The council’s final action came at its Oct. 7, 2013 meeting. In a vote separate from the zoning question, the council also approved the project’s site plan.

The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building. A PUD had previously been approved by the council at its July 2, 2012 meeting, but without plans for a drive-thru restaurant. The city planning commission had unanimously recommended approval of the request for a revision at its July 16, 2013 meeting.

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

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

A resolution added to the agenda on Friday, Oct. 4 would, if approved, result in the waiver of attorney-client privilege with respect to a specific advice memo that has already been written by the city attorney’s office on the McWilliams appointment.

The memo responds to questions that were raised about the procedure used to appoint McWilliams to the DDA board. Mayor John Hieftje had asked the council to vote on McWilliams’ appointment after saying at a previous meeting that he was withdrawing the nomination. Under the council’s rules, an 8-vote majority is required for confirmation of an appointment when the nomination is made at the same meeting when the confirmation vote is taken. McWilliams was confirmed on a 6-5 vote.

It’s also possible that a motion could be put forward to reconsider McWilliams’ confirmation, in order to eliminate the procedural controversy. However, by the end of the weekend before the meeting, no such item had been added to the agenda.

The council will also be asked to adopt an update to its solid waste plan. [Waste Less: City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Resource Plan] [Appendices to Waste Less] The update proposes a number of initiatives, including goals for increased recycling/diversion rates – both generally and for apartment buildings in particular. A pilot program would add all plate scrapings to the list of materials that can be placed in the brown carts used to collect compostable matter.

And if that pilot program is successful, the plan calls for exploring the possibility of reducing the frequency of curbside pickup – from the current weekly regime to a less frequent schedule. Also included in the draft plan is a proposal to relocate and upgrade the drop-off station at Platt and Ellsworth. The implementation of a fee for single-use bags at retail outlets is also part of the plan. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Waste as Resource: Ann Arbor's Five-Year Plan."]

The solid waste plan update could face opposition from some councilmembers who don’t think it would be feasible or desirable to reduce the frequency of curbside trash pickup to once every two weeks.

The council will be asked to give initial consideration to a new definition of a sidewalk, covering so-called cross-lot walkways. Such walkways aren’t really on the “side” of anything. They connect a street to a park or school, or two parallel streets. The item had been up for final consideration at the council’s July 1, 2013 meeting, but it was postponed until Oct. 7.

In the meantime, the city’s approach to the cross-lot walkways has changed. Currently if an existing walkway meets the definition of a “sidewalk,” then the city bears responsibility for its repair for the duration of the sidewalk repair millage. All other things being equal, the adjacent property owner would be responsible for snow removal in the winter. The new approach, to be considered on Oct. 7, would allow the cross-lot walkways to qualify as sidewalks under the city’s ordinance, but not trigger a winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners. This fresh look would mean that any action taken on Oct. 7 would be considered only an initial approval of the ordinance change.

Land use is on the agenda in the form of two developments and one annexation.

Returning to the council’s agenda is the planned unit development (PUD) zoning for the Shell/Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway. The proposal for the 1.44-acre site would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building.

The council had given initial approval for changes to the project’s PUD supplemental regulations at its Sept. 3, 2013 meeting. That’s when Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) objected to including the drive-thru as a public benefit in the regulations: “To say that somebody now doesn’t have to spend the 10 extra calories between getting out of their car to get their salt-sugar-fat fix?! I don’t see that as a public benefit and I don’t want us to list that as some big thing that we’re modifying our zoning for in our ordinance.” On that occasion, the council modified the PUD regulations to accommodate his objection. The final approval of the PUD zoning as well as the site plan is on the council’s Oct. 7 agenda.

Councilmembers will also be asked to approve a site plan for Belle Tire on the north side of Ellsworth, adjacent to and east of a different Tim Hortons – one that’s located near the intersection with South State. The currently vacant 1-acre site will become a one-story, 9,735-square-foot auto service facility with 49 parking spaces, including 10 spaces located in service bays.

The council will also be asked to vote on a standard annexation from Ann Arbor Township to the city of Ann Arbor – a 0.39-acre site at 2640 Miller Ave.

Also on the Oct. 7 agenda is an item to approve a change to fees associated with liquor licenses. Some fees are being eliminated – those related to licenses for which the state of Michigan doesn’t require local review.

Other Oct. 7 agenda highlights include an allocation for more traffic calming studies and a resolution that would direct the city administrator to apply for a Rockefeller Foundation grant to make Ann Arbor one of 100 Resilient Cities.

More details on other meeting agenda items are available on the city’s Legistar system. Readers can also follow the live meeting proceedings on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network. The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article “below the fold.” The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

6:38 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. A handful of members of the public are here who are not usual suspects: “It looks bigger on TV, doesn’t it.”

6:51 p.m. About 20 people here now. Taxicab board member Michael Benson is here, as is Jack Eaton, who is the Democratic Party nominee in Ward 4, unopposed on the Nov. 5 ballot.

6:56 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers has been in and out of council chambers since about 6:30 p.m. Peter Eckstein is here. Councilmembers have started to arrive: Jane Lumm (Ward 2), and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Jeff Hayner, Ward 1 independent city council candidate, is also here. He has his motorcycle helmet in hand.

7:03 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) has arrived. Still missing several councilmembers. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) are not expected to attend. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) has now arrived.

7:11 p.m. And we’re off.

7:13 p.m. Only eight councilmembers are present. Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2) are attending the International Downtown Association conference in New York City, which runs Oct. 6-9. A contingent of Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board members is also attending the conference. The Chronicle has not yet received a response from the DDA about which, if any, conference and travel costs are being covered by the DDA. City administrator Steve Powers responded with requested information about the council’s travel budget: $6,500 was budgeted for FY 2014 with $0 used to date. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) is also absent.

[Added on Oct. 8, 2013: Petersen responded to a Chronicle emailed inquiry by saying that the DDA is paying for her conference registration, but she is paying for her own airfare, hotel, meals, etc.]

7:16 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. Steve Powers announces an Oct. 8 meeting on WALLY station locations at 7 p.m. at the Ann Arbor Community Center. He also reports that tree removal has begun. Trees to be removed have been painted with a green dot. The report on University of Michigan football game street closures is now available, Powers says.

7:17 p.m. The report on football game day street closures has been attached to the agenda. [.pdf of UM football street closures report] Police chief John Seto gave a preliminary oral report at the council’s Sept. 16, 2013 meeting.

7:17 p.m. Proclamations. The Concordia University football team is being recognized for volunteering in the Ann Arbor parks – specifically for participating in the city’s adopt-a-facility at Fuller Park pool.

7:17 p.m. Public commentary. This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

All 10 slots have been reserved tonight, including two alternates. Thomas Partridge is signed up to promote his write-in candidacy for the Ward 5 city council seat and to call for the replacement of mayor John Hieftje, Gov. Rick Snyder and U.S. House speaker John Boehner. Signed up to speak on the amendment to the current fiscal year budget for traffic calming studies ($55,000) are: Diane Kreger, James Billingslea, Alissa Ruelle, Sheila Henley, Zoltan Jung, Lisa Richardson, and Ana Morgan (alternate). Signed up to speak on the resolution to waive attorney-client privilege are: Jeff Hayner, Peter Zetlin, Mary Underwood, and Rita Mitchell (alternate).

7:21 p.m. Diane Kreger is addressing the council. She loves living in Ann Arbor. She loves her neighborhood. She’s lived on Northside for many years, but she’s concerned about the lack of traffic calming. She calls it a “recipe for disaster.” She describes a situation where a car had come whipping down the street and almost hit a little girl. She reads a statement from a 10-year old girl, Ana Morgan, who writes that she’s not allowed to play in the front yard because the cars go faster than the 25 mph speed limit and there are no sidewalks. “Please help make my street safer for everyone,” the statement concludes.

7:25 p.m. James Billingslea notes that the traffic calming item has six of the 10 speaking slots. He says that there would have been more people who would have come to address the council, except for the limit on reserved slots. He stresses that these measures are not luxuries. He describes several of the specific locations where there are problems. He lives on Northside. It’s a short street, with 20 houses, eight of which have young children. He describes how cars often have taken out mailboxes or the stop sign. A short 25 mph street shouldn’t have to endure that, he says. There’s a blind rise and a blind corner, he says. Without the budget amendment, it would be 2017 before traffic calming measures would be implemented, he notes.

7:28 p.m. Jeff Hayner reads from the New York City charter, Chapter 68, on conflicts of interest. He asked why the council has no conflict of interest policy, citing the deliberations on Al McWilliams’ appointment to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. He says we can’t trust the national or the state government, or now the local government to make good appointments. It’s important to choose carefully. He said he’d asked to be appointed to the North Main Street Huron River task force, and the reply he’d received from Sabra Briere (Ward 1) indicated that the members of that task force had been pre-selected before the task force had been established.

7:31 p.m. Tom Partridge is now at the podium. He’s asking for write-in votes for the Ward 5 council seat. He’s a declared write-in candidate. He calls for a new attitude in Ann Arbor, one that’s family-friendly. The number of speakers in favor of traffic calming is a testament to the problem with the socio-economic environment, Partridge says. He calls for the end of crime and corruption. He calls for the replacement of mayor John Hieftje, Gov. Rick Snyder, and U.S. House speaker John Boehner. Ann Arbor and its families and college students suffer without a respectful set of attitudes, he says. Partridge calls for building affordable housing and ending homelessness in Ann Arbor.

7:34 p.m. Peter Zetlin is talking about community values related to Al McWilliams’ appointment to the DDA board. He’d looked at McWilliams’ blog and seen images of women that objectified them. He invites councilmembers to think about if the images had related to race or religion. If the images were appropriate, he asks, why did McWilliams take them down? He says McWilliams is immature. He alludes to the recommendation by Maura Thomson of McWilliams. Thomson, who’s executive director of the Main Street Area Association, declined to answer his question to her, he says: Did she still support McWilliams? Zetlin’s remarks get a smattering of applause.

7:37 p.m. Alissa Ruelle is representing residents who live on Pomona, a street that runs north-south from the water treatment facility down to Miller. Newport is a main road, but Pomona is a secondary road. Pomona winds downhill and has only one stop sign. Cars drive very fast down Pomona, she says. The neighborhood had petitioned back in 2009 for traffic calming measures. Her understanding is that the traffic calming measures are supposed to be implemented next year. Regarding the children who live on the street, she said she didn’t want their young mistakes to be their last mistakes. Residents are looking forward to traffic calming measures. Her remarks generate applause.

7:38 p.m. Sheila Henley is also representing Pomona. There are definitely kids in the neighborhood, she says. Her mother is 78 and there are Alzheimer patients. She signed the petition back in 2005, she said. She definitely supports the resolution. More applause.

7:41 p.m. Mary Underwood says that after all the “brouhaha” about the McWilliams appointment, she decided to look at his blog. She calls it third-grade level potty humor. She’s embarrassed for the mayor, the council, and downtown merchants. She questions the ability of McWilliams to exercise good judgment. She asks if he was the best candidate that could be found to represent the city. She refers to a phrase that she attributes to McWilliams about an ice cream promotion: “Hey everybody, don’t forget to shove an ice cream cone up your ass.”

7:43 p.m. Zoltan Jung is speaking on behalf of the Northside neighborhood in support of traffic calming measures. He characterizes the demographics as a bimodal distribution of very old and very young. Our kids run and play on this street, he says. Cars bounce off the neighbor’s tree and wind up in his yard, he reports.

7:46 p.m. Lisa Richardson lives on Wells, seven houses from Packard and Burns Park Elementary. Drivers routinely speed down the street, using it as a cut-through. Someone is going to be injured or killed, she says. Fourteen small children live on the street, she says. No one stops at the three-way stop, she says. When drivers turn onto Wells, they “gun it” to get to Packard, in order to make the light, Richardson reports. A traffic study was completed in 2010, she said, but it’s not scheduled for implementation until 2016. The city knows that a dangerous situation exists and results in liability for the city. The reaction time of drivers doesn’t allow them to react if they’re speeding. She thinks the city needs to look at speeding on all the city’s roads. Lots of applause follows her commentary.

7:46 p.m. Council communications. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:49 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) responds to Jeff Hayner’s remarks during public commentary about the task force appointments. Often a task force is appointed the same night they are established, she says. When the North Main Huron River task force was established, many people stepped forward and asked that additional seats be added. They’d tried to make the process open and transparent. Many of the non-members of the task force had attended meetings and helped the process.

Briere also reports that a public meeting will take place on Wednesday, Oct. 9 at 6:30 p.m. at Clague Middle School about the intersection of Dhu Varren, Green and Nixon roads. She also notes that she attended the Michigan Association of Planning conference in Kalamazoo the previous weekend.

7:52 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is talking about the crosswalk ordinance and the possibility of repealing the city’s ordinance and replacing it with the uniform vehicle code. It sounds like that proposal will be coming forward at a future meeting. On the topic of education about crosswalk safety, Lumm says there’s the possibility about posting signs for bicyclists to educate them about how to approach crosswalks. This is appropriate in the context of launching a bike sharing program next spring, she says. She wants the signs placed first at the busiest crosswalks. She also thanks city administrator Steve Powers for the announcement about tree removal.

7:54 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) says that as the city has less money, residents will come forward about public safety, health and welfare issues. He says that signs could work as traffic calming devices. He also suggests that concrete barriers be placed on streets. “Drivers will not go through impediments,” he says.

7:55 p.m. Appointments. The council will be asked to vote tonight on nominations that were made at the Sept. 16, 2013 meeting. Those include Brock Hastie to the employees’ retirement system board of trustees. That’s a re-appointment. Being appointed to the city’s energy commission tonight are Erik Eibert (replacing Cliff Williams), and Elizabeth Gibbons (replacing Josh Long). Being appointed to fill a vacancy on the housing and human services advisory board is Kyle Hunter, and to fill a vacancy on the recreation advisory commission is Katie Lewit.

7:57 p.m. There’s back and forth between Anglin and Hieftje on the nomination of Wayne Appleyard to the city’s energy commission. Appleyard’s nomination was not moved tonight, Hieftje says. Anglin responds that he doesn’t think it’s necessary to recruit people who don’t live in the city. Appleyard is not a city resident. Hieftje is now saying that he will probably bring the nomination forward at a later time.

7:59 p.m. Appleyard’s confirmation, as a non-city resident, would have needed seven votes, which he would likely not have received, given the short-handed council tonight. From the city charter: [emphasis added]:

Section 12.2. Except as otherwise provided in this charter, a person is eligible to hold a City office if the person has been a registered elector of the City, or of territory annexed to the City or both, and, in the case of a Council Member, a resident of the ward from which elected, for at least one year immediately preceding election or appointment. This requirement may be waived as to appointive officers by resolution concurred in by not less than seven members of the Council.

Appleyard lives in Grass Lake, Mich., according to the nomination information. The city energy commission was established in 1985 by a council resolution to “oversee City policies and regulations in areas of energy efficiency concerns and make periodic public reports and recommendations to the City Council.” Under special qualifications, the online Legistar description states: “wide spread representation; interest in energy.”

Appleyard has served on the energy commission since 2002. Terms of appointment for energy commissioners are three years. When Appleyard was up for reappointment in 2010, no objections were raised. Hieftje separated out Appleyard’s confirmation for a separate vote at that time to ensure it was clear that he’d specifically received adequate support from the council, despite not being a city resident. Appleyard is principal with Sunstructures Architects, with a focus in renewable energy and sustainable architecture.

7:59 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting.

Five public hearings are scheduled tonight. Separate public hearings are being held for PUD (planned unit development) zoning and site plan for the Shell/Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway. The changes to the PUD supplemental regulations on the 1.44-acre site would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building.

The third public hearing is on a site plan for Belle Tire. The 1-acre site – currently vacant – is on the north side of Ellsworth, adjacent to and east of a new Tim Hortons. That’s a different Tim Hortons from the one that’s the subject of the Shell station PUD. The Belle Tire proposal calls for putting up a one-story, 9,735-square-foot auto service facility with 49 parking spaces, including 10 spaces located in service bays. The planning commission voted to recommend approval of the Belle Tire site plan at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting.

The fourth public hearing is on a standard annexation – from Ann Arbor Township to the city of Ann Arbor. It’s 0.39 acres, located at 2640 Miller Ave.

The final public hearing is on a change to fees associated with liquor licenses. Some fees are being eliminated – those related to licenses for which the state of Michigan doesn’t require local review. And the remaining license fee schedule is being revised to reflect actual costs:

• on-premise liquor license annual renewal: $90 (increase from $50)
• new liquor license: $600 (reduction from $2,500)
• new liquor license application fee: $150 (increase from $100)
• new DDA district license: $600 (reduction from $1,000)

8:01 p.m. PH: Shell/Tim Hortons PUD zoning. Thomas Partridge is holding forth. He says it’s a very busy location. He contends there’s no evidence of a traffic study being done, especially during rush hour. He asks that the proposal be referred back to the planning commission.

8:03 p.m. A resident who lives near the corner of Eisenhower and Ann Arbor-Saline Road is speaking. A number of concerns had been voiced by residents, none of which had been addressed so far, he says. Because of the speed on Ann Arbor-Saline, bicyclists use the sidewalk. So he has concerns about pedestrians being impacted by this development. Planning staff contends that traffic would not increase, but he is skeptical. He asks that the project be referred to the planning commission for further review.

8:05 p.m. A resident of Pomona, who’s a practicing Muslim, wants to advocate against negative perceptions of Muslims. Hieftje explains that speakers must address the topic of the public hearing. The resident thanks the mayor for the explanation and leaves the podium.

8:06 p.m. PH: Shell/Tim Hortons site plan. Thomas Partridge is again criticizing the project based on traffic issues.

8:08 p.m. PH: Belle Tire site plan. No one speaks at this public hearing.

8:11 p.m. PH: Rayer annexation. Thomas Partridge says he’s very concerned about the proliferation of zoning changes and annexations that are brought before the council without transparent information about them. He calls for this annexation proposal to be returned to the planning commission, so that an equal amount of acreage should be zoned for affordable housing and for businesses on public transportation routes.

8:14 p.m. PH: Liquor license review fees. Jeff Hayner is addressing the council on this issue. He’d just received a text message from a Ward 1 bar owner. The bar owner’s message says that lowering the fee for new licenses helps reduce the barrier to entry, but the owner is not in favor of the increase of fees for existing license holders. He appreciated the fact that the city wants to cover its staff costs.

8:17 p.m. Thomas Partridge is concerned about the loss of income to the city through the lowering of the fees. He calls for the proposal to be returned to the council’s liquor license review committee, to see if fees can be raised.

8:18 p.m. A young man is addressing the council based on free market principles. It should be easier to start businesses in all areas. We should make it cheaper to obtain liquor licenses, he says. He gets applause.

8:24 p.m. Minutes. Kunselman alludes to an updated version of the council minutes. He questions whether the minutes accurately reflect the McWilliams confirmation to the DDA board. Kunselman reviews the Sept. 3 meeting minutes. He now reviews the Sept.16 meeting minutes. He asks mayor John Hieftje to correct the characterization that the mayor gave on Sept. 16 when he said the nomination had been “postponed.” Kunselman notes that the nomination was crossed out after the Sept. 3 meeting. There’s a blow-by-blow here: “Column: How to Count to 8, Stopping at 6.”

8:24 p.m. Kailasapathy says she thought the nomination of McWilliams had been withdrawn on Sept. 3.

8:28 p.m. Kunselman asks that the minutes be amended to say that the mayor “pretended” the nomination had been postponed. Briere expresses no enthusiasm for discussing it. She asks for input from city attorney Stephen Postema. Postema says that it’s not a legal issue, and that what the council is being asked to do is approve the minutes. Anglin ventures that the minutes could be approved with an exception. There’s no interest in that from Kunselman.

8:28 p.m. Warpehoski says that Kunselman is proposing to falsify the historical record, and that he’s just engaging in political theater.

8:35 p.m. Lumm says that she thought McWilliams’ name had been withdrawn and was surprised to see it brought forward on Sept. 16. She says she wished she’d had better command of the parliamentary procedures. Teall says she thought the confirmation had been postponed on Sept. 3. She tells Kunselman that what he’s proposing isn’t accurate.

8:39 p.m. Kunselman says that others took the mayor at his word when he said he was withdrawing the nomination. There’s back and forth between Teall and Kunselman on the question of what Hieftje’s intent was. Briere raises a point of order, asking Hieftje to recognize each speaker in turn to regulate the speaking turns.

Hieftje apologizes for contributing to the murkiness. He says his intent was to have the motion for confirmation withdrawn, but not to withdraw the nomination. If he had it to do over again, he would have said that he wanted to have the motion withdrawn. But Hieftje says he doesn’t have a problem having the minutes amended to reflect the exact transcript of the meeting.

8:40 p.m. Outcome: The amendment on the minutes is unanimously approved, as are the minutes themselves.

8:40 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• Contract with TSP Services, Inc. for the demolition of farmhouse, barns and outbuildings at the Wheeler Service Center ($57,940)
• Purchase Order to Telvent USA for Fiber Optic Network (FON) asset management software ($41,520)
• Schedule 17 of interagency agreement for collaborative technology and services (Washtenaw County, Provider) ($80,643)
• Transfer Delinquent water utility, board up, clean up, vacant property inspection, housing inspection, fire inspection, fire alarm, police alarm and graffiti removal invoices to the December 2013 City Tax Roll
• Professional services agreement with The Azimuth Group, Inc. for organizational development ($53,010) This consultant is supposed to help the city over the next 18 months to develop “strategies and tactics to improve employee engagement, improve organizational alignment with the City’s mission statement, and foster a cohesive organizational culture.”
• Street closings for the Ann Arbor Thanksgiving Day Turkey Trot – Thursday, Nov. 28, 2013
• Purchase of a turf aerator and a thatcher/seeder from Spartan Distributors ($29,989)
• Purchase of a light rescue vehicle for the fire department from Red Holman GMC ($26,777)

8:41 p.m. Briere pulls out the Azimuth Group Inc. professional services agreement from the consent agenda, to be considered separately.

8:42 p.m. Briere asks city administrator Steve Powers to explain the item. Powers says the intent is to help improve the city government’s ability to organize among the departments and to align the staff with the priorities set by the council. He describes the involvement of the consultant as lasting about 12 months.

8:42 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the consent agenda.

8:42 p.m. Shell/Tim Hortons PUD zoning. The Shell/Tim Hortons is at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway. The changes to the PUD (planned unit development) supplemental regulations on the 1.44-acre site would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building.

8:44 p.m. Teall invites city planning manager Wendy Rampson to address the traffic issues. Rampson indicates that the study concluded that most of the traffic that would be turning into the drive-thru would already be on the road.

8:44 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the changes to the PUD supplemental regulations for the Shell/Tim Hortons drive-thru on Ann Arbor-Saline Road.

8:45 p.m. Shell/Tim Hortons site plan. A request for approval of the site plan for this project is considered separately.

8:45 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the site plan for the Shell/Tim Hortons drive-thru on Ann Arbor-Saline Road.

8:45 p.m. Recess. The council is now in recess.

8:54 p.m. Have been told by his elementary school principal from years ago, that the young man who addressed the council during the liquor license public hearing was Josh Nacht, David Nacht’s son.

8:56 p.m. We’re back.

8:56 p.m. Sidewalk ordinance changes. This ordinance change – to the definition of a sidewalk – was up for final approval on July 1, 2013. If an existing walkway meets the definition of a “sidewalk,” then the city bears responsibility for its repair for the duration of the sidewalk repair millage – which was approved by voters in November 2011 for a five-year period. All other things being equal, the adjacent property owner would be responsible for snow removal in the winter.

The change to the definition relates to walkways that aren’t really on the “side” of anything – walkways that connect a street to a park or school, or that connect two parallel streets. The city calls them “cross-lot” walkways. The ordinance change would allow such walkways to be “sidewalks” if the council votes to accept them for “public use.” A companion resolution later on the agenda would do that – for 34 cross-lot walkways.

If such walkways were added into the definition of “sidewalk” in this way, then the city would be responsible for repair. That’s a result welcomed by property owners. But all other things being equal, that would put the burden for snow removal on those property owners – a less welcome result. That was the sentiment that led the council to postpone final consideration of the change back in July.

But tonight the council will be asked to consider a different approach to that definitional change – one that would allow the so-called “cross-lot” paved pathways to qualify as sidewalks under the city’s ordinance, but not trigger a winter maintenance requirement for adjacent property owners. This fresh look tonight would mean that any action taken would be considered only an initial approval of the ordinance change. Final enactment of the change would require a second vote at a subsequent council meeting.

8:59 p.m. Briere thanks the staff for responding to concerns of the council. The ordinance doesn’t just change the definition, but also makes clear that adjacent property owners are not responsible for winter snow clearance or mowing the grass. Historically, they’ve never been responsible, she says. She notes that this approach will eliminate the possibility that one of four property owners might be regarded as a “slacker.” Lumm also says she’ll support the ordinance tonight.

9:01 p.m. Lumm says the original intent was a good one – to allow the sidewalk repair funds to be used for these cross-lot paths. She compliments the staff for looking at other communities. The $7,000 cost to the city for repair and maintenance, she says, is “peanuts.” It’s just what local government should do, she says.

Kunselman also says he supports this approach. He wants to know what happens if a renewal of the sidewalk repair millage does not pass.

9:01 p.m. Cresson Slotten, manager of the city’s systems planning unit, says that if that millage were not renewed, the property owners would still not have any responsibility.

9:07 p.m. Responding to a question from Anglin, Slotten indicates that the new ordinance makes clear that adjacent property owners do not have responsibility for repair and maintenance. Anglin wants it to be made clearer. Briere says she can understand Anglin’s confusion, because the two parts of the ordinance don’t appear to be related. But she reiterates Slotten’s point that the ordinance simply states that property owners don’t have responsibility for cross-lot walkways.

Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias explains that the exception for the cross-lot walkways is an absolute exception – that is, not contingent on the passage of the sidewalk repair millage. Lumm is now saying that this clarification was sent to the property owners, saying it was “great work on staff’s part.”

9:14 p.m. Warpehoski brings up subsection (B) and wonders if it voids existing agreements with neighborhood associations. Elias says that it’s an exception to the exception. Anglin wants the city to provide a document for residents that they can keep with their deeds. Kailasapathy questions whether the cross-lot walkways belong to the property owners. Elias is reluctant to record any documents with deeds, because the council can change the ordinance in the future.

9:17 p.m. Anglin says a resident has just handed him some communication he’d received from the city in 2009. That communication had stated that the resident now had responsibility for maintenance. Anglin suggests that a similar communication could be sent to state that people don’t have responsibility.

Slotten responds to a question from Warpehoski saying that two of the 34 cross-lot walkways have existing maintenance agreements with a homeowner’s association. Elias says that the agreements with the homeowner’s associations will remain intact.

9:19 p.m. Kunselman asks about the dates in the ordinance that refer to the Ann Arbor DDA. Elias allows that the ordinance would need to be revised if the sidewalk repair millage is renewed. She explains that this is part of the ordinance that relates to ordinary sidewalks on the side of streets.

9:19 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to give initial approval to the inclusion of cross-lot walkways in the definition of sidewalk, but without the associated requirement that adjacent property owners are responsible for snow clearance.

9:20 p.m. Accept 34 sidewalks for public use (8 votes required). This is the companion resolution to the ordinance change that would broaden the definition of a sidewalk to include cross-lot walkways. The ordinance change – which was given initial approval earlier in the meeting – allows such walkways to qualify as sidewalks for purposes of spending from the sidewalk repair millage, without triggering a winter maintenance requirement by adjacent property owners. But to qualify, the walkways must be accepted for public use by the city council. This resolution would accept 34 cross-lot walkways for public use.

