The highest-profile of those projects, of course, was a plan to expand the Zingerman’s Deli operations at the corner of Detroit and Kingsley streets, in the Old Fourth Ward historic district. About a dozen representatives affiliated with Zingerman’s attended the meeting, including co-founder Paul Saginaw and managing partners Grace Singleton and Rick Strutz.

In 2008, commissioners rejected the company’s first attempt to gain HDC approval – in the form of a “certificate of appropriateness,” which included asking permission to tear down a small house on their property that had been gutted by fire. Since that initial rebuff by the HDC, Zingerman’s has been working on an alternative path, gaining approval from the city’s planning commission and city council, and returning to the HDC for a “notice to proceed.”

On Thursday, the commission granted the notice to proceed, which will allow the project to move forward. Several commissioners addressed concerns raised during public commentary about this project setting a precedent, saying that Zingerman’s is a unique business and this expansion is unique as well.

But commissioner Lesa Rozmarek, while noting that she would support the project and that overall Zingerman’s is an asset to the community, also said she wanted it on the record that she felt Zingerman’s had threatened the commission with the prospect of leaving the area if they didn’t get approval. The project sets a bad precedent, she said, adding that “it’s opening a big door that hopefully we can shut after this application.”

Later in the meeting Saginaw responded to Rozmarek’s comments, denying that anyone from Zingerman’s threatened to leave the city – though at one point they did consider moving out of that location to another site within Ann Arbor, he said. Saginaw said he believed the HDC was able to approve the project on its merits.

In other business, the commission issued certificates of appropriateness for three projects: 1) a solar panel installation at 217 S. Seventh St., 2) a request to add an exterior sign near the front door of 209-211 S. State St., where a CVS pharmacy is being constructed, and 3) a proposal for a 1.5-story addition on the back of 442 Second St.

The solar project is being installed on the home of Matt Grocoff, founder of Greenovation TV. Grocoff had attended last month’s HDC meeting, when two other solar panel installations were approved, including one at the historic Michigan Theater building on East Liberty. On Thursday, Grocoff told commissioners that when his solar panels are installed, his home will be the oldest in the nation to achieve net zero energy status, using only energy generated on-site.

Zingerman’s Deli Expansion

Before the start of Thursday’s meeting, Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office conferred with commission chair Ellen Ramsburgh, and at the start of the meeting a closed session was added to the agenda. To comply with the state’s Open Meetings Act, public bodies must indicate the purpose of the closed session – this one was to discuss written attorney-client privileged communication. The session was slotted after the first three projects on the agenda were considered, but prior to the Zingerman’s Deli project. It is likely that the closed session related to that project.

The closed session lasted nearly an hour.

Zingerman’s Deli: Background

In June of 2008, Zingerman’s made its initial request to the historic district commission, asking to demolish two houses and a garage as part of its plan to expand operations at the popular deli. It was part of an application for a certificate of appropriateness – if it had been granted, Zingerman’s would then have moved through the approval process with the city’s planning commission and city council. This is the most common approach for projects located in historic districts.

Issuing a certificate of appropriateness depends in part on whether a building is deemed a “contributing” or  a “non-contributing” historic structure. A building that’s determined to be “non-contributing” is more easily altered than a building that’s “contributing,” under the Secretary of the Interior standards governing historic renovation.

At its June 2008 meeting, the HDC voted to issue a certificate of appropriateness to demolish Zingerman’s non-contributing garage, but voted to deny the request to demolish the two houses, which commissioners found to be contributing to the Old Fourth Ward. While the HDC vote on the house at 420 Detroit St. – known as the Annex, or orange house – was unanimously against demolition, the vote on the fire-damaged 322 E. Kingsley St. house was only 4-3 against demolition.

So Zingerman’s regrouped, opting to pursue what’s known as a “notice to proceed.” From the city code:

8:416. Notice to proceed.
(1) Work within a historic district shall be permitted through the issuance of a notice to proceed by the commission if any of the following conditions prevail and if the proposed work can be demonstrated by a finding of the commission to be necessary to substantially improve or correct any of the following conditions:
(a) The resource constitutes a hazard to the safety of the public or to the structure’s occupants.
(b) The resource is a deterrent to a major improvement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all necessary planning and zoning approvals, financing, and environmental clearances.
(c) Retaining the resource will cause undue financial hardship to the owner when a governmental action, an act of God, or other events beyond the owner’s control created the hardship, and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the financial hardship, which may include offering the resource for sale at its fair market value or moving the resource to a vacant site within the historic district, have been attempted and exhausted by the owner.
(d) Retaining the resource is not in the interest of the majority of the community.

The business decided to base its notice to proceed application on criterion (b) – and set about gaining all the necessary approvals it needed before returning to the HDC. It gained planning commission approval in May 2010 [Chronicle coverage: “Zingerman’s Deli Expansion Moves Ahead”] and city council approval in July ["Zingerman's Moves on to HDC"]. The city council embellished its approval by passing an additional resolution, communicating to the HDC the council’s view that the project represented a substantial benefit to the community.

In addition, representatives from Zingerman’s met with HDC commissioners in three working sessions in late 2009 and early 2010, and held public forums earlier this year to explain the project to residents.

Other Chronicle coverage:

“Zingerman’s: Making it Right for the HDC”

“Zingerman’s Project Seeks Brownfield Status”

“DDA Approves Grant for Zingerman’s”

Zingerman’s Deli: Staff & Review Committee Reports

Jill Thacher, the city’s historic preservation coordinator, began by giving a detailed report on the project, and a recommendation from staff that the notice to proceed be granted.

The site plan calls for demolishing the fire-gutted house at 322 E. Kingsley, while integrating the Annex into the site by connecting it to the new building – a two-story, 10,340-square-foot addition that also would be connected to the 5,107-square-foot existing deli building via a glass atrium. They’ll add underground tanks for stormwater detention and several environmentally-friendly design elements, including a green roof on the deli’s existing one-story wing. Phoenix Contractors of Ypsilanti is the project’s construction manager and general contractor – Bill Kinley, owner of Phoenix Contractors, attended Thursday’s meeting.

The overall project is expected to cost about $6.7 million. Roughly $500,000 is associated with renovating the Annex, which is relatively small – less than 900 square feet. Renovation will entail moving the Annex off its existing foundation, replacing the foundation, renovating the house, then moving it onto the new foundation and incorporating the structure into the new deli addition.

Thacher noted that staff believes the project’s benefits meet the threshold of “substantial.” From the staff report:

The benefits go well beyond an increase in the tax base and new construction jobs, which by themselves are important, but would not be substantial enough to warrant a notice to proceed. Benefits particular to the historic district include moving the kitchen out of the Deli, which will help preserve that historic structure, and restoring the exterior of the Annex and incorporating it into a new addition that is an appropriate size and scale for the neighborhood. Community benefits include 65 new permanent downtown jobs, retention and intensification of downtown business activity as opposed to peripheral sprawl, increased support to local non-profit organizations, increased entrepreneurial support for new local businesses, sustainable design that is expected to obtain LEED silver or gold certification and use local materials and vendors when possible, and many more (see also the application letter). [.pdf of Zingerman's application letter]

Thacher also noted that Zingerman’s submitted a financing commitment letter from United Structured Finance Co., and that the city’s chief financial officer recommended that the HDC accept it as proof of necessary financing.

Ellen Ramsburgh and Lesa Rozmarek were on the review committee for this project, though all but two commissioners – Kristina Glusac and Patrick McCauley – went on a Sept. 7 site visit. The visit, which The Chronicle attended, included a walk-through of the property with Ken Clein, a principal with Quinn Evans Architects who’s handling this project.

Lit only with flashlights, the burnt-out husk of the house at 322 E. Kingsley was explored by some historic district commissioners, The Chronicle and Zingerman's representatives last week.

