feet in excess of 400% FAR.

The approval of the Varsity’s monthly permits is just the second time the CIL program has been invoked. On Oct. 3, 2012 the DDA voted to approve the purchase of up to 42 monthly permits by the 624 Church St. project, another residential development.

The specific parking structure where the permits can be purchased has not been determined for either of the two projects. The topic of location – and the idea that a general policy should be developed to guide the choice of parking structure for permits sold under the CIL program – was part of the DDA’s operations committee meeting on Dec. 19, 2012.

This brief was filed from the DDA offices at 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301 – where the DDA board holds its meetings. A more detailed report of the meeting will follow: [link]

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) was first to arrive at the council’s meeting and was rewarded by a dozen or so requests from high school students who needed a signature to attest to their attendance for a class assignment. It was Rapundalo’s last meeting, having lost the Ward 2 election on Tuesday, Nov. 8, to Jane Lumm. (Photos by the writer.)

The council had made several revisions to the law in 2010, including a requirement that motorists accommodate not only pedestrians who are “within” a crosswalk, but also those who are “approaching” a crosswalk. Thursday’s initial revision amended out the “approaching” language in favor of the following wording: “… the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian stopped at the curb or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk.”

The second and final vote on the pedestrian ordinance change is expected to come after a council working session in December, and after a public hearing at the council meeting when the final vote is taken. Based on deliberations on the change at Thursday’s meeting, the outcome of that vote is not a foregone conclusion, and further revisions might be possible.

The council also took action at the Nov. 10 meeting that will allow two downtown residential projects to start construction. The council approved the site plan for The Varsity Ann Arbor, a “planned project” consisting of a 13-story apartment building with 181 units at 425 E. Washington, between 411 Lofts and the First Baptist Church.

And the final deal was approved with Village Green to purchase the city-owned parcel at First and Washington. On that site Village Green will build a 244-space parking deck as the first two stories of a 9-story building with 156 dwelling units – City Apartments.

The council gave final approval to a change in its taxicab ordinance, spelling out conditions under which licenses can be revoked or suspended.

The council also gave final approval to two ordinances that make retiree health care and pension benefits for two of the city’s larger unions parallel to benefits for non-union employees. The approvals gave Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) an opportunity to comment on the labor issues that had been a centerpiece of his re-election campaign, which concluded unsuccessfully on Tuesday.

It was due to the election held on Tuesday that the council’s meeting was shifted from its regular Monday meeting slot to Thursday. The shift is stipulated in the city charter. All council incumbents won their races except for Rapundalo, a Democrat defeated by Jane Lumm, who was running as an independent. Rapundalo began his final meeting by signing multiple attendance sheets for high school students who were attending the meeting on a class assignment, and ended it by hearing praise from his colleagues around the table.

Pedestrian Safety Ordinance

Before the council for consideration was initial approval to a tweak to its pedestrian safety ordinance. The language given initial approval by the council now reads in relevant part: ” … the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian stopped at the curb or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk, …”

Some amendments to the law made by the council over a year ago – on July 19, 2010 – included an expansion of the conditions under which motorists must take action to accommodate pedestrians. Specifically, the 2010 amendments required accommodation of pedestrians not just “within a crosswalk” but also “approaching or within a crosswalk.”

A draft of the current revision that was circulated prior to Thursday’s meeting would have simply struck the phrase about “approaching” a crosswalk – which resulted in a mischaracterization in other media reports of a possible council action to “repeal” the ordinance.

Besides the “approaching” phrase, the 2010 amendments also contained two other key elements. The 2010 amendments included a requirement that motorists “stop” and not merely “slow as to yield.” And the 2010 amendments also eliminated reference to which half of the roadway is relevant to the responsibility placed on motorists for accommodating pedestrians. With regard to that amendment, the intent of the council was to place responsibility on motorists when pedestrians approach crosswalks on either side of the roadway.

Revisions contemplated by the council this time around do not change the intent of the ordinance on either the “stopping” or the “roadway side” elements. However, language has been inserted to make explicit that motorists have a responsibility “without regard to which portion of the roadway the pedestrian is using.”

Pedestrian Ordinance: Public Commentary

Matthew Grocoff led off public commentary from the contingent of advocates for pedestrians who attended the meeting. He said it’s been an interesting week for pedestrians. The issue is not really about pedestrians, bikes, and cars, but rather about the value of people, he said. He appreciated the shifting of the burden from the pedestrian. He said he is looking forward to strengthening the language that’s in the ordinance now.

Joel Batterman introduced himself as a 2006 graduate of Huron High School, vice chair of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition (WBWC), and an urban planning student at the University of Michigan. Changing the ordinance [from the 2010 amended version] would make the community less safe, he said. The ordinance is working, he contended. A few months of education and enforcement has increased the number of people stopping.

Joel Batterman.

Batterman said that media reports have attributed collisions on Plymouth Road to the 2010 amendments to the ordinance. But he said that Plymouth Road has always been a problem, and he reminded the council that in 2003 two students died trying to cross Plymouth Road. [From a Nov. 15, 2003 Ann Arbor News report: "Teh Nannie Roshema Rolsan, 21, and Norhananim Zainol, 20, both engineering students at the University of Michigan, were killed Sunday night after they left the Islamic Center of Ann Arbor, 2301 Plymouth Road, and tried to cross the five-lane road."]

Batterman noted that many students trying to cross Plymouth are international students who find it difficult to make their voices heard. He called on the council not to backpedal on their commitment.

Responding to the criticism that Ann Arbor’s pedestrian safety ordinance is at odds with prevailing traffic culture, Batterman said that’s exactly the point. Metro Detroit has the highest pedestrian fatality rate in the country and is three times that of New York City. He called for change at the state level as well.

Thomas Collet told councilmembers that they could likely tell from his accent that he grew up in Europe. He reported that he commutes on Plymouth Road, and it’s atrocious how fast people drive – motorists are looking to get on US-23 and turn on their cell phones. He said Ann Arbor is a community that is accommodating to pedestrians and bicyclists. Regarding possible traffic accidents, he said the actual problem is people driving too fast and following too close.

Isaac Gilman introduced himself as an urban planning student at UM and a resident of Courtyard Apartments, near Plymouth and Broadway, for over a year. It’s difficult to cross Plymouth at non-signalized crosswalks, he said. Two specific locations he noted are at the Islamic Center and at Traver Village, where Kroger is located.

Cars travel 40-45 mph when the posted limit is 35, Gilman said. It takes three to five minutes to make it across. The pedestrian island helps, but he said he doesn’t feel safe there. The pedestrian ordinance is a great plan – human life should be the most important focus. He encouraged the city to adopt crosswalk design guidelines, to identify improvements, and to implement them. He said it was important to educate pedestrians, motorists and bicyclists. He encouraged the council to keep the ordinance. People shouldn’t fear crossing the street, he said.

Erica Briggs introduced herself as a board member of the WBWC. She supported the revisions, she said. She agreed that the “approaching” phrase is vague. The WBWC had received a grant from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the Washtenaw County public health department to do outreach and education, and she wanted to give a status update. She’d done observations in the spring and fall of this year of actual driver behavior at different intersections, which she then shared with the council.

[The study did not use pedestrians observed in the wild. Briggs acted as a pedestrian, and an observer monitored motorist behavior. For the study, at each location observations were recorded over a period of about an hour and a half, with roughly 50-80 attempted crossings. Stop rates were calculated based on the number of cars that should have stopped, by ordinance, compared with the total number of vehicles traveling through the location.] Stop rates were measured in the spring of 2011 and again in the fall. Fall figures are given in parens.

Plymouth Road
Stop Rate: 1.5% (9.5%)

Liberty Street
Stop rate: 8% (24%)

Main Street
Stop rate: 5.3% (14%)

Stadium Blvd
Stop rate: 1.2% (12%)

-

Briggs noted that there had been improvement in the stop rates as measured by the WBWC, but it’s nowhere where it needs to be.

Kathy Griswold told council she’s been speaking about pedestrian safety long before it was popular. Transportation engineering is life and death, not trial and error, she said. She didn’t support the pedestrian ordinance revision, saying that it’s not the optimal approach, because it introduces unnecessary conflict and risk. She said the discussion needed to be framed more broadly. She noted that people want to model the pedestrian safety ordinance on the city of Boulder’s law, but she noted that Boulder has other laws supporting that one, like a law on sight distance. She compared Ann Arbor’s approach to someone taking a laxative to get in shape.

Griswold asked why Ann Arbor needs a local ordinance that is inconsistent with the Uniform Traffic Code (UTC). She wondered why local politicians are editing traffic engineering laws, wordsmithing language at the council table. The city of Ann Arbor is reluctant to maintain sight distances, she contended, and it doesn’t keep rights-of-way free of overgrowth. There’s not adequate lighting at crosswalks, she continued, and utility boxes are placed in the line of sight. From a historical perspective, she said, there’s been a trend of politicizing traffic engineering. You can’t just pick and choose high visibility projects, she cautioned.

Larry Deck introduced himself as a board member of the WBWC. He said it looks like the council has made good progress. He cautioned that a cultural change takes time. The focus should first be on education instead of the punitive part. He said that the group is working on crosswalk design guidelines. As an example of items to be addressed are consistent signage across the city, advance yield signs, High-intensity Activated crossWalK beacons (HAWK), and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB). He said the community shares a common interest in making crosswalks safer.