9:20 p.m. Lumm moves to postpone. It will be considered at the second reading of the ordinance change. Steve Powers confirms it should be postponed.

9:21 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to postpone acceptance of 34 different cross-lot walkways for public use until the council’s Oct. 21 meeting

9:21 p.m. Authorization of sewage disposal revenue re-funding bonds.

9:22 p.m. Lumm says she appreciates that all the costs associated with the bond issuance are included in the savings.

9:22 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the re-funding of the sewage disposal revenue bonds.

9:22 p.m. Liquor license fee changes. This item is coming forward from the liquor license review committee. Some fees are being eliminated – those related to licenses for which the state of Michigan doesn’t require local review. And the remaining license fee schedule is being revised to reflect actual costs:

• on-premise liquor license annual renewal – $90 (increase from $50)
• new liquor license – $600 (reduction from $2,500)
• new liquor license application fee – $150 (increase from $100)
• new DDA district license – $600 (reduction from $1,000)

9:24 p.m. Lumm is speaking on behalf of the council’s liquor license review committee. She explains that transfers don’t require review by the state, so those fees are being eliminated. She notes that the adjustments are meant to reflect the actual underlying city costs. The fees hadn’t been reviewed in a quite a while, she says.

9:25 p.m. Lumm thanks the various staff who helped with the recommendation.

9:25 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the changes to the liquor license fees.

9:25 p.m. 100 Resilient Cities Centennial challenge grant application. This resolution directs the city administrator to apply for the grant, which is sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation. Each of 100 winning cities will receive three forms of support, according to the Rockefeller Foundation website:

• membership in the newly formed 100 Resilient Cities Network, which will provide support to member cities and share new knowledge and resilience best practices.
• support to hire a chief resilience officer (CRO). The CRO would oversee the development of a resilience strategy for the city.
• support to create a resilience plan, along with tools and resources for implementation.

9:26 p.m. Warpehoski says the resolution was recommended by the city environmental commission. He says it might be somewhat of a long shot, but the strength of the city’s application resides in the work that the city has already done. Staff effort to put together the application is not anticipated to be onerous, he says.

9:29 p.m. Kailasapathy asks Matt Naud, environmental coordinator for the city, to come to the podium. She asks about working toward rankings compared to actually approving the quality of life. Naud says that the amount of the grant would be $1 million, with the only requirement that the city name someone as the chief resilience officer. Kailasapathy asks about staff time. Naud says the city would be buying someone to work on this for the period of the grant. He says it would supplement the work that the city is already doing.

9:30 p.m. Kunselman asks what “resiliency” means in this context and what would the city be planning for. Naud’s first try gets this response from Kunselman: “You didn’t answer my question.” Naud says it’s being resilient to natural and made-made disasters. He refers to emergency management and climate action plans as examples.

9:32 p.m. Briere says that the environmental commission, on which she serves as a councilmember, has been talking about resiliency. It includes helping neighborhoods to make connections to the city to make sure that assistance can be provided – to deal with a tree that’s fallen down or a road that’s collapsed. The goal is to create the capacity to recover quickly when things go wrong, she says.

9:34 p.m. Briere says the issue has been studied in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina, as well as in Chicago, studying how neighborhoods responded to economic downturns. Anglin wonders if these grants were intended for cities much larger than Ann Arbor.

9:35 p.m. Anglin says he thinks it’s a good idea to be prepared. Hieftje says he doesn’t see a reason not to apply. The reward could be great. He ventures that these kinds of grants tend to be awarded to cities that already have “a lot on the ball.” Ann Arbor is not immune from natural disasters, he says. He calls the departure of Pfizer as an economic storm that the city had weathered very well. He appreciates the environmental commission bringing it forward.

9:36 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to direct the city administrator to apply for the Rockefeller Foundation 100 Resilient Cities grant.

9:36 p.m. Street closure for University of Michigan Victors for Michigan Campaign. The Victors campaign is the university’s capital fundraising campaign. The proposed street closure would shut down North University from Thayer to Fletcher from noon to midnight on Friday, Nov. 8, 2013 for the launch of the campaign. The staff memo indicates that the activities will include live music, entertainment, activities, free food and drinks and giveaways. The event itself starts at 5 p.m.

9:36 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the street closure for the UM Victors campaign.

9:36 p.m. Amend FY 2014 general fund budget for traffic calming (speed bumps) projects ($55,000). (8 votes required). This resolution would add an additional five traffic calming projects to the work plan over this year and the next fiscal year. Starting in 2010, the city had reduced the number of traffic calming studies that it would fund to just one per year. Tonight’s resolution would transfer $55,000 from the city’s general fund to the local street fund, to pay for an additional two studies this year (FY 2014). In addition, the resolution directs city administrator Steve Powers to include three traffic calming projects in FY 2015.

The five projects mentioned in the resolution are: South Boulevard (Ward 3 – qualified for traffic calming in 2009); Pomona Road (Ward 5 – qualified in 2009); Wells (Ward 3 – qualified in 2009); Larchmont Drive (Ward 2 – qualified in 2010); Northside (Ward 1 – qualified in 2012). The resolution is being sponsored by Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3).

9:40 p.m. Briere says that her neighborhood had sought traffic calming measures back in about 2003. They’d first asked for stop signs and had been told they couldn’t have them. She recalled the confusion about the petitioning process. She’s describing her neighborhood’s experience in a fair amount of detail. Duck and mating season are a point of information. A porch was torn off by a speeding car. A stopped speeder told the police officer to just keep her driver’s license because she was in a hurry. Briere is now talking about the importance of addressing the traffic calming measures in other neighborhoods.

9:42 p.m. Kailasapathy says that cars speeding down quiet streets is not the kind of Ann Arbor we want to see. Traffic calming helps make neighborhoods livable, she says. She’s contrasting the importance of funding projects like this, with the constant push to focus on the downtown area.

9:46 p.m. Lumm says she’s happy to co-sponsor the resolution, and thanks Briere and Kailasapathy. She asks Nick Hutchinson, senior project manager, some questions. He says that the five petitions mentioned in the resolution are the only petitions currently active.

Lumm wants to know if the money allocated for the State Street corridor study could be used for the FY 2014 traffic calming. City administrator Steve Powers indicates that the State Street corridor study is complete. There’s also a State Street traffic study, he says. Community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl explains that the study in the FY 2014 budget is for traffic and transportation in the State Street area.

9:47 p.m. Lumm says she’s supportive of the resolution and is glad to see it move forward. Kunselman says he’s also supportive.

9:48 p.m. Kunselman says he’s concerned about a future backlog. He says he’d hate to have a backlog in FY 2016. He wants to know who makes the decisions about opening up the petitioning process.

9:51 p.m. Nick Hutchinson says the FY 2014 would need to be done by June 30, 2014. The other two would need to be done after July 1, 2014. Kunselman says there are a number of street projects coming up in FY 2014. Kunselman wants to know if the traffic calming project would impact the staff’s ability to complete those projects. The design, Hutchinson says, is not complicated. It’s more the public engagement process that requires effort. He says the 2010 decision to suspend acceptance of petitions was made by the public services area administrator at the time [Sue McCormick].

9:54 p.m. Kunselman is pressing for details about the program. He wants to know why more money wasn’t already budgeted n FY 2014. Powers says it was a question of priority. Kunselman wants to know why the council would now amend the budget. Briere ventures that the reason that the city council didn’t ask for more traffic calming is that they had forgotten that such projects were done. She says the neighborhoods might not have pestered councilmembers about it.

10:00 p.m. Teall says that the rerouted traffic from the East Stadium bridges project had led a neighborhood to delay a request for traffic calming. Lumm says she now has a list of streets where people have said they want traffic calming for their streets. She suggests that the $237,000 of street funds in the public art fund could be tapped for additional traffic calming projects. She wants information from the city attorney about how to proceed with that. That seems like a logical and appropriate source for funding traffic calming.

Briere says she appreciates the reminder about the public art fund. She notes that the public art ordinance would need to be amended in order to return those public art funds to the street fund.

10:04 p.m. Kunselman says he doesn’t think that the street millage fund can be used for traffic calming. But he wants more information about how to fund it for a much longer duration. He doesn’t want a stop-and-go approach for the funding of the program. As much as he’d like to spend the money, he says he still wants to be careful. It would open up the door for other safety projects – streetlights, crosswalks and the like.

10:04 p.m. Kunselman wants a postponement. [As a budget amendment, the resolution needs eight votes and any one of the councilmembers could effectively "veto" the resolution.] Kunselman moves for postponement.

Anglin is holding forth. Teall raises a point of order, saying that Anglin should be speaking to the postponement. Anglin replies that he’s speaking about a reason for the postponement – he wants a more scientific way of looking at it. Lumm understands the intent of the postponement, but won’t support it. The resolution tonight is modest, she says.

10:09 p.m. Briere says she appreciates Kunselman goal in postponement. She feels it’s an infrastructure improvement, so it’s a resolution consistent with the council’s priorities. It focuses on Kunselman’s regular critique of the council, she notes – that the council doesn’t focus on health, safety and welfare. Briere says she appreciates the need for more data, but thinks a lot of the data already exists.

Teall says she won’t support the postponement, but appreciates what Kunselman’s goal is – to look at the issue more comprehensively.

10:09 p.m. Outcome on postponement: The motion to postpone fails.

10:12 p.m. Kunselman says he’ll support the resolution. It brings forth a new era of projects supporting safety in neighborhoods, he says. Lumm reiterates her support of the resolution.

Hieftje recalls being around when the traffic calming program started. During the recession, many things were cut, he says. He warned there is pushback on these kinds of projects, because some people don’t support traffic calming.

10:12 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to add five traffic calming projects.

10:12 p.m. Waive attorney-client privilege. If approved, the resolution would result in the waiver of attorney-client privilege with respect to a specific advice memo that has already been written by the city attorney’s office. The memo responds to questions that were raised about the procedure used to appoint Al McWilliams to the board of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority at the council’s Sept. 16, 2013 meeting.

Mayor John Hieftje had asked the council to vote on McWilliams’ appointment after saying at a previous meeting that he was withdrawing the nomination. Under the council’s rules, an 8-vote majority is required for confirmation of an appointment when the nomination is made at the same meeting when the confirmation vote is taken. McWilliams was confirmed on a 6-5 vote.

The advice memo likely establishes that it’s doubtful a successful court challenge could be brought – partly because it’s not clear who might have standing to bring such a suit. A “whereas” clause in the waiver resolution states that “the public good will be best served by releasing this advice to the public.” The first of two “resolved” clauses makes clear that the waiver of the attorney-client privilege is confined to a narrow circumstance: “The Council waives privilege in this specific circumstance, as the waiver of privilege does not expose the City to material legal risk and disclosure of the legal issues raised in this memo would not unduly constrain future Council actions.”

10:18 p.m. Warpehoski explains that the resolution was developed before the city attorney’s advice memo was written. The city attorney’s advice is generally confidential for a good reason, he says. Warpehoski proposes four tests: (1) legal risk should be small; (2) public interest is wide; (3) release of information doesn’t unduly constrain future council action; and (4) it doesn’t blindside the city attorney. Based on conversations with Christopher Taylor and the city attorney, Warpehoski says, the idea is to ask that an opinion, for a third party, be written as opposed to waiving privilege for an existing document.

10:21 p.m. Warpehoski is explaining the difference between the first draft of the resolution and the revised one: “That City Council requests that the City Attorney draft an opinion by October 16, 2013 for the benefit of the public that answers whether the September 16, 2013 vote to appoint Al McWilliams to the DDA can be challenged on the grounds that the confirmation motion should have required 8 votes…”

10:23 p.m. Postema says that it would make no sense for him to prepare an opinion for an audience outside the council in the ordinary course of business. But this resolution is an action taken by the council, his client, so he’s prepared to draft the opinion.

10:27 p.m. Kailasapathy addresses the issue of the public’s interest. Postema says that the vote was taken and the vote was announced. The legal significance of that is the only thing he’s going to put in his opinion, and the answer is going to be fairly easy.

Kailasapathy is not satisfied: “People are really upset.” She’s really troubled that the legal opinion will be so narrowly focused. She’s concerned about the integrity of the entire confirmation process. Briere says that the city attorney has suggested that the rules be revised to make the appointment process clear. She says she’s not sure how to change the outcome of the vote. She doesn’t know how Kailasapathy’s goal can be realized – which Briere thinks is to rescind McWilliams’ nomination.

10:31 p.m. Kunselman says he finds the resolution bizarre, because the provision in the charter already sets forth the procedure for filing the opinion. Kunselman reviews the arguments regarding the procedural requirement of 8 votes. He reviews his email correspondence with the city clerk. Kunselman says that the clerk has asked the city attorney for advice, which Kunselman says triggers the charter requirement for when an administrative head requests advice. Postema says that he responds only to council requests.

Hieftje says he’s happy to support the resolution.

10:36 p.m. Anglin says that anyone who voted in favor could bring it back now. Warpehoski asks Kailasapathy what she was looking for in the resolution. She says she doesn’t have the exact verbiage. She feels that justice was not served. It was not just the council feeling blindsided, but also the public. Warpehoski says he hears that, and as he reads Roberts Rules, he doesn’t see a motion to reconsider as being in order – based on the DDA Act that states that a member can only be removed after a public hearing. He was ready to move forward with a motion to reconsider, but doesn’t think it’s in order under parliamentary rules.

10:39 p.m. Kunselman says that city clerk Jackie Beaudry was due a response. Postema says she was not due a response. Kunselman asks Postema if Warpehoski could bring back the motion for reconsideration. Postema says that’s up to Warpehoski to answer. Warpehoski says that the outcome of the confirmation vote has been partially executed, and for that reason Roberts Rules would prohibit it.

10:41 p.m. Kunselman asks Hieftje if he would allow Warpehoski to bring a motion to reconsider. Hieftje appeals to the DDA Act and what’s required for removal of a DDA member. Kunselman says that the entire board has engaged in willful neglect. So that would be the “cause” that could be used to remove members of the DDA board.

10:46 p.m. Lumm says it’s important to clear the air on this. Postema says that the question is the legal effect of the vote. Lumm says that that doesn’t clear the air. She discusses various council rules.

10:46 p.m. Anglin says that the councilmembers who are “hiding behind” legal consideration should move for a reconsideration.

10:47 p.m. Outcome: The council voted over dissent from Mike Anglin to direct the city attorney to draft an opinion on McWilliams’ appointment.

10:48 p.m. Closed session. The council has voted to go into closed session to discuss land acquisition.

11:08 p.m. We’re back from closed session that was followed by a recess.

11:08 p.m. Adopt solid waste resource plan. The council is being asked to adopt a plan that includes a number of initiatives, including goals for increased recycling/diversion rates – generally and for apartment buildings in particular. A pilot program would add all plate scrapings to the materials that can be placed in the brown carts used to collect compostable matter. And if that pilot program is successful, the plan calls for the possibility of reducing the frequency of curbside pickup – from the current weekly regime to a less frequent schedule.

Also included in the draft plan is a proposal to relocate and upgrade the drop-off station at Platt and Ellsworth. The implementation of a fee for single-use bags at retail outlets is also part of the plan. Previous Chronicle coverage: Waste as Resource: Ann Arbor’s Five Year Plan[Waste Less: City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Resource Plan.] [Appendices to Waste Less]

11:12 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 5) is explaining the background of how the plan was developed. The goal is to reduce the amount of material that is thrown away, she says. Solid waste manager Tom McMurtrie is at the podium explaining that there was a lot of participation from various parts of the community to develop the plan. There’s a big item that the plan includes, he says – reduced organic waste. It’s the next big “frontier,” he says, to expand organics collection for composting.

11:16 p.m. Briere is now asking questions of McMurtrie. When the manual sorting of the waste in a truck had been done, she said, it was hard to estimate how much food waste could be diverted. McMurtrie explained that it was hard because it was mixed in with all the other material, and he asked councilmembers to imagine “ripping open garbage bags pawing through material.”

Responding to a question from Briere, McMurtrie allows there will be increased costs associated with processing food waste.

11:19 p.m. Briere asks McMurtrie to address the issue of some items that could not be composted – like diapers. McMurtrie described the plan as directing the evaluation of reduced frequency, not to implement it. He gives Portland as an example. Briere ventures that the food waste collection could be implemented and then be evaluated for the potential. She says that reduced frequency could voluntarily be implemented by people simply not setting out their carts if they’re not full.

11:23 p.m. Lumm thanks all those involved. She understands that the plan doesn’t commit the city to particular actions, but is concerned about some that are mentioned – like the reduced frequency of trash pickup. People can’t believe that the solid waste millage, which generates $12 million annually, she says, isn’t enough to pay for weekly trash pickup. She calls this the most basic and fundamental service to residents. She moves an amendment to the solid waste plan, to remove all references to every-other-week curbside pickup. Kailasapathy also wants “pay as you throw” to be deleted from the plan.

11:26 p.m. Lumm considers Kailasapathy’s suggestion friendly. Lumm recalls her previous tenure on the council when pay-as-you-throw proposals had been studied. Briere tells McMurtrie that she recalls him saying that not everything the city has done in the last 10 years has been included in the plan. She ventures that even if mention of the frequency reduction is omitted, it’s still possible that it could be implemented. McMurtrie says yes, but not without approval of the council.

11:34 p.m. Kunselman brings up RecycleBank. He also questions whether Portland should be used as an example, since that region doesn’t deal with freezing weather. Kunselman says that he supports the amendments. He says that if you leave a baby diaper in a cart for more than a week, it will be pretty “rank.”

Teall won’t support the amendments. You have to study an issue, she said, to find out if it will work. She’s grateful that we live in an environment where “poop freezes,” Teall says. Warpehoski teases Teall that the council will not appoint her – a reference to the McWilliams appointment to the DDA.

11:41 p.m. Hieftje says that Portland is generally regarded as a model city in the U.S. Briere says that it’s possible to track how often people set out their refuse carts, so the city could measure the impact of its efforts. Briere points out that Portland has privatized its trash collection, so its approach can’t be compared directly.

Kunselman says that Briere’s point is an important piece of information. He asks if Portland has a “dumping problem.” McMurtrie says that hasn’t been researched. Briere says she couldn’t find anything on that topic. Responding to Teall’s point that there’s a lot of citizens who really like to reduce, reuse, and recycle, Kunselman says he’s one of them. But it’s important to give residents confidence that the city is staying on track with weekly trash collection.

11:47 p.m. Hieftje wants to have the amendments on pay-as-you-throw and on every-other-week trash collection separated out again. Lumm and Kailasapathy agree to that. Hieftje says that on his block, many people don’t put out their trash every week. Warpehoski says he understands Teall’s frustration about not being leaders. But he’ll support the amendment on the mention of every-other-week. There’s other lower hanging fruit than food waste – like improving multi-family recycling rates – which offer less angst, he says.

11:50 p.m. Kunselman says there’s nothing he likes more than “talking trash,” apparently completely aware of the pun. He was responding to Hieftje’s effort to move the council along to a vote on the amendment. Lumm says she supports the amendment.

11:51 p.m. Outcome on the every-other-week amendment: The council has approved the amendment over dissent from Hieftje and Teall.

11:52 p.m. Kailasapathy is now arguing for her amendment that would remove mention of pay-as-you-throw from the five-year solid waste plan. Hieftje says he’ll support the amendment and hopes it’ll move along quickly.

11:53 p.m. Outcome on the pay-as-you-throw amendment: The council has unanimously approved the amendment removing mention of pay-as-you-throw as a possibility.

11:57 p.m. Anglin has raised the question of how dangerous materials are disposed of, like fluorescent light bulbs. Lumm says she’ll support the solid waste plan. Kunselman reads a headline out of Portland indicating that when Portland switched to every-other-week pickup, dirty diapers started piling up in recycling bins.

11:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to adopt the solid waste plan as amended.

11:58 p.m. Belle Tire site plan. The planning commission recommended approval of the site plan at its Aug. 20, 2013 meeting. The site is located at 590 W. Ellsworth – just east of the intersection with South State Street.

Aerial view of a proposed Belle Tire site.

The 1-acre site – currently vacant – is on the north side of Ellsworth, adjacent to and east of a new Tim Hortons. A restaurant building formerly located on the property was demolished.

The proposal calls for putting up a one-story, 9,735-square-foot auto service facility with 49 parking spaces, included 10 spaces located in service bays. An existing curb cut into the site from Ellsworth would be closed, and the business would share an entrance with the Tim Hortons site. The project includes a new sidewalk along Ellsworth.

11:58 p.m. Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the Belle Tire site plan.

11:58 p.m. Rayer annexation. This is a standard annexation into the city of Ann Arbor. It’s 0.39 acres, located at 2640 Miller Ave.

11:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the Rayer annexation.

11:58 p.m. Annual purchase order for U.P.M. high performance cold patch material (pothole repair) Barrett Paving Materials Inc. ($116,500). UPM seems to stand for “universal patching material.”

11:59 p.m. Briere says it’s always good to see it on the list of things the city is doing.

11:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to approve the purchase of cold patch material.

11:59 p.m. Easement for water main from the University of Michigan at 2850 South Industrial Highway (8 votes required). The easement is needed in connection with the construction of a bus storage facility at the adjacent Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority headquarters at 2700 South Industrial Hwy.

11:59 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to accept the easement for a water main from the University of Michigan.

12:08 a.m. Open agenda. Warpehoski wants to open the agenda to reconsider the McWilliams nomination. Agenda is now open.

Warpehoski moves reconsideration of the nomination. He says that whether it took six or eight votes, the ruling of the meeting made at the meeting should stand, saying that it’s too late to raise a point of order. A point of order has to be made at the time of breech breach. So he feels the vote stands.

However, for purposes of the public interest and the smooth working of the council, Warpehoski wanted to put forward this reconsideration. He’s asking for some assurances: (1) that there’ll be support for a postponement, and that the council won’t vote on it tonight; (2) the vote required at a later meeting will be a six-vote tally, not eight; and (3) if six votes in support aren’t in attendance at Oct. 21, then there’d be support for postponement until the Nov. 7 meeting.

12:11 a.m. Kunselman says he really supports Warpehoski’s leadership. He offers the assurance requested by Warpehoski. Now Warpehoski moves for postponement – but the council hasn’t voted on the motion to reconsider. Hieftje indicates the motion to reconsider will be moved to the next meeting. If that vote is successful, then the council will debate the confirmation.

12:13 a.m. Hieftje says he’ll support the effort. He apologizes for using the wrong word – “nomination” versus “motion.” Briere says she appreciated Warpehoski’s work on the effort. They’d worked together on the issue of the attorney’s opinion as well.

12:13 a.m. Outcome: The council has postponed until Oct. 21 the motion to reconsider the vote on the Al McWilliams appointment to the DDA board.

12:13 a.m. Public Commentary. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

12:17 a.m. The Muslim speaker from earlier has waited until the end of the meeting. He invites councilmembers to the Islamic Center of Ann Arbor to learn more about their community. His name is Eldred Bruce Meadows.

12:17 a.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Despite Ann Arbor’s reputation, on this occasion councilmembers appeared to be leaning to the right. The meeting featured public commentary that recalled a standard political joke about Ann Arbor during football season: “Fake left, run right.” (Photos by the writer.)

Both issues also had been postponed from previous meetings. However, the committees that were supposed to have provided more specific recommendations to the full council prior to Sept. 3 did not accomplish that work.

After the Sept. 3 council meeting, both of the relevant committees subsequently met. An update on their work is included in this council meeting report.

The DDA ordinance revisions have already been given initial approval by the council and are awaiting a final vote. The amendments to Chapter 7 include various changes to governance, including term limits for board members, as well as clarifications to the existing language on TIF capture. The amendments would enforce the existing language of the ordinance in a way that has an impact on the DDA’s TIF revenue that would roughly match the DDA’s projected revenues in its 10-year planning document.

However, since that 10-year document was last updated, the amount of new construction in the DDA district has resulted in significant increases in the taxable value on which TIF is computed. About $1 million a year is at stake – which would be distributed to the other jurisdictions whose taxes the DDA captures, instead of being collected by the DDA. The joint committee of DDA board members and city council members met on Sept. 10, and the group appeared to be ready to recommend that the council table the initially-approved ordinance changes and start from scratch, likely shedding the proposed changes to governance.

The approach the committee is now taking would remove the current Chapter 7 language expressing restrictions on the DDA’s TIF revenue, and replace it with a “cap” that would have a built-in annual increase. Among the scenarios the committee is weighing would be a cap set at a high-enough level that it would likely have no impact on the amount of the DDA’s TIF revenue, compared to the amount the DDA is receiving under its own current interpretation of the ordinance, which is disputed.

While the Sept. 3 postponement of the DDA-related ordinance was dispatched quickly, later in the meeting the council engaged in a substantial debate on an appointment to the DDA board – that of Al McWilliams. With only nine councilmembers present and his confirmation dubious – because it needed six votes on the 11-member council – mayor John Hieftje withdrew the nomination.

The council’s rules committee also met on Sept. 10 and reviewed revisions that had previously been recommended. Basing its work on a debate that the entire council had on July 15, 2013, the committee decided that none of the council rules on the length of speaking turns (for the public or for councilmembers) or for reserving time to speak at the start of meetings would be changed from the current rules. Among the proposed changes that survived committee discussion included: (1) adding public commentary at work sessions, (2) re-ordering the agenda to place nominations and appointments near the start of the meeting, and (3) prohibiting use of personal electronic communications devices while at the council table.

The council will take up the DDA ordinance as well as the internal rules issue at its next meeting on Sept. 16.

Other business handled by the council on Sept. 3 included passage of a resolution calling for work on better cleanup standards for 1,4-dioxane – which came only after lengthy debate about possibly postponing it in order to strengthen the language and seek the advice of additional stakeholders.

The council also passed a resolution recommended by the city’s energy commission, to direct city staff to develop a pilot program with DTE for a “community solar” project. Another resolution recommended by the energy commission failed to win council approval, however. It would have directed the city’s employment retirement system to divest from fossil fuel companies.

In land-related business, the council approved the city’s participation in two deals related to the city’s greenbelt program. Councilmembers also gave approval to a Hampton Inn project on Jackson Road and initial approval to a drive-thru to be constructed at a Shell/Tim Hortons at Eisenhower and Ann Arbor-Saline Road.

As part of city administrator Steve Powers’ report to the council, he mentioned that a memo on the review of the city’s crosswalk ordinance would be forthcoming. That memo was subsequently released.

Downtown Development Authority Ordinance

On the council’s Sept. 3 agenda was a final vote on revisions to the Ann Arbor city code regulating the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority’s tax increment finance (TIF). At stake is around $1 million or more a year in tax revenue.

DDA Ordinance: Background

A joint council-DDA committee was appointed on July 1, 2013 with a charge to begin meeting immediately to work out a recommendation on possible legislation that would clarify the ordinance.

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

However, that committee did not convene until eight weeks later, on Aug. 26. The committee met on just that one occasion before the Sept. 3 council meeting. The postponement until Sept. 3 had come at the council’s May 6, 2013 meeting.

The council had given initial approval of an ordinance change at its April 1, 2013 meeting. The change would clarify the existing language in the ordinance – which outlines how the DDA is supposed to return excess TIF revenue to other taxing jurisdictions – to the extent that the revenue exceeds projections in the DDA’s TIF plan.