At Thursday’s meeting, Ramsburgh said the staff report was very thorough and that commissioners have all the information they need to make a decision.

Rozmarek noted that all commissioners had been inside the house on Kingsley, which had been gutted by fire, and that they all realize it has lost its historic fabric and is no longer a contributing structure. It would be an improvement to demolish the building, she said.

Zingerman’s Deli: Public Commentary

Ken Clein, a principal with Quinn Evans Architects, said he was on hand to answer any questions the commissioners might have. “In fact, most of Zingerman’s is here tonight,” he quipped. Clein mentioned that he had brought samples of the metal and brick that would be used. They feel that the project meets the required threshold of providing substantial community benefit, he said. They intensely explored other options, he said, and believe this is the best design for the site. In response to a query from Rozmarek, Clein said that they would be using salvaged brick.

Jim Mogensen said he wanted to follow up on remarks he’d made at the August HDC meeting. His concerns aren’t about the Zingerman’s project, though he said that’s what the debate in the community is. For him, it’s about the policy that’s being set and what it means for the city’s historic districts in the future. This particular project is in scale with the historic district, he said, “but the process would not necessarily get you there.” The question for him, he said, is if you have a Glen Ann project, would that meet the same criteria? [He was referring to Glen Ann Place, a project that won approval from the planning commission and city council but was denied by the HDC.

The situation ended in a lawsuit, settled in the summer of 2007 in a way that allowed the project to move ahead. But so far, nothing has yet been built on that vacant lot just north of Ann Street on the west side of Glen Avenue, where two houses previously stood.] Mogensen said you could make the argument that projects like Glen Ann Place would meet the same criteria that the Zingerman’s project had met. His hope is that all the benefits cited by Zingerman’s are incorporated into the resolution, so that when another project comes forward, they’ll also need to provide such benefits.

Christine Crockett, president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, said that from the time they’d first heard about the project, they’ve told Zingerman’s that the historic district commission will be the entity that ultimately decides whether the project can move forward. Residents aren’t empowered to do that, she said. The city council has approved it, and no one would argue that the community doesn’t want it. Her concern is the process – this shouldn’t be used as a precedent for eroding the character of the residential neighborhood. It was unsettling that the property at 322 Kingsley had been rezoned from residential R4C to D2, which allows for higher density and commercial use. Now, owners of other properties on Kingsley are considering whether they can have their property rezoned as well, she said, to make more money from development.

This is not downtown, she said – it’s near downtown. Whatever decision they make about Zingerman’s, it should be worded in such a way to make clear that it’s not a precedent. Crockett said she loves Zingerman’s, and described it as a business that’s served the community well. This isn’t about Zingerman’s, she said – it’s about protecting the historic district.

Ray Detter identified himself as chair of the Downtown Area Citizens Advisory Council, and said the council had unanimously instructed him to support the project. It was not a decision that came easily, he said, and the project shouldn’t be considered a precedent-setter. It is a unique package and Zingerman’s is a unique business. The majority of Ann Arbor citizens believe that the expansion will bring a substantial benefit to the city.

However, he said, there have been serious missteps in the process. Several years ago, Detter said that he and Christine Crockett began meeting privately with Paul Saginaw and others to discuss issues related to the expansion. At that time, Zingerman’s wanted to demolish the historic building at 420 Detroit – the Annex – but they had no clear plan for the site, he said. Many people thought the city should support anything that Zingerman’s wanted, Detter said, but he and others opposed that kind of “popular reputation” precedent. It’s taken three years to get to this point, he said, but now they support the HDC’s decision to allow demolition of the Kingsley house. The years of public process that Zingerman’s has undertaken have won over the community, Detter said. “No one else could have done it,” he added. “No one else as far as we’re concerned should try to do it.”

Zingerman’s Deli: Commissioner Questions, Comments

Commissioner Bob White began by saying that he supported the project, and thought they should approve it.

Tom Stulberg said he originally had some concerns about a possible precedent that this project might set. But after reading the materials and considering the comments made by staff and other commissioners, he’s convinced that the project is unique and won’t set a precedent.

Diane Giannola noted that the request being considered was a notice to proceed, not a certificate of appropriateness. By granting the notice to proceed, the commission is saying that the societal benefits of this project outweigh the benefits of keeping the contributing structure – the fire-damaged building on Kingsley. The project helps the local economy, she said, by making Zingerman’s even more of a destination. The benefits are so unique that there are really no other places in the city where this would be possible, she said. Further, the project is in scale with the neighborhood. It’s a good project that’s been a long time coming, she concluded, and she fully supported it.

Ann Arbor historic district commissioners Lesa Rozmarek, Kristina Glusac and Bob White at the HDC's Sept. 9 meeting.

Rozmarek said that she too would support the project, but that it wasn’t the proposal they should really be voting on – it undermines the very reason why the commission exists. She believed the term “substantial benefit” was being loosely applied in this case. The addition – which will be used for food production, dining and administration – is similar to what they come across in new construction. The building itself isn’t unique and won’t benefit all of Ann Arbor – though the business overall certainly does benefit the city, she said. Having Zingerman’s in Ann Arbor does contribute to the greater good of the community.

However, Rozmarek said she felt the commission had been threatened, and she quoted from a March 13, 2010 Ann Arbor Chronicle article: “Clein responded to Ramsburgh at the January 2010 HDC working session by wondering if there were another historic district in another town where Zingerman’s could contemplate locating their operations.”

The section of the article was reporting on a Jan. 14, 2010 working session between Zingerman’s representatives and the commission. Here’s the entire section within which that sentence is cited:

Commissioner Ellen Ramsburgh wondered if the expansion was more than the site could take. She noted that the Zingerman’s Creamery and Bake House had moved to peripheral locations. “Do you need to be there?”

In her remarks, Ramsburgh was echoing sentiments expressed by then-commissioner Michael Bruner back in June 2008, when he had made the suggestion that Zingerman’s think of moving their operations. The specific location he had in mind was the Old West Side structure adjoining the Liberty Lofts development:

Commissioner Bruner – [...] This may be less than what they need, but there stands today, a project that we reviewed and was approved, a development that includes a 20,000 square foot commercial retail area with parking that is begging to be occupied. [An apparent allusion to the Liberty Lofts greenhouse building.] As preservationists that want to encourage the success of economic projects in the city, perhaps Zingerman’s should consider moving their location as they have with their Creamery, which is at a satellite location, their Bakery which is at a satellite location, their Roadhouse that is a satellite location – this could be relocated as a satellite component at another location, nevertheless retaining this location as it is.

Clein responded to Ramsburgh at the January 2010 HDC working session by wondering if there were another historic district in another town where Zingerman’s could contemplate locating their operations. Ramsburgh: “That’s a threat!”

Rozmarek said she felt the commission had been backed into a corner, and if they didn’t approve the project, Zingerman’s has threatened to leave this community. The commission doesn’t want Zingerman’s to leave, she said, and the business does provide a lot of benefits. But this expansion doesn’t provide a direct benefit. There’s no direct relationship between the project and the benefits that Zingerman’s already provide, she said. There’s nothing, for example, showing that by expanding their deli operations, Zingerman’s will be able to increase its contributions to charity.

Though she’d be supporting the project, she felt this needed to be on the record because the project is setting a bad precedent. “It’s opening a big door that hopefully we can shut after this application,” she concluded.

Giannola responded to Rozmarek’s comments, noting that the difference between this and other projects is that Zingerman’s is a destination business, and is world-renowned. Allowing them to expand enhances the reputation of Ann Arbor. “It’s not just any business,” she said.

Gary Bruder, Paul Saginaw and Grace Singleton wait in city council chambers for the Zingerman's Deli project to be considered by the historic district commission. Bruder is an attorney and Zingerman’s owner representative on this project. Saginaw is co-founder of Zingerman's and Singleton is a managing partner of the deli.