Pedestrian Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1), a co-sponsor of the amendment, noted there had been a grammatical error in the updated online version on Legistar. So she asked her colleagues to consider the updated version she’d passed around printed on sheets of paper. [Compared to the version approved by the council in July 2011 2010 additional language is in italics and deleted language is struck through.]

[Proposed Amendment Nov. 10, 2011] 10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets.
(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop before entering a crosswalk and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian approaching or stopped at the curb or ramp leading to a crosswalk and to every pedestrian within a crosswalk, without regard to which portion of the roadway the pedestrian is using. 
(b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible unsafe for the driver to yield.
(c) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

Briere said she’d heard a lot of concern about the ordinance in the last 13-14 months since the it was revised. There’d been a flurry of publicity when it was approved in 2010. Many people had written about their concern, but had also expressed their gratefulness. For occasional pedestrians, crossing at anywhere but a signal is difficult, she said. The council had approved the language with “approaching” as a way to evaluate the intent of pedestrians. Since then, the council had heard a lot of discussion about understanding what that means.

At the Oct. 24 council meeting, those concerns had been discussed by the council, Briere said. She’d volunteered to work on this issue, but said the current amendment didn’t reflect her work alone – it’s the work of other councilmembers and community members, and she thanked them for their input.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), who also co-sponsored the amendment, said he’d heard a great deal from his constituents about the ordinance. Two main points of that communication were that: (1) there is great value in a pedestrian-friendly culture, and (2) the “approaching” standard is problematic due to perceived and real ambiguity.

The current revision advances public safety, he said, and provides clarity without forcing pedestrians into the crosswalk before they get the right-of-way. He said he continues to learn about the issue through communication with advocacy groups and he thanked them collectively for it.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she is very appreciative of work that Briere and Taylor had put into the ordinance.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who had sponsored the original 2010 amendment to the ordinance, said he was glad that the sponsors had stepped back from the previous draft that would have simply struck the phrase with “approaching.”

Hohnke said it’s important to keep in mind what’s important: the safety of pedestrians. It’s important that the city is not asking people to risk life and limb to claim the right-of-way. He said he wasn’t sure the newly revised language is a huge improvement. He was inclined to support the revision in paragraph (a), but wanted to note that the original language was the result of a multi-stakeholder process, that included physical audits, videos, data, and a publicly-held forum with traffic engineers and experts from Lansing.

Through that process, Hohnke contended, people had wrestled with the issues that people are now identifying. He cautioned against taking a reactionary step backwards. He agreed with the concern that Griswold had raised during public commentary about councilmembers trying to wordsmith traffic safety laws. To a lay person, the revised language might seem to accomplish the goal. But Hohnke said the “so-called ambiguity” is something the city needs to educate people about. That kind of ambiguity already exists in the traffic code in other places, he said, giving tailgating as an example. He was willing to support the paragraph (a) revisions if it would make people feel more comfortable, saying at least it’s not the step backward.

But as for the revisions in paragraph (b), Hohnke said the language strays from UTC guidelines and is inconsistent. He contended that the addition of the word “unsafe” adds ambiguity that sponsors were trying to avoid.

Later during deliberations, Taylor offered, in response to Hohnke’s concern about paragraph (b), that he would be willing to consider a reversion to the original language in that paragraph as friendly. And that amendment was accepted without requiring a vote.

Mayor John Hieftje said he appreciated the work done by Briere and Taylor. Noting he was a sponsor of the 2010 amendment, the “approaching” standard was a term that worked well in other places and that traffic professionals had worked with him and Hohnke to develop the language. Hieftje said there’d be a working session on the topic in December and that a second and final vote on the ordinance change would be taken at a meeting following the working session. Hieftje said progress is being made in recognizing pedestrians who are within and approaching crosswalks.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said he was appreciative of the councilmembers who had made the effort to bring the revision forward. He was glad the council was not considering simply striking the “approaching” language, because he would not have supported that. Pedestrians need strong language to support them, to support a level of walkability in the city. Saying it’s a step in the right direction, he cautioned that there are still inconsistencies with the UTC. Rapundalo said he thinks other things to contemplate are: technological options; definitions of everything a “crosswalk” includes; and signage.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he also wants the effect of the ordinance on liability studied, in particular with respect to the “last clear chance” doctrine. Does this change that liability? [The "last clear chance" doctrine is that, independent of the negligence on the part of one of the parties, if the other party had the last opportunity to avoid an accident, the negligent party could still avoid liability for that accident.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said it’s great the council is talking about this, because it’s consistent with the council’s practice of revisiting ordinances a year after the ordinance is amended, which is now. Kunselman asked chief of police Barnett Jones to come to the podium.

A back-and-forth between Jones and Kunselman drew out the fact that under state law, Ann Arbor police officers can ticket motorists for failing to accommodate pedestrians who are in a crosswalk and that it results in two points on the motorist’s license.

To illustrate the kind of friction that exists between motorists and pedestrians on the ordinance, Jones related receiving a call about a situation at Huron and State streets. The motorist was eastbound on Huron Street approaching State Street. A pedestrian pointed at the crosswalk and stepped in. The motorist pointed to the green light and drove around the pedestrian.

Jones said he believed some relief is needed for mid-block major road crossings, and the city is starting to get better compliance. Jones then implicitly disputed a report in AnnArbor.com that attributed the cause of some rear-end accidents to the pedestrian ordinance. Jones said that when the third, fourth or fifth cars behind a stopped car have a rear-end accident, it’s not the fault of the pedestrian ordinance. Instead, Jones said, that kind of accident is caused by a driver who failed to keep their vehicle under control.

Briere told Jones that when she’d looked at the reports that were supposed to be the basis of the claims published in AnnArbor.com that the pedestrian ordinance had caused accidents, she’d found that a lot of the reports didn’t deal with areas that would be affected by this ordinance. The accidents had happened at signalized intersections (which are not included in the scope of the pedestrian safety ordinance) or else involved bicyclists on sidewalks, she said. She said that looking at the actual reports was surprising to her, because having read the coverage in AnnArbor.com she’d expected to find an uptick in rear-end accidents at those crosswalks without a signal.

Jones said that on Plymouth Road, the accidents he’d looked at had involved a distracted driver who did not stop behind a car that was already stopped. Briere requested a comparison of rear-end collisions today versus 2009, so that there can be an effective comparison.

A question from Hohnke to the chief about what it means exactly for a pedestrian to be “stopped at the curb” resulted in a couple of suggestions from Jones. First, he said there were some bus stops that might need to be moved from their locations immediately proximate to crosswalks. Second, he suggested the possibility of extending the crosswalk striping from the road onto the sidewalk pad to clearly delineate an area.

Hohnke reacted to the extended striping by saying that was new information to him. Hohnke said that’s a pretty significant change and wondered if the ordinance language actually entailed such a delineation and a requirement that engineering of the crosswalks be undertaken.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) took over the duties of chairing the Nov. 10 council meeting midway through it, when mayor John Hieftje could no longer continue, due to hoarseness. The duty fell to Higgins as mayor pro tem. Hieftje remained at the meeting. 

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was chairing the meeting (as mayor pro tem) by that point due to illness-induced hoarseness on Hieftje’s part. She said the council had heard that the city needs engineered crosswalks and it’s important to look at different needs for Seventh and Liberty streets as compared to Huron Street and Plymouth Road. She ventured that the city’s traffic engineers would be able to weigh in on the issue at the December work session and the council would have that information before taking a final vote.

Briere wanted to remind people that ordinances don’t control everything. She referred to the three Es: education, enforcement and engineering. Putting up signs has alerted motorists that crosswalks are there. Getting a standard warning sign across the city will be valuable to residents, as well as to people who are driving through the city. It’s the lack of clarity that has compounded the problems, she said. The city also needs to look at the engineering of crosswalks.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) noted that the city needs to think about how to fund engineering improvements to crosswalks. He noted the reduction in bus service provided by the Ann Arbor Public Schools system meant that more people were walking.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to give initial approval to the revision to the pedestrian safety ordinance. A working session and a final vote are anticipated for December 2011.

Pedestrian Ordinance: Remembering Kris Talley

When the council revised the city’s pedestrian safety ordinance on July 19, 2010, the public hearing included remarks from Kris Talley on behalf of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, a group she chaired for a time. From The Chronicle’s July 19, 2010 meeting report:

Speaking during the public hearing on behalf of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, board member Kris Talley indicated the group had been working on the issue for more than a year. She pointed the council to a video that they’d created to illustrate what motorist behavior is like towards pedestrians who are trying to enter crosswalks.

What had been particularly striking, Talley said, was a forum attended by city transportation staff, a city attorney, a police officer and advocates for non-motorized transportation where there’d been a lack of consensus about what was required by the city’s current pedestrian ordinance – for pedestrians and motorists alike. The proposed revision, she said, is language that makes crosswalks meaningful.

Advocacy for pedestrians in the current round of legislative review will be missing Talley’s voice. Last week, on Nov. 4, she died of ovarian cancer. In a message to the WBWC newsgroup, her husband Phil Farber described Talley as “a tireless advocate for pedestrians and non-motorized transportation, especially bicycling.”

In this Chronicle file photo from July 19, 2010, Kris Talley addressed the city council that night in support of the amendment to the city’s pedestrian safety ordinance. Tally died of ovarian cancer on Nov. 4, 2011.

Farber continued, “I want to ask everyone reading these words to consider what they can do in large or small ways to improve conditions for those of us who walk and bicycle for our transportation needs.”