Until two years ago, the existing limitation expressed in the ordinance had never been applied. But in May 2011, the city treasurer called the issue to the DDA’s attention, characterizing it as a roughly $2 million issue, dating back to 2003. However, when the DDA retroactively calculated its revenue, as well as rebates to other taxing jurisdictions, it applied a methodology chosen to minimize the amount of “rebate” owed to other taxing jurisdictions, reducing the amount to roughly $1.1 million.

When challenged on its method of calculation, the DDA subsequently changed its position, claiming that the money it had already paid back to other taxing jurisdictions was a mistake. The DDA’s new position was to claim an interpretation of a clause in Chapter 7 as providing an override to limits on TIF revenue – if the DDA has debt obligations, which it does. So in 2012 and 2013, the DDA did not return any of its TIF capture to other taxing authorities. In addition to the city, those taxing authorities are the Ann Arbor District Library, Washtenaw County, and Washtenaw Community College.

The proposal as approved at first reading by the council on April 1, 2013 would essentially enforce the language that is already in the ordinance, but disallow the DDA’s interpretation of the “debt override” clause. Compared to the DDA’s own 10-year planning document, revenue to the DDA under the ordinance change would be roughly similar. The minimal impact compared to the planning document depends on the enactment of the ordinance to apply beginning with fiscal year 2015. However, the 10-year planning document in question did not include a large amount of new construction in the downtown area, which has already generated higher TIF revenue than estimated in the 10-year plan.

The ordinance revision as approved at first reading also includes term limits for DDA board members, and would make the appointment of the mayor to the board of the DDA contingent on a majority vote of the council. Without majority support, the mayor’s spot on the board would go to the city administrator.

Serving on the joint council-DDA committee for the council are: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sally Petersen (Ward 2) and Jane Lumm (Ward 2). Representing the DDA are Sandi Smith, Joan Lowenstein, Bob Guenzel, and Roger Hewitt.

The Aug. 26 committee meeting was dominated by political squabbling. The only substantive concept that was batted around briefly at that meeting was the idea of defining some kind of fixed cap on TIF revenue. This approach would replace the existing ordinance language, which calibrates the DDA’s TIF capture with projections in the TIF plan. But the discussion never went as far as to include dollar amounts for the fixed cap.

DDA Ordinance: Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time on Sept. 3, Jim Mogensen began by saying that municipal finance is “broken” particularly as it relates to cities. In the context of the spirited conversation that’s going on about the DDA, he wanted to comment on the topic of municipal finance. He categorized Michigan cities in different ways. As Category A he described cities like Pontiac, Benton Harbor and Detroit, which have their own concerns related to municipal finance. In Category B, he said, there are cities like Lansing, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti – because they have lots of governmental non-taxable land and that creates its own set of issues. In Category C, he put, Northville, Birmingham, and Gross Pointe.

Mogensen noted that Ypsilanti is in Category B, but has sprinkles of Category A as part of its challenges. Ann Arbor, Mogensen continued, is in Category B, but has sprinkles of Category C. Oftentimes, he said, Ann Arbor tries, as does the general public, to deny these challenges exist, Mogensen said, when it comes to setting the budgets and making things work. Some people say, “Well, you know, it must be those liberals – they’re always making us spend money on things that we shouldn’t be spending money on!” He alluded to the old quip about Ann Arbor, particularly during the football season: “Fake left, run right.” The reality is that there’s not much of that kind of spending in the budget, he said.

When people look at the city, they overemphasize perceived mismanagement, and underestimate those structural problems, Mogensen said. So when people think about the DDA, people overestimate and overemphasize perceived management prowess, Mogensen said, and they underestimate the tremendous set of conditions the DDA has, which include: limited scope of responsibility, very high density, and the ability to capture taxes. When you look at all that, he said, it’s obvious why some things happen. Coming out of this conversation, there should be a way to make sure the city can function well. There should be a way of making that happen without discrediting people who are a part of different organizations, he said.

DDA Ordinance: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) led off the deliberations, recalling the history of the proposal, and mentioning the meeting of the committee on Aug. 26. Not enough information was available to the committee when it met, he said. Staff had been directed to come up with draft language, he said. Kunselman told the council that he wanted to postpone action again, so the committee could meet again and bring back a recommendation that had more substance.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1).

The initial inclination was to postpone action until Oct. 7. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) reacted to that date, saying she might be out of town at that meeting. Kunselman asked city administrator Steve Powers if draft language could be ready as soon as the Sept. 16 council meeting. The joint council-DDA work session on Sept. 9, 2013 was floated as a possibility when the issue could be addressed. But Powers indicated that the Sept. 9 work session would be focused on the topic of the parking agreement – between the city and the DDA, under which the DDA manages the public parking system. He ventured it could be a challenge to schedule that many people to meet on an additional occasion. Mayor John Hieftje suggested postponing action until the next meeting, on Sept. 16, and assessing how things stand at that time.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1), who’s a member of the council’s audit committee, noted that she’d requested that a review of Chapter 7 compliance be included in the city’s annual audit. [The DDA is a component unit of the city.] The answer that had come back from the auditor, Kailasapathy said, was that the ordinance language was unclear.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked if the DDA needed to be able to vote on something before the council acted. [The DDA board meets on the first Wednesday of the month, with its next regular meeting scheduled for Oct. 2.] Hieftje, who sits on the DDA board, indicated that he didn’t think the DDA would necessarily need to vote on anything before the council acted.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the DDA ordinance until its next meeting, on Sept. 16.

DDA Ordinance: Joint Committee Meeting – Sept. 10, 2013

The meeting of the council and DDA board joint committee – held the week after the council’s Sept. 3 session – was not attended by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) on the side of the council or by Bob Guenzel for the DDA. [Lumm was out of town due to a death in her family.]

The Sept. 10 meeting was different in tone from the Aug. 26 meeting, which featured bickering back and forth between councilmembers and DDA board members. The Sept. 10 session focused on a specific alternative to the current Chapter 7 language, which currently reads [emphasis added]:

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

The last sentence of that section indicates that removal of those restrictions on TIF revenue to the DDA would require approval of the other taxing jurisdictions. However, the committee did not discuss that aspect of the current law, and appeared comfortable with the idea that the language could simply be replaced with a different conceptual approach – without approval or consultation with the other taxing jurisdictions.

The different conceptual approach would establish a basis level for the maximum captured taxable value in the DDA district and then set some clearly defined annual increase, keyed to a specific percentage or some variant of a consumer price index (CPI).

For example, the current taxable value on which the DDA captures taxes is roughly $137,000,000. That yielded roughly $3.76 million in TIF revenue to the DDA in fiscal year 2013, which ended on June 30. If that $137,000,000 were used as a basis for the cap, then a 3% increase applied annually would give the DDA a maximum of $5.063 million in 2023. In any given year, the DDA would receive the lesser of two values: (i) the unconstrained TIF captured on the taxable value; or (ii) the value of the cap.

The working document used by the committee showed two basic scenarios, one with a basis of $137,000,000 in taxable value for FY 2013, and a second one starting a basis of $167,000,000 for the following year, in FY 2014. The second one received more interest from the committee:

2. The maximum captured taxable value shall be fixed 
at a base value of $167,000,000 for tax year 2014. Each tax 
year thereafter, the maximum captured taxable value shall be 
increased by (CPI, 3%, 5%) per annum.

DDA TIF Capture Cap.
TIF value in millions with $167 million 
taxable value basis in FY 2014.
Columns correspond to yearly value of cap
assuming the increase indicated in the 
column header.
===================================
FY    CPI         3%     5%    10%
___________________________________
2013  $3.767  $3.767  $3.767 $3.767 (Actual)
2014   4.500   4.500   4.500  4.500
2015  tbd      4.635   4.725  4.950
2016  tbd      4.774   4.961  5.445
2017  tbd      4.917   5.209  5.990
2018  tbd      5.065   5.470  6.588
2019  tbd      5.217   5.743  7.247
2020  tbd      5.373   6.030  7.972
2021  tbd      5.534   6.332  8.769
2022  tbd      5.700   6.649  9.646
2023  tbd      5.871   6.981  10.611

-

The DDA would be projected to capture around $4.5 million in TIF this fiscal year (FY 2014), even on the Chapter 7 amendments given initial approval by the council. But under those amendments, the DDA’s TIF capture in FY 2015 would be $3.68 million, which compares to $3.75 million in the DDA’s 10-year planning document from earlier this year.

At the Sept. 10 committee meeting, not much interest was shown in defining the escalator in terms of a CPI. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) ventured that it might be appropriate to use 2.2% as an escalator – as that’s the figure used for the DDA’s 10-year planning document. DDA board treasurer Roger Hewitt objected that this was a fairly conservative number. Board chair Sandi Smith argued that any choice of a percentage would be “random” and that the choice of the escalator should be considered in the context of its implications for the DDA’s ability to complete projects described in a draft list of projects the DDA has recently assembled.

The development of the draft list came partly in response to pressure from the city council – dating back to April of this year – asking the DDA to explain what projects would not be undertaken if the DDA didn’t continue to receive TIF revenue based on its preferred interpretation of the city’s ordinance. An ordinance amendment included in the revisions given initial approval by the council would require closer integration of the DDA’s projects with the city’s capital improvements plan. The amendment was put forward by Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

The authority shall submit their capital budgets to incorporate them into the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The authority shall at the time they submit their budget for Council approval identify that portion of the budget which is operating and that which is capital projects.

The project list was introduced at the Sept. 4, 2013 DDA board meeting. [.pdf of draft five-year plan]

Based on the committee conversation, the next step for the DDA appears to be comparing the different definitions for the escalator to its 10-year planning document and to the draft five-year project list. And based on that analysis, the DDA would come back with a recommendation for how the escalator should be defined.

For the council, the consensus appeared to be that the council will delay again at its Sept. 16 meeting – either by postponing or tabling a vote. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) indicated a willingness to start with a fresh draft of ordinance changes, which would allow the council to shed the changes in the original proposal that would affect DDA board governance, including term limits. That would reset the requirement that the council approve the ordinance revisions at a first reading and then again at a second reading at a subsequent council meeting.

There’s an outside chance that a fresh first reading of the ordinance changes could be brought to the council for its consideration by Oct. 7, the first meeting in October. Even if a fresh first reading is not ready until Oct. 21, the second council meeting in October, an approval then would set up the council to give final approval on Nov. 7. That follows the Nov. 5 election, but the current composition of the council would still be at the table, no matter the general election outcome. So even if independent incumbent Jane Lumm were not to prevail in the Ward 2 race – which is also contested by Democrat Kirk Westphal and independent Conrad Brown – she would still be able to vote on Nov. 7.

Appointments to Boards, Commissions

At its Sept. 3 meeting, the Ann Arbor city council was asked to confirm just three of the four nominations made at the council’s previous meeting on Aug. 19.

One nomination that had been made on Aug. 19 – for Leigh Greden’s reappointment to the Ann Arbor housing commission – was withdrawn prior to the start of the Sept. 3 meeting.

Two nominations from Aug. 19 were confirmed: Devon Akmon’s appointment to fill a vacancy on the public art commission; and Logan Casey to fill a vacancy on the human rights commission. Akmon is an Ann Arbor resident and the new director of the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn. Casey is a graduate student at the University of Michigan.

Considered separately was the nomination of Al McWilliams’ appointment to the board of the Ann Arbor DDA.

Appointments: Background

The nomination of former city councilmember Leigh Greden to the Ann Arbor housing commission had been withdrawn before the Sept. 3 meeting, around 2:30 p.m. that same day.

Ann Arbor mayor John Hieftje.

No conversation took place at the Sept. 3 meeting about Greden’s nomination. His initial appointment to the AAHC board in January 2011, replacing Jayne Miller, had been unanimous.

Earlier this year, at the council’s April 1 meeting, Nickolas Buonodono had been nominated to replace Greden on the AAHC board, after Greden had reached the end of his first term. Buonodono is an attorney, and a member of the Washtenaw County Democratic Party executive committee. However, that nomination was not on the council’s April 15 meeting agenda for confirmation. According to AAHC executive director Jennifer Hall, who spoke to The Chronicle in a telephone interview in mid-April, Greden was going to seek reappointment for a second term if he could accommodate his schedule to the meeting times. The housing commission is undergoing a major transition to a project-based voucher system, which the council authorized at its June 3, 2013 meeting on a unanimous vote.

The nomination of Al McWilliams to the Ann Arbor DDA also came forward from mayor John Hieftje with a wrinkle. Before he was nominated at the council’s Aug. 19 meeting, McWilliams’ name had appeared on an early version of the list of nominees for the council’s Aug. 8 meeting. The final version for that meeting, however, did not include his name.

McWilliams is founder of Quack!Media, an ad agency located in downtown Ann Arbor. Quack!Media lists the Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority on its website as one of its clients. McWilliams has written advocacy pieces for bicycling on his blog.

Appointments: Council Deliberations – DDA

Mayor John Hieftje led off the conversation by noting that there are currently some openings on the DDA board. He asked for the council’s support on Al McWilliams’ nomination. Hieftje said he had wanted to find someone representing the Main Street business district and the entrepreneurial community, and he thought that McWilliams fit that description.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) indicated that she’d asked for a list of those who’d applied for the appointment to the DDA. She’d been told that the person in charge of the list was on vacation, but the list would be provided next week.

The second issue, she continued, was that McWilliams’ company, Quack!Media, is a vendor for the AAATA. The DDA grants money to the AAATA, she said, calling that a conflict of interest.

Hieftje told Kailasapathy that his assistant was out of town, and he had not had time to “rustle up those files” of applications. [Former DDA board member and local developer Ed Shaffran has indicated a willingness in serving again on the DDA board.]

Hieftje reviewed the fact that the process calls for him, as mayor, to make nominations. And he’d wanted to nominate McWilliams after reviewing the applications on file. Hieftje noted that there is an additional seat open on the DDA board, and that he’d be looking forward to bringing a nomination to fill that additional seat to the council’s next meeting. [The two seats that currently need to be filled are those of Newcombe Clark, who made an employment-related move to Chicago after serving out a four-year term on the board, and Nader Nassif, who resigned from the board this summer after being arrested for sexual assault.]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that she’d asked the city attorney about the conflict-of-interest question. Briere indicated that she didn’t think it was clear that a conflict of interest arose out of the situation that Kailasapathy had described. Briere asked city attorney Stephen Postema to comment on the question.

Postema essentially indicated that he didn’t think there’s an inherent conflict for McWilliams in serving on the DDA board, but if any conflict-of-interest issue arose while serving on the board, it could be dealt with when it came up.

Postema stressed that if there are two public entities involved, it’s not considered to be a conflict under the statute. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) said that even though the state doesn’t define it as a conflict, the council has rules on the question. She didn’t think the state law is stringent enough. She ventured that McWilliams would need to recuse himself quite frequently, possibly including votes on the DDA budget.

Responding to Petersen, Postema indicated that the state statue is not as stringent as many people would like it to be. Postema noted that while Petersen might perceive a conflict, he was looking at it as a matter of state law.

By way of background, one state statute on conflicts of interest for a public official is Act 317 of 1968 “Contracts of Public Servants with Public Entities.” It’s the state statute to which DDA legal counsel Jerry Lax had appealed at the DDA board’s meeting three and a half years ago – on May 5, 2010. It involved a question about whether mayor John Hieftje and then-councilmember Sandi Smith should participate in a vote to allocate $2 million to the city of Ann Arbor, given the fact that they’re paid salaries as elected officials by the city of Ann Arbor.

The statute prohibits the public servants from soliciting contracts with entities by whom they are employed:

(2) Except as provided in section 3, a public servant shall not directly or indirectly solicit any contract between the public entity of which he or she is an officer or employee and any of the following: (a) Him or herself. (b) Any firm, meaning a co-partnership or other unincorporated association, of which he or she is a partner, member, or employee. [...]

In analyzing the situation for Hieftje and Smith in 2010, Lax pointed out that there was a specific exemption for contracts between two public entities [emphasis added]:

15.324 Public servants; contracts excepted; violation as felony. Sec. 4. (1) The prohibitions of section 2 shall not apply to any of the following: (a) Contracts between public entities.

Under that statute, Lax concluded it was not a problem for Hieftje and Smith to participate in the deliberations and vote on the resolution that the DDA board was considering.

Later in the May 5, 2010 meeting, however, the resolution considered by the DDA was proposed to be altered so that the $2 million payment was not described as part of any contract – because at that point the existing parking agreement between the city and the DDA had expired, and no money was owed under that contract. At that point, Lax indicated that the state statute did not provide an exemption – because the DDA was contemplating a grant. So Lax expressed his view that Hieftje and Smith should sit out the vote on amending the resolution, which they did. The attempted amendment failed, however, and the two subsequently returned to the table to vote on the resolution.

So in considering whether Al McWilliams would be able to participate in a vote to allocate money for getDowntown, for example – given that AAATA is a client of his company – it’s not obvious at first glance that Act 317 of 1968 would apply. If the money allocated to the AAATA’s getDowntown program takes place outside of a contractual agreement, then the inapplicability of the statute could be based on the same reasoning Lax used in the May 5, 2010 vote involving Hieftje and Smith.

However, based on the annual signed agreements that AAATA provided to The Chronicle in response to a request under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act, some basic getDowntown program funding is granted to AAATA by the DDA under that annual signed contractual agreement. Funding for getDowntown’s go!pass program, which was $479,000, does not appear to be covered by that annual contract. [.pdf of 2013 getDowntown agreement]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

During the council’s Sept. 3 deliberations, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) contended that there’s no conflict at all for McWilliams. As an example, Taylor cited employees of the University of Michigan who serve on the council. [Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is currently an employee, as is Hieftje. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was previously, but is no longer a UM employee.] Using the same standard would require the recusal of these councilmembers on any UM-related matter, Taylor contended.

If there were an actual conflict on a particular occasion, then it’s well established that someone can simply stand down for a particular vote, Taylor said. [Taylor has himself on occasion asked that councilmembers vote to excuse him from votes the council has taken, for example, when a bar that is a client of his law firm – Hooper Hathaway – had requested a special event street closure that required council approval.]

At that point in the deliberations, Kunselman asked if the other nominations to be considered that night could be separated out. Hieftje proposed voting on the confirmations of Devon Akmon and Logan Casey separately, which the council did.

Outcome: The council voted to confirm Akmon to the public art commission and Casey to the human rights commission.

Kunselman said he appreciated the fact that the issue had been raised about the appearance of a conflict, even if there’s not a legal conflict. However, Kunselman asserted that he had the prerogative to vote as he liked. So Kunselman was interested in confirming the appointment to the DDA board of someone who might be able to accept some “reform” of the DDA. And Kunselman didn’t think that McWilliams, as a DDA supporter, would be open-minded with respect to following city ordinances. So Kunselman stated that he would vote against the appointment of McWilliams.

Hieftje asked Kunselman if he’d met with McWilliams. No, Kunselman replied, but he’d read McWilliams’ public statements.

Briere said she has not met with McWilliams, but she’d talked with Maura Thomson, director of the Main Street Area Association, who was very enthusiastic about McWilliams being appointed. Briere then talked about the issue of perceived conflict of interest. Briere said she’s heard that she could have a conflict due to her spousal relationship. [Briere is married to local attorney David Cahill.] She’d heard that she’d had a conflict when she worked for a nonprofit that received city funding. If the council gets interested in the question of whether someone is even just “dimly friendly” with someone, then that will shrink the pool of those who are eligible to serve, Briere said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3).

Briere noted that there were two former mayors who were UM faculty. She was surprised that people are considering this kind of thing to be a conflict. If a councilmember feels a nominee falls short of the mark, then they should be voted against based on the merits, she said.

Taylor added that if one of the goals is to have people who are involved in local business to be involved in civic life, then this level of relationship can’t be a prohibitive factor. The council’s conversation that night was already doing damage to the possibility that others will want to step forward, Taylor ventured.

By way of background, by state statute a 12-member DDA board must include either the mayor or the city administrator, and at least seven members having an interest in property located in the DDA district or be an officer, member, or trustee, principal, or employee of a legal entity having an interest in property located in the downtown district. And at least one of the DDA board members is required to be a resident of the downtown district. Three at-large members fill out the other seats.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) stated there are three questions to consider: qualifications, perspective, and conflict. He was not upset that the council was discussing any of these questions. Warpehoski reported that he’d met McWilliams only once. Based on that interaction, he said McWilliams has a sharp mind. So Warpehoski concluded McWilliams is qualified. Warpehoski wasn’t familiar with McWilliams’ perspective on the DDA, except for what Kunselman had reported earlier during deliberations.

On the question of conflict, Warpehoski stated that McWilliams should not vote on contracts that his company would service – but he didn’t think there would be that many votes fitting that description. He thought that the question of conflict is still a fair one to ask.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) said she was supportive of McWilliams’ nomination. Responding to Kunselman’s point about McWilliams’ attitude toward the DDA, Teall said that it’s natural that someone who wants to serve on the DDA would be supportive of the DDA.

Kailasapathy was skeptical that there would be only a few votes from which McWilliams would need to refrain. She stated that she thought there was a direct conflict of interest.

Hieftje asked for the ability to withdraw the nomination, so that some of the issues that had been raised could be explored.

Outcome: The council did not vote on McWilliams’ nomination because Hieftje withdrew it. The council’s vote looked like it might have failed on a 5-4 vote with Kunselman, Petersen, Kailasapathy, and Anglin possibly voting against it.

Council Rules Changes

The council’s Sept. 3 agenda included an item related to changes to its internal rules. This revision to the set of council rules was first presented to the council on June 17, 2013. However, a vote was postponed at that meeting.

The revisions were prompted by a desire to allow for public commentary at council work sessions – to eliminate any question about whether councilmembers were engaged in deliberative interactions at those sessions. By allowing for public commentary at work sessions, the council would ensure compliance with Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The council’s rules committee also recommended additional changes, including a shortening of the individual speaking turns for public comment as well as shortening of time for councilmembers. Those additional changes were included in the June 17 version of the rules.

After again postponing a vote at its July 1, 2013 meeting, the council used its following meeting, on July 15, 2013, to eliminate one of the proposed rule changes – the shortening of public speaking turns. But the council postponed further revisions and a vote until Sept. 3.

The council’s rules committee – consisting of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), and mayor John Hieftje – was supposed to meet before the Sept. 3 meeting to consolidate input from other councilmembers and perhaps present a clean slate of proposed revisions. However, in the interim, the rules committee did not meet.

Among the other changes that were part of the proposed revisions was the addition of a rule to disallow the use of mobile electronic communication devices at the council table. Another possible change would affect the council’s standard agenda template by moving nominations and appointments to boards and commissions to a slot earlier in the meeting, instead of near the end.

Council Rules Changes: Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a 2010 Michigan senate candidate and 2012 candidate for the Michigan house of representatives, who’s now a write-in candidate for Ward 5 city council this year. He spoke as an advocate supporting Martin Luther King Jr.’s agenda. Partridge called for emphasis on affordable housing, public transportation, and fair access to public meetings. He called for 3- to 5-minute public participation time. There should be no reductions in the amount of time offered to the public, he said. A forward-looking city council would look for new ways to increase public participation time, not to constrain it, he concluded.

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Partridge called on the council to be aware of the need for greater public participation. He complained that there’s been scant information on a recent murder of a UM student.

Mark Koroi reminded councilmembers that he’d spoken to the council previously on the topic of public commentary at working sessions. He said he wants to see the issue taken care of. He noted that Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) was not in attendance at that night’s council meeting and referred to her a “the invisible woman.” More public commentary means that the council will hear more from Thomas Partridge and Blaine Coleman, Koroi allowed, adding that the U.S. Constitution and the Michigan Open Meetings Act should be upheld.

Council Rules Changes: Council Deliberations

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) recited the history of the proposal, but observed that time is the enemy of all and so the committee had not met. He reported that the rules committee was committed to meeting in a swift fashion. He suggested postponing the vote.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that part of the rationale offered for postponing until that night’s meeting – instead of waiting until Sept. 16 – was to change the rules to require public commentary at work sessions in time for the Sept. 9 work session. Warpehoski asked if postponement would preclude allowing public commentary at the Sept. 9 meeting.

City attorney Stephen Postema indicated that public commentary wouldn’t be precluded. From Postema’s remarks on Sept. 3 [emphasis added]:

You could just simply direct that public notice be given that there will be public commentary, if you wanted to put that as a part of the motion with a further direction I suppose to, in setting the agenda that public commentary will be listed. There’s certainly no prohibition of adding public commentary. Without it, I think what you’re focusing on, without it, the council rule says nothing about work session, and on the other hand the issue really is what’s going to be done at that meeting.”

Warpehoski asked that a postponement include direction to notice the public that public commentary will be provided and that it be added to the work session agenda.

By way of background, the actual wording of the current council rules contradicts Postema’s assertion that the council rule on agenda setting says nothing about work sessions. The rule actually sets forth an order of business for the council’s meetings and work sessions [emphasis added]:

RULE 3 – Agenda
3A – Preparation of the Agenda
The agenda for each Regular Council meeting and Council Work Session shall be prepared by the City Administrator. A resolution approving a contract shall only be included on the agenda if the City Attorney has reviewed the contract and the result of that review is included or with the proposed resolution.
The agenda will be prepared in accordance with the following order of business:

Moment of Silence
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call of Council
Approval of the Agenda
Introductions
Public Commentary – Reserved Time
Communications from Council
Public Hearings
Communications from Council
Approval of Council Minutes
Consent Agenda
Ordinances – Second Reading
Ordinances – First Reading
Motions and Resolutions
Council Business
Boards and Commissions
Staff
Communications from the Mayor
Communications from Council
Communications from the City Administrator
Communications from the City Attorney
Clerk’s Report of Communications, Petitions and Referrals
Public Commentary – General
Adjournment

Specification of an order of business – as opposed to required elements of any agenda – makes the listing as suitable for either work sessions or regular meetings.

As deliberations continued, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) asked if signing up would be required to speak at the work session. Postema indicated that he imagined it would simply be general time.

Outcome: The council voted to postpone the change to council rules, but indicated it would allow public commentary at its next work session on Sept. 9. At that session, Thomas Partridge and Jim Mogensen addressed the council during public commentary time.

Council Rules Changes: Committee Meeting – Sept. 10

The rules committee met on Sept. 10. Mayor John Hieftje, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) attended the meeting. Hieftje reported that the committee chair, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), had texted him that she would not be able to attend.

In reviewing the proposed changes, the committee determined that based on the July 15 full council deliberations, some rules proposed initially to be changed should be left intact. At the July 15 meeting, the council had voted explicitly to leave the duration of all types of public commentary speaking turns (public hearings, reserved time, general time) at three minutes.

And at the Sept. 10 committee meeting, the view of committee members was that the general sentiment of the council on July 15 indicated little enthusiasm for changing speaking times for councilmembers, or for changing the way that public speaking time is reserved.

Among the substantive changes that will likely be presented by the committee to the council at its Sept. 16 meeting will be: adding public commentary to work sessions; changing the order of the agenda to move nominations and appointments to earlier in the meeting; prohibiting the use of personal electronic communications devices while at the council table.

Pall-Gelman Plume

The council considered a resolution directing staff to explore actions available to the city on the issue of cleanup standards for an existing 1,4-dioxane plume on the city’s west side. Those options include meeting with the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality and petitioning the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to help set cleanup criteria for the carcinogen 1,4-dioxane in Michigan.