Ramsburgh concluded the discussion by saying that a lot of good comments had been made. The process had been arduous for both Zingerman’s and the commission, she said, but it had been beneficial to both of them as well. The working sessions they’d held about the project had been very helpful, she said, and she agreed with the staff report – it’s providing substantial benefits to the community. It’s time for the Kingsley house to be removed and for something vibrant and active to go there.

Holding the working sessions and having Zingerman’s come forward with a site plan that’s respectful of historic buildings makes this project much easier to support, Ramsburgh said. There might be elements of the design that they’d like to tweak, but because it’s respectful of the area and the historic district, it helps them support the overall project. She said she believes that Zingerman’s and Quinn Evans are aware of the mutually beneficial relationship between the deli and the historic neighborhood.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously voted to award a “notice to proceed” for the Zingerman’s Deli project. The decision was met with applause from those attending who were affiliated with the project.

Zingerman’s Deli: Public Commentary

Zingerman’s co-founder Paul Saginaw came up to the podium and responded to Rozmarek’s comments, saying that at no time did they say they’d leave the city. At one point they had considered leaving that location, he said, but they were still planning to be downtown. Saginaw said he didn’t want the story to be that Zingerman’s had threatened to leave in order to get approval. He believed the commission had approved the project on its merits.

Saginaw said it would be disingenuous of him not to mention that there had been a time when he didn’t see how the project could work without removing the Annex building, as Zingerman’s had originally requested. But commissioners had pushed Zingerman’s to keep it, and he thanked them for that.

Zingerman’s Deli: Brownfield Coda

Though the Zingerman’s Deli project’s brownfield plan has received approval from the Ann Arbor city council and Washtenaw County board of commissioners, it still awaits final approval from the state before it can receive tax credits. They had hoped to have their application reviewed at the Sept. 13 meeting of the Michigan Economic Growth Authority (MEGA) board, but last-minute questions from state staff have pushed back the process a month. Zingerman’s expects to have their plan voted on at the MEGA board’s Oct. 19 meeting instead, with plans to start construction after that.

Solar Panel Installation

At its Aug. 12 meeting, the commission approved two solar panel projects in historic districts: an installation on the Michigan Theater building on East Liberty, and a residential project at 553 S. Seventh St., just north of West Madison in the Old West Side historic district.

Speaking during public commentary on Aug. 12 in support of the residential project was Matt Grocoff. From Chronicle coverage of that meeting:

Saying he was a huge advocate of historic preservation, Matt Grocoff – founder of Greenovation TV – noted that he lived down the street from Hewett, and that he intends to make his home the oldest in America to achieve net-zero energy. While he was excited by the discussion, he said the commissioners were asking the wrong questions about the aesthetics. “The real question is what point is there in preserving our history if we don’t protect our future?” He urged commissioners to set a precedent by unanimously approving the installation of solar panels.

On Thursday, Grocoff himself was asking for HDC approval to install up to 30 solar panels on the south-facing side of his home’s roof at 217 S. Seventh St.

217 S. Seventh: Staff & Revew Committee Reports

Jill Thacher, the city’s historic preservation coordinator, gave the staff report on Grocoff’s proposal.

Matt Grocoff, right, indicates the proposed location for a solar panel installation on the roof of his house at 217 S. Seventh to historic district commissioners Ellen Ramsburgh and Lisa Rozmarek.

She noted that at last month’s meeting, she had suggested it might be good to limit such installations to cover no more than 30% of the roof’s surface. Since then, she’s gathered additional information and now thinks that it would be less conspicuous to have most of the roof’s surface covered, especially if the panels are a different color than the roof. Grocoff’s installation would cover just over 80% of the south side of the roof. The panels would be black in a black frame, and because of that they would minimize the appearance of a grid.

The staff recommended approval of the project, Thacher said. The panels are easily removable and don’t detract from the historic character of the house.

Lesa Rozmarek and Ellen Ramsburgh were the review committee for this project, and had made a site visit to the house on Tuesday, Sept. 7.  At Thursday’s meeting, Rozmarek said she agreed 100% with the staff report. It’s good for the environment and good for the city, and the commission should promote sustainable building practices within historic districts, she said. Rozmarek said she wholeheartedly supported the project.

Ramsburgh echoed those sentiments, and said the commission has learned a lot about solar panel installations over the past month. In the future the commission will address in a more formal way the issue of solar installations and other energy efficient projects that will be occurring in historic districts, she said.

217 S. Seventh: Public Commentary

Matt Grocoff, the homeowner, thanked commissioners and said it was encouraging to hear their comments about moving into the future while preserving the past. He talked about the history of the house, which he’d bought from the daughter of a man who’d owned a tavern located where Grizzly Peak is now – the daughter had been born in the home’s living room. He noted that this was an opportunity to add something “of our time,” but to also clean up the house aesthetically to be closer to its original condition.

Though his project will cover a large footprint on the roof, not every project will be able to do that, he said. Grocoff added that he looks forward to future discussions about how to balance historic preservation with current environmental needs. He noted that not every historic district commission has been this progressive, and that there have been cases where homeowners elsewhere have been required to remove expensive solar systems. Grocoff said he hoped the commission would see “hundreds and hundreds” of such projects in the coming years, a comment that drew laughter from commissioners.

Daren Griffith, of Canton-based Mechanical Energy Systems, also commended the commission. He noted that the company has been around for many years, and had installed solar panels on Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s residence last year. One side effect to making historic homes more energy efficient is that there will be more money available for preservation efforts, he said. Also, solar panels help preserve the structure by protecting the roof, he said. These are aspects that aren’t often discussed, he said.

Griffith noted that unfortunately, 90% of solar panel manufacturers don’t make the black-on-black panels. Most of them have aluminum frames. He also addressed concerns he’d heard mentioned in previous discussions about the location of the panels. In some cases the panels can also be mounted on the ground or on a pole, he said, but they do have to be south-facing and out of shade. That’s why the roof tends to be the best location.

Solar Panels: Commissioner Questions, Comments

Commissioner Kristina Glusac pointed out that the application had mentioned two possible types of panels – a 225 watt or a 315 watt. Griffith said that at the time Grocoff applied, it wasn’t clear how much surface area of the roof they could cover. They’d prefer the 225, but had included the possibility of the 315 panels, which would give more wattage from a smaller area.

Glusac said that at the HDC’s last meeting, experts told the commission that the dark blue was the color used in solar panel technology. “I walked away from last month’s meeting thinking that black is not the appropriate color for solar panels,” she said. She asked Griffith to comment on that.

He said that new technologies will be coming out that allow the panel to be a variety of designs, from the logo of your university to a design mimicking the asphalt shingles of a roof. He described the two types of panels currently used – monocrystalline and polycrystalline. Polycrystalline panels have the dark blue that Glusac mentioned. The black panels that would be used on Grocoff’s house are monocrystalline, he said, with electric contact points on the back of the panel, rather than the front, which is more common. The black panels are a design that’s patented by the manufacturer, Sunpower, and it’s fairly unique, Griffith said.

However, Griffith added that he didn’t think the historic commission should be able to determine what type of panel is used. The performance of the panel is what’s most important, and there are other things to take into account beyond aesthetics.

Lester Graham of Michigan Public Radio recorded proceedings of the Sept. 9 Ann Arbor historic district commission as they considered the solar panel project for the home of Matt Grocoff.

Tom Stulberg asked about the positioning of the panels, noting that they didn’t go all the way up to the roof’s ridgeline. Griffith said that they could have cantilevered the panels above the ridgeline or beyond the gutter. One reason they didn’t do that is to preserve the structure of the roof. Another reason not to cantilever over the gutter is that they want the runoff from the panels to flow into the gutter, which at Grocoff’s home then flows into a rainwater collection system. Cantilevering over the gutter might also cause ice damming and over time damage the roof. Griffith said that if the chimney weren’t located on that side of the roof, they might try to go up to the ridgeline.