In a May 2007 interview, Talley related a vignette that illustrates the large and small deeds she contributed to the walking and bicycling community. After being run off the road by a gravel truck while riding her bicycle on Scio Church Road, she followed the truck to the gravel pit and tracked down the driver, who was called “Catfish.”

Said Talley: “I went into the dispatch office and that’s how I found out his name. She called down and said, Catfish, there’s someone up here who wants to talk to you or something. Yeah, he wasn’t too receptive to my message of sharing the road.”

Talley continued to deliver that message as recently as early October of this year. She sent an email to several parties, including The Chronicle, asking for help in an attempt to convince Zipcar (a car-share company) to stop using a particular advertisement: “Aaaargh, I can’t take it that Zipcar still has this ad in its rotation, almost a month after Bike Portland first pointed it out: [link] … I was hoping if the AA entities that deal directly with Zipcar and at least one AA customer (I think you are, HD?) could protest it would have more impact than the average cyclist.”

When Talley asked people to do something, it was hard for them to find a way to say no. [.pdf of email written to Zipcar at Talley's request]

The Varsity Ann Arbor

On the council’s agenda was a resolution for approval of a residential project on East Washington Street: The Varsity Ann Arbor. The Varsity is a “planned project” consisting of a 13-story apartment building with 181 units at 425 E. Washington, between 411 Lofts and the First Baptist Church.

The city planning commission recommended approval of The Varsity at its Oct. 4, 2011 meeting.

Intended for students, it’s the first project to go through the city’s new design review process. The Varsity was first considered at the planning commission’s Sept. 20 meeting, but postponed before eventually winning recommendation.

A “planned project” allows modifications of the area, height, and placement requirements related to permanent open space preservation, if the project would result in “the preservation of natural features, additional open space, greater building or parking setback, energy conserving design, preservation of historic or architectural features, expansion of the supply of affordable housing for lower income households or a beneficial arrangement of buildings.” However, all other zoning code requirements must still be met – including the permitted uses, maximum density, and maximum floor area.

The Varsity was submitted as a planned project in order to make the plaza area off Washington Street larger than what would have been required by the zoning code.

The Varsity: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge stated that he felt the requirements for the property should include access on a non-discriminatory basis to transportation.

Chris Crockett noted that the proposed building is bounded on two sides by structures in the Old Fourth Ward historic district. She had met with developers and architects for a number of months, she said, and allowed that The Varsity is an appropriate development for the site – it is tall and could be taller. However, she still had real concerns about some issues to which she’d not received a good response from the architects and the developer. One concern is the Huron Street facade, she said. It’s a major thoroughfare and buildings on the street should be architecturally significant. But The Varsity’s facade on Huron Street is anything but that, she contended. It offers a flat face with an entrance for pedestrians and a garage door.

Alluding to the design changes that had been made since the initial review by the city’s design review board, Crockett called it a “glorified garage door.” The developer had been asked to change it, but it hasn’t been changed, she said. The door is also dangerous, because traffic on Huron Street could get backed up. She expressed skepticism that it would be effective, for the developer simply to tell residents they can’t turn left out of the garage. She maintained it would be a hazard for drivers on Huron Street. She noted that The Varsity was the first building to go through the city’s new design review process and the garage door entrance had been brought to the attention of the development team as unacceptable, she said.

Ethel Potts called The Varsity the first test of the city’s new planning process. Next spring there’ll be a review of how well it’s working, she said. She criticized the fact that height and mass was not considered by the design review board, and that resulted in a project that is not compatible with its context – next door to a small, elegant historic church.

Potts said the reason the design review board didn’t consider height and mass was because those elements were made a part of the zoning code, which was a mistake, she said. A flaw of the project is a lack of green space – it has open space, but that’s not green space. “So much for downtown livability,” she said. She concluded that she doesn’t think the ordinances are working.

Steve Kaplan introduced himself as the owner of the apartment building at 418 Washington. He said he was excited to see the project get built on the street. He told the council he’d attended the design review board and had been impressed with the energy the development team had put into the changes they’ve made.

Kaplan said he appreciated that a developer must balance concerns that are financial with those that are aesthetic. But he suggested that some improvements could be made that do not impact affordability of the construction. On the east wall, the current plan calls for just one color of brick. But with such a large face, he suggested it might make sense to alternate colors to break it up.

Kaplan also said the parking offered inside the building at grade level squanders an important opportunity to contribute to the community. That block of Washington Street has been historically a “sleepy block,” he allowed, but it seems to be changing towards something more exciting. The space allocated to parking could be commercial or retail, so allocating it permanently to parking seems wasteful, he said.

Brad Moore introduced himself as working on the project as an associate architect. He noted that other members of the team were also there. The approval was being sought under the city’s “planned project” provision, he said, a designation that has a controversial history. For this project, Moore explained, the “planned project” designation allows the developer to provide a larger public plaza on Washington Street – at the request of the First Baptist Church. The “planned project” designation is not being used to gain increased mass, density or height, he said. The project team has worked very hard with the neighbors, the design review board and the city planning commission.

The project has evolved, Moore said, and they had done the best job possible. One challenge noted by Moore is that the width of the lot on the Huron side of the site is quite limited. The garage door mimics a “curtain wall,” he said. There is room for the staging of cars, he said. A car can be completely outside the garage, before it gets to the Huron Street edge.

Bob Keane, a principal with WDG Architects in Washington D.C., told the council that the project team had been working together with a local group [Brad Moore]. He described how they’d had a nice process with the design review board, the neighborhood and the church. The team took the commentary seriously, which they’d received as feedback. He called the evolution of the Huron Street facade a great improvement. The way the building steps back responds to the two houses appropriately, he said.

Although Keane had heard people describe the Huron Street facade as “flat,” he said he felt it had a rich texture. He allowed that the long facade facing east really was a bit plain originally, and vertical elements had been added, as well as a metal element at the top to define the building top. He also noted that the team had looked at ways to enhance the mid-block pedestrian connector – the mews, which runs between Huron and Washington.

John Floyd introduced himself as treasurer of the First Baptist Church, located next to the proposed project. He allowed it “could be a lot worse” but told the council that the reason it’s going to be built is: “You guys passed the zoning!” He allowed that the developers are probably nice people, who are nice to kids, and nice to have a pint with.

Tom Heywood (left) and John Floyd (right) chatted during a recess in the meeting. 

At that point Floyd paused and said he wanted to wait until all the councilmembers were ready to listen, saying that Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) seemed to have other things to do besides pay attention to him. [Hohnke has also in the past made a point of not looking at Floyd when Floyd has spoken during public commentary.]

Floyd ventured that Hohnke was writing an email, at which point Hohnke was piqued into responding verbally to Floyd during Floyd’s commentary. [Councilmembers have rarely if ever responded to speakers during public commentary over the more than three years of Chronicle coverage. They will on occasion offer a response later in the meeting.] Hohnke told Floyd he was taking notes on what Floyd was saying.

When Floyd continued, he called the construction of The Varsity in that spot civic vandalism and church desecration. He said Huron Street used to be the most elegant street in town, and The Varsity starts its diminishment, he said. To take a building that scale and put it through the whole block [from Washington to Huron] is wrong, he contended. It was an “act of irresponsibility” by the council to approve the zoning, he said. It was wrong, Floyd said, and will be wrong for the next 100 years, and is the responsibility of this city council.

At the time allowed for public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Floyd also addressed the council, again on the topic of The Varsity. He told them he had a passion about The Varsity and Huron Street. He responded to remarks made by mayor John Hieftje during the council deliberations on The Varsity – Hieftje had called the process of rezoning inclusive and open.

Floyd recalled that part of the public process had involved the Calthorpe study, which had introduced the idea of “transition zoning.” Out of that public process, he said, Huron Street originally had been designated as D2, the transition zoning. The eventual change later in the process from D2 to D1 – zoning that allows for denser development – did not have the appearance of an open process, Floyd said. Instead, it had the appearance of a middle-of-the-night process. That part seemed like it threw out a large part of the public process and ignored it, he said.

Tom Heywood introduced himself as executive director of the State Street Area Association. When the owners of the project had approached him eight months ago, he asked them to work with neighbors. He turned to Floyd and asked if he’d met with the developer – no, answered Floyd. Heywood went on to say that the co-pastor of Floyd’s church, Stacey Simpson Duke, couldn’t be at the meeting that night – her twin boys had a “family thing” – but Duke supported the project. [However, during the rezoning process to which Floyd had referred during his commentary, Duke had weighed in against the D1 zoning that the council ultimately approved for that area.]

Heywood noted that the developer could have proceeded with a “by right” project, but chose not to. The plaza proposed on the Washington Street side was added so that the building would flow with the rest of the street. The State Street Area Association board had unanimously approved a resolution supporting the project. He said he understood that there are people who don’t like the massing of the building, but he believes it reflects the future of downtown.

Ray Detter spoke on behalf of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council. He said the group has urged the developer to improve the project, and that many changes have been made that have improved the project. For example, a small green roof was recently added. The group supported the increased setback on Washington Street and the resulting plaza. The group would have liked the developer to eliminate the Washington Street parking entrance.

The mews on the east side is of special interest, said Detter, because it’s a public benefit. He contended that expansion of the surface to the church property would require only administrative review of the city’s historic district commission. He hoped the mews will result in a crosswalk and a connection to the alley between Washington and Liberty, which he said is now a “stinking, dirty, nasty alley.” Detter wants to see that alley turn into a well-designed pedestrian walkway.