Map of Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane plume, by Washtenaw County. Black arrow added to indicate baseball field at West Park. The yellow region is the estimated plume area where the 1,4-dioxane concentration is greater than 1 ppb (parts per billion). That area encroaches well into the city of Ann Arbor and extends outside the well prohibition zone (red border).

The actions to be undertaken by staff can be related to the Pall-Gelman plume or also site specific criteria for the Pall-Gelman plume. The goal would be to improve the cleanup standard for 1,4-dioxane. [.pdf of resolution as amended and approved] The resolution was sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) and mayor John Hieftje.

The history of Gelman Sciences, which caused the 1,4-dioxane contamination, goes back 40 years. The company was based in Scio Township and later acquired by Pall Corp. The MDEQ’s current 1,4-dioxane generic residential drinking water cleanup criterion was set at 85 parts per billion (ppb). But an EPA criterion set in 2010 was for 3.5 ppb.

The MDEQ was supposed to re-evaluate its own standards by December 2012, based on the EPA’s 2010 toxicological review. It missed that deadline, and according to the council’s resolution, is anticipated to miss a new deadline set for a year later in December 2013.

Pall-Gelman Plume: Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Roger Rayle introduced himself as chair of Scio Residents for Safe Water. He spoke in support of the resolution on the agenda calling on the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality to tighten up the standards for the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane cleanup. When the standards were loosened back in 1985, he said, it happened overnight. Implicitly addressing the potential criticism that the resolution might not be strong enough, Rayle noted that this doesn’t have to be the last resolution on this topic.

Rayle was glad that the council’s attention is back on this topic, he said. Ann Arbor’s water system could eventually be threatened, he observed, noting that a “new hit” was recorded on a well where nobody expected it. He described his work with GoogleEarth to show how the plume has spread. He called on Gov. Rick Snyder to get involved and to get the MDEQ straightened out, as well as the state attorney general’s office.

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, after the council had acted on the issue, Kai Petainen thanked the council for passing the Pall-Gelman 1,4-dioxane resolution. But he called it insulting that some councilmembers weren’t previously aware of the issue, asking them where they’ve been. He complimented the city for its disclosure of a raw sewage spill recently.

Pall-Gelman Plume: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off the deliberations by describing the chemical properties of 1,4-dioxane. She also described the long history of the problem. Briere noted that some people had voiced concern that the people who have been involved in advocacy should have been involved in the drafting of the resolution – specifically, the Coalition for Action on Remediation of Dioxane (CARD). Briere agreed with that sentiment. So she said she had a substitute resolution she wanted the council to consider. She described the changes as minor, but noted that they included an added “whereas” clause.

That added clause was as follows:

Whereas, Thousands of residents of The City of Ann Arbor and neighboring municipalities including Scio Township, Ann Arbor Township, have been working for over 20 years for the protection of the surface and ground waters of the State from the continuing threat and actual contamination from 1, 4-dioxane contamination originating at the Pall/Gelman Sciences, Inc. (“PGSI”) Wagner Road facility, and for effective containment and proper treatment of waters already impacted by the contamination; [.txt of original resolution] [.txt of modified resolution]

Briere described the MDEQ as eager to talk to the city about the issue and as welcoming the resolution.

Mayor John Hieftje, who’d co-sponsored the resolution with Briere and Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5), indicated that the city’s lobbyist, Kirk Profit, has been working hard to keep the issue in front of the state. Margie Teall (Ward 4) thanked Briere and Warpehoski for their work on the resolution. Teall said she was glad there might be some movement on the part of the MDEQ.

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) complained that the resolution came to the council only late last week. She characterized the resolved clauses as not having “enough teeth.” The language could be strengthened by defining specific cleanup criteria, defining, goals and consulting the expertise of CARD members, Petersen said. So she wanted the resolution postponed.

Briere asked assistant city attorney Abigail Elias to explain the “teeth” of the resolution. Elias described the settlement between the city and Pall-Gelman related to the northwest supply well. Elias was not sure what might be added to strengthen the resolution any further.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) said she didn’t want to bring up the issue, but as long as Petersen had done so, she was going to pursue it – that of involving those who’ve been advocating on the issue for a long time. She described herself as a social-scientist-turned-CPA, and thus valued the input of more people. She had mixed feelings about the process used to develop the resolution.

Petersen indicated she wanted to move to postpone the resolution. Hieftje asked city environmental coordinator Matt Naud to approach the podium.

Hieftje ventured that the resolution was about as strong as it could be made at this time. Naud responded by describing the Pall situation as very complicated. CARD has worked hard on the issue and there’s a long list of things they’d like done, Naud said. What’s clearly expressed in this resolution, Naud said, is that the federal government, the EPA, now thinks 1,4-dioxane is more cancer-causing than the EPA previously thought. The state of Michigan’s job is to take that and promulgate it under the Clean Water Act, but that hasn’t been done, Naud said.

Environmental coordinator Matt Naud answered questions from the podium.

Naud said the resolution is a message to the MDEQ. Changing the standard would radically change the attention being paid to the Pall-Gelman site, he said. Michigan has had an 85 ppb standard for a very long time, when everyone else has had a much lower [that is, more demanding or stronger] standard, Naud says.

Petersen asked what the risk would be in using the resolution language to identify a specific standard for cleanup as a goal. Naud explained that he wasn’t sure what number would come out of the state of Michigan’s algorithm. Naud went on to describe part of the problem as getting access to data, and noted that some of Rayle’s work has included hand-entering data from paper copies. Petersen wanted to postpone a vote on the resolution, in order to add CARD’s “wish list” to the resolution.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked Naud why the state is dragging its feet. Naud indicated that it’s a broader problem than just the 1,4-dioxane issue.

Kunselman asked what the city is doing in the way of contingency planning – in the event that a 1,4-dioxane plume reaches Barton Pond, which is the source of most of the city’s drinking water. That’s the question that needs to be addressed, Kunselman said. “What would we do?” Would the city have to filter out the 1,4-dioxane before pumping drinking water to residents? He had no problem postponing or voting on the resolution that night. But he wanted the city to think about what it’s doing itself, as opposed to asking others to do something.

From left: Ward 5 councilmembers Chuck Warpehoski and Mike Anglin.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) characterized the problem as one of court decisions, saying that the courts are generally going to find in favor of Pall-Gelman. He said that when he started serving on the council, he attended some CARD meetings and it was very confusing. Anglin said he wanted the city council to hold a work session on the topic of the 1,4-dioxane plume. He pointed out that the issue had arisen in connection with the City Apartments project: Who would be responsible if the 1,4-dioxane contamination were to penetrate to that site? Anglin indicated he was in favor of postponement, because of the magnitude of the issue. But he thanked Briere and Warpehoski for their effort.

Briere characterized the issue as “not a new emergency,” saying that it’s an ongoing problem. The first step seems to be to get MDEQ to act, Briere ventured. Naud indicated some agreement with that idea. The change at the federal level should have trickled through to the state level, Naud said. But it hasn’t and so Pall-Gelman says that currently they don’t have to worry about areas that have concentrations below 85 ppb.

Briere said she had assumed that other councilmembers were already up to speed on the issue, and she thought that the opportunity to achieve something should be seized. Naud said there’s no question that the state should have acted in some way, and that’s why the resolution focuses on that.

Petersen asked if the purpose of the resolution was just to put MDEQ on notice. Naud indicated basic agreement with that characterization. Petersen ventured that a delay of two more weeks shouldn’t be a problem, saying she wanted to hear from CARD on the question, to see if the language can be strengthened. She then formally moved for postponement.

Hieftje said he didn’t think that the resolution could be strengthened and characterized it as providing a start to a conversation. The resolution would give the city’s lobbyist something to work with, Hieftje said. He was impressed that Roger Rayle had been consulted and had spoken in favor of the resolution during public commentary. So Hieftje indicated he’d vote against postponement.

Kunselman expressed concern that the city is “going it alone.” Briere says she’s talked to other elected representatives – county commissioners, Scio Township representatives, and members of the state legislature. She said it’s not Ann Arbor going it alone, but rather Ann Arbor taking the first step. Taking that first step, she says, seems to be vital. She’d attended a briefing with Evan Pratt, Washtenaw County water resources commissioner, and the message at that briefing was that the first step is for MDEQ to change the 85 ppb number. [Based on remarks made at the most recent meeting of the Washtenaw board of commissioners, the board will be considering a similar resolution on 1,4-dioxane at its Sept. 18, 2013 meeting.]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) asked for a basic status report on how things stand with respect to the city’s water supply. Naud indicated that when 1,4-dioxane was detected in the city’s northwest supply well in 2003, the city stopped using that well.

Naud described various locations where the city tests for 1,4-dioxane. Taylor described himself as delighted the proposers had brought the resolution forward, saying that a revised version might be a “scootch” more detailed. He indicated that he didn’t think that a delay of two weeks would matter.

Teall asked about the testing locations. Naud described how there are a couple hundred monitoring wells. Anglin asked about the city’s conversations with the EPA.

Warpehoski indicated he was going to violate the council rules by sending the media Briere’s revisions to the resolution via email. [Because Warpehoski did that, The Chronicle was able to include the revised resolution in its brief on the resolution filed from the meeting.]

Warpehoski supported the approach that Briere had taken as “more surgical” than to try to hang a bunch of wish-list items on it, as if the resolution were a Christmas tree. He summarized the intent of the resolution as saying to the MDEQ: “Do your job!” Warpehoski indicated that Briere had done a lot of heavy lifting on the resolution.

Outcome on postponement: On a 4-5 vote, the motion to postpone failed. Voting against postponement were Teall, Warpehoski, Anglin, Hieftje and Briere. Voting for postponement were Kailasapathy, Petersen, Taylor and Kunselman. Lumm and Higgins were absent.

The council continued with deliberations on the resolution. Kunselman indicated he’d support it. He ventured that if the city’s water system were compromised, then Ann Arbor would connect to the Detroit system. But responding to a question from Briere, Naud indicated that he wasn’t sure that connecting to Detroit would be the city’s first option. Kunselman noted that it’s important to hear what the contingency plan is.

Kunselman asked what the criteria would be for shutting down Barton Pond as a water source. City administrator Steve Powers indicated he’d follow up on that. Hieftje stated that shutting down Barton Pond is not imminent. Briere asked Naud if there’s any imminent risk. Naud replied that the geology in this area is complicated. There’s a lot of science and research that would need to be done to determine if the plume could get to Barton Pond and if so, how fast, Naud said. He allowed that 1,4-dioxane has shown up in places where it was not expected.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to direct city staff to take action related to helping set cleanup standards for 1,4-dioxane.

Energy Commission Recommendations

Two resolutions sponsored by the city’s energy commission were considered by the council on Sept. 3. The first called on the city’s employee retirement system to divest from fossil fuel companies. The second directed city staff to work with DTE to create a community solar pilot project.

Energy Commission Recommendations: Fossil Fuels

An energy commission resolution passed on July 9, 2013 recommended that the city council urge the city’s employee retirement system board to cease new investments in fossil fuel companies and to divest current investments in fossil fuel companies within five years. The resolution defined a “fossil fuel company” to be any of the top 100 coal companies or top 100 gas and oil extraction companies. The top three coal companies on the list are: Severstal JSC; Anglo American PLC; and BHP Billiton. The top three gas and oil companies on the list are: Lukoil Holdings; Exxon Mobil Corp.; and BP PLC. The basic consideration of the resolution is the importance of the role that greenhouse gas emissions play in global warming.

The resolution cited the city of Ann Arbor’s Climate Action Plan, which has a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2025 and 90% by 2050. The resolution warned that fossil fuel companies have enough fossil fuel reserves that, if burned, would release about 2,795 gigatons of CO2. That’s five times the amount that can be released without causing more than 2°C global warming, according to the resolution.

Energy Commission Recs: Fossil Fuels – Public Commentary

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Mike Shriberg spoke on behalf of the city’s energy commission, asking the council to support the community solar resolution and the fossil fuel divestment resolution. He mentioned Seattle, San Francisco, State College and Boulder as examples of cities that have divested from fossil fuel companies. He described the increased financial risk as minimal.

From left: Ward 3 councilmembers Christopher Taylor and Stephen Kunselman. Visible in the audience is Jeff Hayner.

Monica Patel also spoke in support the resolutions on community solar and fossil fuel divestment – on behalf of the Ecology Center. She delivered the council petitions signed by Ann Arbor residents in support of the resolutions.

During public commentary reserved time, Jeff Hayner – who’s running as an independent for city council in Ward 1 against incumbent Democrat Sabra Briere – talked about the balance between vision and common sense. He spoke in support of the community solar resolution. He also spoke in support of the divestment of fossil fuels companies, but urged caution and warned of possible financial losses. Is social gain worth the financial risk? he asked. Hayner thanked Roger Rayle for speaking during public commentary about the 1,4-dioxane resolution, saying that it’s a complex problem that is not going away.

During public commentary time at the end of the meeting, Kai Petainen said it doesn’t make sense to divest from an entire sector of the economy – a reference to the fossil fuel divestment resolution. [.pdf of statement from Kai Petainen emailed to The Chronicle following the Sept. 3 meeting]

Energy Commission Recs: Fossil Fuels – Council Deliberations

Mayor John Hieftje led things off by saying, as a member of the energy commission, he could say that the issue had been thoroughly reviewed and researched. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) referred to Jeff Hayner’s public commentary, which indicated that there could be a financial impact. Have there been any other examples of divestment along these lines? Briere asked.

City administrator Steve Powers indicated that the last time it came up was in connection with South Africa. So it was a long time ago, Briere concluded. Briere asked Nancy Walker, executive director of the retirement system, to come to the podium and comment. Briere wanted to know if Walker would be concerned if the council were to approve the resolution.

Walker said the board had been made aware of the resolution and had some discussion at its meeting just that afternoon. The board had not taken a position, she said, but would certainly consider a council resolution. She indicated that there would be some financial implications. Right now, the trustees have made a conscious effort over the last several years to shift the investments away from separately managed accounts, to either co-mingled funds or mutual funds – particularly indexed funds. That’s a very low-cost way to invest the money, she said. For example, 25% of the fund is invested in domestic large cap equity, and on that, the blended rate is about 2.5 basis points – on more than $100 million.

On initial investigation, Walker said, there really aren’t any indexed funds that exclude fossil fuel companies. If the city were to pull more money out of an indexed fund and put it into a separately managed fund, there would probably be a fee of 20-30 times the fees for an indexed fund.

There are really three separate considerations, Walker explained: fiduciary duty (beneficiaries are the primary concern); cost impact; and consideration of other options. Some of the other options included environmentally-friendly, socially-responsible, corporate-governance type funds. There are not a lot of such funds out there, Walker said, based on initial investigation.

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) wanted to know what the differential would be of an indexed fund compared to a socially-responsible fund. Walker indicated that they had not gotten to that point of being able to say. But assuming that the return was equal, Walker said, you could anticipate a 30-40 basis point differential on the return, just due to the increased cost of fees.

Outcome: A 5-4 vote fell short of the six-vote majority needed to pass on the 11-member council. Voting against the resolution were Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2). Jane Lumm (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) were absent.

Energy Commission Recommendations: Community Solar

The second energy-related resolution also stemmed from an energy commission recommendation – that the council direct city staff to work with DTE to develop a “community solar” pilot program. A “community solar” program would allow people to invest in a solar energy system, even if the energy that’s generated would be located off-site from their own electric meter.

The goal is to create a program that would assist the work of the Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association (GLREA), which has a grant to work statewide, investigating the feasibility of and constraints facing this collective approach to alternative energy generation. As an example of this approach, the council resolution cited the Cherryland Electric Cooperative in Traverse City. The resolution asked that details of a pilot program be ready for consideration by the Michigan Public Service Commission by March 31, 2014.

The goal of community solar is to allow people who don’t own the property where they live, or whose own property is shaded or poorly oriented for solar energy production, to support the production of solar energy.

Outcome: The council voted to direct staff to work with DTE to develop a community solar pilot program.

Ann Arbor Greenbelt

The council considered two deals adding land to the city’s greenbelt program. The program is funded by the voter-approved open space and parkland preservation millage.

The Sheldon and Wolf property is indicated in red. The green highlighted area denotes area already protected as a part of Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program. The heavy green line is the boundary encompassing eligible properties. This is the northwest corner of the boundary area.

The first deal – the Sheldon and Wolf property – involved 20 acres in Webster Township. It’s located on Zeeb Road, next to active farmland and other property that has already been protected by the city’s greenbelt program.

The purchase price, after deducting a $6,500 landowner donation, is $47,500. Webster Township is contributing $2,000 and Cherry Republic is contributing another $2,300, leaving the city’s share of the purchase price at $43,200. Due diligence, closing costs and a contribution to the endowment brings the city’s total contribution to $82,067.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the acquisition of development rights on the Sheldon and Wolf property.

The second deal involved participation in the acquisition of two pieces of land owned by DF (Domino’s Farms) Land Development LLC. The appraised value of the land is $322,000, of which the city would contribute up to $32,200. The lead agency on the deal is the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, which voted to approve the purchase of the two parcels at its Aug. 13, 2013 meeting. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended the city’s participation at its July 11, 2013 meeting.

According to the city administrator’s report from the Sept. 3 meeting, there will be a motor coach tour of the city’s greenbelt program’s protected properties on Saturday, Sept. 21 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. The cost is $10. People can register by calling 734.794.6000 ext. 42798.

Outcome: The council voted to authorize the city’s participation in the acquisition of the DF Land Development property.

Hampton Inn on Jackson Road

The council considered a proposal to build a new Hampton Inn at 2910 Jackson Ave., across the street from Weber’s Inn.

A drawing of the proposed Hampton Inn on Jackson Avenue – next to the larger existing Clarion Inn – was shown to planning commissioners at their July 2 meeting. The design includes improved pedestrian features.

The four-story hotel, located on an 8.8-acre site north of Jackson and south of I-94, will include 100 bedrooms and 51,608 usable square feet. A 163-room Clarion Hotel stands on the same site, east of the proposed new hotel.

The planning commission gave this “planned project” a recommendation of approval at its July 2, 2013 meeting.

Planning commissioners had discussed the proposal at length during their June 18, 2013 meeting. Ultimately, they unanimously voted to postpone action on that occasion, instead asking the developer to address concerns over pedestrian access within the site.

The planned project status was sought so that the existing foundation can be used. In 2008, an earlier site plan had been approved, but nothing beyond the foundation was built. At the time, no maximum front setback had been required. Now, however, a maximum front setback of 50 feet is required on at least one of the site’s three front property lines. A planned project status would allow that requirement to be waived.

Hampton Inn: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge told the council that he is wary of the planning commission’s approval of the project. We don’t want more pedestrian casualties or deaths, he said. Many people use this stretch of Jackson Road to deliberately speed, he contended.

Andy Wakeland with Giffels-Webster Engineers of Washington Township, Mich. – the civil engineer for the Hampton Inn project – addressed the council. He discussed the pedestrian issues, calling it a pedestrian-friendly site and said, “We’re pretty proud of it.”

The architect for the project – Jeff Ryntz of Victor Saroki and Associates – also addressed the council. He recalled how the project was started several years ago, and the foundations had been completed. In the interim, the city had changed its area, height and placement zoning ordinance, and those concerns had to be addressed. He noted the planning commission voted 8-0 to recommend approval.

Hampton Inn: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to answer questions. He asked if there’s any plan to install signalization of crosswalks like HAWK or rapid flashing beacons. No, she answered. He asked for some explanation of the traffic analysis. Rampson reported that city planner Jill Thacher and traffic engineer Pat Cawley had visited the site. The location of the crossing was the best one available, Rampson explained.

Warpehoski ventured that of the bad options, he can see how this could be the best one. But as consultations with MDOT continue and as the project goes through the building permit phase, he wanted attention paid to the issue, and urged that every appropriate analysis and protection is put in.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the planning commission [on which she serves as the city council representative] delayed the project, asking for additional pedestrian amenities within the site. However, the crosswalk had been a part of the initial proposal, she says.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) suggested that he and Warpehoski could meet with Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority staff about the bus stop.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the stormwater detention pond. He ventured that the overflow discharge goes to the expressway. Yes, and that will need to be approved by MDOT, explained a representative of the developer. Kunselman asked if MDOT would dictate the signage on the crosswalk. Rampson was not sure if the signs would be different from the other signs next to crosswalks in the city.

Mayor John Hieftje noted that Ann Arbor has the highest hotel occupancy rate in the state.

Outcome: The council voted to approve the Hampton Inn planned project.

Tim Hortons Drive-Thru

The council was asked to give initial approval to a drive-thru at the Shell station and Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway.

The requested changes to the PUD (planned unit development) regulations would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The businesses are located on a 1.44-acre site.

The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building. Access to the drive-thru lane would be off of the site’s existing entrance from Ann Arbor-Saline Road. A PUD had previously been approved by the council at its July 2, 2012 meeting, but without plans for a drive-thru restaurant. The city planning commission had unanimously recommended approval of the request for a revision at its July 16, 2013 meeting.

Tim Hortons: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) led off deliberations by asking for a representative of the project to come forward. He noted that the area plan doesn’t support a car wash. But possible use of a car wash was left in the PUD description, so Warpehoski said he wanted it removed. The developer’s representative did not have any objection. Warpehoski also wanted to strike the language that described the ability for someone to get food and beverage without leaving their vehicle as a public benefit.

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5).

One of the requirements of the rezoning allowed on a discretionary basis by the city council under a planned unit development (PUD) is that the project have some public benefit. Warpehoski objected to inclusion of the drive-thru as a public benefit: “To say that somebody now doesn’t have to spend the 10 extra calories between getting out their car to get their salt-sugar-fat fix?! I don’t see that as a public benefit and I don’t want us to list that as some big thing that we’re modifying our zoning for in our ordinance.”

Warpehoski also didn’t like the idea of describing the drive-thru as a “gateway.”

Margie Teall (Ward 4) followed Warpehoski’s turn with questions of the developer’s representative. She ventured that the adherence to architectural design standards would ensure appropriate development of the “gateway site.” All that was being requested at this point, the developer said, was a small drive-thru window, which amounted to 109 square feet of space. Teall wanted to make sure the design of the window fit the architecture. The developer indicated that he proud of the building’s appearance.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) recalled the planning commission discussion. [She serves as the council's representative on the commission.] She asked for an explanation of why the proposed seating area is an appropriate place for such an area.

The developer indicated that the location can be a welcoming symbol or a “gateway.” At the citizens participation meeting, they were told there was quite a bit of pedestrian and bicycle traffic in the area – so the seating area was thought to be a good amenity. Briere asked city planning manager Wendy Rampson to comment on the number of residents in the area. Rampson indicated that there are a lot of people who cross through the area. So there’s a lot of pedestrian travel, in addition to the auto travel, Rampson said.

Briere ventured that confusion results from the fact that there’s a list of eight items of benefit, and it’s not clear if each item is a discrete benefit. So she had no problem removing an item from the list. Briere asked Rampson to explain how it’s determined what counts as a public benefit for the purpose of evaluating a PUD.

“It’s fairly unusual to have a gas station PUD,” Rampson replied. The property was originally owned by the school district, she reported. She said that the planning commission felt that as a whole, the items were felt to be a benefit. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the previous iterations of the PUD. Did more public benefits get added to the list each time? Kunselman questioned whether an amendment to a PUD really requires an additional benefit above and beyond the original public benefit.

Kunselman stated that if the word “gateway” were removed, he’d be fine with everything else. Rampson reported that the owners of the project have expressed concern about making a substantive change, which would require an additional reading and approval by the city council. City attorney Stephen Postema ventured that the proposed change by Warpehoski wouldn’t be substantial enough to require additional council approvals.

From left: Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Sally Petersen (Ward 2).

Briere said that the advantage of putting items in the PUD language is that the developer can be held accountable for those items.

Teall appreciated Briere’s remarks about accountability. She didn’t have a problem with stating more benefits or with the word “gateway.” She appreciated the attention to detail the developer was giving the project. She said she wouldn’t support Warpehoski’s proposed amendments to the language. [The property is located in Ward 4, which Teall represents.]

Mayor John Hieftje said he didn’t think the change was substantial. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) thought it was important to consider the gas station as a gateway based on its entry location. She also pointed out that Tim Hortons has healthy choices on its menu. Anything that helps beautify the corridor should be supported, Petersen said.

Warpehoski suggested separating his proposed amendment into the part about the car wash and the part about the public benefits.

Outcome on amending the public benefits language: The council approved that amendment over dissent from Teall, Anglin, and Petersen.

Outcome on amending out “car wash”: The council approved eliminating the word “car wash.”

Outcome on changes in the Tim Hortons/Shell PUD: The council voted to give initial approval to the PUD changes. The council will need to vote again at a subsequent meeting, after a public hearing, to give the changes final approval.

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: Crosswalk Ordinance

During council communications time, Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) reported that she’s been working with city staff on getting a report from a professional traffic engineer regarding a recommendation for the city’s crosswalk ordinance.

Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers.

She indicated that she might bring forward a resolution at the next meeting calling for an independent review of the crosswalk ordinance and the associated infrastructure.

During his report to the council, city administrator Steve Powers indicated that he’ll be providing an update to the council on the review of the new crosswalk ordinance, and of the sanitary sewer overflow in the Arboretum that had taken place at the start of the weekend.

That memo was released subsequent to the meeting. [.pdf of crosswalk memo] [.pdf of WMU study mentioned in memo]

Comm/Comm: Regional Transit Authority

During communications time toward the end of the evening, mayor John Hieftje noted that an October city council work session [likely to be set for Oct. 14] will include representatives from the southeast Michigan regional transit authority (RTA).

Comm/Comm: Fuller Road Station

During council communications time, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) alerted his council colleagues that he’d be bringing forward a resolution that would rescind the memorandum of understanding between the city and the University of Michigan in connection with the Fuller Road Station. [Rescinding the memorandum of understanding is something that Kunselman talked about during his Democratic primary re-election campaign, at a June 8, 2013 candidate forum. Kunselman prevailed in the Aug. 6 primary over challenger Julie Grand.]

Comm/Comm: North Main Huron River Corridor Task Force

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave an update on the work of the North Main Huron River Corridor task force. Their final report has been submitted. [It's now on the Sept. 16 council agenda as a resolution that would formally accept the report.]

The report includes some before-after photos depicting possible improvements, like a pedestrian bridge across the Huron River connecting the Argo berm to the DTE-MichCon property. The task force was established at the council’s May 7, 2012 meeting, and a report had been due at the end of July. But Briere had apprised the council at previous meetings of the slight delay.

Briere apologized for the delay in the delivery of the report. She hoped there would be a presentation at the next council meeting on Sept. 16.

Comm/Comm: D1 Zoning Review

During her council communications, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that the D1 zoning review could be delayed. More public meetings have been added than were originally planned.

Comm/Comm: Sensory Garden

During council communications, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) announced that on Sept. 15 at 1 p.m. a Sensory Garden will be dedicated at Liberty Plaza – the downtown park at Division and Liberty. It’s a project of the Ann Arbor commission on disability issues, in collaboration with the city’s adopt-a-park program and the University of Michigan Matthaei Botanical Gardens. A ceremony will be held to honor former commissioner Pamela Baker-Trostle.

Comm/Comm: Anti-Israel Protests

During public commentary reserved time, Henry Herskovitz cited two news articles about the protests in front the Beth Israel Congregation on Washtenaw Avenue, in which he regularly participates. He noted that at the previous council meeting [on Aug. 19, 2013], the council had been asked to express its displeasure about the protests. He objected to comments made by mayor John Hieftje and other councilmembers. Herskovitz noted that Hieftje had indicated that the city had tried all legal methods to stop the protests, which Herskovitz feared could be interpreted by some to mean that now illegal methods should be used. He reported that three days earlier, someone had spat on a protestor. A police officer had come out to investigate and to view video of the incident, Herskovitz said.