Rozmarek noted that during the site visit, Grocoff had mentioned that he’d be installing micro-inverters on the panels. She asked him to describe that type of system for the commission.

Grocoff said they’d be using Enphase micro-inverters – he held up one that he had brought to show the commission. Griffith said that it’s the latest technology in solar panels, and will make systems more efficient. Most systems are hooked up to one large single-phase inverter that’s located inside or outside the house. Wires from the panels are run to the inverter, which converts from direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC). Because of the distance, a lot of power is lost. With micro-inverters, the power is converted from DC to AC at the panel.

Another selling point for micro-inverters is that with older systems, if any part of the solar panel array is shaded, the entire array shuts down, Griffith said. With micro-inverters, only the individual panels are affected – and within those panels, only the portions that are shaded stop generating power. Cost is another factor, he said. If a micro-inverter fails, it can be replaced for about $250. However, if a single-phase inverter fails, it would cost several thousand dollars to replace.

Grocoff concluded by noting that with the addition of the solar panels, their house will be the first one in a historic district nationwide to achieve net zero energy status, and the oldest house in America to achieve net zero. “It’s pretty cool,” he said.

Outcome: The commission unanimously voted to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of up to 30 solar panels.

After the vote, commissioner Stulberg said it was important to note that because these installations are non-permanent, it gives the commission a lot of flexibility to approve them, and to adapt to changing technologies, as long as the projects don’t intrude on the character of the homes. There’s no need to demand uniformity on the projects, he said.

Ramsburgh noted that on the site visit that she, Rozmarek and Thacher had made on Tuesday, they’d been able ask a lot of questions and ascertain that Grocoff had done many other things to increase the energy efficiency of the house, before asking for permission to install solar panels.

Other HDC Business

Earlier in the meeting, the commission considered two additional projects: 1) a request to add an 18-inch by 22-inch exterior sign near the front door of 209-211 S. State St., where a CVS pharmacy is being constructed in the State Street historic district, and 2) a proposal for a 1.5-story addition on the back of 442 Second St., in the Old West Side historic district.

The CVS approval for a certificate of appropriateness passed quickly, with little discussion. For the house on 442 Second St., homeowners Toby and Kathy Brzoznowski were on hand, as was architect Marc Rueter, who’s designing the project.

HDC chair Ellen Ramsburgh said the house was interesting because you could quickly read the different periods that the various additions to the house represented – they are very distinct, and it’s an attractive house. She said she’d feel more comfortable if the one-story addition on the north side of the home had a varied roofline, making it easier to discern where the new section began.

Toby Brzoznowski responded by noting that the second story part of the addition did have a break in the roofline, and that the foundation for the old and new sections would be different, and a trim line will mark the start of the new addition. Rueter said there were some structural issues that made it necessary to design the roofline as it is. He also pointed out that the north facade was almost an invisible side of the house, being masked by a fence and shrubs.

Commissioner Lesa Rozmarek expressed some concern that the addition’s gable seemed to mimic the original Greek Revival architecture, which she noted was a violation of one of the Secretary of the Interior standards for historic preservation. She said she’d feel more comfortable if the gable were one that you’d see in 2010, rather than one that evoked the 1800s. It’s a beautiful addition, she added, though it does push the envelope toward being inappropriate.

Rueter said he’s given the addition a design that he believes most people would recognize as not being an historic structure.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved certificates of appropriateness for both the CVS sign and the addition to the 442 Second St. house.

Present: Diane Giannola, Kristina Glusac, Ellen Ramsburgh, Lesa Rozmarek, Tom Stulberg, Bob White

Absent: Patrick McCauley

Donald Staebler, who'll turn 100 later this month, was honored at Wednesday's county board meeting. He has lived on Staebler Farm, which is now owned by the county, for 98 years.

One item, however, yielded lengthy debate: A resolution that would remove the “felony box” from county job applications, and eliminate background checks for all jobs except those deemed sensitive. Several commissioners were uneasy with even partial elimination of background checks. The resolution was ultimately amended to deal with only the felony box, which asks applicants if they’ve ever been convicted of a felony. Commissioners ended up unanimously approving the removal of that question from job applications.

The board also agreed to put a 10-year millage renewal on the November ballot for the county’s natural areas preservation program, and approved brownfield plans for the Near North housing project and an expansion of Zingerman’s Deli. Both of the brownfield projects are located in Ann Arbor – brownfield status enables them to seek Michigan business tax credits and, in the case of Zingerman’s, to use tax increment financing (TIF) to get reimbursed for project-related expenses.

Commissioners got a second-quarter budget update, which revealed few surprises. However, projections indicate that the budget surplus they need to carry over into 2011 will fall short of their goal by about $987,000. Next year will be a challenging one.

The board had been expected to act on re-establishing a land bank for the county, but ended up tabling resolutions related to that effort until next month, citing the need to gather additional information.

The meeting also included time to honor two people from the community: Joseph N. Cousin Sr., pastor of Bethel AME Church in Ann Arbor, and Donald Staebler, a local farmer whose land is being turned into a county park – and who’ll turn 100 later this month. Both men received standing ovations for their work.

Felony Box, Background Checks

A resolution that proposed altering some aspects of county job applications received the most discussion of any other item on Wednesday’s agenda.

Currently, applicants for jobs with the county government must indicate on their job applications whether they’ve been convicted of a felony. Commissioners considered a resolution to remove the so-called “felony box” from county job applications. The resolution also proposed that the county eliminate background checks for certain jobs. Currently a background check is conducted on anyone who receives a conditional offer of employment from the county.

[For background and one person's perspective on the issue, see a column written by Jason Smith and published by The Chronicle in January 2010: "Ban the Box, Hire Fairly."]

Felony Box: Public Commentary

Theresa Finney Dumais, development director for Habitat for Humanity of Huron Valley, spoke in favor of removing the box. She said that the Habitat has an excellent partnership with the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI), which led to a paid day laborer program that’s been very successful. MPRI workers tend to have above-average skills and are very reliable. She also praised the MPRI staff, saying they were great to work with.

Terril Cotton also spoke in favor of banning the felony box, saying it would give ex-felons a fair chance of competing for jobs. Since June of 2007, Cotton said he submitted 170 applications and got nine interviews, but no one would hire him because of his felony conviction. Now, “I have a job,” he said, “but it was hard – very hard.”

A job is essential to surviving after you get out of prison, he said. You can go to school and get training, but it doesn’t matter because you still get the door shut in your face. Cotton said he understood that there were certain sensitive jobs which would require background checks. He said he knows that ex-felons must accept responsibility – they did something wrong, he said, but they paid their debt to society by serving their prison sentence.

Felony Box: Commissioner Comments and Questions

Jessica Ping clarified that the changes would apply to county government jobs only – not to businesses or organizations in the county. Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he’d support the resolution, and that it could serve as a model for businesses.

Barbara Bergman wanted to take an additional step in the future, at some point requiring businesses that do work for the county also to ban the box – at least for positions that result from their contracts with the county. She reasoned that contractors were being paid with county money, so the same rules should apply, and all citizens should have a chance at those jobs.

Wes Prater then raised some concerns. Saying he had no problem banning the felony box, he said he didn’t think the policy about eliminating background checks had been well thought out. Employees are paid with tax dollars, he said, and the organization needs to know whether there are former felons working there. In some cases, for more serious crimes, Prater said he didn’t think they should be employed by the county at all.

There was then some discussion – and confusion – about whether the new policy would continue to require background checks for all people offered jobs. Diane Heidt, the county’s human resources and labor relations director, clarified that her staff was working with department heads to come up with a list of positions that would require background checks after a conditional offer of employment was made. The list would include those jobs that require the handling of money, working in the sheriff’s department or with children, for example. For all other positions, there would be no background checks, if the new policy were to be adopted.