The Varsity: Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) led off deliberations, saying the project was unanimously recommended for approval by the city planning commission. [Derezinski serves as the council's representative to the planning commission.] He noted that the new design review board process is new. Some people who were most enthusiastic about the project were neighbors, he said. The sticking point was the Huron Street entrance. The only way to solve it completely would have been to eliminate it, he said, which the developer didn’t do. He alluded to the idea that the perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good, and said that there’d been a lot of public input.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3 ) said he was glad the issue of the two entrances had been raised – he had a problem with the Washington Street entrance, because it’s pedestrian unfriendly. He said the city’s experience with garage doors between Division and Fifth along Liberty was not good – it’s unsightly along that corridor, he said, and makes it difficult for pedestrians. Why does the building need two entrances? Kunselman asked.

Brad Moore clarified that the project is not changing anything that doesn’t already exist – both entrances already exist. The Washington entrance is back far enough for a motorist to pull out of the garage and still be cognizant of pedestrians. The lot has a panhandle shape, with the narrow end on the north (Huron Street). In trying to find a way to use one entrance and build a ramp inside the building, they discovered that it just didn’t work, Moore explained. As a result, from the Huron Street side, you descend to one level of parking.

In response to questions from Kunselman about required parking and the ability to convert space to retail use, Moore explained that there’s a congregational space, a lounge, on the ground floor, so that if retail demand exists, it could be converted to retail. That would still leave a lounge on the top floor.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for the plans to be shown that illustrated the contrast between the original plans and the changes that had been made in response to suggestions from the design review board and others. The contrasts were then discussed by councilmembers and the design team.

Mayor John Hieftje said he was normally not a fan of “planned projects,” so he appreciated the work the developer was willing to do with the neighboring First Baptist Church. He said he grew up attending that church. Hieftje then referred to Floyd’s comments about the zoning, but refrained from mentioning Floyd’s name. Hieftje said that thousands of hours had been put into it and it was one of the most participatory things he’d seen in government. He said not everybody would be happy with everything about it, but it’s something they could live with.

Village Green, First and Washington

The council was asked to consider final authorization of a land deal to sell the city-owned First and Washington lot to Village Green. Village Green will build a 244-space parking deck as the first two stories of a 9-story building with 156 dwelling units – City Apartments.

Village Green: Background

The purchase price of the land is $3,200,000, the bulk of which ($2,500,000 plus $500,000 previously borrowed from the risk fund to cover construction costs) is earmarked for the city’s new municipal building fund. This has been a part of the city’s financing plan for that building. Construction of the municipal building is now essentially completed.

The city has previously received $103,000 in earnest money from Village Green. The city is covering $5,000 in closing costs – that puts net proceeds of the transaction at $3,092,000. The remaining $92,000 (after appropriating the $3 million total for the municipal center) and the earnest money will be appropriated to the general fund, designated as “non-departmental” (as non-recurring revenue), where it will add to the general fund reserve.

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has pledged around $9 million of support for bonds to pay for the parking deck component of City Apartments – the city will own that part of the project. Payment is not owed to Village Green for the parking deck construction until a certificate of occupancy is issued for the parking deck, which is expected to open for business in about a year (late 2012), before the residential portion of the project is complete.

The deal had a five-year trajectory after the city council first approved the recommendation of the First and Washington RFP Review Committee, and the city started negotiations with Village Green for the sale and redevelopment of the site. The goals of the deal were: to increase downtown residential density; replace public parking spaces; maximize the sale price; and maximize future tax revenue, captured by the Ann Arbor DDA Authority TIF (tax increment finance) district.

The vote by the council required an 8-vote majority on the 11-member body, because the city charter stipulates that “The City shall not purchase, sell, or lease any real estate or any interest therein except by resolution concurred in by at least eight members of the Council.”

Also before the council on Thursday night was the affordable housing component of the project. Under those terms, 16 of the units must be permanently affordable to households earning no more than 80% of the area median income (AMI).

The Ann Arbor DDA has also agreed to support the project with $400,000 from its housing fund, if four of the 80% AMI rental units are made affordable at the 60% AMI level. The affordable units will be of the same appearance and finish as other units and would be distributed throughout the project. Village Green does not have the option of making a payment in lieu of providing the affordable units as part of the project.

Village Green: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked city of Ann Arbor chief financial officer Tom Crawford about how the proceeds of the sale would be appropriated. She contended one step has been missed – it should first go into the general fund before being appropriated to the municipal building fund.

By way of background, Briere was making the point that in 2008, the council had included a condition on a further extension of Village Green’s purchase option that proceeds of the sale be deposited into the general fund, not the municipal building fund. From The Chronicle’s meeting report ["Council Revisits the Mid-2000s"]:

As a historical point related to the planned use of the sale proceeds for the new municipal center construction, the council defeated a resolution on March 17, 2008 to extend the Village Green purchase option agreement for First and Washington. At the council’s following meeting, on April 7, 2008, the measure was brought back for reconsideration, and the council voted unanimously to extend the agreement. The key difference was the addition of a “resolved clause,” which stated: “Resolved, that the proceeds from this sale shall be designated to the general fund, Fund 010.”

Responding to Briere’s question, Crawford said that all along the financing plan for the municipal center has included proceeds of the First and Washington sale. As a reason for not first running the money through the general fund, he said, when citizens sees spikes in the fund balance level, it causes confusion. Briere noted that one of the reasons the project moved forward was the 2008 agreement that proceeds of the sale would go into the general fund.

Crawford told Briere that he wasn’t following her reasoning. From the beginning, he said, the proceeds of the sale were planned to pay for the municipal center. Briere allowed that Crawford was right, but noted that the first time the council had a chance to vote on the project, it was rejected on the theory that one project shouldn’t depend on another. The result was that the council approved it later, on the condition that the proceeds go to the general fund.

Crawford told Briere he didn’t recall that. If it were the council’s desire, he said, he didn’t have a problem doing it that way, but he said it was a matter of expediency to put funds where they’re eventually headed.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) retrieved her laptop from the podium after showing the city’s CFO, Tom Crawford, a 2008 resolution the council had passed, requiring the proceeds of the Village Green land deal to be deposited into the general fund.

Briere gave the matter a rest, but continued later after she’d looked up the council resolution on her laptop computer and walked to the podium to show Crawford the resolution. Returning to her seat at the table, she asked Crawford if he saw what she meant. He confirmed he did, and offered his apology – he had not recalled the 2008 decision when he drafted the resolution for that night’s agenda. He said he wouldn’t recommend running the money through the general fund, but said he had no issue with first putting the money into the general fund and then moving it to the building fund.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) ventured that the 2008 vote had meant the council had decided not to put the proceeds towards the municipal center. Crawford stated that he did not believe the 2008 resolution said the city shouldn’t use the money for the municipal center.

The council as a whole did not seem to be in a mood to insist on conformance with its own 2008 resolution, or to undertake a revision to that night’s resolution to explicitly rescind that part of the 2008 vote.

Responding to a question from Anglin, Crawford said construction would start very soon. The actual closing would need to happen before Dec. 3, because that’s how long the purchase option is good for.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he wanted to hear very clearly that there’s no risk to the general fund if the project were to fall thorough. After several turns back and forth between Kunselman and assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald, a couple of points were established. First, no money was owed by the city to Village Green until the parking deck is completed and the certificate of occupancy has been issued. Second, the closing on the land deal with the city and the financing of the project would happen simultaneously.

The question of making payments in lieu of providing affordable housing units as part of a proposed project has been discussed recently by the council at its Oct. 24, 2011 meeting, in the context of a revised proposal for the Heritage Row project. At that meeting, Jennifer L. Hall – housing manager for the Washtenaw County/city of Ann Arbor office of community development – had told the council that the city’s current thinking was that payments in lieu might be a more effective policy than requiring affordable units to be provided on site. [The fact that this transition in policy direction has taken place over the lifetime of the Village Green deal speaks to the length of time that the First and Washington project has been in the works.]

Kunselman got confirmation from McDonald that Village Green can’t make a payment in lieu of providing the affordable units as part of the project.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve all the elements of the Village Green deal.

Taxicab Law

The council considered final approval to a set of changes to its taxicab ordinance. The changes make explicit how long a taxicab company license is valid (10 years) and spell out some additional conditions on revocation or suspension of the company license.

The revisions also add reasons that can be used for suspending an individual taxicab driver’s license, which include a city administrator’s view that a driver “has acted in an unprofessional, harassing or threatening manner to passengers, or others.”

At the council’s Oct. 17, 2011 meeting, when the revision had received its initial approval, Tom Crawford – the city’s chief financial officer – had briefed the council on the changes. Crawford serves as a non-voting member of the city’s taxicab board, which had recommended those changes. Crawford characterized the changes as falling in three areas. In the first area, related to licensing, Crawford said that in the past the city had seasonal operators who would want to come in and work the football season and then disappear. The ordinance is being changed so that if a company ceases operation for 45 days, the city can revoke the license. Crawford explained that a healthy taxicab industry needs stability and this is a mechanism to help guard against companies frequently coming in and out of the market.

Another area of change has to do with solicitations and how the companies represent themselves. Several companies advertise themselves as taxis, but they’re in fact limousines. Crawford characterized it as a safety issue for someone who believes a vehicle is a taxi, but it’s in fact a limo. [A taxi is per code "... accepting passengers for hire within the boundaries of the city as directed by the passenger." A limousine is pre-booked.] If a company holds itself out as a taxicab company, it has to be licensed as a taxicab company, Crawford said. [The city's taxicab code already prohibits advertising in the reverse direction – it prohibits taxicabs from holding themselves out as limousines.]