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

Absent: Jane Lumm, Marcia Higgins.

Next council meeting: Sept. 16, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

The Chronicle could not survive without regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of public bodies like the Ann Arbor city council. We sit on the hard bench so that you don’t have to. 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 initial approval to changes to the supplemental regulations for a PUD (planned unit development) came at the city council’s Sept. 3, 2013 meeting. The changes to the PUD regulations would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The businesses are located on a 1.44-acre site.

The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building. Access to the drive-thru lane would be off of the site’s existing entrance from Ann Arbor-Saline Road. A PUD had previously been approved by the council at its July 2, 2012 meeting, but without plans for a drive-thru restaurant. The city planning commission had unanimously recommended approval of the request for a revision at its July 16, 2013 meeting.

The council will need to vote again at a subsequent meeting, after a public hearing, to give the changes final approval.

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]

Residents attended the July 16, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission to express concerns about the proposed Glendale Condominiums project. A public hearing on the project lasted about an hour. (Photos by the writer.)

In a public hearing that lasted about an hour, neighbors cited a range of issues, including concerns about increased flooding, the lack of pedestrian access, increased traffic and the loss of landmark trees. One resident told commissioners that she already has a sump pump “that could probably pump pudding to Ypsilanti, it’s so powerful.” She’s concerned it will need to run continuously if the project gets built.

The proposal for the 2.54-acre site at 312 Glendale Drive includes demolishing two single-family homes on the south end of the property and building eight two-bedroom duplexes. Each unit would include a one-car garage, with eight additional surface parking spaces on the site.

The project is located in Ward 5, and both city councilmembers representing that ward – Mike Anglin and Chuck Warpehoski – attended the July 16 meeting. Warpehoski was among the speakers at the public hearing, but was cut off by commissioner Diane Giannola, who cited the commission’s bylaws. The bylaws state: “A member of the City Council shall not be heard before the Commission as a petitioner, representative of a petitioner or as a party interested in a petition during the Council member’s term of office.” Warpehoski, who had been unaware of that rule, stepped away from the podium but stayed for the remainder of the public hearing and the commission’s deliberations on this item.

After discussing the proposal, commissioners followed a staff recommendation and postponed action on the project, to allow for time to address unresolved issues related to the site plan.

In other action, commissioners recommended approval of a drive-thru addition for the Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline and Eisenhower, near the I-94 interchange. As a “public amenity,” the owner proposes putting in a 140-square-foot brick-paved area near the intersection, with two park benches and shrubbery. Some commissioners questioned whether anyone would use that spot, given its location next to heavy traffic. Wendy Woods, saying she had family nearby, indicated that there is a fair amount of pedestrian and bike traffic in that area. She also floated the idea of putting public art on that corner, given that it’s a “gateway” to the city. Sabra Briere indicated that the city wouldn’t fund public art on the privately owned site, but would “applaud” the owner if he chose to put artwork there.

Also gaining unanimous approval was a request by the Glacier Hills retirement community for adding 31 parking spaces to its property, near US-23 on the city’s east side. A representative from the nearby Earhart Village spoke against the project, saying that the parking is primarily for commercial uses, even though the area is residential. He argued that Glacier Hills is drawing customers to the property, who use the cafe there and other services, and that it negatively impacts the adjoining neighborhoods. He also complained about changes to the site that can be approved via administrative amendments, with no oversight by the planning commission. One such change – an addition to one of the Glacier Hills “villas” – is currently pending with the planning staff.

Commissioners also approved minor changes to their bylaws, and got updates on the R4C citizens advisory committee and the review of A2D2 zoning. Just prior to the July 16 regular commission meeting, the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC) had met with Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates, the Ann Arbor consultant that’s been hired to handle the city council-mandated review of downtown zoning. The work includes a series of events aimed at seeking public input. Upcoming events include Thursday morning coffee hours with consultants that are open to the public from 8-10 a.m. at the new Zingerman’s Deli building, starting on July 25. And two focus groups are scheduled for next week: on Monday, July 29, 8-9:30 a.m. at Kerrytown Concert House, 415 N. Fourth Ave.; and on Tuesday, July 30, 7-8:30 p.m. at the lower level conference room in city hall, 301 E. Huron St. More events are listed on the city’s website.

Glendale Condominiums

The proposed Glendale Condominiums at 312 Glendale Drive was on the July 16 agenda, with a recommendation by the planning staff for postponement.

Aerial view of proposed Glendale Condominiums site, south of Jackson Avenue.

The project is located south of Jackson Avenue and east of Hillside Terrace on the city’s west side. The proposal calls for tearing down two single-family homes on the south side of the 2.54-acre site and building eight two-bedroom duplexes. Each unit would include a one-car garage, with eight additional surface parking spaces on the site. There would be one driveway into the site off of Glendale, for an internal drive connecting the duplexes within the site. There are no interior sidewalks in the development, but there is a sidewalk planned along Glendale, on the property’s east side.

The property is zoned R4B (multi-family dwelling).

In giving the staff report, Jill Thacher highlighted the site’s topography, noting steep slopes on the north side of the property.

Eighteen of the 23 landmark trees in a former orchard on the site would be removed, but many are in poor health, Thacher noted, and the city requires that only six of those be replaced. However, because of the city’s conflicting land use buffer requirements, 105 new trees will be planted on the property’s north, south and west sides. The developer also has agreed to make a $9,920 contribution to the city’s park system.

Thacher noted that there’s currently a cut-through used by pedestrians, located at the west end of the current driveway and leading to Hillside Terrace, where pedestrians can then continue walking west on Charlton Avenue. Although the developer initially rejected making a pedestrian connection there, plans now call for putting in a pathway from Glendale to the Hillside Terrace property. A public sidewalk would be built along Glendale Drive, but there are no internal sidewalks proposed within the development to connect the duplexes.

The planning staff had requested that the site’s drive connect to the driveway at Hillside Terrace to the west. The project’s architect, Scott Bowers, reported that Hillside Terrace will not agree to a driveway connection.

There will be an on-site stormwater management system consisting of an underground detention basin designed to handle runoff from a 100-year storm. The developer would be required to pay for footing drain disconnects in four homes located in the vicinity of the site.

The development, which is targeting “empty nesters,” is estimated to cost $2.3 million. The owner is listed as Jeffrey Starman of Ann Arbor.

Rendering of the front of a proposed Glendale Condo duplex.

Planning staff had recommended postponement to resolve several outstanding issues. Among those issues are the protection of landmark trees and unresolved utility and sidewalk easements. The developer also had submitted a revised site plan recently that the planning staff hasn’t had time to review. That revised site plan – which Thacher described as “quite a bit different” from the previous version – was developed in response to feedback in the staff report that was included in the planning commission’s meeting packet. The revised plan still calls for eight two-bedroom duplexes. [.pdf of written staff report]

Other concerns about the project – related to design, traffic, pedestrian access and other issues – had been raised during two citizen participation meetings earlier this year. [.pdf of citizen participation reports]

Neighbors also have concerns about possible soil contamination from the former Barnard Plating Company building at 1943 Jackson Ave., about 300 feet west of the site. Thacher noted that an environmental site assessment report that was done in 1989 identified heavy metal soil contamination on the Glendale property. There might be other contaminants on the site, such as pesticides used on the orchard, she said, but the city doesn’t regulate soil contamination or removal. That’s the purview of the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, and it’s the developer’s responsibility to follow MDEQ rules and regulations.

Glendale Condos: Public Commentary

More than 40 people attended the commission’s July 16 meeting, and 14 residents spoke during a public hearing on the project that lasted about an hour. Most of their remarks focused on problems of flooding, sewage backups and drainage in that area, which they fear will be exacerbated by this new development. Other issues related to traffic and the preservation of landmark trees and open space.

Diane Robins expressed concern about stormwater runoff and sewage overflow, saying that water-related issues are very problematic in the neighborhood. Residents expect those problems will increase if the site is developed. The plans for underground stormwater detention are inadequate, she said, given the amount of impervious surface that’s planned.

To document their concerns, residents created a flood, stormwater and sewage survey modeled after the city’s water survey. The surveys were distributed via email and a door-to-door campaign in April and May. They got 51 responses out of 100 surveys distributed, Robins said. Of those, 33 respondents indicated they had basement flooding, 24 had yard flooding, 13 had flooding in the adjacent street, 11 had sewage overflow, and about 18 needed extensive repairs due to water damage.

From this data, residents created a map showing where the affected houses are located. It shows sewage overflow concentrated on Charlton, and basement flooding problems on Abbott, Robins said. Those streets are downhill from the site, which currently “acts as a giant 2.2-acre sponge,” she said. She requested that the project be postponed until a stormwater evaluation is undertaken. [.pdf of email from Robins and Kira Slovacek regarding neighborhood survey results] [.pdf of email from Robins highlighting concerns about grading]

Lynn Borset, a resident who lives near the proposed Glendale Condo development, spoke during a public hearing on the project.

Mark Hieber identified himself as a landscape architect and land planner. He had reviewed the plans online and said the topographic survey doesn’t appear to include trees that are off-site but near the property line. It appears that drip lines of those trees extend significantly onto the property. It looks like the proposed grading on the north side would be altered near those trees, so he suggested that the implications of that grading be understood in order to preserve the trees.

Hieber recommended that the developer provide more detailed renderings for each unit, showing how the building would look within the site’s topography. Some residents had met with the design team and discussed a more sensitive arrangement of buildings – that would follow the topography, to limit the amount of grading. He encouraged a driveway connection to Hillside Terrace, and to align the driveway entrance off Glendale so that it would be directly across from one of the streets, rather than facing a house.

Tom O’Connell told commissioners he’s lived on Orchard Street for 47 years. He expressed concerns about flooding in the neighborhood. More than 20 years ago, he said, there had been a class action lawsuit against 1939 Jackson Ave., where Hillside Terrace is located, and against the city of Ann Arbor. Most people involved in that lawsuit are deceased or have moved, he said. Houses are still having problems because of 1939 Jackson Ave., he said, and residents will have more water in their basements if this new project is built.

The next speaker was Vince Caruso, speaking as coordinating manager of the Allen Creek Watershed Group. He lives on Glendale Circle, near the proposed development. He advocated for a watershed study to be done before the project is allowed. Such a study has been in the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) since 2008, he noted, but it’s been postponed. Most neighborhood groups on the city’s west side have signed on for such a study, he said.

Caruso referenced a range of flooding issues, saying that these issues aren’t very well understood by city planners. As an example, on June 27 10,000 gallons of raw sewage spilled into the Huron River, he noted – “and this was not even a 100-year rain.” Caruso cited several other projects in the Allen Creek watershed that have experienced or contributed to flooding problems, or that have resulted in problems due to their location in the floodway. The city needs to protect existing homes and the existing tax base, Caruso said.

The Allen Creek Watershed Group is also concerned about climate change, Caruso said, mentioning studies that show Michigan will have much more rain in the future, and Ann Arbor needs to plan for that. Public health, safety and welfare is clearly at stake with unaddressed sewage and stormwater issues, he concluded. [.pdf of email from Caruso]

Robert Beane lives at the corner of Abbot and Glendale, directly across the street from the proposed project. He said his house was built in 1948 with a footprint that’s almost six times smaller than the buildings at Glendale Condos. His comments focused on concerns about the steep slope on the property’s north side. One of the proposed buildings would cut right into the slope, he said, so it’s hard to see how the slope is being protected. The slope runs directly down to the houses on Orchard Court to the north, and then further down to Orchard Street to the northeast. Nearly half of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces, he noted, and it’s hard to see how the proposed stormwater management system will capture all the runoff. Beane also pointed out that for 40 years – until Hillside Terrace was built – the orchard was directly connected to the former Barnard Plating Company, so heavy metal contamination is a concern.

From left: Ann Arbor Ward 5 city councilmembers Chuck Warpehoski and Mike Anglin with Robert Beane, a resident who lives across from the proposed Glendale Condos site. The project is in Ward 5.

Gretchen Hahn told commissioners that she lived at the corner of Abbott and Virginia, in a house built in 1926. She has a sump pump “that could probably pump pudding to Ypsilanti, it’s so powerful.” It runs non-stop when it rains, she said.

The fact that four footing drain disconnects are recommended by the city to help mitigate stormwater runoff just adds insult to injury for the neighborhood, she said. Residents are being asked to do something else to accommodate a plan that doesn’t fit well. Hahn also reported that residents have requested a traffic study. She noted that the staff report indicates the developer won’t connect a driveway to the Hillside Terrace property because of liability concerns. “What they’re really saying is they’re willing to push those traffic concerns right off onto the neighborhood,” she said.

Hahn’s other concern was the proposal to eliminate lanes on Jackson Avenue, a project to be undertaken by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. She teaches at the middle school that’s four blocks from her home. There are no stop signs on Abbott, Charlton or Orchard for the east- or westbound traffic, and it’s a route used by lots of kids, she said. Hahn is concerned that traffic will increase on those roads, and noted that MDOT didn’t do a traffic study about the impact that changes on Jackson will have on these residential streets.

Ethel Potts, a former planning commissioner, said she assumed the commissioners had followed the usual tradition of visiting the sites of projects that are on their agenda. The entire site is a hill, she noted, and the city’s code considers steep or medium slopes to be natural features to be protected. There’s a 22-foot difference in height on the site, or about two stories, she said. The site plan doesn’t show how the buildings will be made level, Potts noted, which will require either digging into the slope or filling it up. It will require major moving of earth, she contended. The site plan should indicate how much of the land will remain untouched, she argued – that information is what site plans are for. Without that information, there can be nothing to enforce later, she said.

Matt Keefe lives on Abbott one block east of Glendale. He read a statement from his 86-year-old neighbor, Griselda Cuadros, who has lived in her house since 1965. He said her thoughts, written by her son Paul, are representative of others in the neighborhood. Her house began experiencing basement flooding in the 1970s, but her father regraded the back yard to prevent stormwater from leaking into the house. This solution worked for decades, but in the past three years the basement has again experienced flooding. She suspects that erosion, construction and other factors have taken a toll. She urged the city to carefully consider the impact that the Glendale Condo project would have on long-time residents, people who have paid property taxes over their lifetimes and created an attractive neighborhood close to downtown. The city needs to develop a plan to deal with these stormwater issues before the project is approved. Keefe concluded by saying that the comments by Cuadros should remind the city to protect the property of existing homeowners who have invested so much for so many years.

Doug Aikenhead thanked the city planning staff, commissioners and the design team for trying to respond to community concerns. However, “I think it’s a puzzle that might not be fixable.” His neighbors have already addressed concerns about stormwater and traffic. He noted that the stretch of Glendale where this project would be located is pretty narrow, and street parking is inevitable – adding to concerns about congestion and pedestrian safety. Glendale is also very steep where it intersects with Jackson, and it’s already challenging to enter Jackson there. Proposed lane reductions on Jackson will exacerbate the situation, he said.

Aikenhead noted that the proposed condos are much larger and disproportionate to other buildings in the neighborhood, and will quadruple housing density in the two-block stretch of Glendale. Another major concern is that the land is a unique, valuable piece of landscape, filling aesthetic and recreational needs. “It calms my soul when I walk through it, when I drive by it,” he said. If the development proceeds, this priceless natural landscape will disappear forever, he said. “Once it’s gone, there is no bringing it back. Please, don’t allow this to happen.”

Priscilla Parker, who lives on Charlton, argued that the proposed development doesn’t meet goals A and B in the land use element of the city’s master plan. Goal A states: “Ensure that development projects are designed and constructed in a way that preserves or enhances the integrity of natural systems.” This project will destroy natural systems, she said – increasing air pollution, reducing green space, increasing stormwater and sewage overflow, destroying landmark trees.

Goal B of the land use element states: “Promote land use designs that reduce reliance on the automobile… Improve the safety, accessibility and desirability of walking, biking or using mass transit.” The Glendale Condos project does the opposite of this, Parker said. Nor will the project help the city achieve its non-motorized transportation plan, she noted. Parker urged commissioners to recommend denial of the Glendale Condos.

David Gold lives on Orchard Street, one block east and downhill from the proposed project. He wanted to reiterate the need for a traffic study. He talked about the character of the neighborhood east of the site – on Orchard, Abbott and Charlton streets. His family moved there because it’s a quiet neighborhood of mostly single-family, owner-occupied homes. There are seven children on his street under the age of 10, and as many dogs. Children can play safely on all three streets, which are narrow and would not easily accommodate more traffic. On Orchard, parking is allowed on only one side of the street, so already there are parking issues, he said. Because Glendale is so steep at Jackson, it’s nearly impassable in the winter, Gold said. That means the residents of Glendale Condos would be driving down Orchard, Abbott or Charlton to get to Virginia and ultimately to Jackson. It will change the character of the neighborhood.

Kathy Boris, who lives on Charlton, stressed problem with stormwater and sewage backup – saying it makes no sense to approve this development that’s upstream from the neighborhood. Many residents have invested considerable money to mitigate the flooding on their properties, she said. Will their efforts be undone? One would suspect so, she added.

One of her neighbors also had raised concern about the West Nile virus, and the need to eliminate standing water that becomes a breeding ground for mosquitoes. It’s a public health issue, she argued. City code states that a development can gain approval only if it doesn’t create a public or private nuisance, she said, and won’t have a detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare. Boris maintained that Glendale Condos will undermine public health and welfare in her neighborhood. She urged commissioners “to first, do no harm.” Don’t make flooding problems worse by approving this project.

Ward 5 city councilmember Chuck Warpehoski.

Lynn Borset spoke as the representative of the Virginia Park neighborhood. She mentioned an email that commissioners had received that included a Power Point presentation about how the project’s grading and rooflines will make stormwater problems even worse. [.pdf of email from Diane Robins highlighting concerns about grading] Borset said she’s lived on Virginia Avenue for 30 years and has served on the advisory committee to help the city develop an urban forestry management plan. She focused her remarks on how the loss of mature trees and green space will impact the neighborhood, reading from the city’s website about the benefits of an urban forest. There are over 60 trees on this site, most of them 10 inches or more in diameter, but over 80% of them would be removed. There are 24 black walnut trees on the site ranging from 9 inches to 28 inches in diameter, and that collectively provide 27,160 gallons of stormwater mitigation, and 8,640 pounds of reduced carbon dioxide levels each year, she said. The underground detention basin on the site might address stormwater issues, she said, but it won’t replace the other benefits that the trees provide.

Borset also cited concerns about the sidewalk configuration on the north side of the site. They’ll have to build a retaining wall that will be seven feet high, she contended, and digging into the slope for that wall will harm nearby trees. She concluded by reading an excerpt from the planning commission bylaws – Article III, Section 3, which states that the commission’s recommendations “shall consider the impact which such development shall have on the physical, social, economic, and environmental condition of the City.” The Glendale Condos project will have a negative impact on all these conditions, she concluded.

Chuck Warpehoski began speaking next but was quickly interrupted by commissioner Diane Giannola, who raised a point of order. She said that according to the commission’s bylaws, city councilmembers can’t speak at planning commission meetings. Giannola cited Section 9 of Article V, which covers ethics and conflicts of interest:

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

Warpehoski – who lives southwest of the proposed project, on Winewood – is one of two councilmembers representing Ward 5, where the project is located. The other Ward 5 councilmember, Mike Anglin, also attended the July 16 meeting. Anglin does not live in that part of the ward.

Susan Cybulski lives on the section of Charlton that’s west of the project, and reported that her mother is a resident of Hillside Terrace. About 100 of those residents are shut-ins because of their physical condition, she noted. The dining room of Hillside Terrace faces the orchard, and is a beautiful view, she said. If a development is built there, it will impact the quality of life for these residents who can’t easily leave Hillside Terrace. Cybulski asked commissioners to consider that issue.

The final speaker was Scott Bowers, the project’s architect. His associate Susan Bowers was also on hand to answer questions. As the design team, they didn’t take the neighbors concerns lightly, he said. The original plan was four buildings with four units in each building. But after the first citizens participation meeting, they immediately realized it was not something that would be well received. So they ultimately proposed duplexes. It allows the buildings to follow as much of the existing topography as they can, he said. They’ve turned in a new site grading plan, he reported, which now proposes no grading at all on the north slope. Additional soil borings will be done to prove that the site has the capacity to handle all the stormwater for the site.

Regarding pedestrian access to the Hillside Terrace site, Bowers reported that the developers were originally concerned about liability, but now they’re willing to put in a walkway for pedestrians. However, Hillside Terrace doesn’t want a vehicle connection to its property, he said. “I can’t make that work out.”

He noted that there’s room in front of each garage for a vehicle to park, and there is additional parking throughout the site. Bowers also stated that the design team has worked to preserve as many of the existing trees as possible.

At the conclusion of the public hearing, Kirk Westphal – the planning commission’s chair – noted that if the item is postponed, the public hearing would continue at the meeting when the project is reconsidered.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion

The discussion lasted about an hour and covered a range of issues, primarily focused on stormwater, natural features and traffic.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Stormwater

Sabra Briere began by noting that many residents had raised concerns about stormwater, and the site’s ability to manage runoff within the site as well as water flowing onto the site from uphill properties. She asked the project’s architects to explain how the site’s stormwater management system is supposed to function.

Scott Bowers, project architect for the proposed Glendale Condos.

Susan Bowers explained that runoff from all impervious surfaces will be contained within the site’s stormwater management system. The latest proposal, submitted on the Friday prior to the July 16 meeting, is to leave the north side of the property undisturbed, rather than grading it. Toward the center of the site, an underground catch basin will be installed that’s connected to the city’s stormwater system, to control runoff from that undisturbed higher ground as well as the rest of the site.

Scott Bowers noted that runoff on the site, including runoff from downspouts and gutters, will be directed into a drainage field – essentially a grassy area, with the catch basin underneath it. The basin is permeable, with 72-inch diameter pipes that temporarily store the water before it infiltrates deeper into the ground. He indicated that additional soil borings are being taken to verify that the infiltration will work.

Scott Bowers described the stormwater system as oversized for the site.

Briere noted that neighbors will be concerned about whether the water will flow out of the drainage field and onto Glendale, then from there into other nearby streets. “That’s an area that we will all be thinking about,” she said. Scott Bowers replied that the system is designed so that water won’t leach out.

Diane Giannola wondered if the architects had accounted for water that might flow onto the site from other properties. Susan Bowers replied: City code doesn’t require the developer to do that calculation. However, the Washtenaw County water resources commissioner’s office is reviewing the site plan as part of a broader picture, she said. Scott Bowers added that the site plan keeps the natural grade as much as possible, and with the site’s stormwater management system, they’re not worried about flooding on the site.

Bonnie Bona asked if there will be less runoff from the site after the project’s stormwater system is installed. “More than likely, yes,” Scott Bowers replied. Some of the site will be regraded so that runoff is redirected into the drainage field. Susan Bowers noted that currently water flows down the existing driveway onto Glendale “like a river” when it rains – and that issue would be eliminated. Bona again stated that it would be safe to say that the runoff should be less after the development than it is today.

A resident from the audience called out: “Were you expecting something different from them?” Kirk Westphal, the commission’s chair, said he hoped the audience could accord some respect to the speakers. He noted that there would be another opportunity for public commentary at the end of the meeting.

Bona clarified with the architects that the developer will pay for the four footing drain disconnects. The developer also paid for a flow analysis that the city used to calculate the number of footing drain disconnects that are needed, Scott Bowers said.

Bona wondered if the disconnects could be targeted specifically for houses downstream of the site. Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff confirmed that the disconnects would be downstream. She noted that Troy Baughman in the city’s systems planning unit did the analysis, which is available online. [.pdf of Baughman's report]

Planning manager Wendy Rampson clarified that the footing drain disconnect program is a sanitary sewer mitigation program, not stormwater mitigation. The purpose is to remove connections so that stormwater won’t flow into the sanitary sewer system.

Kirk Westphal, chair of the Ann Arbor planning commission.

Westphal noted that one of the residents had spoken about runoff from the roofs, and that the angle might cause runoff to spill outside the proposed catch basin area. Scott Bowers replied that the building’s 6-inch gutters are designed to direct runoff into the site’s stormwater system.

Westphal clarified with staff that the proposed stormwater system is a standard requirement for new developments of this kind. He also pointed out – addressing his remarks to the residents who were attending the meeting – that the commission’s purview is isolated to the site plan, rather than the broader capital improvements or other actions that the city might be taking. He asked whether planning staff could provide resources for residents, if they wanted more information about stormwater or other issues.

Thacher cited Troy Baughman in the city’s systems planning unit, saying that he’s been working with some of the residents in this neighborhood already about stormwater issues. There’s a citywide stormwater modeling and analysis project underway, she said, and Baughman is leading that effort. Rampson added that the systems planning staff has appreciated the flooding survey information that residents of that neighborhood have collected. The information is very helpful as staff try to identify solutions to the flooding issues.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Soil Contamination

Wendy Woods asked about the possible soil contamination. She hoped the planning commission would be given more information about this issue, even though she understood it’s not something the city regulates. She knew that soil borings were being done to determine the type of soil, but she wondered if soil would be analyzed for contamination, too.

Scott Bowers reported that the developer had done an environmental analysis several years ago before buying the property, and another one was conducted about two years ago when the developer refinanced. The studies found that the site isn’t contaminated, he said, and he indicated that those reports could be made available to the city.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Natural Features

In response to a query from Westphal, Jill Thacher said that the project’s alternatives analysis hadn’t provided the information required by city code. It needed to be tweaked in order to make it a viable alternative, she said, rather than just a different building configuration. The project’s design team needed to do more to preserve the natural features on the site.

From the staff report:

The alternatives analysis provided as justification for selection of the current layout is insufficient. Consider building orientation, grading options that will achieve the storm water management requirements and also protect the landmark trees that are located outside of the building footprint. If the alternative is not feasible, provide a detailed explanation on why it is not.

Westphal asked about concerns related to a retaining wall next to the Glendale sidewalk, and whether the wall might damage nearby trees. Scott Bowers indicated that it wouldn’t be necessary to dig into the ground to build the wall, so the roots wouldn’t be affected.

Bona asked for clarification about the city’s requirements that protect trees on adjacent properties. Rampson explained that the city’s natural features requirements state that the site plan must show vegetation within 50 feet of the property line. In this case, the critical root zone of landmark trees would need to be shown. Mitigation is not required, she said, but the city requests developers to follow the same mitigation requirements for off-site trees as for trees that are on the site.

Susan Bowers told commissioners that no off-site landmark trees are affected by the current design, which leaves the site’s north side undisturbed.

Paras Parekh echoed comments in public commentary, hoping the project can preserve more of the orchard while meeting the needs of the development. He wanted an alternatives analysis to address those issues.

Scott Bowers replied that although this was the first presentation to the planning commission, he estimated that the design team had gone through at least 10 different site plans. The current version is the least harmful to the site, he said. They’ve been working on it for over a year, and the only way to preserve more land is to have bigger buildings – perhaps four-unit structures instead of the duplexes. “We love the trees,” he said, and the design team has worked to save as many as possible. Susan Bowers added that the trees in the middle are large, but not in great condition.

Briere noted that some people are concerned in general that development on open space is a problem for neighborhoods. If residents were given a choice, some would require the city to make that kind of space into parkland. This is another situation where there’s open space that the neighbors see as a community value, she said, but “it’s in private hands, and we don’t have a plan for park acquisition in this location.”