Ken Schwartz suggested tabling the resolution, adding that he was generally in favor of it. In Michigan, he noted, some crimes are felonies that in other states would only be misdemeanors.

Leah Gunn noted that they’d worked very closely with Mary King, community coordinator for the MPRI in Washtenaw County, to craft this resolution. It helped level the playing field for people who were having an especially tough time finding work in this economy.

Kristin Judge said her concern was not only for positions dealing with children and handling money, but also for the employees of Washtenaw County. She didn’t know why the county would do away with all background checks. What if they hired someone who had a history of violent criminal sexual assault – would other employees be safe?

Jeff Irwin asked whether the list of jobs that would require background checks was available. Heidt told him it was still being compiled, but she hoped to have it finished by September. He then suggested moving the resolution through their Ways & Means Committee that night, but not taking the final vote until their next regular board meeting on Sept. 1.

Irwin also asked how much it cost to do a background check. Heidt said it varied, depending on how extensive it was. Overall, the county spent about $28,000 in total last year on background checks, she said. That doesn’t include the sheriff’s department, which has its own procedures. Irwin noted that since the county wasn’t doing a lot of hiring, that’s probably on the low end of what it would cost, in any given year. So there’s a financial savings, albeit a small one, to eliminating some background checks, he said.

Barbara Bergman asked for examples of positions that might not require a background check. Heidt said that an administrative position for the water resources commissioner’s office wouldn’t likely require one. Bergman then asked if there was anyone who could speak to the legal distinctions among various types of criminal sexual conduct. There are nuances that are important to consider, she said.

Conan Smith noted that there was a judge in the room – 14th District Court judge Cedrid Simpson – as well as someone from the public defender’s office, Delphia Simpson. Judge Simpson, who with his sister Delphia Simpson was attending the meeting to honor the pastor of their church, agreed to come to the podium and respond to Bergman’s query. He said there was a distinction between different types of criminal sexual conduct, but he said he didn’t want to give any indication that those distinctions make some less serious than others. CSC 4 – criminal sexual conduct, 4th degree – is the lowest in terms of penalties, for example, but the trauma on the victim might be just as great as with other CSC levels, he said.

Bergman said that obviously she’s not in favor of sexual misconduct, but that it’s important to consider the circumstances – like when kids go on a date and act stupidly, and the parents get mad. It’s important not to paint felonies with a broad brush, she said.

Prater restated that he didn’t object to eliminating the felony box. But eliminating background checks is a problem. The county has 17 different bargaining units, he noted. What if someone is hired into a job that doesn’t require a background check, then joins a bargaining unit and becomes eligible for a transfer – how is that situation handled? In addition, he again stated that there are certain people that the county just shouldn’t hire, like people who’ve committed violent crimes or sexual assault on children.

Heidt said that the county’s policy is to conduct background checks as part of a transfer or promotion – that’s standard practice, she said. Prater asked whether it was written into the labor contracts. When told by Heidt that it isn’t, Prater said the county then had no way to compel a background check. The way the resolution is written, it’s bad policy, he said.

Schwartz pointed out that they disagreed on how to implement the policy, and that they needed more time to analyze it. He asked Curtis Hedger, the county’s corporation counsel, whether there had been any legal analysis done on the county’s liability, in the event that something happened and the county knew – or should have known – about an employee’s criminal history. Hedger said that no analysis had been done on that issue.

Saying he was happy with the end, Schwartz said they needed to clean up the means. He moved to table the resolution until the board’s Sept. 1 meeting.

Outcome: The motion to table the felony box resolution failed on a 5-5 vote, with dissent from Bergman, Irwin, Gunn, Sizemore and Smith. Ronnie Peterson was out of the room when the vote was taken.

As a point of order, Judge noted that board rules require that if a commissioner is present when attendance is taken, they are required to vote. [This is a rule that's not vigorously enforced, based on The Chronicle's observation during the past two years of board meetings.]

Peterson then returned to his seat – when told it was a 5-5 vote and he was needed to break the tie, he smiled ruefully and put his head in his hands. He then voted no, and the motion to table failed.

Discussion continued. Judge asked Heidt to explain the rationale behind the county’s current practice of doing background checks on all hires. Heidt said that it began in 2002, after a study of best practices within the state and at other organizations. Judge wondered whether the county would be liable if someone who didn’t get a background check committed workplace violence. Heidt pointed out that the county has a separate workplace violence policy, but she deferred to Hedger on the question of liability. Hedger said it was impossible to say, given that each case is fact-sensitive. There’s the potential for liability, he said, but it would depend on the situation.

Smith said that Prater’s point – making a distinction between the felony box and background checks – is valid. In the hopes of reaching consensus that evening, he suggested striking the portions of the resolution that would eliminate background checks. The resolution would simply remove the felony box from county job applications. He told Heidt that in this case, it would be incumbent on the HR staff to ensure that the process is fair, and to make clear that getting a background check – and uncovering a criminal history – would not necessarily exclude the applicant from consideration.

Heidt said that currently, results from a background check are considered, but they’re just one factor.

Peterson agreed with Smith, then noted that over the years, the county has hired ex-felons a number of times – he said he could think of 10, off the top of his head. They’ve been active and contributing members of the organization, he said. The board wasn’t planning to torpedo this initiative, he said – they needed to be a model for the community. Peterson also noted that the county has had issues with workplace violence by people who haven’t had a previous criminal history.

Gunn then proposed amending the resolution by deleting references that called for eliminating background checks. She said the resolution would just remove the felony box, but keep the rest of their employment practices the same.

At this point, Irwin observed that the board had done “a complete 180.” They’d taken a resolution that made meaningful change in the way the county operated, and turned it into something that “is more symbolic than substantive.” He was disappointed in that, and moved to reinstate the original resolution. The motion was not seconded, and died for lack of support.

Schwartz thanked Peterson for not voting to table the resolution, saying he thought they’d made progress. The board still needed to give the county’s HR staff some guidance about the policy, he said, at a later date.

Smith concluded the discussion, saying that the presence of the felony box makes the hiring process highly prejudicial. By removing it, people will be judged by the merits of their abilities. If a background check later uncovers something that gives the HR staff pause, he said, they have a process to see if that history warrants not hiring the applicant. By taking away the box, the board is putting a weight on HR to ensure that if they don’t hire an ex-felon, there’s a reason for it.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the revised resolution, eliminating the felony box from county job applications. Background checks will continue to be made for all job applicants who receive a conditional job offer.

Brownfield Plans Approved: Near North, Zingerman’s

At Wednesday’s meeting, there were public hearings for two brownfield plans: The Near North housing project on North Main in Ann Arbor, and an expansion of Zingerman’s Deli in Ann Arbor’s Kerrytown district. No one spoke during the public hearing on Near North. The only speaker for the Zingerman’s public hearing was Grace Singleton, a managing partner at the deli, who said she and others working on the project were there to answer questions, if commissioners had any. She thanked them for considering the plan.

Commissioners did not discuss either of the plans before voting. At the June 28 administrative briefing – an informal meeting to review the upcoming agenda – commissioner Barbara Bergman had raised concerns about the plans in the context of an article written by Judy McGovern and published in the August Ann Arbor Observer. The article reported that Broadway Village, a proposed development in Ann Arbor’s Lower Town area, had received a large incentive package from the state, and that the state’s pension fund had made a $20 million equity investment in the project. Much of that investment will be lost, according to the report.

At the briefing, Bergman wondered whether Zingerman’s or Near North would be receiving any money in advance, as part of its brownfield plan. She was assured that they would not.

The brownfield plans enable the Near North project and Zingerman’s to seek Michigan business tax credits – $720,000 and $1.003 million, respectively. In addition, Zingerman’s will use tax increment financing (TIF) to be reimbursed for up to $817,265 in expenses related to its expansion.

Outcome: Brownfield plans for both Near North and Zingerman’s Deli were approved unanimously, without discussion.