During the public hearing on Thursday, only one person spoke. Thomas Partridge began by saying he was opposed to the mayor using admonitions at the start of public hearings to speak only to the topic of a public hearing, saying it suppressed public comment. The ordinance, Partridge said, was misnamed. The name should refer to business subjects related to taxicab drivers and vehicles, he said. He told the council it should go back for discussion and further work.

Partridge called for a progressively-based fee, based on the assets of the applicant. The proceeds of the fees should be used to provide better accessible taxicab transportation for seniors and disabled people. He called for a committee to encourage courteous behavior and non-discrimination by taxicab drivers and to prevent unethical and illegal setting of fares. He raised the specter of illegal setting of fares possibly involving computer hacking.

During the scant council deliberations, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) urged his colleagues to go ahead and approve it. As the council’s representative to the taxicab board, he vouched that the ordinance revision has been vetted by drivers and companies and members of the community.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the taxicab ordinance revision.

Labor Retirement Benefits

Before the council for consideration was final approval to revisions of ordinances that govern the retirement and health care plans for two of the city’s unions: the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association (AAPOA) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

The revisions to the ordinances resulted from a collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME and a binding arbitration under Act 312 with AAPOA. The changes are similar to ordinance changes already enacted for non-union city workers.

The pension contribution for AAPOA and AFSCME workers will rise from 5% on a post-tax basis to 6% on a pre-tax basis. The vesting period for new hires will increase from 5 years to 10 years. Also for new hires, the final average compensation (FAC) calculation will be increased to a five-year period. The previous FAC was based on a three-year period.

On the health care side, the AFSCME and AAPOA employees will have the same access-only retiree health plan as non-union employees have.

Initial approval of the ordinance change came at the council’s Oct. 17, 2011 meeting.

Thomas Partridge spoke during the public hearings on both ordinance changes. He said his state senate campaign had included a platform that increased services to the public and avoided discrimination towards public employee unions. He viewed the ordinance change, albeit after negotiations, as bullying tactics. He said the city of Ann Arbor should turn its back on former city administrator Roger Fraser and his recruitment by Gov. Rick Snyder’s administration. [Fraser took a job earlier this year as deputy treasurer for the state of Michigan.]

The council should, Partridge said, reject the anti-democratic attitudes of bills put through the Republican administration, and not follow along. On their face, the bills are discriminatory towards the unions. He asked the council to table the ordinances and give them further consideration.

Speaking to the health care ordinance, Partridge contended that it impedes the ability of employees to access full and affordable health care.

Comment from the council on the two ordinances came only from Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who noted the council had already seen the changes when the bargaining agreements were ratified. The greater contributions by employees, the longer vesting periods and the increase in the period for final average compensation is the kind of approach that the city needs in the future, he said. He said he was glad to see both groups agree to that. Rapundalo noted that the changes put new union member hires on the same basis as non-union employees. It is a long-term strategy of having parity and equity, he said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the changes to the ordinances on pension and the retiree health care benefits for the AFSCME and AAPOA unions.

Recycling Contract

The council was asked to ratify a revision to the city’s contract with RecycleRewards (parent company of RecycleBank), starting Dec. 1, 2011. Under terms of the new contract, Ann Arbor’s base payment to RecycleRewards will be reduced from $0.52 to $0.35 per household per month. Annually, that translates to a reduction from $149,244 to $100,455.

Under the contract revision, RecycleRewards will receive a $50 per ton incentive for any increase above 11,332 tons – that’s the amount collected in the first year of the RecycleRewards program (Sept. 1, 2010 to Aug. 31, 2011). However, even with possible incentives, the city’s payment is limited to a maximum of $150,000 in any fiscal year.

At its Sept. 19 meeting, the council had made the decision to direct city staff to renegotiate the new contract, after weighing the possibility of terminating it.

During the brief council deliberations, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reminded everyone that the contract revision came in response to the council re-examining the contract. She noted that the city is not committing to continuing the contract next year, if the council decides not to appropriate funds for RecycleBank.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to amend the contract with RecycleRewards.

Greenbelt Addition

On the agenda was a resolution to approve use of the city’s open space and parkland preservation (greenbelt) millage funds to preserve two parcels outside the city through the purchase of conservation easements.

The city of Ann Arbor is partnering with Ann Arbor Township and Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation by contributing $49,500 towards the $99,000 cost of a conservation easement on a 23-acre property owned by Joe Bloch in Ann Arbor Township. Part of the land is currently used for farming.

For a second parcel, the council was asked to authorize $15,000 to partner with the Legacy Land Conservancy to preserve a 30-acre property owned by Charles Botero in Northfield Township. Botero is donating the conservation easement to the Legacy Land Conservancy – the $15,000 will cover the closing, due diligence, and stewardship costs for the property.

The greenbelt advisory commission recommended both fund expenditures at its Sept. 14, 2011 meeting.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the expenditures of greenbelt funds.

The council postponed a vote on the appointment of Shannon Brines to the greenbelt advisory commission until Nov. 21. The resolution on the agenda would have made the effective date Nov. 21, and the council wanted to time their vote to the effective date. The next meeting of the greenbelt advisory commission is Dec. 14.

Leaf Truck Lease

As part of its consent agenda, the council was asked to approve a $93,720 emergency purchase order for the lease of trucks to help with the fall leaf pickup. The contract is for six trucks for two months from Premier Truck Sales & Rental Inc.

A leaf truck rented from Premier Truck Sales & Rental in action on the Old West Side in Ann Arbor.

The emergency nature of the purchase order resulted from the fact that a different company, Big Truck Rental LLC, was unable to provide the eight trucks the city had originally agreed to lease. The council had approved a $138,000 purchase order for Big Truck Rental at its Sept. 19 meeting.

The city no longer picks up leaves by asking people to rake them into the street, and instead requires residents to use containers – carts or bags. The rented trucks supplement the city’s regular trucks, and reduce the number of times that trucks would need to be emptied as they cover their routes.

When the city budgeted for 2011, it expected to save $104,000 by moving to containerized leaf collection. In fact, it realized a $200,000 savings (based on unaudited figures). For the 2012 fiscal year, the city is estimating $150,000 in savings.

Outcome: As part of its consent agenda, the city council approved the emergency purchase order for the lease of trucks .

Rapundalo’s Last Meeting

Nov. 10, 2011 marked Stephen Rapundalo’s (Ward 2) final council meeting of his council term.

Rapundalo: Background

Rapundalo lost Tuesday’s general election to Jane Lumm. She will take office on Monday, Nov. 14, based on the Ann Arbor city charter provision on terms of city council office:

Terms of Office
SECTION 12.4. (a)
The term of office of each member of the Council, including the Mayor, except as by this section provided, shall be two years. Such term shall commence on the Monday next following the regular City election at which such officers are elected. …

Lumm will be ceremonially sworn in at the council’s Nov. 21 meeting.

During his last communications to the council, Rapundalo reminded them that there is a vacancy on the local development finance authority (LDFA) board that they would need to fill.

Rapundalo serves as the city council representative to the LDFA. However, at its Sept. 19, 2011 meeting, the council approved a change to the agreement between Ann Arbor and the city of Ypsilanti, so that the city councilmember representative to the LDFA board would cease to be a member of the board immediately when membership on the council ceased.

One scenario would be for the council to appoint Rapundalo to the open seat, because he’s now available to serve as a non-council member of the LDFA board. The council will also need to appoint one of its own members to serve as council representative. Appointments of councilmembers to other boards and commissions, as well as to subcommittees of the council, are typically decided at the second meeting in November or the first meeting in December.

Rapundalo: Council Words of Farewell

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) led off the words of farewell to Rapundalo, saying that on Rapundalo’s last evening he wanted to tell him how much he’d appreciated working with him. Hohnke appreciated Rapundalo’s thoughtful and fact-based approach to issues in front of the council. Rapundalo would be missed. Hohnke thanked Rapundalo for his hard work over the years. He’d taken on duties that someone needed to take on – duties that would not generate additional friends, but that need to be done.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1) before the meeting, discussing changes to the pedestrian safety ordinance. Hohnke is signing Rapundalo’s farewell card. 

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) noted that he and Rapundalo were wardmates. They both represented Ward 2 together for three years. One of the things that is under-appreciated about service on the council is the amount of time it takes, Derezinski said. Tough decisions are made, the effects of which will not be noticed until a long time from now. Derezinski said he and Rapundalo were not always in agreement, but most of the time they were.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she would miss Rapundalo and thanked him for his service. She told him he had never veered away from saying what needs to be said and told him he had a lot of courage and great insight. She said he was very thoughtful and is the kind of amazing thinker who is needed on council.

Mayor John Hieftje said he very much appreciated having Rapundalo on the council, and that Rapundalo’s scientific way of thinking was beneficial to the council.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) echoed his colleagues’ sentiments, saying it’s been a pleasure to serve with Rapundalo. Taylor said he still recollected being fresh on the council and had enjoyed learning from Rapundalo. Taylor then attempted a joke based on the fact that Rapundalo and Hohnke, who sit on opposite sides of the table, hold PhDs. Taylor ventured that Rapundalo’s side of the table now had a deficit in doctorates, but that perhaps his and Derezinski’s JD degrees might balance that out.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that often he and Rapundalo had been on different sides of issues. But he and Rapundalo had served on the liquor committee together, and Rapundalo had done an outstanding job. Rapundalo had done the rudimentary things necessary to get the liquor committee board in shape to be able to deal with the issues that arise with bars, Anglin said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he’d enjoyed his time working with Rapundalo – noting playfully that they shared the same name. He noted that he and Rapundalo had at times been on the same side of issues and also on opposite sides. He told Rapundalo he appreciated Rapundalo’s support on the Argo Dam issue [both men supported keeping it in place], but not so much on the issue of the airport runway extension [unlike Rapundalo, Kunselman was adamant about not extending the runway].