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Pedestrian Access, Sidewalks, Drives

Briere was concerned that there are no interior sidewalks, and that there’s only one walkway that gives pedestrians access to the site. Ease of walking or biking – both within a development and through it – are important, she said. The design is so oriented toward vehicles that it would be hostile to anyone trying to walk out to Glendale, unless they used the one pathway. Why aren’t there any interior sidewalks? she wondered.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

Scott Bowers indicated that there are now two proposed pathways through the site, because this concern had been raised by neighbors. A sidewalk will go from the main entrance at Glendale through to the Hillside Terrace site on the south side of the site. Another sidewalk will be on the site’s north side.

Paras Parekh pressed Bowers about the lack of interior sidewalks. More sidewalks would help create a better sense of community, he said. Bowers explained that the developer didn’t think the sidewalks would be well used, and the design is intended to minimize the amount of impervious surface.

Bona said she appreciated not wanting to add to impervious surfaces, “but I think sometimes we forget that we should be eliminating roads instead of eliminating sidewalks.” She indicated she’d like to see the alternatives analysis for the site. Bona wondered if the architects had considered designing two driveways onto Glendale instead of one, and eliminating the long connector drive that runs throughout the site. The priority should be on pedestrians, she said. This development has probably 2-3 times more driveway pavement per house than anyone in the neighborhood, Bona said. “That’s not very pedestrian friendly.”

Scott Bowers replied that earlier designs did have two entrances, but the topography made it difficult to do. Another design had been for parking underneath an apartment building, which resulted in a bigger building but less driveway. Bowers also said the developer approached Hillside Terrace about making a driveway connection, but “we got a big no,” he said.

Bona noted that the current design is perfectly symmetrical in terms of the building layout, and she wasn’t convinced that it was necessary to take that approach. A less symmetrical design might eliminate some of the driveway so that sidewalks could be added. She thought the sidewalks should be “very intentional, and look very inviting – like the neighbors are supposed to use them.”

Bona also asked whether the developer would be willing to include a statement in the site plan or development agreement, indicating that if Hillside Terrace changed its mind and agreed to a connection, then Glendale Condominiums would be willing to make that connection too. Bowers indicated a willingness to do that.

Briere wondered why permeable pavement wasn’t considered for the drives. Scott Bowers cited maintenance and cost issues. They did not look into the possibility of permeable sidewalks, he said. Briere responded, saying that creating connections for this “mini-neighborhood” – both within the site and with the surrounding neighborhoods – should be one of the design team’s primary goals.

Bowers said he had a problem with putting sidewalks “all over the place” on both sides of the drive, but he didn’t have a problem with sidewalks crossing the site.

In response to a question from Bona about the location of the driveway entrance, planning manager Wendy Rampson said that generally the city tries to align driveways so that they’ll be located across from each other. But in the case of aligning with a public street, she wasn’t sure what’s preferable from a traffic engineering perspective. Scott Bowers said the design team had looked at aligning the driveway with Charlton, but it hadn’t worked out. The entrance is toward the south end of the site, but not directly across from Charlton.

The owner of the house directly across the street from the proposed entrance had attended one of the citizen participation meetings, and had expressed concern about lights shining into her home, as well as concerns about cars coming out of the driveway quickly while her children are playing in the area. Bona hoped that landscaping or some other option could be explored to help address this issue.

Glendale Condos: Commission Discussion – Misc. Site Design

Woods asked about how the duplexes are situated within the site. Scott Bowers described them as being “stepped” throughout the side, following the topography. That’s one reason why the plan is for duplexes, rather than one apartment building, he said. A larger, single building would require a bigger “tabletop,” which would mean significant regrading. Woods was interested in seeing an image of how the buildings would look within the overall site.

Briere observed that the drawings in the commission’s meeting packet show single buildings. She recommended providing a view from the street looking toward the development, and including the surrounding buildings. Often, commissioners see site plans with no context, Briere said. It would be helpful to have a good rendering of what the architects think the development will look like.

Westphal noted that the project is proposing about half the number of units and half the height that’s allowable under city zoning. Susan Bowers explained that one of the project’s alternatives analysis plans had been for a building with two stories above ground and parking underneath – more of an apartment-style project, with 32 units rather than the 16 that are now being proposed.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to postpone action on the Glendale Condominiums proposal.

Glendale Condos: Final Public Commentary

At the end of the meeting, two residents gave additional public commentary. Robert Beane thanked the city staff for being responsive. The whole experience working with the city has been wonderful, he said. Citing the comment by architect Scott Bowers that stormwater runoff from the site would be less than it is now, Beane called that statement “pure speculation.” Sidewalks are another major concern. Beane’s family regularly walks to Westgate Shopping Center and the Kroger on South Maple. There’s no sidewalk connecting South Maple to the Kroger building, he noted, so they have to walk through the large Kroger parking lot. That’s the exact same feel that the Glendale Condo site will have, he said. It’s not something he should have to feel in his own neighborhood.

Planning commissioner Wendy Woods.

Beane also criticized the location of the proposed driveway into the condos, noting that because of the difference in grade, car headlights would be shining directly into the windows of the house across the street, which he called irresponsible. And citing comments that the trees on the property are unhealthy, “that’s mainly due to negligence of the current owner,” he said. When branches fall off, it’s the neighbors who go in and haul off the brush. “That’s how we are connected to this orchard.”

Gretchen Hahn spoke again, reiterating her concerns about traffic. It seemed that commissioners were responding to concerns about stormwater issues, but she wasn’t hearing the same resonance about traffic.

It’s a quiet neighborhood with lots of kids and dogs, Hahn said. Because she’s a teacher, she has the summers off, so she sits on her porch in the morning. She watches people drive through the neighborhood and “barely tap their brakes” at the stop sign at Virginia and Charlton. There was no MDOT neighborhood traffic impact study for the Jackson Avenue project, and approaching Jackson from Glendale will become more of an issue when the lanes on Jackson are narrowed. Traffic will come down Charlton or Abbott to Virginia, then up to Jackson, she said. Several children play near the corner where she lives. She didn’t want the traffic issue to have a tragic end, so she urged the city to require a traffic study.

Hahn also asked for clarification about the stormwater flow, which she said would leach back into the system “at the point at which we’re already overwhelmed with water.” She’d like to know how long it takes to empty the catch basin after it’s filled. She wondered if the sump pump in her home would end up pumping continuously.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson also reported that the staff had received a phone call late in the day from Jan Curry on Fair Street, who expressed concern about traffic on the gravel portion of that street. Fair Street runs between Glendale and Virginia, south of Charlton.

Tim Hortons Drive-Thru

A revised PUD (planned unit development) zoning and site plan for the Shell station and Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower Parkway were on the July 16 agenda.

The Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline and Eisenhower. Owners of the property, which includes a Shell station, hope to add a drive-thru.

Proposed changes to the supplemental regulations for this 1.44-acre site would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing Shell convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building. Access to the drive-thru lane would be off of the site’s existing entrance from Ann Arbor-Saline Road. The property is located in Ward 4.

A PUD had previously been approved by the council at its July 2, 2012 meeting, but without plans for a drive-thru restaurant.

If approved by the council, the drive-thru lane would be screened by a 30-inch high hedgerow, berm and landscaping, according to a staff memo. The plan also calls for installing a brick-paved pedestrian path from the Ann Arbor-Saline Road public sidewalk to the north entrance of the building. A paved patio area would be located in the center of the drive-thru loop for outside dining.

As a “public amenity,” the owner proposes putting in a 140-square-foot brick-paved area at the site’s southwest corner – near the intersection of Eisenhower and Ann Arbor-Saline Road – with two park benches and shrubbery. Up to 15 jobs might be added as a result of the drive-thru, which was also cited as a public benefit. PUD projects require some kind of public benefit, in exchange for this type of customized zoning.

The plan also entails building a new sidewalk “stub” from the south of the building, which could possibly be used in the future to connect to the Cranbrook Village Shopping Center located to the east of the site. However, planning staff noted that a sidewalk between those two parcels might not be viable, given the steep slope between the two properties. Nor have the owners of the shopping center given permission for such a connection.

No one spoke at a public hearing on this project.

Tim Hortons Drive-Thru: Commission Discussion

Paras Parekh said he liked the concept of the paved brick space and benches as a public benefit, but it’s quite a busy corner with a high volume of traffic. Having a pleasant conversation there might be challenging. He wondered if other locations had been considered. Chris Cheng explained that there’s really no other viable option. There’s a stormwater detention area in the southeast corner, and the drive-thru would be located on the north side of the site.

Brad Cousino of Terratek Design Inc., with an image of the proposed Tim Hortons drive-thru.

Sabra Briere described the location as “not particularly a place one would normally walk.” It’s adjacent to a giant parking lot, she observed, so she was struggling to imagine this as a true public amenity. Putting something in place that nobody uses isn’t a public amenity. Are there alternative amenities that might actually benefit the public? she asked.

Brad Cousino of Terratek Design Inc., the project engineer, responded. At a citizens participation meeting for the project, he said, people indicated that there was a lot of foot and bike traffic up and down both Ann Arbor-Saline and Eisenhower, especially on game days in the fall – a reference to University of Michigan football games. The seating area would create a “welcoming atmosphere as a gateway site,” he said.

Jeremy Peters wondered if the owner had considered putting the park bench area in the northern corner of the site, saying that he knew the berm would make that difficult. He indicated it might be a better location, closer to the Whole Foods that’s located in the Cranbrook Shopping Center. It might be a space where people could eat food from both Tim Hortons or the Whole Foods hot bar. Cousino pointed out that picnic tables and chairs are located in the area adjacent to the drive-thru. There’s a significant grade on the north side, which actually offers a great buffer between the drive-thru and Ann Arbor-Saline Road. And a pedestrian connection between the property and Cranbrook “would be beyond our capabilities,” he said, because of the steep slope.

Wendy Woods reported that she goes to that area often, because her granddaughters live nearby. There actually is bike and pedestrian traffic at that corner, so she thought the paved area and benches would, in fact, provide a public amenity. She appreciated the fact that this is a gateway into the city that’s more pleasant than some other areas.

Bonnie Bona said it’s nice to hear that there’s bike and pedestrian traffic in this “heavily vehicular-trafficked area.” She suggested putting in a landscaping buffer between the seating area and the street, “so you didn’t feel you were sitting on the edge of the road.”

Planning manager Wendy Rampson expressed some concern about doing design during the meeting. Also, “if you are inviting people to stay in a space, you do not want to make it so that it’s obscured in any way.” Bona clarified that she was just looking for something to soften the space from the road. Cousino noted that the proposed seating area is about 10 feet away from any pavement.

Kirk Westphal asked that the city’s parks staff review the proposal for this seating area.

In response to another query from Bona, Cousino described where the pedestrian walkway would be located, coming from the public sidewalk along Ann Arbor-Saline Road and into the picnic table area by Tim Hortons. The path would cross the drive-thru lane, but he indicated that they don’t expect much foot traffic coming into the site. He also identified the location of two existing bike parking spaces. Bona suggested adding more spaces for bikes, even if it wasn’t required.

The entrance off Eisenhower to a Shell station/Tim Hortons at the northeast corner of Ann Arbor-Saline Road and Eisenhower. This view is looking northwest toward an area where public benches are proposed.

Peters expressed concern about the possibility of drive-thru traffic backing up onto Ann Arbor-Saline Road. He noted that according to the staff report, there are possibly 15 jobs being added because of the drive-thru, and an anticipated 60 customer trips during the peak morning hours – including 30 for the drive-thru. He was worried that there might be back-up, especially since the location is near I-94, with people coming into Ann Arbor for work. Is there a way to mitigate that?

Cousino noted that the drive-thru lane provides for stacking of up to 10 cars, which he described as generous. If people see that the drive-thru lane is full, they’re more likely to park and come into the shop, he said. Mark Kellenberger, a representative of Tim Hortons, told commissioners that traffic studies have been done in past years at other sites, and the largest stacking capacity was 10 vehicles. Most of the drive-thrus accommodated seven vehicles. Their experience and research doesn’t indicate it will be a problem, Kellenberger said. The last thing they want to do is inconvenience customers by having cars stick out into the road, he said.

Westphal recalled that in the past, there had been some compliance issues on this site regarding signs and displays, and he wondered if those issues had been resolved. Chris Cheng of the city’s planning staff said he’d had discussions with the owner, Abe Ajrouch, about possibly screening the ice and vending machines that are outside the building. The planning staff has also held “numerous” discussions with the owner about banners and pennants on the site that aren’t in compliance with city code. Westphal suggested that the site should be brought into compliance before the project is reviewed by the city council.

Woods wondered whether the site might be a possible location for public art, given that it’s a gateway location. Cheng said there hadn’t been any discussions about it. Briere added that it isn’t a city capital improvement project, so the city wouldn’t consider funding public art there. However, it would be possible for someone to donate art or pay for artwork through crowdsourcing, she said. If the owner chooses to put public art there, “we would be happy to applaud,” she said.

Outcome: The project received a unanimous recommendation of approval from planning commissioners. It will next be considered by the city council.

Parking Expansion at Glacier Hills

A site plan to add 31 parking spaces at the Glacier Hills retirement community was on the July 16 agenda.

The spots would be added on the west side of an existing driveway in the north part of the property, which is located at 1200 Earhart Road. There are currently 486 parking spaces throughout the 31.5-acre site. The property is zoned R4B (multi-family dwelling) and includes 227 apartments and two-family residences, 155 nursing rooms, and 197 nursing care beds. The site, near US-23, is adjacent to Greenhills School and a residential neighborhood.

Aerial view of Glacier Hills. Earhart Village residents are located on the southwest border of the site, with the Greenhills School property on the southeast border.

A skilled nursing care facility, approved by the city in 2010, is under construction near the proposed parking addition. A temporary gravel parking lot in that area will be removed, with landscaping added.

In giving the staff report, city planner Alexis DiLeo noted that the most recent site plan was a “planned project” designation in 2000 to add The Meadows senior housing. That planned project included the requirement that the overall site maintain a minimum of 67.5% open space. According to calculations by Glacier Hills, the site currently has 68% open space. DiLeo told commissioners that the planning staff had asked Glacier Hills to verify that percentage, and that the staff’s concerns had been satisfied. Because the development is very close to the 67.5% threshold, she said, the staff emphasized that future building additions or parking expansions will be severely limited, and might only be possible on top of existing structures or parking areas.

The staff also has encouraged Glacier Hills to explore alternative transportation like van pools, park-and-ride and public transit options. The 31 additional parking spaces appear to be needed, DiLeo said, adding: “They have a voracious appetite for parking.”

DiLeo noted that an administrative amendment is under review by planning staff for an addition to the rear of Villa F, located in the southeast part of the site.

The addition of the 31 parking spaces is not an item that requires city council approval.

Parking Expansion at Glacier Hills: Public Commentary

One speaker – Rod Sorge, president of the Earhart Village homeowners association – addressed the commission three times on this topic, at both opportunities for public commentary, as well as during the public hearing. He alerted commissioners to the practice of administrative amendments handled by the city’s planning staff, including amendments that relate to Glacier Hills and that affect the adjacent Earhart Village neighborhood. One of those is a planned 2,300-square-foot, two-story addition to an existing building that’s within three feet of an existing conservation easement, he said.

Sabra Briere, a city councilmember who serves on the Ann Arbor planning commission, talks with Rod Sorge, president of the Earhart Village homeowners association.

He expressed frustration that previous agreements between the city, Glacier Hills and Earhart Village were being ignored. Glacier Hills can say anything in order to get its plans approved by the planning commission and city council, then come back later and make changes through administrative amendments, he contended. These amendments can be made without informing neighbors, without citizen participation, and without planning commission review, he said. Sorge hoped this “sleight of hand” does not escape the commission’s attention, and that commissioners will review in general how administrative amendments are used. If these amendments prevent the city from keeping faith with its agreements made with citizens, “something is seriously wrong with the rules,” he said.

At the project’s public hearing, Sorge told commissioners that Glacier Hills has a history of noncompliance and numerous administrative amendments. When the large project on the site’s north side was proposed, neighbors were told that no additional construction was possible, he said. But now there’s an administrative amendment being considered for a villa addition, which the Earhart Village homeowners association opposes, Sorge said – saying that it violates conditions of the site plan approved in 2000. He disputed the calculations related to the percentage of required open space.

Sorge also contended that the parking expansion primarily serves the commercial enterprises at Glacier Hills, including outpatient services and an open-to-the-public cafe. He wondered what impact this development would have on the nearby residential community, and on the already difficult intersection of Earhart and Glacier Way, especially when Greenhills School is in session. Given the demographics of the residents at Glacier Hills, the new parking likely isn’t needed for them, he said. It might be for employees who don’t want to take the six-minute AATA bus from the park-and-ride to Glacier Hills, or it might be for increased customer traffic, he said. Sorge urged commissioners to reject this proposal until they had a complete view of the entire enterprise. The parcel is overdeveloped, he said, with inappropriate commercial uses in a residential zone, and it negatively impacts the surrounding neighborhood, Sorge said.

Parking Expansion at Glacier Hills: Commission Discussion

Diane Giannola began by asking if Glacier Hills is zoned for commercial uses. Alexis DiLeo replied that the site is zoned R4B (multi-family dwelling), which allows for nursing homes, assisted living facilities and hospital-type uses. Planning manager Wendy Rampson added that the term used in the zoning code is “convalescent care,” which can include anything from physical therapy facilities to nursing care. This is the first time the staff has heard that Glacier Hills is anything more than a convalescent or nursing home, she said. DiLeo noted that it could include in-patient or out-patient services.

Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting was the only representative at the meeting for Glacier Hills. When called to the podium, he said he didn’t know anything about the operation in terms of commercial or non-commercial activities. There’s a large restaurant for residents that the public can use when visiting, he said, but he wasn’t aware that it was advertised for the public.

Sabra Briere read a list of amenities and services that are posted the Glacier Hills website, including a cafe, gift shop, beauty salon, library, chapel, wellness center. She noted that those are listed as amenities for the residents. She assumed that if she visited someone at Glacier Hills, they could take her to eat at the cafe, or she could buy a gift for that person at the gift shop. One of her friends is planning to move there, Briere said, so she’s more aware about what’s offered. The amenities are advertised to lure potential residents, she added. “That doesn’t mean the public can’t use them.”

Kirk Westphal asked for more details on the pending administrative amendment. DiLeo explained that it’s an addition to an existing duplex on the southeast part of the site. It’s a two-story addition, but only one story is above grade, she said. The other story is a walk-out basement. The threshold for an administrative amendment is 10% or 10,000 square feet of a building, whichever is less – so this addition qualifies, she said.

Earl Ophoff of Midwestern Consulting attended the July 16 planning commission meeting on behalf of Glacier Hills.

Briere asked Ophoff to explain the need for the parking spaces, as well as to talk about the villa addition. Ophoff noted that 31 parking spaces had been previously approved as part of the most recent major site plan, but they hadn’t been put in.

The conservation easement along the south side of the site is 100 feet wide, widening on the end toward Earhart Road. Ophoff explained that the villa where the addition is being proposed, near that easement, is actually adjacent to the Greenhills property, not Earhart Village.

Wendy Woods asked if a public meeting was required with residents of Earhart Village, or whether any communications were received from Greenhills School. Ophoff replied that postcards were mailed to residents or property owners within 500 feet of the parking project. No communications were received in response to that, he said, but he had talked with Rod Sorge of Earhart Village. There were no concerns raised by officials at Greenhills.

Westphal wondered if Glacier Hills was aware of alternative transportation options for its workers. DiLeo assumed they were, because the issue had been brought up during the previous site plan approval process. She said she couldn’t speak to the “depth of their knowledge,” however.

Briere noted that Glacier Hills is located in an important creekshed, describing it as “short but intense.” There are problems keeping it healthy. [The site is in the Fleming Creek watershed.] She was curious what’s being done for stormwater management. Would permeable pavement be used, or are there other infiltration plans?

Ophoff described it as an extremely small project in the overall context of the site, and he reviewed the existing stormwater management strategies. Permeable pavement won’t be used.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the parking expansion at Glacier Hills. No city council approval is required.

Parking Expansion at Glacier Hills: Final Public Commentary

Rod Sorge also addressed the commission during the final public commentary slot at the end of the meeting. He said he appreciated that the commission listened to all the public commentary about the Glendale Condo project. “As you know, in administrative amendments, that’s prohibited.” He urged commissioners to review how administrative amendments threaten the Earhart Village residents, as well as the process of administrative amendments overall. He doesn’t understand how it can be allowed, and he trusted that planning commissioners feel a responsibility to the public about how the city’s planning process is conducted.

Planning Commission Bylaws

At the commission’s July 2, 2013 meeting, planning staff had presented proposed revisions to the planning commission’s bylaws, which are reviewed annually. The revisions were on the July 16 agenda for approval. [.pdf of planning commission bylaws, with revisions highlighted in red]

Ann Arbor planning manager Wendy Rampson.

One minor change related to the order of business in the commission’s agenda. It’s being recommended to reflect the agenda template in a software program used by the city.

Another change would amend Article VII: Meetings, Section 16 – an item regarding the provision of special accommodations for the public, such as a sign language interpreter. The proposed amendment would change the advance notice required for special accommodations from 24 hours to 48 hours. This change is consistent with recent changes adopted by the city clerk’s office, according to planning manager Wendy Rampson.

On July 2, Bonnie Bona had questioned the change regarding special accommodations. The additional time seemed to add a burden on the public, she said, and she had asked for more information about why this change was necessary.

On July 16, Rampson said she’d checked with the clerk’s office and had been told that there are very few sign language interpreters who are readily available on short notice. The clerk’s office has experienced some difficulty in securing interpreters for city council meetings within 24 hours. That’s why the clerk’s office had changed its standards, and why the planning staff was recommending the same change.

Jeremy Peters wondered what would happen if the bylaws keep the current 24-hour standard: Are there legal ramifications if an interpreter can’t be secured during that time? Potentially, Rampson replied. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the city is required to make reasonable accommodations. If the city indicates that it can meet those accommodations within 24 hours but it isn’t actually able to do that, someone could file a complaint, she said. That complaint would go through an internal review, but ultimately could go to the U.S. Dept. of Justice if it can’t be resolved at the city level. “I think that’s pretty unlikely, but that would be the process that someone would go through,” she said.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the revisions to its bylaws.

Communications & Commentary

During the meeting there were several opportunities for communications from staff and commissioners, as well as two general public commentary times. Here are some highlights.

Communications & Commentary: A2D2, D1 Review

Kirk Westphal reported that the ordinance revisions committee (ORC) met earlier that evening with Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates, the Ann Arbor consultant that’s been hired to handle the city council-mandated review of downtown zoning. He said public input would be solicited for the review, though outreach was still being planned.

Erin Perdu of ENP & Associates at a July 16 meeting of the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee.

The planning commission had been intending to review the city’s A2D2 (Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown) zoning sometime this year. But in response to a controversial 413 E. Huron apartment project, on a site zoned D1, on April 1, 2013 the city council directed the planning commission to address three specific questions: (1) whether D1 zoning is appropriately located on the north side of Huron Street between Division and South State and the south side of William Street between South Main and Fourth Avenue; (2) whether the D1 residential FAR [floor area ratio] premiums effectively encourage a diverse downtown population; and (3) whether a parcel on the south side of Ann Street adjacent to city hall should be rezoned “to the appropriate zoning for this neighborhood.” That parcel, currently a surface parking lot, is now zoned D1.

The council set a deadline of Oct. 1 to deliver recommendations to the council.

The July 16 ORC meeting was attended by commissioners Westphal, Wendy Woods, Diane Giannola and Sabra Briere, as well as planning manager Wendy Rampson. Perdu got feedback on concerns or issues that commissioners wanted to address in the review, as well as suggestions for key stakeholders that should be included in outreach efforts. Those stakeholders include property owners in the D1 districts, neighbors, developers, merchant and neighborhood associations, the downtown citizens advisory council, and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Other categories of people mentioned by commissioners were empty-nesters, downtown business owners like Menlo Innovations and Barracuda Networks, and students who live in new downtown apartment buildings.

According to a draft work program distributed at the ORC meeting, Perdu and her associate Megan Masson-Minock plan to hold one-on-one interviews with stakeholders as well as small focus group meetings with constituent groups during the weeks of July 15-29. They will also hold coffee hours and post information for feedback on A2 Open City Hall.

On July 22, the city issued a press release with more details about public input sessions on the A2D2 review:

• Two focus groups are scheduled: (1) Monday, July 29, 8-9:30 a.m. at Kerrytown Concert House, 415 N. Fourth Ave.; and (2) Tuesday, July 30, 7-8:30 p.m. at the lower level conference room in city hall, 301 E. Huron St.
• Coffee hours with consultants are set for three Thursday mornings – July 25, Aug. 1 and Aug. 8 from 8-10 a.m. – at the new building in the Zingerman’s Deli complex, 422 Detroit St.
• A public workshop will be held on Monday, Aug. 5 from 7-8:30 p.m. at the lower level conference room in the Washtenaw County administration building, 200 N. Main St. The purpose is to review and prioritize issues identified in the focus groups.

Updates will be posted at the A2D2 website. Citizens can sign up for email updates by clicking on the red envelope “subscribe” icon on the city’s home page and selecting the “A2D2 Updates” option.

Communications & Commentary: Planning Manager’s Report

Wendy Rampson reported that the city council reconstituted the R4C advisory committee at its July 1, 2013 meeting, with a “slightly different” membership. The committee will conduct a short-term review of the planning commission’s recommendations regarding R4C zoning changes. They will also have “the opportunity to complete any discussions that may have been incomplete when that group disbanded,” Rampson said. The committee will be chaired by Julie Weatherbee, and will hold about four meetings.

Members of the R4C advisory committee appointed on July 1 are: Sabra Briere (Ward 1), representing the planning commission; Chuck Carver representing rental property owners; Ilene Tyler and Ray Detter (Ward 1); Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2); Ellen Rambo and Michelle Derr (Ward 3); Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4); Eppie Potts and Anya Dale (Ward 5).

The original committee included Tony Derezinski as the representative for city council, and Jean Carlberg as the planning commission representative. Derezinski is no longer on city council, nor is Carlberg now on the planning commission. The only other membership change is for a Ward 1 member – Ray Detter replaced David Merchant on the committee.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

It’s possible that there might be additional membership changes, but any changes to the committee would require city council approval.

The advisory committee had been briefly discussed at the planning commission’s July 9 working session, when Diane Giannola questioned why the exact same membership hadn’t been reappointed. She wondered if people with opinions that differed from the majority of the committee hadn’t been asked to return. Giannola also offered to serve on the committee as another representative from the planning commission, but there was no discussion of that at the commission’s regular meeting on July 16.

At the working session, Rampson also had reported that the planning staff will offer only as much staff involvement as the committee members want. She had indicated that when the committee had done its original work, some members felt that “staff cut the conversation off unduly, so we don’t want to reinforce that by being on the committee if we’re not needed,” she said. So planning staff will attend the meetings only if asked. However, they will handle the logistics of posting information about the meetings, which are open to the public.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Diane Giannola, Paras Parekh, Jeremy Peters (arrived around 9:15 p.m.), Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods. Also: Planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan, Ken Clein.

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

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

Proposed changes to the supplemental regulations for this 1.44-acre site would allow for a drive-thru restaurant within the existing convenience store, where a Tim Hortons is already located. The project includes constructing a 109-square-foot drive-thru window addition and access driveway on the north side of the building. Access to the drive-thru lane would be off of the site’s existing entrance from Ann Arbor-Saline Road. The property is located in Ward 4.