Natural Areas Preservation Program

Ten years ago, voters approved a countywide 0.25-mill tax to form the natural areas preservation program, known as NAPP. Since then, the county has acquired over 1,800 acres of land and established 17 new nature preserves. The millage will have generated about $27.5 million by the time it expires.

The millage is administered by the county’s parks & recreation commission, which is seeking a 10-year renewal of the millage, beginning in December 2011. Because of Headlee rollbacks, the renewal rate will be slightly lower – 0.2409 mill – and is expected to raise roughly $3 million in annual revenues if it passes. The county board is required to authorize adding the millage renewal to the ballot.

NAPP: Public Commentary

Spaulding Clark, Scio Township supervisor, urged the board to put the NAPP millage renewal on the November ballot. He noted that Bruce Manny, chair of the board for the Scio Township Land Preservation Commission, was also in the audience, and supported the millage. The county has been a great partner in Scio’s own preservation efforts, Clark said, adding that township voters approved their own 10-year land preservation millage in 2004.

Clark cited several properties that have been protected in the township, including the Burns-Stokes Preserve, the Fox Science Preserve and the Scio Woods Preserve. Many efforts are done in partnership with the county and Ann Arbor’s greenbelt program. [.pdf map of protected property in Scio Township] The township continues to receive applications from landowners who are interested in protecting high-quality natural areas, Clark said. He hoped the commissioners would let voters decide in November to continue the program.

Suzanne Goodrich introduced herself by saying that in 2006 she sold about 10 acres to the county. It’s located in Ann Arbor Township, along Dixboro Road – other property has been added to it over the years, and it’s now called the Goodrich Preserve. She and her husband wanted to preserve the land in its natural state. You can go there and find wildflowers, deer, lots of birds and a nature walk, she said, and it’s all been supported by NAPP. Land preservation is important for the health of the environment and the education of our children, she said. Goodrich asked commissioners to put the NAPP millage renewal on the November ballot, to continue funding of this important program.

Susan Lackey, executive director of the Legacy Land Conservancy, attended Wednesday’s meeting but did not speak during public commentary. She had previously addressed the board at an April 2010 working session on issues related to moving ahead with the millage renewal. Barry Lonik, a conservation consultant who has advocated for NAPP, also attended the meeting, but did not formally address the board.

NAPP: Commissioner Comments

Ken Schwartz said that every day he drives past the Burns-Stokes Preserve, which stretches along the Huron River, off of Huron River Drive. There are often hundreds of tubists and canoers there, he said – people “with better bodies than me” having fun. He encouraged residents to visit the preserve.

Kristin Judge also praised NAPP, saying that she was proud of the program and that residents appreciated it. It was just a renewal, she noted, not a new tax. Preserving land helps keep everyone’s property values higher, Judge said, and she felt like the program had a lot of support in the community.

Conan Smith, one of the board’s representatives to the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission, noted that the NAPP program has been nationally recognized and provides an extraordinary service to the community. It’s one of the few science-based programs in the country, he said, adding that he was excited about the opportunity to extend its funding for another 10 years.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved a resolution authorizing that the 10-year, 0.2409-mill NAPP millage renewal be added to the November ballot.

Land Bank Tabled Again

The board had formed a county land bank authority last year, but dissolved the entity in March 2010 after several commissioners questioned how it would be funded and governed. The county didn’t receive federal funding it had originally intended to use for the land bank.

Yousef Rabhi, left, is congratulated by commissioners Conan Smith and Barbara Bergman on his victory – by one vote – over Democratic rivals in the Aug. 3 primary election to represent District 11 on the county board. Ann Arbor city councilmember Sabra Briere, with her back to the camera, attended Wednesday's meeting because of the land bank agenda item. Before the land bank was dissolved, Briere had been Ann Arbor's representative on the land bank authority.

A land bank allows the county to acquire tax- or mortgage-foreclosed property and work to put it back into productive use. For several months, commissioner Ronnie Peterson has been urging his colleagues to re-establish the land bank, with increasing frustration. At last month’s meeting, commissioners took an initial vote to approve a revised intergovernmental agreement, which lays out how the land bank will be governed – Barbara Bergman and Leah Gunn cast dissenting votes.

On Wednesday, the board was expected to take a final vote on both that agreement as well as a resolution to rescind their previous dissolution of the land bank.

The proposed intergovernmental agreement called for the board to consist of seven members: the county treasurer, two county commissioners, the mayor or councilmember from the city of Ann Arbor, the mayor or councilmember from the city of Ypsilanti, the supervisor of Ypsilanti Township, and a supervisor representing townships in the western part of the county. However, Bergman began the discussion by proposing an amendment to the intergovernmental agreement, to alter the composition of the land bank authority board. Her amendment would eliminate the requirement to have the Ypsilanti Township supervisor and a supervisor from western Washtenaw serve on the authority’s board.

In their place, Bergman proposed adding five other spots: 1) a representative from the banking industry, 2) a representative the local real estate industry, 3) a representative from local townships, recommended by the Michigan Townships Association, 4) an attorney recommended by the Washtenaw County Bar Association, and 5) a representative recommended by the Washtenaw County Home Builders Association. Her amendment required that all positions get final approval by the county board before being appointed.

Kristin Judge expressed concern about Bergman’s amendment, saying it seemed a little off balance to give spots on the board to Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, but not to individual townships or the city of Saline. [The townships of Ypsilanti and Pittsfield both have larger populations than Ypsilanti.]

Rolland Sizemore Jr. said he had talked with Pat Lockwood, a Genesee County commissioner. She would be willing to come to a future board meeting, he said, to discuss the land bank issue. [Genesee County, where Flint is located, was the first county in Michigan to establish a land bank. Dan Kildee, a former Genesee County treasurer who helped write the enabling legislation for these land bank entities, had attended the Washtenaw County board of commissioners July 2009 meeting to answer questions about setting up a land bank authority. The Genesee land bank has recently come under fire for not maintaining the properties it owns – a concern voiced by some Washtenaw County commissioners.]

Sizemore proposed tabling the land bank resolutions until Lockwood could speak to the board. Peterson asked that Sizemore confirm as early as possible that Lockwood could attend next month’s meeting. He noted that they’d talked about the land bank at several meetings, but hadn’t moved forward. Sizemore acknowledged that the process was moving slowly, but said they were getting the answers they needed.

Outcome: The land bank resolutions were tabled until the Sept. 1, 2010 board meeting.

Second Quarter Budget Update

Jennifer Watson, the county’s budget manager, gave an update on the 2010-11 budget. [She gave a first-quarter update at the board's May 5 meeting, looking at the first three months of the year.] Now that two quarters of the year have passed, they have more solid data with which to make projections for the rest of the year, she said.

The great news, she said, is that property tax revenues are projected to show a $1.77 million surplus compared to what was originally budgeted. But there are other areas that are seeing lower-than-projected revenues. The district court is now projecting a $465,000 revenue decline, due to reductions in local law enforcement and collections, she said. Court officials are trying to identify potential new revenue, but it’s unlikely that will occur in 2010. In addition, the decision by Ypsilanti Township to cut the number of sheriff’s deputies that it pays for to patrol the township resulted in a revenue loss to the county of $1.07 million this year. That’s been partially offset by about $700,000 in expense reductions, but there’s still a $370,000 shortfall, Watson said.

Washtenaw County second-quarter budget chart. (Links to larger image)

Interest income is also down, she said – there’s a roughly $540,000 shortfall from projections in 2010.

Overall, Watson is projecting a $392,000 general fund revenue surplus for the year.

On the expenditure side, there will be a delay in some of the hiring of the new jail staff, which could result in savings for 2010, Watson said. In general, the administration is working hard with all department heads and other elected officials to ensure that projected savings actually materialize, she added. In some areas, it won’t happen. The district court, for example, had agreed to a 10% lump sum reduction, but that now looks unlikely to occur this year. District court security costs are about $220,000 higher than budgeted, primarily because of increased use of part-time staff at the Saline court.