Right to left: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2). Kunselman is telling Rapundalo that he figures Rapundalo will find it difficult to stay away from involvement in city issues.

Kunselman said he greatly admired Rapundalo’s service to the city. He then told Rapundalo that “I have been where you’re going” – an allusion to the fact that three years ago, in 2008, Kunselman had lost his seat on the council, but returned the following year to defeat Leigh Greden, winning back a seat. Kunselman said Rapundalo would have a hard time leaving, and he suspected Rapundalo would be back in some form or another. Kunselman then alluded to the fact that Rapundalo enjoys dual Canadian-U.S. citizenship, and told him to “go have some fun, eh.”

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) told Rapundalo he’d always been gracious, kind and thoughtful. She told him she’d miss sitting “not quite next” to him. [Derezinski sits between Briere and Rapundalo at the council table.]

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) told Rapundalo she would miss looking at him across the table. She said that the first she’d met him, he was an involved citizen, and the issue they were looking at was sewer backups. She noted his service on the park advisory commission before being elected to the council. Noting he’d been involved in many aspects of public service before sitting at the table, she hoped he would consider some of those things again.

During the meeting, two speakers during public commentary mentioned Rapundalo’s service. John Floyd, former candidate for Ward 5 city council, thanked Rapundalo for doing what Rapundalo thought was right, even though mostly Floyd disagreed with him. And Tom Heywood, executive director of the State Street Area Association, told Rapundalo he appreciated working with Rapundalo, and also looked forward to working with Lumm.

Rapundalo: Response

Rapundalo responded to the remarks of his colleagues by saying he appreciated their kind and generous words. It was a privilege and honor to be a public servant. He said he’d had “a lot of darn fun” serving with all of them. He’d tried to serve with dignity and with thoughtfulness and integrity – that’s the only way he knew to approach it. He said he called things as he sees it.

He hoped he’d been able to make some contributions, and he’d worked on some issues he’d enjoyed – from labor issues to human services. He ventured that in serving, one hopes to make a difference in people’s daily lives. To that end, his focus had been on finding solutions. He contended he’d never been motivated to serve on the council because of ego or a power trip. He was just doing what was right, he said. He appreciated the help, advice and criticism he’d received from his colleagues on the council.

Rapundalo singled out former city administrator Roger Fraser for special thanks, saying he’d enjoyed Fraser’s leadership. One of Rapundalo’s disappointments was not being able to work with new administrator Steve Powers. Rapundalo said he also wanted to thank the city staff, because they often get forgotten. The staff works hard in every corner of the organization and they don’t get enough respect, he said. Responding to Kunselman’s suggestion that he’d be back, Rapundalo said he didn’t know about running again, but he would find a way to contribute to the community.

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: Pancreatic Cancer Awareness

Mayor John Hieftje issued a proclamation making November Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. On hand to accept the proclamation was Mary Wenners, who told the council about her friend Jim Hetzel, who died of the disease last year at the age of 62. His death didn’t make headline news, she said. She called the council’s attention to the purple ribbons and bracelets associated with pancreatic awareness as well as the slogan: Know it, fight it, end it.

Comm/Comm: R4C Review

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2)) reported that the R4C zoning review committee had held its 11th and final meeting. A report will be forthcoming to the planning commission, he said. It had taken two years and there’d been a lot of public input, he said.

Comm/Comm: Unwanted Newspapers

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) said that many constituents had communicated their displeasure about undesired delivery of newspapers and other commercial handbills to their residences. He said he was working with Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) on an ordinance change that would address that issue.

Comm/Comm: 618 S. Main

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) alerted the public to a meeting the following day at the location of the former Fox Tent and Awning building for a citizen participation meeting regarding a proposed residential development. The site is zoned D2, he said, and is on the edge of the Old West Side historic district.

Comm/Comm: Medical Marijuana

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that the medical marijuana license board, on which she serves, has now met three times, and she expected it would meet again on Nov. 30. The board is supposed to deliver a report to the council in January 2012, she said, and is working towards that deadline. At this point, she said, no applications for medical marijuana licenses have been evaluated.

Comm/Comm: Partridge

Thomas Partridge spoke at both times slots on the agenda available for public commentary. He said he had been “working unceasingly” on ending discrimination and called for access to affordable housing, transportation, education and health care. He called the city’s greenbelt program a carry-over from the Eisenhower administration that used the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture to take land out of useful agricultural production. He complained of discrimination he’d encountered at the polling place at Dicken Elementary School.

Comm/Comm: Energy Farms

Kermit Schlansker described the use of biomass in energy production. Energy production will always accompany food production, he said: with corn there will always be the cob. He called on people to plant trees from seeds. Specifically he called for the planting of nut-bearing trees in parks. Even school children can do it, he said. At age 86 he allowed he has difficulty walking. But he still scattered 100 walnuts this year, so that they can grow into trees.

Comm/Comm: Israel

Henry Herskovitz reminded the council he’d spoken during public commentary the previous month and had showed them a world map. He then pointed the council to work done by Alison Weir, who’d founded an organizations called If Americans Knew, which he called an informative and unbiased source of information on Israel’s founding. He then went through some of Weir’s arguments that some of the votes for Israel at the United Nations came as the result of political pressure applied by the U.S.

Present: Stephen Rapundalo, Mike Anglin, Margie Teall, Sabra Briere, Tony Derezinski, Stephen Kunselman, Marcia Higgins, John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor, Carsten Hohnke

Absent: Sandi Smith

Next council meeting: Monday, Nov. 21, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. [confirm date]

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

The city planning commission recommended approval of The Varsity at its Oct. 4, 2011 meeting.

Intended for students, it’s the first project to go through the city’s new design review process. The Varsity was first considered at the planning commission’s Sept. 20 meeting, but postponed.

A “planned project” allows modifications of the area, height, and placement requirements related to permanent open space preservation, if the project would result in “the preservation of natural features, additional open space, greater building or parking setback, energy conserving design, preservation of historic or architectural features, expansion of the supply of affordable housing for lower income households or a beneficial arrangement of buildings.” However, all other zoning code requirements must still be met – including the permitted uses, maximum density, and maximum floor area.

The Varsity was submitted as a planned project in order to make the plaza area off Washington Street larger than what would have been required by the zoning code.

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]

Site of proposed 13-story The Varsity Ann Arbor, at 425 E. Washington, where a two-story office building is now located. To the left is 411 Lofts. To the right is the entrance to the First Baptist Church parking lot. (Photos by the writer.)

The Varsity is a 13-story apartment building proposed for 425 E. Washington St., east of the 411 Lofts building and west of the First Baptist Church. Currently on the site is a two-story office building that formerly housed the Prescription Shop. The proposed 177,180-square-foot apartment building would include 181 apartments with a total of 415 bedrooms, to be marketed to university students.

Four residents spoke during a public hearing on the project, and were generally supportive. However, they cited concerns over the attractiveness of the facade facing Huron Street and traffic issues that might arise from that entrance. Some commissioners also raised issues about parking and design, and wondered about the possibility of retail space on the first floor. The developer’s representatives felt retail wasn’t feasible at this time.

City planning staff recommended that site plan approval be postponed, so that some relatively minor issues could be resolved. Commissioners followed that advice, and postponed action on the project. It’s expected to be on the agenda again for the commission’s Oct. 4 meeting.

In addition to The Varsity, Tuesday’s meeting included several communications from staff and commissioners. Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, reported that a Sept. 21 meeting of the R4C/R2A advisory committee had been postponed and will be rescheduled. City planning staff had heard from several committee members who felt they needed more information before reconvening. The advisory group is developing recommendations for zoning changes in Ann Arbor’s near-downtown residential neighborhoods.

Tony Derezinski, a commissioner who also serves on city council, reported on planning-related items that emerged at the council’s Sept. 19 meeting. He noted that although it wasn’t on the council’s agenda or discussed publicly, the issue of the City Place apartment complex, which is poised to break ground in the coming weeks, was “quietly being discussed” among councilmembers, he said. While it looks like the project will move forward and that an alternative project on that site called Heritage Row won’t be realized, Derezinski said – somewhat cryptically – there’s “many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.” 

The Varsity

Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff gave a report on The Varsity project. The 13-story building, with 181 apartments, also calls for 70 parking spaces – 45 in an underground level, with an entrance off of East Huron Street, and 25 on the street level, with an entrance off of East Washington. In addition, two spaces would be provided on adjacent property (owned by the same developer) for use by a car-sharing service like Zipcar – the city counts each of those shared-car spaces as four parking spots. A total of 121 bike spaces are also proposed for the project.

Rendering of an aerial view of the proposed Varsity apartments, located on the left, between Washington and Huron streets. In the lower right is the First Baptist Church. In the upper right, across Huron, is Sloan Plaza.

The building is set back 15 feet from Huron Street. The side facing East Washington has zero setback for about half the frontage, then about a 25-foot setback for the remaining area, creating an entry plaza next to the First Baptist Church.