A PUD had previously been approved by the council at its July 2, 2012 meeting, but without plans for a drive-thru restaurant.

If approved by the council, the drive-thru lane would be screened by a 30-inch high hedgerow, berm and landscaping, according to a staff memo. The plan also calls for installing a brick-paved pedestrian path from the Ann Arbor-Saline Road public sidewalk to the north entrance of the building. A paved patio area would be located in the center of the drive-thru loop for outside dining.

As a “public amenity,” the owner proposes putting in a 140-square-foot brick-paved area at the site’s southwest corner – near the intersection of Eisenhower and Ann Arbor-Saline Road – with two park benches and shrubbery. Some commissioners questioned whether anyone would use that spot, given its location next to heavy traffic. Wendy Woods, saying she had family nearby, indicated that there is a fair amount of pedestrian and bike traffic in that area.

The plan also entails building a new sidewalk “stub” from the south of the building, which could possibly be used in the future to connect to the Cranbrook Village Shopping Center located to the east of the site. However, planning staff noted that a sidewalk between those two parcels might not be viable, given the significant grade change. Nor have the owners of the shopping center given permission for such a connection.

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

WEMU's Andrew Cluley had questions about the budget for Ann Arbor city administrator Steve Powers after the April 16 council meeting. Image links to Cluley's report. (Photos by the writer.)

But Powers led off the presentation by explaining that Monday evening would not be a time for detailed discussion and questions about the budget. For details of that presentation, see Chronicle coverage: “Ann Arbor Council Gets Draft 2013 Budget.”

The budget presentation occurred Monday night because of a city charter requirement. It was Powers’ first such presentation – as he was hired by the council last year, and started the job in September. The city council will have until May 21, its second meeting in May, to modify and adopt the budget.

In terms of the sheer number of agenda items, the topic of zoning and land use was a main focus of the meeting. The council unanimously rejected a proposed conditional rezoning of 1320 S. University to a higher density than its current D2 (downtown interface) designation. But winning unanimous approval was a site plan for a Tim Hortons on South State Street, near Ellsworth. The council also gave initial approval to AAA Michigan for a rezoning request involving a parcel on South Main, which the auto club would like to have designated as P (parking). A half dozen different rezoning requests for parcels that had recently been annexed into the city also received initial approval.

Prompting considerable discussion among councilmembers were four resolutions concerning an environmental study on a possible extension of a runway at the Ann Arbor municipal airport. The resolutions all passed, but the main grant funding went through on just a 7-4 vote. The city was being asked for an additional $1,125 in matching funds to wrap up the final stages of an environmental assessment being done by the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, which was already mostly completed two years ago.

Also related to transportation, the council authorized over $6 million in contracts related to street resurfacing projects. That included a second set of local streets (after having approved funding for the first set at its previous meeting) as well as the section of East Stadium Boulevard between Packard and Washtenaw. In connection with those infrastructure projects, the council also authorized contracts for materials testing.

In other action related to infrastructure, the council approved a $93,438 item for construction of unisex bathrooms in city hall – but not without questions about the scope of the overall municipal center renovation work.

On personnel-related items, the council gave final approval to legislation that incorporates provisions of the collectively bargained labor contracts with police command officers and firefighters into the city’s set of ordinances on retirement and health care.

As a result of other council action on Monday night, Ann Arbor police officers will be able to arrest and charge “super drunk” drivers who have more than 0.17 blood alcohol content – because the council modified the city’s ordinances to conform with recent changes in state law.

In other business, the council also authorized a contract with a new auditor, The Rehmann Group, set a hearing on a tax abatement for Sakti3, and imposed a temporary ban on digital billboards.

Highlights of public commentary included concerns about new DTE “smart meters” and localized flooding incidents in the city. The flooding was attributed by residents to the city’s layering of new asphalt onto an adjacent street, and to the city’s sanitary sewer disconnection program.

1320 S. University Rezoning

The council was asked to consider a request to conditionally rezone 1320 S. University – from D2 (downtown interface) to D1 (downtown core).

The magenta parcel and arrow indicate the 1320 S. University parcel proposed for conditional rezoning to a higher density use that's found in the dark brown (D1) areas to the west and north. The light brown area to the south and west is D2 (downtown interface). Light green is PL (public land). Yellow is R2B and dark purple is R4C – both residential zoning. (Image links to higher resolution image.)

The request included setting conditions on the D1 designation, such as restrictions on height and floor area that are less than what’s allowed in “unconditioned” D1. For example, the by-right height limit in D1 is 180 feet, but one condition the owner of the property – Philip Sotiroff – wanted to place on the property was a 145-foot height limit.

That 145-foot limit, however, is more than twice the limit of the parcel’s current D2 zoning, which allows buildings only as tall as 60 feet. Currently at the site – on the south side of South University, between Forest and Washtenaw avenues – is the three-story Park Plaza apartment building.

The site is adjacent to a D1 parcel to the east, where the Landmark apartment building is being constructed, at 601 S. Forest. But the 1320 S. University property also abuts lower-density residential zoning. Single-family homes are located to the south of the site, and a fraternity is located to the west.

The South University area was an intensely debated part of the A2D2 downtown rezoning initiative, which the city council finally ratified on Nov. 16, 2009 after more than two years of planning work. As part of that process, the city planning commission had initially recommended a zoning map that assigned D1 zoning to the 1320 S. University parcel. The city council subsequently drew the lines differently, which resulted in a D2 designation for the parcel, and sent the map back to the planning commission. The planning commission then revised some parts of its map, including the designation for 1320 S. University.

More recently, at its Feb. 7, 2012 meeting, planning commissioners voted unanimously not to recommend that 1320 S. University be rezoned from D2 to D1.

Council on S. University Rezoning: Public Hearing

Marc Gerstein introduced himself as a resident of Forest Court, and since 1982 the owner of a house that abuts the south boundary of a parking lot at the rear of 1320 S. University. He noted that any change in the zoning will affect him directly. He urged the council to follow the staff report and the unanimous recommendation of the city planning commission and to reject the request for conditional rezoning from D2 to D1.

He noted that the planning staff report finds that D2 was warranted for the parcel and was carefully considered by the city planning commission and the council. The staff had found there was no error in that decision. He noted there’d been no changes in the neighborhood since passage of A2D2 two years ago. To rezone the parcel now would strip away any buffer between the small residential houses and the 1320 S. University parcel. He concluded by asking the council to deny the petition for rezoning.

Council on S. University Rezoning: Council Deliberations

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who is the city council’s representative to the city planning commission, described the location of the parcel proposed to be rezoned. Two high-rise buildings stand to the west at South University and South Forest – University Towers on the northwest corner and the currently under-construction Landmark Building (formerly called the 601 S. Forest). To the east stands a fraternity house. Derezinski noted the A2D2 zoning ordinances had been adopted after considerable debate. The planning commission had unanimously agreed with the recommendation of the staff that the parcel not be rezoned, he said.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) also concurred that the prior community conversation had been rigorous and extensive and warrants the council’s respect.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) added that she felt having a buffer in the form of D2 zoning makes a great deal of sense.

Outcome: The council unanimously rejected the proposed conditional rezoning of 1320 S. University.

The city council’s vote was just its initial consideration of the request – a “first reading.” A rezoning request, like any ordinance change, requires initial approval, followed by a public hearing and a final vote at a subsequent meeting. Often, councilmembers will advance an ordinance change to a second reading, if they have not settled on a position and are interested in hearing the sentiments that might be expressed at a public hearing. So the fact that the council rejected the proposal on first reading can be taken as a measure of the council’s especially strong opposition to changing the zoning that was agreed on as part of the A2D2 process.

Tim Hortons Site Plan

On the April 16 agenda was a site plan for a new Tim Hortons restaurant at 3965 S. State St. The site plan had received a unanimous recommendation for approval by the Ann Arbor planning commission at its March 6, 2012 meeting. The site is located on the east side of the street, near the intersection of State and Ellsworth.

The plan calls for demolishing a vacant building on the 2.23-acre site where previous restaurants, including Enzo’s and Gallagher’s, were located. In its place, a one-story 1,953-square-foot restaurant with drive-thru facilities would be built on a 1.18-acre site divided from the current parcel. The building would face West Ellsworth and use an existing shared drive on South State, as well as a relocated drive onto West Ellsworth. An outdoor seating area is proposed on the east side of the building.

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

Much of the discussion among planning commissioners at their meeting had focused on the proposed roundabout at State and Ellsworth. A spokesman for Tim Hortons said they’d found out about the roundabout plans late in the process, but were working to integrate their own plans to accommodate it. He indicated that if the company gets approval from the city, they hope to open in August. Construction for the roundabout is expected to begin in the spring of 2013, with completion in the fall of that year.

During council deliberations on April 16, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), the city council’s representative to the planning commission, made some brief remarks. He described it as a property that’s been vacant for a couple of years. It would be a great improvement, he said. The planning commission went through ingress and egress issues. Derezinski said he felt it adds value and would be a good place to get coffee in the morning.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the State Street corridor is currently undergoing a study. She wondered how this particular project fits into the ongoing discussions that the corridor study group has had. City planning manager Wendy Rampson told Briere that it doesn’t really fit into ongoing discussions on the corridor, but it does remove a relatively blighted building on the site. The corridor study has not gotten as far as making land use recommendations yet, Rampson said.

Responding to a question from mayor John Hieftje, Rampson said that the plan is to begin construction in May. Tim Hortons is moving in a timely way, she said. A land division needs to be completed before they can start, she said. And the Tim Hortons team is coordinating with the Washtenaw County team that is planning the roundabout at Ellsworth and State. She figured in a couple of months, construction might start.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the Tim Hortons site plan.

AAA Request for Parking Zoning

Before the council for its consideration was initial approval to a proposal from AAA Michigan to rezone half of a parcel located at 1200 S. Main to P (parking). To take effect, the initial approval from the city council would need to be followed by a second and final approval following a public hearing at a subsequent meeting.

The rezoning to P (parking) is part of a two-parcel site plan proposal – for which the city planning commission provided a positive recommendation at its March 6, 2012 meeting. At that meeting, the commission took two votes on the 1200 S. Main parcel – the site plan and the rezoning proposal. And on both votes, the planning commission split 6-3. For the other, adjacent parcel at 1100 S. Main, the city planning commission voted unanimously to recommend the site plan for approval.

In front of the city council on April 16, however, was just the resolution to rezone a portion of the 1200 S. Main parcel to P (parking).

The two parcels, at 1100 and 1200 S. Main, are across from Michigan Stadium. An AAA branch built in the 1950s is located there. The owner wants to build a new branch on a different part of the site, tear down the existing building, and reconfigure parking spaces.

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

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

After the new structure is completed, the old building at 1200 S. Main would be torn down and a 14-space parking lot would be put on that parcel. And to do that, the proposal asks that the northern 123 feet of that parcel – about half of the parcel – be rezoned from O (office) to P (parking), so that parking could become the principal use for that site. A site plan for that parcel is also required. The rezoning to P (parking) is what the city council considered on April 16.

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

AAA Request for Parking Zoning: Council Deliberations

City planning manager Wendy Rampson was asked to the podium to summarize the proposal, which she did. The current configuration has the AAA office sitting on the parcel to the south, with surface parking on the parcel to the north. She said the configuration was approved in the 1970s based on an interpretation that parking would be allowed on the northern parcel, based on the ownership by AAA of both parcels. The city does things differently now – if there’s no other use on a parcel besides parking, then the city requires that it be zoned P (parking).

Rampson described what AAA wants to do as a “flip flop” – build a new branch office on the northern parcel and put parking on the south parcel. It’s that south parcel that AAA wants rezoned. She noted that the city planning commission vote was 6-3 on rezoning. Staff also had some concerns about approving parking as a principle use, because that’s something the city is trying to get away from. The plan has a lot of benefits with respect to stormwater detention, she said, and reduces the amount of impervious surface across the two sites, as well as the total amount of parking.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said the site plan really did sell the proposal. The building that AAA is putting up is an improvement over the one that’s currently there. The old building has a lot of mileage on it, he said. With its location across from the University of Michigan football stadium, the building would be noticed by a large number of visitors to Ann Arbor, he said.

Rampson added that it’s a two-phase project. In the new building, AAA anticipates adding more services, so that’s the rationale for wanting to have parking available on both parcels.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he felt like the project is a step in a better direction, but not what the city would want if the project were starting from scratch. He wondered what AAA’s plans would be if the council turned down the request to rezone. Rampson said she didn’t know. Before AAA brought forward their proposal, however, they’d gone over ways to solve the parking issue without rezoning. One possibility would be to retrofit the existing building. They also considered different configurations that would reduce the amount of parking. But ultimately AAA did not want to pursue those, she said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked if there’d been given any consideration to moving the building further away from the sidewalk, and he wondered if AAA could be forced to comply with a greater setback requirement. Rampson reminded Anglin that the recent area, height and placement revisions had reduced the amount of setback required – which in this case allowed the building to be moved further way from the residential area to the west and closer to Main Street. Rampson also explained that the curbcuts to Main Street would be removed.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know what assurance the council would have that the old building will be torn down. Rampson explained that once it’s zoned P (parking), the building couldn’t be used for anything. And AAA is not intending to keep the building in place – the space is needed for parking.

Outcome: The council gave unanimous initial approval to the AAA Michigan rezoning request for 1200 S. Main.

Annexation Rezonings

The council was asked to consider initial approvals of six separate rezoning requests associated with annexation into the city of Ann Arbor from Scio Township. The zoning change in all cases is from the township to a residential category.

Five of the properties were annexed into the city on Oct. 3, 2011 – in connection with the expansion of a well-prohibition zone due to 1,4 dioxane groundwater contamination caused by the Pall Corp.’s Wagner Road facility, formerly owned by Gelman Sciences. Those five properties are: 305 Pinewood St.; 3225 Dexter Rd.; 427 Barber Ave.; 545 Allison Dr.; and 3249 Dexter Rd.

Annexation into the city allows the properties to connect to city of Ann Arbor water services. Pall has paid all petition filing fees as well as the connection and improvement charges for water and sanitary sewer service that are related to the annexations. The zoning for which the city council gave initial approval is for R1C (residential). [Google map of well prohibition zones and property locations] [.jpg of map with well prohibition zones and property locations]

A sixth parcel for which the council gave initial rezoning approval – also due to annexation, but not related to the well-prohibition zone – is located at 1575 Alexandra Blvd. The parcel was given initial approval to be rezoned from the township to R1A (residential) zoning.

As ordinance changes, all rezoning requests require an initial approval from the city council, followed by a public hearing and a final approval at a subsequent meeting.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) offered the only council comment on any of the annexation-related rezoning requests, noting that they all went from township zoning to single-family residential.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved all the annexation-related rezoning requests. The requests need to come back for a second and final approval by the council, after a public hearing.

Ann Arbor Airport Study

On April 16 the council considered four different resolutions in connection with Ann Arbor’s municipal airport, three of them connected to the completion of an environmental assessment of a proposed 800-foot lengthening of the airport runway.

The city council had initially authorized funding for the assessment project at its Feb. 2, 2009 meeting. The assessment began on May 4, 2009. The process appeared to culminate in a public hearing in April 2010. [See Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Airport Study Gets Public Hearing."] In the interim, city councilmembers have removed the runway extension from the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) each year they’ve been asked to give the CIP its annual approval.

However, when the Federal Aviation Administration responded to the draft report, that prompted communication between the city of Ann Arbor and the FAA. And that back-and-forth has resulted in FAA requests for more work, which is meant to wrap up the environmental assessment (EA). From the staff memo accompanying one of the resolutions:

The FAA’s response was received nearly a year later (September, 2011). The remaining work on the EA includes modifications based on the FAA comments, coding public and agency comments and responses for the final EA document, preparation of the Errata and FONSI for submission to MDOT-Aero. There is about 2-3 months of work remaining to complete the EA.

One of the resolutions authorizes $800 for an additional map to be prepared by URS Corp., one of two consultants that the Michigan Dept. of Transportation is using for the project. The amount is covered by MDOT’s project contingency budget. This item is not specifically related to the environmental assessment.

A separate resolution authorized $12,000 of additional consulting work, also with URS. A third resolution authorized an additional $26,552 worth of consulting work from SmithGroupJJR. The additional work by URS and SmithGroupJJR is being covered by a $45,000 grant program, which consists of $42,750 in federal funds, $1,125 in state funds and $1,125 in airport matching funds (the city’s portion.) Authorization of the grant program was the fourth airport-related item on the agenda.

Ann Arbor Airport Study: Public Comment

During public comment, James Vincze introduced himself as a member and vice chair of the airport advisory committee. He urged the council to complete the airport runway extension study. It’s important to get the process completed, he said. Significant time and resources have already been spent and the public has been involved. Matt Kulhanek is a good airport manager, he said. Voting to complete the study doesn’t mean the council favors runway extension, he said. Rather, it means the council wants to get the facts out and have a complete study and analysis.

Ann Arbor Airport Study: Council Deliberations

Airport manager Matt Kulhanek was asked to the podium to answer questions. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) began by asking why the city is continuing to spend money to study the runway extension, when the council had consciously removed the extension from the city’s capital improvements plan. She had a hard time reconciling that, even though the amounts of money weren’t actually all that large.

Kulhanek pointed out that the first airport-related item on the agenda – the $800 for the map preparation – was not related to the environmental assessment.

So mayor John Hieftje then asked the council to vote on that item. And that vote was unanimous in favor.

Kulhanek noted that the council’s direction had been to get the facts on the proposed runway extension and that direction had come on two occasions, with votes to fund the environmental assessment. He said the council’s subsequent action to remove the runway extension from the capital improvements plan was based on a concern that by including it in the capital projects budget, it reflected a de facto support of actually doing the project. But at no time has the staff received direction to pull back from completing the environmental assessment. Kulhanek indicated that another grant agreement would be coming to the council later, after the one they were considering that evening.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) talks to Kathe Wunderlich (back to camera) before the council meeting. Wunderlich has worked as part of a citizens group opposing the runway extension.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked for clarification of the unexpected review by the FAA technical committee to which the staff memo had referred. Kulhanek explained that when the document was first entered into the system, the city was not expecting further FAA review. But two weeks ago, he said, the city received notification from FFA technical operations, a branch within the FAA, indicating that branch would need to sign off on it. The reason that technical operations would need to review it was due to two sets of navigational aids that would be relocated if the runway project moves forward. The document had already been given an 11-month review by the district office of the FAA, and the conclusion had initially been that the technical operations division didn’t need to review it. At that point, the city had the understanding the FAA was finished. That changed in the last two weeks, when city staff found out that FAA technical operations would need to review it.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if the resolution that night was specifically for the relocation of navigational aids. No, replied Kulhanek. A resolution to approve another grant for that would come some time in the future. The grant before the council that night was to finish up the documentation of the environmental assessment and get it in a final format to submit to the FAA for review. What would come back to the council later is a reimbursement agreement for the work the FAA will have done to review the documentation.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) briefed Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) before the start of the meeting. They both voted against the grant funding for the environmental assessment of the airport runway extension.

Kunselman said he was confused why there’d be the need for another reimbursement agreement. Kulhanek reviewed the purpose of that night’s grant agreement.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) was up next to question Kulhanek and she apologized for putting him on the spot. His reply indicated he’d anticipated lots of questions: “That’s okay, I didn’t think I was going to get a pass tonight!”

In 2009, Briere said, the council had approved two grants and in 2010 the council had approved an additional grant. At the time, she said, she thought that the EA document was in draft form and almost complete. Kulhanek indicated that was not the case. The grant funding in 2009 had kicked off the project, he said. When the 2009 grants were approved, the city had also approved contracts with the two engineering firms.

Briere summarized what the council was considering as funding additional work by the engineering firms to get the EA document into shape to be submitted to the FAA. Kulhanek indicated that was basically right. The work the two firms would do would in essence finalize the document for everything except the FAA technical operations review. That review will have a specific scope – just the impact on the navigational aids.

Responding to a question from Briere, Kulhanek explained that the EA would cover more than just a discussion of navigational aids. It would include economic impacts, physical impacts, noise impacts, and wetlands impacts. There’s a whole variety of things that are included. It’s a broad document that includes public comment, as well as input from various agencies like the county road commission, county water resources commissioner and the like.

Briere said she had trouble understanding why an environmental assessment would take four years.

Hieftje asked if Kulhanek saw a benefit to the city and users of the airport, if the council does not want to go ahead with the runway extension, once the process is completed. Kulhanek told the mayor that he felt the biggest benefit would be to finishing what they’ve started back in 2009. The council would be able to make a decision based on an actual study of what the impacts are – not what our gut feels or our heart feels. A decision could be based on actual data and feedback from the public and various agencies and everyone involved. Kulhanek said there’s already been a lot of time and money invested in getting to this point in the project, and he thought it’s important to follow through to have solid information. If the council chooses not to go forward on the runway project, it can make that choice.

Mayor John Hieftje opposed the grant funding for completion of the environmental assessment for an extension of the Ann Arbor municipal airport.

Hieftje started adding up the money in the request. He asked Kulhanek how much more money would need to be spent – local as well as other money – to complete the project. Kulhanek said the first three grant agreements totaled $309,000.

The city’s share of that had been $7,725. From a local perspective, he said, that’s a minor cost. The grant agreement before the council that night was for $45,000 with a local share of $1,125. The next and last grant agreement will be around $30,000. The total for the EA would be around $385,000 with a local share of less than $10,000, Kulhanek said.

Kulhanek estimated that it would take the consultants another two months to do the additional work. He thought that three to six months from now, the last grant agreement would be back in front of the council for approval. Assuming three to four months for review, Kulhanek estimate that it would be early 2013 before the process was complete.

Hieftje asked again if there was some benefit to the environmental study, beyond knowing the impact of the runway extension. Kulhanek said it’s good information. Knowing the noise levels is useful. Knowing about bird species is also useful, he said. There are some mowing restrictions to protect their habitats.

Kunselman contended that everything Kulhanek had just mentioned as beneficial had already been done, so what the council was being asked to do was approve more money for consultants to wrap things up. He said the city continues to throw money at a project at the end. He said he’d vote no on everything. It’s taxpayer dollars, whether it’s local or federal. He said his constituents don’t want the runway extension and he’d vote no on that, too. The consultants can wrap it up without additional money, he said. He said he was done throwing money at this kind of thing.

Lumm said she’d been struggling with this. She allowed that it was a very small city share. Ultimately though, what the council would be doing is spending money on something that won’t move forward. She reiterated the fact that the council had removed the project from the CIP, which she translated into a decision that the council wouldn’t move forward. Kulhanek ventured that the council might be “wowed” by the EA and perhaps be open to the possibility of extending the runway.

Outcome: The main resolution, on the $45,000 grant, was approved on a 7-4 vote. Voting for a grant contract with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation were Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4), Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). Opposing it were Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and mayor John Hieftje. Both contracts with the consultants were opposed by Lumm and Kunselman. Hieftje joined them in opposing the contract with SmithGroupJJR.

Street Repair

The council was asked to consider two major contracts involving street resurfacing and reconstruction. One was a second large contract for street resurfacing work this season – $4,054,599 with Barrett Paving Materials Inc. At its previous meeting on April 2, 2012, the council had authorized a $3.6 million contract with Barrett for an initial set of streets to be resurfaced. The project includes a $405,000 contingency.

The second set of streets includes portions of the following: South Seventh Street, Mt. Pleasant Avenue, Park Drive, Mt. Vernon Avenue, Manhattan Drive, Meadowbrook Avenue, Martha Avenue, Palomar Drive, Catalina Avenue, Eton Court, South Forest Avenue, Vinewood Blvd., Dorset Road, Berkshire Road, Woodside Road, Londonderry Road, Tremmel Avenue, Page Court, Pine Valley Court, Esch Avenue, and Esch Court.

Also at the April 16 meeting, in connection with the regular street resurfacing program, the council considered a $143,455 contract with a different company, CTI and Associates Inc. (CTI), for construction materials testing services. The materials to be tested include oils, aggregates, asphalt, and concrete. Funds for the street resurfacing projects are drawn from the city’s street repair tax, which voters agreed to renew in November 2011 for another five years, through 2016.

Another road construction project on the agenda was a contract with Dan’s Excavating Inc. for $2,314,951 for replacement of two old water mains and resurfacing of the East Stadium Boulevard from Washtenaw Avenue to Packard Street. The total project is estimated to cost $3,600,000. Of that amount, $1,400,000 will come from the water fund capital budget and $2,200,000 will come from millage approved capital budget.

The East Stadium project will maintain the existing five lanes of vehicular traffic, and new bike lanes will be added on both sides of the street.

Also on the agenda was a materials testing contract for the East Stadium Boulevard project – $50,185 with Inspection Services Company Inc.

The only substantive discussion on the four items was on the materials testing. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) asked why the materials testing was being done. City project engineer Igor Kotlyar explained that such testing is always done for such projects. It’s a standard testing procedure, he said. Some of it involves making sure the proper materials are delivered to the site. But it also involves making sure that the materials are properly deployed as the project work is done.

For example, when a water main is backfilled with sand, it’s tested to make sure that the sand is compacted to the proper density. Gravel that’s put into the road bed is also tested for property compaction, Kotlyar explained. Homayoon Pirooz, head of project management for the city, responded to a question from Anglin by explaining that the city itself is not certified to perform that kind of testing, and does not have the certified equipment to do that. He indicated that it’s essentially a specialty.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the four resolutions involved with street resurfacing and reconstruction work.

Fire, Police Retirement/Health Changes

On the April 16 agenda was a resolution for final approval of changes to the employee retirement system to accommodate recent changes to the collective bargaining agreement with the city’s police command officers union and firefighters union. Also before the council was final approval to revisions of the retirement health care benefits to reflect changes to those collectively bargained agreements.

Changes to the retirement system include: (1) increasing the pension contribution of command officer members to 6% from 5%; (2) implementing a pick-up feature as permitted by the Internal Revenue Code for the pension contributions of firefighters and command officers, converting their 6% pre-tax contribution to a 6% post-tax contribution; (3) increasing the vesting and final average compensation requirements for firefighters hired after July 1, 2012; and (4) implementing a federal provision that allows eligible retired public safety officers to pay qualified health insurance premiums directly from their pensions.

The change to the retiree health care system stipulates that new hires after July 1, 2012 will be eligible for an access-only health care plan at the time of their retirement, instead of a city-paid retiree health care plan.

Fire, Police Retirement/Health Changes: Public Hearings

On the retirement changes for police command officers and fire personnel, Thomas Partridge questioned whether the public had been fully informed on the substance of the change. He felt that representatives of the police department and the union representatives involved in the contract negotiations should have been present to explain their side of the issue.

Edward Vielmetti flipped through the pages of the ordinance revision in the three-ring binder that holds the council agenda, and counted out the number of pages that had been red-lined as he flipped through them. When he got to 16, he did not continue counting, but noted that more than 16 pages of the ordinance have been amended. He stated that he had no idea how councilmembers could evaluate whether this is a good idea or a bad idea. He said that he himself (if he were a member of council) wouldn’t know what to do with a proposal like that. He hoped the city was making a wise choice.

On the retiree health care benefits, Partridge complained that Gov. Rick Snyder and former city administrator Roger Fraser [who now works for the state as an assistant state treasurer] are attempting to erode benefits to public employees, including those in high-risk jobs.