One fairly significant uncertainty is the impact of tax appeals that are being made, Watson said. Appeals continue to increase – the county has just over $4 million in potential liability from those appeals, but it’s unclear how much of that amount will actually be awarded, or when.

With expense cuts and a revenue surplus, they’re projecting a total net surplus of $4.3 million for the year. However, the budget called for carrying over a surplus of $5.289 million into 2011 – they’re still $986,664 short of that. That’s a higher shortfall than the $918,000 they’d projected earlier this year, Watson noted.

Watson also mentioned that from March through May, the number of youth cases handled by the county’s department of human services has increased dramatically. They’re trying to determine if this is just a spike, or whether it’s a longer trend that they’ll have to budget for accordingly. In the worst case scenario, it will result in about a $400,000 net cost to the county, she said.

Budget Update: Commissioner Comments and Questions

Jeff Irwin began by pointing to the implications of Ypsilanti Township’s decision to cut the number of contracted sheriff deputy patrols. [See Chronicle coverage: "County Board OKs Ypsi Twp. Deputy Cuts"] In addition to the direct revenue loss to the county, it also means that overhead costs associated with sheriff deputy patrols must now be spread among a smaller number of deputies – those overhead costs per deputy will now be higher.

Washtenaw County commissioners Mark Ouimet, left, and Jeff Irwin. Both won their primary races on Aug. 3 for state representative – Oumet as a Republican in District 52, and Irwin as a Democrat in District 53.

The financial issue comes in addition to the public safety threat of having fewer deputies on patrol, Irwin said. He hoped to see the county’s larger communities, like Ypsilanti Township, increase their investment in police services.

Mark Ouimet urged the administration to prepare for the fourth quarter, when the variance between actual and budgeted amounts are typically greatest, he said. County administrator Verna McDaniel said that in general, they are being very conservative in their projections.

Kristin Judge had several questions for Watson. Among them, she asked for clarification about the increase in youth services at the department of human services. Watson said there’s been an increase in the number of neglect and abuse cases handled by DHS.

House By the Side of the Road

On Wednesday’s agenda was a resolution to rescind all prior board resolutions that allowed the nonprofit called House By the Side of the Road to operate on county property at no cost. Since 1970, the nonprofit has been distributing clothes to the needy from the premises of the county service center, off of Washtenaw just east of US-23. It built a shed there, and in 1996 struck an agreement with the county, stating that if the county ever asked the nonprofit to leave, the county would reimburse the House for the cost of the shed.

As part of the jail expansion, located in the same area, the county is widening its Washtenaw Avenue entrance to the corrections campus, and has asked the House to leave. The resolution considered by commissioners on Wednesday authorized the county to reimburse the nonprofit.

Jeff Irwin asked what the cost would be. Verna McDaniel, the county administrator, said it wouldn’t be substantial – she estimated less than $7,000. She said the county was storing all the items from the shed until they learned where the nonprofit would be located next.

Finance Director Approved

The board unanimously approved the appointment of Kelly Belknap as finance director for the county, with a starting salary of $110,000. Belknap has worked for the county for nearly 23 years in several departments, most recently serving as health service finance administrator with Washtenaw County Health Services. She was one of six candidates interviewed for the job to replace Pete Ballios, who retired last year after roughly 38 years with the county.

Belknap thanked commissioners for their support, saying “I look forward to some challenging budget years, that’s for sure.” She clarified that the challenge stemmed from the economy, not from working with commissioners.

Recognitions and Honors

Two men were honored by the board at the start of Wednesday’s meeting.

Joseph Cousin Sr., pastor of Bethel AME Church in Ann Arbor, with his wife Carisalyn and daughter Miriam. Cousin was honored by the board of commissioners for his six years of service at Bethel AME.

Joseph N. Cousin Sr., pastor of Bethel AME Church in Ann Arbor, was recognized for his six years of service leading the oldest, largely African American congregation in this area. Many members of the church attended the meeting, and gave Cousin a standing ovation when he received a framed copy of the resolution from county administrator Verna McDaniel.

Standing at the podium with his wife Carisalyn and his young children, Miriam and Joe, Cousin said that he felt blessed to be part of this community and that he prays to be here for many years to come.

McDaniel then presented a resolution honoring Donald Staebler, a Superior Township farmer whose property was known as “Crick-in-th’-Back Farm.” Washtenaw County parks & recreation acquired the farm in 2001, and is investing more than $2 million to turn it into a park. Staebler still lives in the farmhouse there, under a life lease with the county. He has lived there since he was two – he turns 100 later this month.

Staebler received a standing ovation from people attending the meeting. He spoke briefly, saying his family has worked hard to keep the farm going, “and now the county is doing that. Thank you very much.”

Coda: Road Commission Expansion

At the board’s July 7 meeting, commissioners held a public hearing on the possibility of expanding the Washtenaw County Road Commission board from three members to five – the county board appoints those positions. After the hearing and some discussion, commissioner Wes Prater made a motion to terminate the process of expanding the road commission. The motion passed, with dissent from Conan Smith and Jeff Irwin, who argued that it wasn’t something the board could stop in that way.

At the July meeting, Irwin said he planned to bring a resolution on the expansion to the board’s Aug. 4 meeting. However, no such resolution was on the agenda, and the issue wasn’t discussed at Wednesday’s meeting.

In a follow-up phone interview this week with The Chronicle, Irwin said he still might bring a resolution about the expansion to a board meeting later this year. Prater’s resolution had been symbolic, he said. There’s a specific legal process for the expansion, which includes a vote on the issue. Politically, he said, based on the board’s discussion in July and the outcome of Prater’s resolution, it seems unlikely that a vote on the expansion would be successful. However, Irwin said plans to talk with his board colleagues about it in the coming weeks, to see if he can gain support.

Public Commentary: Misc.

Thomas Partridge congratulated the winners of the Aug. 3 primary. He called for commissioners to put the expansion of affordable housing front and center on every one of their meeting agendas. The expansion of affordable housing shouldn’t just be for Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti, he said, but for every quadrant of Washtenaw County. There is no more important item to put on the agenda.

Jim Mogensen spoke twice. A month or two ago, he said, he attended a program at the Ann Arbor District Library about how to navigate around the city if you’re disabled. During the program, construction workers closed off the sidewalk in front of the library, making access to the building difficult – they were preparing to install a new ADA ramp. Noting the temporary ADA ramp that the county had recently installed in the front of its building at 220 N. Main, he suggested that they have a plan for safe egress.

In a follow-up to his commentary, commissioner Barbara Bergman said that when she was walking up the wooden ramp that night to come to the meeting, she wondered what would happen if it caught fire – it was a little too high for her to jump off of it. “That ramp got me just a little on the queasy side,” she said.

Taking another turn during a time for public commentary later in the meeting, Mogensen raised concerns about accepting nearly $44,000 in federal funds under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, administered through the U.S. Dept. of Justice. The funds will be used by the sheriff’s staff for community outreach. Mogensen said he worried that there could be strings attached. He could imagine scenarios in which the federal government might require any entity that had accepted grants like this to help enforce federal immigration laws. This could also result in the need for additional jail space. It was something to think about and prepare a response for, he said.

Present: Barbara Levin Bergman, Leah Gunn, Kristin Judge, Jeff Irwin, Mark Ouimet, Ronnie Peterson, Jessica Ping, Wes Prater, Ken Schwartz, Rolland Sizemore Jr., Conan Smith.