A public walkway – which the developer describes as a “mews” – will run along the east side of the building, from Huron to Washington. A mid-block pedestrian crosswalk is proposed across Washington, leading to the walkway/alley across the street next to McKinley Towne Centre. That alley extends to East Liberty. [.pdf of staff report]

By way of background, the alley between Washington and Liberty has been the subject of recent complaint voiced at a recent meeting of Ann Arbor’s Downtown Development Authority, because of the placement of dumpsters there.  Maintaining the alley as publicly accessible has been the focus of conversations involving the Downton Citizens Advisory Council dating back at least to late 2009.

The Varsity was the first project evaluated by the city’s new design review board, which discussed the proposal at a meeting in June. According to a memo prepared by city staff, the board reported that the building’s design was generally in line with the city’s design guidelines. Issues cited by the memo as weaker design elements included a significant area devoted to vehicle circulation, front facades disconnected from the base, and an underutilized plaza, among other things. [.pdf of report from the design review board, and the developer's response]

The city’s planning staff had recommended postponement to give the developer – Potomac Holdings of Bethesda, Maryland – more time to address several outstanding issues. Those issues were listed as an inadequate drive approach on East Washington to access the service alley; changes to the landscape plan and grading plan, as requested by city staff; and revisions to the site’s solid waste plan, which city staff had deemed unacceptable. A representative for the developer described these as minor, and city staff expects they’ll be resolved by the commission’s Oct. 4 meeting.

The Varsity: Public Commentary

Seven people spoke during a public hearing on the project, including four residents and three representatives from the developer.

Hugh Sonk spoke on behalf of the Sloan Plaza Condominium Association – Sloan Plaza is located at 505 E. Huron, just east and across the street from The Varsity site. He said he’d been deeply involved in developing the city’s design guidelines and design review board, and he had several concerns about the proposed project and its impact on residents in the neighborhood. He wasn’t opposed to the project, but wanted to address those concerns: (1) traffic on Huron; and (2) the design of the facade facing Huron. Regarding traffic, Sonk said that having an entrance off Huron into the building’s underground parking will exacerbate an already congested corridor – a major traffic artery that will be even more crowded when the University of Michigan’s new children’s hospital opens in November. There’s not adequate space on the site to queue cars, he said, which will result in backups on Huron.

Sonk’s other concern was the design of the facade facing Huron. The idea behind the design guidelines is that new buildings should complement existing structures, he said. In this case, The Varsity is adjacent to historic buildings, which that are located in the Old Fourth Ward historic district. The current design, he said, doesn’t look like it’s a street facade – it looks like the entrance to an alley. He likened it to the large AT&T building, located further west on Huron.

Bob Keane, a principal with WDG Architects in Washington D.C., introduced himself as representing The Varsity’s ownership group. He described the process so far as collaborative, working with city staff and input from the neighbors, including the adjacent First Baptist Church. A lot of good comments came out of the design review process, he said, and they’re working to keep the project feasible while trying to beautify it as well.

Keane told commissioners it’s important to take a step back and look at the entire neighborhood, city and UM campus, when considering the building’s design. He showed several slides of other buildings in Ann Arbor and on campus, that were meant to provide context to The Varsity. Keane also described several elements of The Varsity’s design, including the mews along the building’s east side, and the courtyard on the East Washington site that opens onto the gardens of the First Baptist Church.

Architect's rendering of The Varsity – the view from Huron Street. The dark brick building on the right is 411 Lofts, at the corner of Washington and Division.

Christine Crockett introduced herself as president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, and a member of the committee that helped write the city’s design guidelines. She didn’t object to the project – it’s appropriate for the D1 zoning, and more student housing near campus is needed. But her principal objection is the design of the Huron Street facade, saying it looked like a back door garage. For years, the city has been talking about ways to make the Huron Street corridor more attractive, she said. The building should incorporate elements of the historic district character overlay, she said.

There didn’t seem to be any design changes made since the design review board meeting, Crockett contended, and she felt the architects could do a better job. Comparing the building to other structures that were several blocks away (as the developer’s architect had done) wasn’t germane. She suggested removing the garage entrance from Huron completely, saying that it would help alleviate a lot of problems, including traffic concerns. Crockett concluding by saying that “a garage door is simply not acceptable. This is not the back door to anything.”

Ray Detter spoke on behalf of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council. He called The Varsity a significant project. Over the years, planning commissioners have noted that they didn’t have purview over the design of a project – but now, they do, he said, because of the city’s design guidelines and review process. The developers of The Varsity did a good job, Detter said, and also responded to input by improving the project. However, “our position is it can be even better yet,” he said.

Detter suggested making all parking underground, for example, and getting rid of the first floor parking that’s adjacent to the mews. The building could have a deeper setback in exchange for adding a couple of floors to its height – no one would object to that, he said. Perhaps the mews could be wider, too. Detter said that everyone knows this project will be approved. It’s just a matter of how good it will be, and of how good the process will be. Every time he sees it, as the project moves forward, he hopes to see improvement.

Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting, who’s working on the project, addressed some of the outstanding issues that had been cited by staff as the reason for postponement. He noted that the solid waste plan, which city staff deemed unacceptable, is similar to plans that the city already approved for the apartment buildings Zaragon I and Zaragon II [now known as Zaragon West]. The staff also indicated that the entrance to the service alley off of East Washington is inadequate, but Ophoff said the driveway was narrowed on the west side because a dumpster is not planned for that location.

The staff requested corrections to the project’s landscaping plan sheet, which Ophoff described as housekeeping details. His final point related to a staff request for corrections to the grading plan sheet, as noted by the city’s development inspector. Ophoff said he’s at a loss to know who the development inspector is – this was the first he’d heard about such a person, and he’d previously received no staff comments about the site’s grading plan.

Brad Moore and Bob Keane, architects for The Varsity.

Brad Moore, an architect on the project, spoke about the Huron Street facade, which he said had changed significantly from the original design. The original design called for a solid, opaque garage door facing Huron, he said. Now, the door will be designed to look more like windows. The design uses hues from nearby buildings, Moore said, including Campus Inn. A small plaza has been added, with benches and an area for plantings. All of these things are intended to make it more like a front facade, he said.

By having entrances off of both Huron and Washington, Moore said, the traffic situation will actually be better – the cars won’t be coming in and out of just one place. They’re trying to minimize the conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, he said, noting that there are fewer pedestrians on Huron than on Washington.

Steve Kaplan said he’ll be a neighbor of the future building, and appealed to developers to put more of the parking underground. He urged them to keep the ground-level space available for future retail or commercial use. In conversations he’s had, Kaplan said the sense is that there’s not demand for retail there. But the area is changing rapidly, he noted, with this project, the nearby 411 Lofts and North Quad (a UM dorm). The opportunities are just starting to grow, and it would be a waste if that ground floor were squandered on parking. The developers have said they’re constrained by the site’s topography, but since they’ll need to build a foundation for the structure, Kaplan said that would negate issues with the existing topography.

The Varsity: Commissioner Discussion

Commissioners asked a range of questions, focusing primarily on traffic, parking and the design of the building and surrounding site. For this report, their discussion is organized by topic.

The Varsity: Commissioner Discussion – Traffic

Tony Derezinki was one of several commissioners who asked about traffic in relation to the entrances, especially off of Huron. He noted that in addition to public commentary, the commission had received a letter from Maurice Binkow, a resident of Sloan Plaza, who was concerned about traffic. [.pdf of Binkow's letter] Derezinski asked if any traffic studies had been done.

Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting said the traffic study they’d done was based on the existing structure, which was an office building. There were peak hours in the morning and evening, but students don’t have those same peaks, he said – they operate on different schedules.

Facing south across Huron Street – the site of the proposed Varsity apartments. In the background to the right is 411 Lofts. To the left is the top of the Liberty Square (Tally Hall) parking structure.

Kirk Westphal said the additional curbcuts make it more difficult for pedestrians. He wondered what the heaviest trips per hour are expected to be, compared to what’s there now. Alexis DiLeo said she could get that information from the traffic study, but that in general, residences tend to have lower traffic volume per unit than office buildings. And students – The Varsity’s target market – won’t likely be going to 9-5 jobs, she said, so the traffic volume would be significantly different than it is now.

Eleanore Adenekan wanted to know whether there are more pedestrians than vehicles on Huron. DiLeo said she didn’t have counts, but her sense is that there are significantly more vehicles than pedestrians, given that Huron is a four-lane road and one of the city’s main thoroughfares.

Westphal said it was inexcusable to have two curbcuts out of the building, leading out onto two busy streets. He didn’t buy the argument that it diffused traffic – most students use their cars infrequently. Regarding the aesthetics, it’s not possible to dress up the garage, he said, adding that it’s “dangerous and not a pedestrian-oriented use.”

The Varsity: Commissioner Discussion – Parking

Diane Giannola said her main concern was with parking. There are 78 spaces in the structure for 415 bedrooms – is that enough? Brad Moore responded, saying that the parking ratio conforms with the city’s zoning ordinance, and is similar to the parking provided at 411 Lofts, Zaragon and 601 S. Forest – other downtown apartment buildings designed for students. He said it’s the experience of the owner, in other projects, that students living in apartments this close to campus don’t need cars on site.

Responding to Giannola’s query about how the spots will be assigned, Moore said residents can lease the spots. He noted that it’s a separate lease from the apartment leases.