Fire, Police Retirement/Health Changes: Council Deliberations

On the retirement changes, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she believed the primary changes reflect the bargained-for benefits from recent union settlements. The city is taking advantage of IRS rules, she said.

On the retiree health care changes, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said that the changes to the ordinance were consistent with the changes to the access-only health plan that had been adopted by the command officers and firefighters.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the ordinance changes affecting retirement and health care benefits for police command officers and firefighters.

0.17 BAC as Separate Offense

The council considered final approval to a change in the city’s traffic ordinance to adopt a provision of the Michigan Vehicle Code – which establishes driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of more than 0.17 as a separate offense from operating under the influence. The council had given its initial approval to the ordinance change on April 2.

The Michigan legislature had previously changed the MVC, which Ann Arbor has adopted, to include the separate charge for the very high BAC of 0.17. However, the legislature did not at that time change the Home Rule Cities Act to allow cities to impose the greater penalty of 180 days in jail and/or $700 fine that comes with the BAC 0.17 charge. But in February 2012, the legislature amended the Home Rule Cities Act to allow for that penalty. Ann Arbor is making the change to its local ordinance in order to be able to charge drivers with the 0.17 offense.

Records from January 2010 through February 2012 provided to The Chronicle by CLEMIS (Courts and Law Enforcement Management Information System) show three instances of 0.17 offenses – which could not at the time be charged as a separate offense. The CLEMIS records for the same time period also show three reports for the moderately higher BAC level of .08, which could already be charged separately from operating under the influence. [.jpg of bar graph of OWI offenses]

As a change to the city’s ordinances, the change required a second vote and a public hearing (which is separate from the general public commentary held at the start of the meeting.)

0.17 BAC: Public Hearing

Edward Vielmetti led off the hearing by asking where a copy of the proposed changes to the ordinance might be found. Mayor John Hieftje told him it was available online or in a large three-ring binder near the podium – which Thomas Partridge had been perusing. Vielmetti then reviewed the ordinance change, while Partridge held forth.

Partridge began by complaining about Hieftje’s standard boilerplate recitation of the rules for public hearings, which include a provision that speakers confine their remarks to the topic of the public hearing. Partridge construes the rule as a way of inappropriately limiting free speech.

On the substance of the ordinance change, Partridge said it would have been better to attach a resolution that would stop people who are high on alcohol and drugs from driving or causing disruptive behavior in the city of Ann Arbor. He called for a parallel amendment to go forward, that would encourage and require all retailers and bars serving alcohol and supermarkets selling alcohol, to note the names and identity of people who purchase alcohol. He also called for bars to refuse service to patrons who have visited other bars before arriving, who are clearly under the influence of alcohol, and who intend to drive.

Based on his review – while Partridge was speaking – of the ordinance changes, Vielmetti said it appeared to him that the ordinance changes would increase the penalties for driving “super drunk.” He pointed out that there are a number of students in Ann Arbor who don’t just drive relatively drunk, but who also walk relatively drunk. And they may be so drunk that they pose a danger to others while driving, but also to themselves due to alcohol poisoning.

From reading the student press, Vielmetti said it’s his understanding that there’s a concern about prosecution for those who help their classmates who are trying to obtain treatment for alcohol poisoning – because they might be slapped with a “minor in possession” citation themselves. He cautioned the council not to overly hastily increase the penalties for drunken behavior, without also addressing the needs of those who need to receive treatment. It would be unfortunate to put yourself in a situation where you thought you were making an improvement, and then create some unintended consequences, he said – people driving themselves home, because they weren’t ready to help their friends walk themselves home.

0.17 BAC: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) alluded to Vielmetti’s comments during the public hearing, by saying she liked the idea of finding a solution for adolescents who are at risk of underage drinking violations. She felt the decision was straightforward. People who have 0.17 BAC should pay a heavier penalty, she said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if the state law on 0.17 BAC was already in effect for people on University of Michigan property. Assistant city attorney Abigail Elias responded to the question by saying that for the “super drunk” provisions, which are for driving or operating a vehicle, the change to the ordinance simply brings it into conformity with the state law. If anyone were driving where the city did not have jurisdiction, she said, state law would apply.

Kunselman followed up by asking if UM’s department of public safety already has the authority to enforce the 0.17 BAC provisions on the Ann Arbor city streets. Elias told Kunselman that Ann Arbor police officers would enforce the law on city streets. She said she did not know if UM DPS officers were enforcing state law on city streets. That’s a question she could not answer, she said. Mayor John Hieftje said his understanding was that UM DPS officers have the ability to enforce laws on Ann Arbor city streets, but it’s unusual for them to do so. He stated that he’d be happy to see UM DPS join in helping out on the “party patrol” that the Ann Arbor police department uses to police student neighborhoods on evenings when parties are frequently held.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the 0.17 BAC ordinance change.

Selection of Auditor

The council was asked to consider a five-year contract for independent auditing work with The Rehmann Group – based on its $344,500 bid. The contract allows for two one-year extensions.

Abraham & Gaffney, the firm that the city has used for the last few years, also bid on the work. The Abraham & Gaffney bid came in at $387,500. Two other firms also bid for the city of Ann Arbor auditing work: Andrews, Hooper, Pavlik PLLC ($340,500); and Doeren Mayhew ($361,300).

Andrews, Hooper, Pavlik’s was the low bid, but the selection was not made purely on price. The amount of the bid counted for 30 points out of a possible 100. The other two categories were “expertise and experience” (40 points) and “auditing approach” (30 points). Rehmann and Abraham & Gaffney both scored the maximum 70 on the categories other than price. The memo accompanying the resolution indicates that the choice was also based on “a desire to periodically change service providers.” [.pdf of scoring metric and comments]

For Rehmann, then, the fact that it was not the incumbent firm was an advantage for the city auditing contract award. Last year, when it competed for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s auditing contract, Rehmann had found its incumbent status to be a disadvantage. Because of the auditor rotation policy the AATA board had adopted on June 16, 2011, Rehmann was not eligible for selection when the AATA board opted to award the contract to Plante & Moran on Sept. 15, 2011.

Selection of Auditor: Council Deliberations

Margie Teall (Ward 4) introduced the resolution as chair of the audit committee, indicating that she was pleased that the audit committee had been asked to be a part of the selection and evaluation process. The audit committee had been pleased with the representative from Rehmann who had interviewed with the committee.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) said she supported the selection of Rehmann, saying that it was considered best practice to rotate auditors and that Rehmann is well respected. She asked about the notation in the evaluation of proposals that indicated Rehmann projected using 200 hours less than Abraham & Gaffney. She asked if the city is comfortable with that.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who also serves on the audit committee, noted that the auditor’s contract is a multi-year contract. The firm will need fewer hours as they get more familiar with the city’s auditing project over time.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the selection of The Rehmann Group as the city’s auditor.

Hearing on Sakti3 Tax Abatement

On the agenda was a resolution to set a public hearing for May 7 regarding a tax abatement for Sakti3 – an Ann Arbor-based battery technology spinoff from the University of Michigan. Sakti3 is led by UM professor Ann Marie Sastry.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, Sakti3 is requesting an abatement on $151,433 of real property improvements and $1,374,861 of new personal property. If approved, it would reduce Sakti3 Inc.’s annual tax bill by $23,200 for each of three years in the recommended abatement period. The new building improvements and personal property investments would generate about $29,500 in property taxes for each year during the abatement period.

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

Outcome: Without comment, the council unanimously approved setting a May 7 public hearing on a tax abatement for Sakti3.

Digital Billboards

The council was asked to consider a 180-day moratorium on two items: (1) city staff consideration of applications to erect digital billboards; and (2) the erection of digital billboards.

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

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

The resolution was added late to the agenda, after printed copies of the agenda were made for the council chamber audience. Based on the time stamp on the online agenda, the item appears to have been added at 6:48 p.m. – for the council meeting scheduled to start at 7 p.m. The item was sponsored by mayor John Hieftje.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she was confident there are some places for digital billboards in our lives, but she did not want to see them on crowded downtown Ann Arbor streets. Imposing a temporary moratorium on whether to allow them in the city limits made sense to her, she said.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that many of the billboards in the city had 30-35 year leases on them, and it becomes complex to get them removed. He said that Adams Outdoor Advertising had been asking to “do trades” for many years. As issues for the public, Anglin identified distractibility while driving and “virtual vision pollution.” He gave the corner of Madison and Main, late at night, as an example. It looks like you’re coming into an entertainment area, he said, like vaudeville or something. He called for a community discussion about whether to have digital billboards. Do they bring value? he asked. He didn’t want to make the decision piecemeal.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the temporary 180-day moratorium on digital billboards.

Personal Computer Replacement

The council had on its agenda a $450,000 purchase order with Sehi Computer Products to cover the replacement of personal computers over the next two years.

Paul Fulton (right, foreground) is typically on hand before the council meetings start, to handle any computer issues councilmembers might have. On April 16, he was called to the podium during the meeting to explain the computer replacement cycle.

The project budget includes the purchase of a minimum of 305 desktops and 195 laptops. Funding for replacement of the city’s computers comes from the information technology services unit.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asked for an explanation of the city’s replacement policy. Paul Fulton, the city’s IT service delivery manager, described how the replacement cycle for desktop machines and special-purpose laptops is five years. The replacement cycle for general purpose laptops is three years. About four years ago, he said, the city did a general refresh, and those machines are now coming due for replacement – a total of about 500 machines.

Outcome: The $450,000 purchase order with Sehi Computer Products was unanimously approved.

Biosolids Contract

The council considered a contract with BioTech Agronomics Inc. to spread biosolids from the wastewater treatment plant on agricultural fields – during April to December. The rest of the year, the material gets landfilled. The contract pays about $0.0321 per gallon, which works out to approximately $514,000 per year.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know where the material was going. Ed Sajewski, contract/project services manager for the wastewater treatment plant, explained that it would be spread on farm fields in the outlying area. He described the nutritive benefit – carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus – of applying the material to fields, as opposed to just landfilling it. Kunselman wondered if there were testing procedures to make sure no heavy metals were in the material. Yes, replied Sajewski, the city has a lab to do that testing, and it’s required to be done through the permit the city has with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the $514,000 contract for spreading of biosolids.

Mowing Contracts

The city council considered three contracts for mowing different city-owned properties – traffic islands, areas of the wastewater treatment plant, and neighborhood athletic fields: (1) Green-Vision Lawn & Landscaping ($105,336 for 3 years); (2) A2 Outdoors Creations ($43,275 for 3 years); and (3) KBK Landscaping for mowing and trimming services at neighborhood athletic fields and five city locations in the amount of $17,190/year ($51,570 for 3 years).

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said that people who drive into the city would have a right to complain if the city didn’t maintain the traffic islands. Logistically, she described it as a challenge to get the mower out to the locations and to then mow just five square yards.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked about the four parks that are a part of the contract – which parks? Matt Warba, acting field operations manager, told Kunselman the four are: Miller Nature Area, Forsythe, Kempf House and 875 S. Maple. Warba confirmed what Briere had said about the logistical challenge of mowing the areas covered in the contracts. He said there are 184 traffic islands. The city’s strength is mowing large areas of grass, not the small intricate areas like traffic islands or the areas around Kempf House, a museum located on South Division.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the mowing contracts.

City Hall Restrooms

Pulled out of the consent agenda by Jane Lumm (Ward 2) for separate consideration was a $93,438 contract with LC Construction LLC. The project involves the construction of five unisex restrooms, on floors 2-6, in the old elevator tower of city hall.

Before the council meeting, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) talked with city administrator Steve Powers (left).

Lumm was dissatisfied with the answer she’d received from staff before the meeting to a question about why the bathrooms had not been constructed as part of the overall municipal center renovation project.

She characterized the response she’d received as essentially, “We ran out of money.” She wanted all the costs for such projects captured in one place.

Otherwise, it’s hard to understand which costs are related to city hall renovation and which are not, she said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the restroom construction contract.

Placid Way Park Improvements

Pulled out of the consent agenda by Sabra Briere (Ward 1) for separate consideration was a $79,980 contract with Michigan Recreational Construction Inc. for improvements to Placid Way Park. The contract – which involves installing new play equipment as well as park furniture and landscaping – had been recommended for approval by the city’s park advisory commission at their March 20, 2012 meeting. The 1.32-acre neighborhood park is located on the city’s north side near the larger Dhu Varren Woods Nature Area and Foxfire South Park.

In her brief remarks, Briere described Placid Way as an unusual park that runs between neighborhoods. It’s heavily-used by a neighborhood that has many children, she said. And it’s a pathway from one neighborhood to another. She was happy see the upgrades happening. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) who serves as one of two city council ex officio non-voting appointees to the park advisory commission, noted the discussion that PAC had had on the park.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the Placid Way Park renovation contract.

Technical Amendment to Retirement System

Before the council for its final consideration were some amendments to the city ordinance that governs the retirement system. The first change explicitly describes the process that’s already used to establish the interest rate in crediting participant contribution accounts. The second change corrects a language error introduced with an ordinance revision made last year, which misstates the methodology for calculating a participant’s early retirement benefit. The staff memo accompanying the council resolution indicates that the rates have been calculated correctly, despite the language error.

During the public hearing on the amendments, Edward Vielmetti introduced himself as a graduate of the University of Michigan’s economics department. He said he didn’t know very much about retirement planning. But he said he did know that projections for future returns are notoriously unreliable. In the past, retirement plans that made naive assumptions about future returns have had catastrophic surprises attached to them. He said he could speak to that from some of his own investments over the last 20 years.

Even portfolios that appear to be diversified usually are not, Vielmetti said. He urged the council to do something other than the simplest straight-line projection of future interest rates to project the range of possible outcomes – because a very good year or very bad year early in the cycle can make an enormous difference. Retirement planning is a serious business, he said, and he hoped the city is not taking an oversimplified approach.

Deliberations by the council included brief remarks from Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who characterized the amendments as technical changes that had been requested by the city attorney’s office. It’s not a change to the actual retirement plan, but rather a cleanup of some language, she said.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the technical changes to the retirement ordinance.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Greenbelt

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) gave an update on the most recent greenbelt advisory commission – as the city council appointee to that body. He briefed his council colleagues on the mid-year financial report the group had received at its last meeting – there’s about $6 million left in the millage fund for greenbelt acquisitions, and $4.5 million that’s designated for park acquisitions. [For a more detailed look at the April 5, 2012 GAC meeting, see Chronicle coverage: "Greenbelt Commission Briefed on Food Hub," which includes details of the mid-year financial report.] Hohnke also highlighted a deal that the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy had closed on 100 acres along Prospect Road, a large portion of which is open to the public. The deal was done in partnership with the Ann Arbor greenbelt program. [For coverage, see "Superior Greenway Deal Adds 100 Acres."]

Comm/Comm: Parks Millage

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) – in his capacity as one of two city council ex officio non-voting appointees to the city park advisory commission – reminded his colleagues of the remaining public outreach activity the city is doing on the parks maintenance and capital improvements millage renewal. [For coverage of the millage proposal, which the city council will likely put on the November 2012 ballot, see "Park Commission Briefed on Millage Renewal."] A public meeting on the renewal of the tax will be held on April 23 from 6:30-7:30 p.m. at Leslie Science and Nature Center. And the final meeting will be April 26 at the Ann Arbor District Library Traverwood branch, Taylor said.

Comm/Comm: UM Wall Street Parking

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that earlier in the day, Jim Kosteva –University of Michigan director of community relations – had informed members of the Ann Arbor city council that UM’s board of regents would be voting on April 19 on a proposal to build a 700-space parking structure, to be located between Wall Street and Maiden Lane. [As expected, UM regents approved the project.]

By way of background, the university announced on Feb. 10, 2012 that it was withdrawing from a partnership with the city to build additional parking at the same site where the city hopes to build a transit station – just south of Fuller Road and north of East Medical Center Drive. The Fuller Road site, as a location for additional university parking, had been an alternative to constructing additional parking on Wall Street – which the UM was on course to build up until 2009. The news Briere was reporting, then, reflects the UM’s decision to revert to a previous course.

Since before she was first elected [in 2007], Briere said, other members of the city council, the mayor, and other residents had tried to convince regents that while additional parking might be necessary, it should be considered for a satellite location, not a residential street. She said some folks look at the barren parking lot that forms the block between Maiden Lane and Wall Street and say, “Well, who’d want to live there, anyway? Go ahead, shove in a parking structure.”

Briere said she’d rather have seen a much more serious effort on the part of UM to improve mass transit. She wanted to encourage the university to develop more aggressive carpooling and alternative transportation options for staff. She wanted to see the number of people reduced who feel that they need to be able to get into their car without walking or waiting. She wanted better consideration of the infrastructure and the environmental impact that the parking structure would have on the community.

For those who think that no one will care and that it’s all a wasteland, she asked them to remember, “It’s the university that created that wasteland, and the university that wants to make it increasingly inhospitable to the residents who live [there].” She asked the regents of the University of Michigan to remember that good neighbors work together. They could just as easily build parking structures on the north campus or the athletic campus, creating options for those who want to park there, and reducing the number of employees who choose to park and not ride [a play on the term for lots designed for people to arrive, park, then take public transportation to their final destination – called park-and-ride lots.]

Comm/Comm: Agenda Item Titles

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the length of the titles to agenda items had begun to creep longer and they were not getting clearer as a result. She asked that the 20-word rule on agenda item titles be followed.

By way of illustration, the following title appeared on that night’s agenda (137 words):

An Ordinance to Amend Sections 1:552.1, 1:561, 1:562, 1:565, 1:566, 1.567, 1:568, 1:572 and 1:592 of Chapter 18, Employees Retirement System, Title I of the Code of the City of Ann Arbor to Implement a “Pick-Up” Provision Allowed by Internal Revenue Code 414(h) for Members represented by the IAFF, Local 693 and the Command Officers Association, and Increase the Contribution Level for Members Represented by the Command Officers Association, and to Implement a HELPS provision for Eligible Retired Public Safety Officers, and to Implement an Other Qualified Adult Pop-Up Provision for Members represented by the Ann Arbor Police Officers Association, the Command Officers Association and AFSCME, and to Implement Other Collectively Bargained Changes for Members Represented by the IAFF, Local 693 (Ordinance No. ORD-12-10)

Comm/Comm: Medical Marijuana Dispensary Licenses

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) also told her colleagues that she’d listened to their requests at the council’s previous meeting, on April 2, 2012, that medical marijuana dispensary licenses be brought to the council for a vote. However, after further consultation with the city attorney, Stephen Postema, she reported that he’s said he would not be able to provide adequate background information to the council on the issue until June. She wanted to let her colleagues know that she had checked, and that Postema was not prepared to move as quickly as she was.

Comm/Comm: Blight Removal

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) reported that the city’s efforts at blight removal are working in his neighborhood, on Springbrook. He thanked everyone who supports blight removal and the city staff for making it happen.

Comm/Comm: Localized Flooding

During public commentary time, Ellen Fisher told the council she was speaking for herself and many of her neighbors in the Churchill Drive area. [It's an area on the west side of the city, east of I-94 and south of Scio Church Road.] She reminded councilmembers that some of them had heard from her before in letters she’d written. That night, she said she wanted to put a face to the message. She told the council that she and her husband had moved into their house on March 23, 1974 – 38 years ago. For 26 years, they had no problems, she reported. However, they’d experienced three localized floods in the neighborhood since 2000, two within the last two years.

Churchill Drive (highlighted in pink) was the subject of public commentary about localized flooding. It's located south of Scio Church Road and east of I-94. This screenshot is from the recent FEMA flood maps adopted by the city, which shows the floodplain (green) and floodway (blue) that exists in the neighborhood, but starting east of Churchill and extending eastward. (Image links to higher resolution file.)

She contended that three specific actions by the city of Ann Arbor were responsible for the flooding – which resulted in her home now serving as the “neighborhood detention pond.” First, she said, residential development had been allowed north of Scio Church Road, which caused additional water to flow into the Churchill Downs neighborhood during bad storms. Second, she said, in 1998 the roads in the neighborhood (Wiltshire and Churchill) were resurfaced. But instead of removing older pavement, she said, new asphalt was just laid on top of the old. As a result of laying down new asphalt on top of the old, she described the crown of the road now as above the curb, and the curb as only two inches high. So any time the water gets deeper than two inches on the road during a storm, it’s forced off the road into people’s houses.

The third city action, she said, was the footing drain disconnection program implemented after the floods of 2000. Since that time, the city has known that the stormwater system in the Churchill Downs area is inadequate, she said. But in 2009 homeowners there had to participate in the footing drain disconnect program.

By way of background, the program requires disconnection of a property’s footing drains to the sanitary sewer system, with a new connection made to the stormwater system. The move is meant to prevent the phenomenon of raw sewage backing up into people’s basements – due to overloading the sanitary system, which is not designed to deal with the volume of water associated with storms. Fisher’s contention is that the stormwater system in the neighborhood is also not adequate to handle the volume of water due to storms.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) as she listens to Ellen Fisher's public comment on localized flooding issues. To Higgins' right (in green shirt) is Margie Teall (Ward 4). Fisher was speaking about flooding in Ward 4.

Fisher continued by describing another flood just a month ago, and showed the council a photo of her house, which she described as an island surrounded by water – 5-6 inches. Storm drain covers were blown off, and geysers shot up five feet into the air, she reported. Water flowed into their basement through the egress windows and up from the sump that was installed through the footing drain disconnect program.

The city of Ann Arbor has attributed this to an “act of god,” she said. But she called the flood in her basement an “act of the city.” She called on the city to accept responsibility. In the short term, she called for the city to solve the problem of water entering the basement through the sump and to cover the cost of cleanup and mitigation. In the long term, she said, the city needs to address flooding in the neighborhood. She presented the council with a petition signed by several residents of the neighborhood, many of whom were in the audience at city council chambers.

Lowell Fisher, Ellen Fisher’s husband, spoke from his wheelchair. He told the council that the floods were taking an emotional and financial toll on him. The value of their home has plummeted, he said. They’re afraid to restore their basement – so they’re left with a basement they can’t use. Because he can’t visit all his children, they travel to visit him. They need their basement to host their children and grandchildren. Two years ago a flood cost them $20,000. But their claim for $5,000 in cleanup costs was denied. Nothing was done by the city to prevent another occurrence, he said. He stressed that the floods are not freak storms. There had been storms for the last 26 years prior to the occurrence of flooding problems. He concluded that it’s time for the city to take action. More than a dozen people stood in the audience to show support during Fisher’s remarks.

Comm/Comm: Smart Meters

Nanci Gerler alluded to a mayoral proclamation that led off the meeting, which established April 22, 2012 as Earth Day in Ann Arbor – the 42nd anniversary of the international observation of Earth Day, which was launched in Ann Arbor on March 10-14, 1970.

Gerler told the council she’d attended the first Earth Day and still has an Earth Day button somewhere in her house. She told the council she appreciated being a part of a community that values the environment and accessibility for those with disabilities. She warned the council that DTE’s smart meters had been introduced in Ann Arbor like a Trojan horse, using the guise of sustainability. Only recently had the meters been installed in Ann Arbor, she said, but other parts of the state had a longer experience with them. She told the council that 18 other municipalities have passed resolutions and moratoriums on smart meters, due to questions health safety and invasion of privacy, she said. Why not Ann Arbor? she wondered. Ann Arbor is usually progressive on such issues.

Gerler described how DTE is making no exceptions, and does not give consumers the right to opt out. She said that she’d been told by the Michigan Public Service Commission that if she refuses to allow installation, she could have her electricity shut off, even if she pays in a timely fashion. She offered to work with councilmembers to bring them up to speed on the issue. She asked councilmembers to help her get the message out.

Darren Schmidt introduced himself as the president and CEO of the Nutritional Healing Center of Ann Arbor. He described how the center helps people improve their health through nutrition. He said that a few years ago he became aware that some of the fatigue, memory loss, sleep disorders, and illnesses including Parkinson’s Disease could be attributed to “dirty electricity” and magnetic fields. [The council's agenda included a mayoral proclamation establishing April as Parkinson's Disease Awareness Month.] He showed the council a book titled “Dirty Electricity,” which that concluded electromagnetic frequencies and radio frequencies are the No. 1 cause of cancer in the U.S. He cited another book, titled “Zapped,” that provides ways to avoid electromagnetic pollution.

Schmidt said 3-5% of the population are extremely sensitive to magnetic fields and 35-50% are somewhat sensitive, but may not know it. Most doctors don’t know anything about this condition, he said. He had stumbled across it because his patients need the best care possible and they’re not constrained by pharmaceutical requirements. He also showed the council a letter from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. The president-elect of that organization, he said, is Amy Dean, who’s a doctor of osteopathic medicine (D.O.) and based in Ann Arbor. The AAEM on April 12 released its position paper on electromagnetic fields and radio frequency health effects, and that paper had called for immediate caution on installation of “smart meters.” He compared installing “smart meters” in neighborhoods to “living in a microwave” that can’t be turned off.

Comm/Comm: Affordable Services for Most Vulnerable

Thomas Partridge called on the council to fund services for the most vulnerable – from disabled citizens, to senior citizens, to the middle class – those who need job opportunities and access to public transportation to get to those jobs. He called for the nomination of Barack Obama for re-election as president of the United States.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, May 7, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the second-floor council chambers at city hall, 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 plan calls for demolishing a vacant building on the 2.23-acre site where previous restaurants, including Enzo’s and Gallagher’s, were located. In its place, a one-story 1,953-square-foot restaurant with drive-thru facilities would be built on a 1.18-acre site divided from the current parcel. The building would face West Ellsworth and use an existing shared drive on South State, as well as a relocated drive onto West Ellsworth. An outdoor seating area is proposed on the east side of the building.

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

Much of the discussion among planning commissioners had focused on the proposed roundabout at State and Ellsworth. A spokesman for Tim Hortons said they’d found out about the roundabout plans late in the process, but are working to integrate their own plans to accommodate it. He indicated that if the company gets approval from the city, they hope to open in August. Construction for the roundabout is expected to begin in the spring of 2013, with completion in the fall of that year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

AAA Branch Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AAA Branch Proposal: Public Hearing

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

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

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

AAA Branch Proposal: Commission Discussion – Construction

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

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

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

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

AAA Branch Proposal: Commission Discussion – Landscaping, Stormwater

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

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

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

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

AAA Branch Proposal: Commission Discussion – Parking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planning commissioner Eleanore Adenekan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noodles & Co. Site Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noodles & Co. Site Plan: Public Hearing

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

Noodles & Co. Site Plan: Commission Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Hortons on State Street

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Hortons on State Street: Roundabout – Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Hortons on State Street: Commission Discussion – Roundabout

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revised Shell Station PUD

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

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

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

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

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

Revised Shell Station PUD: Commission Discussion

No one spoke during a public hearing on the proposal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The plan calls for demolishing a vacant building on the 2.23-acre site where previous restaurants, including Enzo’s and Gallagher’s, were located. In its place, a one-story 1,953-square-foot restaurant with drive-thru facilities would be built on a 1.18-acre site divided from the current parcel. The building would face West Ellsworth and use an existing shared drive on South State, as well as a relocated drive onto West Ellsworth. An outdoor seating area is proposed on the east side of the building.

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

Much of the discussion among commissioners focused on the proposed roundabout at State and Ellsworth. A spokesman for Tim Hortons said they’d found out about the roundabout plans late in the process, but are working to integrate their own plans to accommodate it. He indicated that if the company gets approval from the city, they hope to open in August. Construction for the roundabout is expected to begin in the spring of 2013, with completion in the fall of that year.

The Tim Hortons site plan proposal will be considered by city council for final approval.

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