Giannola wondered if there’d been problems with residents of 411 Lofts parking in the neighborhoods. Moore said he wasn’t aware of any problems. He said he’d been told by someone at the State Street Merchants Association that a significant number of permits for spaces at Tally Hall [the parking structure that's now called Liberty Square] will be rotated out of that structure into other city parking garages, including the new underground structure being built on South Fifth Avenue. When that happens, it will free up more spots at Tally Hall, he said.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, told commissioners that there’s a waiting list to get parking permits, but that about 700 new spaces will be coming on line in about a year at the underground structure. When that happens, there’ll be a lot of shifting of permits among the city’s parking structures, she said.

Moore noted that the underground structure will be opening before The Varsity does.

Even so, Giannola said she worried about the impact on neighborhoods if students end up parking their cars on neighborhood streets, rather than in city structures or The Varsity.

[Later in the meeting, during the final opportunity for public commentary, Ray Detter said he wanted to clarify the situation regarding parking in the State Street area, which he believed had been misrepresented. The intent is to free up space in the State Street area to use for short-term parking, he said, as part of a demand management system being developed by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The DDA manages the public parking system for the city. By moving long-term permit parking to the underground structure on South Fifth, the idea is not to fill the freed-up spaces elsewhere with more long-term parking, he said.]

Planning commissioners Diane Giannola and Erica Briggs.

Erica Briggs asked about a possible Zipcar partnership. Moore indicated that two spaces are planned for a car-sharing service like Zipcar.

Briggs also wondered why all the parking isn’t underground. Bob Keane, one of the project’s architects, noted that the design uses the underground parking that’s in the existing building, with an entrance off of Huron. It’s cost effective to do that, he said. They they’ll build a separate entrance off Washington leading into parking on a level above that underground area. There will be a screen of vines and other greenery to shield the cars from the mews, he said, so it will feel like you’re walking through a garden.

Briggs wanted to know more about the bike storage, too. A total of 121 bike parking spaces are proposed, including 6 hoops in the entry plaza on the south side of the building, 6 hoops on the north side of the building, 37 covered hoops in the parking levels, and 72 spaces in a secure bike storage room on the ground level of the building. Briggs asked whether there will be amenities like a free air pump provided in the storage room or in the plaza, as a community benefit. The developer’s representatives said they could explore that possibility.

The Varsity: Commissioner Discussion – Building Design

Kirk Westphal asked Alexis DiLeo to clarify the commission’s ability to talk about design, in the context of the city’s new design guidelines and review board. DiLeo replied that with the council’s adoption of the design guidelines, the topic of design is “fair game” for commissioners now. She reminded them that while the design review process is mandatory, compliance is voluntary.

Tony Derezinski asked for more information about design of the north facade, facing Huron. Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting replied that they were treating it more like a plaza than a garage. Bob Keane added that both entrances – on Huron and Washington – were being treated the same, using the same materials and configuration. On the Huron side, they’ve added windows above the garage door, and tried to make it look more like a storefront, with a large metal canopy overhang above the garage door. The design also attempts to mirror the context of the two-story houses that are on either side of the building, he said. He felt the facade contributed greatly to the streetfront.

Derezinski replied that it seems like the objection is to having any entrance at all on that side. Given that there is an entrance, this design is probably as good as it can get, he said.

Westphal clarified with DiLeo that the cutout – the plaza in front of the building on the East Washington side – was the result of discussions with neighbors, particularly the First Baptist Church to the east of the site. DiLeo said the plaza had always been part of the design – she was unsure what the original inspiration was for it. She said it has the effect of making a nicer transition between 411 Lofts to the west, which has a 10-foot setback, and the church to the east.

Erica Briggs asked the developer to discuss the plaza in more detail. She also noted that a lot of the design influence came from the church.

Ophoff described attributes of the plaza and mews. Multi-colored pavers will be used to create a design in the walkway, he said, that will lead pedestrians through the space. Other features include ornamental fencing and gates, and plantings – both annuals and perennials. Ophoff also described a “green screen” – a wire matrix on the building over which Virginia creeper vines and flowering hydrangeas will grow, to mask the first-floor parking area. There will be lots of opportunity for artistic details and richness in this area, he said.

Briggs encouraged the developer to widen the walkway as much as possible. It’s generally 5 feet, but widens up to 10 feet in some places. She also urged the developer to add even more details to the design, noting that it would be one of the longest pedestrian connections downtown, running from Huron to Liberty. It should be an area that people want to use and explore. Milwaukee does a good job of putting in touches of public art throughout the city, she said. One possibility might be to ask Ann Arbor’s public art commission for funding, she said.

Westphal praised the report of the design review board, saying that it sounds like the process led to some positive changes. He applauded the developer for including things like the walkway and bike spaces above the minimum required. However, his sticking point is the cutout – the plaza area in front of the building facing East Washington. The city can’t require that the building include retail, but it looks like the plaza is going to be underutilized, Westphal said, “and goodness knows we have enough of them around town – we don’t need more.”

Westphal also urged the developer to take another look at the building’s east facade, facing campus – it could be improved.

Brad Moore responded to Westphal’s criticism of the plaza, saying that the planning staff thought a larger plaza would be better, but the developer would be willing to reduce it in size so that it simply complies with code. Westphal asked whether they’d be willing to compromise on the design of the plaza, to make it more pedestrian friendly. Moore indicated that his client wouldn’t be willing to do that.

The Varsity: Commissioner Discussion – Retail

Westphal wondered if there’d been any discussion about adding retail to the first floor. The planning staff did suggest it, DiLeo said, and it would be possible to renovate the building later and add it. Currently a lounge for residents in planned in the first floor area, with another lounge – and an outdoor patio – on the top level.

Eleanore Adenekan asked for additional explanation about why the developer wasn’t putting in retail. Moore noted that the first floor facing Washington includes a lounge area, and in the floor above that there’ll be a fitness room. Those areas are designed to engage the plaza and streetscape, he said. There’s also a top floor lounge, so if the first floor lounge is converted into a coffeeshop or other retail in the future, residents will still have a lounge area.

But in talking with other landlords in the area and doing market research, Moore said, it didn’t seem like the time is right for retail. He noted that the leasing office at 411 Lofts is being relocated from one of the upper levels down to the first floor, because the owner couldn’t find a tenant for the first floor retail space. The former leasing office is being converted into another apartment.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone the project.

Misc. Communications

Every meeting includes points on the agenda for communications from commissioners and staff. Several topics were mentioned at Tuesday’s meeting.

Misc. Communications: City Place, Heritage Row

In addition to serving on planning commission, Tony Derezinski is a city councilmember representing Ward 2. He gives regular updates to the commission about city council actions, and on Tuesday reported a variety of items from the council’s Sept. 19 meeting. In addition to council action related to the city’s public art ordinance – which he characterized as leading to a “pretty husky debate” – Derezinski mentioned that the council postponed action on rezoning a property on South State, which houses a medical marijuana dispensary. The planning commission had recommended denial of that request from the Treecity Health Collective.

Other council action related to the planning commission included passing revisions to the commission’s bylaws and authorizing staff to move ahead with systematic annexation of township islands within the city.

Derezinski also noted that although it wasn’t on the council’s agenda or discussed publicly, the issue of the City Place apartment complex, which is poised to break ground in the coming weeks, was “quietly being discussed” among councilmembers, he said. If nothing changes, then the City Place project will be built and some houses along South Fifth will be demolished. [An alternative proposal, called Heritage Row, would have preserved those houses, in addition to building new apartment buildings. That proposal failed to achieve the eight votes it needed on the 11-member council.]

Derezinski said a lot of the focus has been on those councilmembers who voted against Heritage Row. [Mike Anglin (Ward 5), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).] Derezinski concluded by saying you never know what might happen, adding that there’s “many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.” [For background, see Chronicle coverage: "City Place Project Moves Forward"]

Eric Mahler, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Misc. Communications: Public Hearing on 2333 S. State

Eric Mahler, chair of the planning commission, announced that the planning staff is reviewing a request to divide a 4.13-acre parcel at 2333 S. State into two separate lots for commercial use. According to a staff memo, this is an administrative process – assuming that the request conforms to the state Land Division Act, it will be approved. The planning commission does not have authority to act on this request.

Misc. Communications: R4C/R2A Committee

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, reported that a Sept. 21 meeting of the R4C/R2A advisory committee had been postponed. City planning staff had heard from several committee members who felt they needed more information before reconvening. Rampson reminded commissioners that they’d received a preliminary report at a working session in June. The advisory group is developing recommendations for zoning changes in Ann Arbor’s near-downtown residential neighborhoods. Rampson said committee members feel that they might be able to reach consensus, or at least form a majority opinion – that’s what the next meeting is intended to do. It will likely be rescheduled in 2-3 weeks.

Misc. Communications – Sustainability Joint Session

Rampson reminded commissioners of a joint session on Tuesday, Sept. 27 with the city’s energy commission, environmental commission and park advisory commission. The meeting, which will focus on the city’s sustainability efforts, starts at 6 p.m. at Cobblestone Farm, 2781 Packard Road. A previous joint session on this topic was held in April 2010.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Erica Briggs, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Kirk Westphal.

Absent: Bonnie Bona, Evan Pratt, Wendy Woods

Next special meeting: On Tuesday, Sept. 27, the planning commission will be meeting in a joint session with members of the city’s energy commission, environmental commission, and park advisory commission. The focus of the meeting will be on the city’s sustainability efforts. The session starts at 6 p.m. at Cobblestone Farm, 2781 Packard Road.

Next regular meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, Oct. 4 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [confirm date]

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