Next board meeting: The next regular meeting is Wednesday, Sept. 1, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. at the County Administration Building, 220 N. Main St. The Ways & Means Committee meets first, followed immediately by the regular board meeting. (Though the agenda states that the regular board meeting begins at 6:45 p.m., it usually starts much later – times vary depending on what’s on the agenda.) Public comment sessions are held at the beginning and end of each meeting. [confirm date]

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Ann Arbor chief of police Barnett Jones chat during a break in the July 19 council meeting just after passage of a new pedestrian ordinance. During deliberations on that ordinance, Jones had cited the Canadian cultural practice of pedestrians standing on the curb and simply pointing to the crosswalk, which prompts motorists to stop for them. The remark had earned a thumbs-up from Rapundalo, who is a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen.

Intended as an extra measure of support for Zingerman’s was a third resolution communicating to the city’s historic district commission (HDC) the council’s view that the project represents a substantial benefit to the community. The proposal includes demolition of one house and the integration of another house into the architecture of the proposed new construction. Because the site is located in the Old Fourth Ward, the HDC will need to give its approval, in order for the project to be built. The message sent by the council to the HDC was clear: We want this project approved.

The council also sent a clear message to its firefighter and police unions, which the city hopes will soon ratify contracts that will save the city money. At the meeting, the council approved labor agreements with two other groups – the Teamsters civilian supervisors and the Teamsters police professional assistants. That added to bargained changes with the police deputy chiefs union that were approved at the council’s previous meeting on July 6. All three agreements reflected cost savings to the city through greater contributions by union members to health and retirement benefits and no increase in wages.

The implicit message to the firefighter and police unions was given explicit form through a position statement from the council’s labor committee and read aloud by Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), the chair of that committee. The statement calls on those unions to follow the example of the three who have already ratified contracts.

The council also gave final approval to a new pedestrian safety ordinance, which requires motorists to stop for pedestrians who are in, or even approaching, crosswalks that lack any traffic control device. During deliberations, the council swapped in “stop” to make the ordinance stronger than the originally proposed “yield.”

In other business, the council authorized the specific allocation of over $1 million in already-budgeted funds to nonprofits providing human services, approved liquor licenses for two downtown businesses, authorized the hire of a community energy coordinator using federal funds, got an update on the future of the Library Lot, and heard public commentary on a range of issues.

Zingerman’s Deli Expansion

Before the council were three resolutions involving the proposal by Zingerman’s Deli to expand their facility, located at Kingsley and Detroit streets in the Kerrytown district of downtown Ann Arbor.

Zingerman’s first brought forward a proposal in June 2008 that was submitted to the city’s historic district commission (HDC) – it called for the demolition of two houses. One of the houses, at 322 E. Kingsley, was fire-damaged. The other house is the Zingerman’s Annex, also known as the “orange house.” The city’s HDC turned down that proposal.

This time around, Zingerman’s met twice with the HDC during working sessions, but started the approval process with the city’s planning commission, followed by the city council. The planning commission has already given the project its unanimous recommendation for approval by the city council.

The site plan still calls for tearing down a house at 322 E. Kingsley, but would integrate the Annex into the design of the new construction. The new building is planned as a two-story, 10,340-square-foot addition that would be connected to the 5,107-square-foot deli building via a glass atrium. They’ll add underground tanks for stormwater detention and several environmentally-friendly design elements, including a green roof on the deli’s existing one-story wing. Phoenix Contractors of Ypsilanti is the project’s construction manager and general contractor.

All along, Zingerman’s executives have cited concerns over the project’s expense, particularly the cost of renovating the Annex. The overall project is expected to cost about $6.7 million. Roughly $500,000 is associated with renovating the house, which is relatively small – less than 900 square feet. Renovation will entail moving the Annex off its existing foundation, replacing the foundation, renovating the house, then moving it onto the new foundation and incorporating the structure into the new deli addition.

Previous Chronicle coverage:

“Zingerman’s: Making it Right for the HDC”

“Zingerman’s Deli Expansion Moves Ahead”

“Zingerman’s Project Seeks Brownfield Status”

“DDA Approves Grant for Zingerman’s”

The three Zingerman’s resolutions covered: (i) approval of the the site plan, (ii) approval of a brownfield application, and (iii) encouraging the HDC to grant a “notice to proceed.”

Zingerman’s Public Comment: Site Plan and Brownfield Plan

Around a dozen letters of support accompanied the city council’s electronic agenda. One representative sample is from Jeremy Peters, director of creative and business affairs for Ghostly Songs:

We have come to know many members of the staff, management, and ownership over the course of the past few years, and can speak volumes to what we have learned from them as a “good” business who invests in their staff and community. Zingerman’s has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to this community and its citizens through continued investment in our area and generous philanthropic support of efforts aimed at community betterment. Zingerman’s is, in every sense, a community partner and one of Ann Arbor’s most valuable assets.

We hope to follow in their model of success as much as possible.

Allowing Zingerman’s to grow its business at its present location will be of substantial benefit to the community. It will inject capital into our local economy by creating both temporary construction and permanent retail jobs.

Grace Singleton, a managing partner with the deli, led off the public hearing by reiterating much of the same material she’s previously presented to the planning commission and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The deli has grown quite a bit since it started in 1982. In the first year, they’d sold 2,000 sandwiches, she said, but last year they estimate they made over 300,000. They’d begun with three employees and have now grown to employ 180. But they still have the same kitchen, she said.

Singleton stressed how they’d made improvements in one-off, “hodge podge” fashion, adding some seating capacity in a tent behind the Annex, and adding some outside storage units. What they are now proposing, she said, is a large upgrade that would last a long time into the future. There are inherent challenges in the project, she said, which include the removal of one house, the construction of a two-story building, plus the restoration of another house, all while keeping the deli open for business, she said.

Next up for the Zingerman’s project team was Christy Summers of Beckett & Raeder Inc. She described Zingerman’s as an “iconic” business of Ann Arbor. She described the project as providing Zingerman’s with more flexibility. She also stressed the greater accessibility the project would afford Zingerman’s patrons, citing the ramps, slopes and handrails that would be a part of the project. She noted the stormwater management system that would re-use some of the water and allow some to infiltrate into the ground naturally.

Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects.

Ken Clein of Quinn Evans Architects continued the presentation for the project team, and talked about how the project was designed to fit into the historical context of the neighborhood, partly through the choice of appropriate materials. He also discussed various acoustical controls that would help damp down possible noise from mechanical systems. He said the project was planned to achieve LEED certification on either the silver or gold level. Among the environmental features he mentioned were green roofs, a highly-insulated building envelope and heat recapture. Clein noted that city council approval was the “last hurdle” before historic district commission approval.

Jim Mogensen began by noting that the Star Wars episodes were not released in chronological order. He was alluding partly to the fact that the proposal was getting approval from the planning commission and city council, before seeking approval from the city’s historic district commission.

By way of background, the sequencing was explained in a recent memo prepared by Jill Thacher, a city planner specializing in historic preservation issues:

All [other] approvals are required so that the HDC has as many assurances as possible that the applicant seriously intends to build the project and is in a position to do so. This is necessary since the Notice to Proceed will result in the permanent removal of historic resources. In order to apply to the HDC for a notice to proceed, the project must have an approved site plan from City Council, have proof of financing, and have any other zoning or environmental approvals that may be necessary to build the project. In order for the HDC to grant the project a Notice to Proceed, Zingerman’s must prove that their project will be of substantial benefit to the community. How that benefit is defined and whether it is substantial enough to warrant the removal of contributing resources is determined by the HDC.

From the city code on issuance of a notice to proceed:

8:416. Notice to proceed.
(1) Work within a historic district shall be permitted through the issuance of a notice to proceed by the commission if any of the following conditions prevail and if the proposed work can be demonstrated by a finding of the commission to be necessary to substantially improve or correct any of the following conditions:
(a) The resource constitutes a hazard to the safety of the public or to the structure’s occupants.
(b) The resource is a deterrent to a major improvement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all necessary planning and zoning approvals, financing, and environmental clearances.
(c) Retaining the resource will cause undue financial hardship to the owner when a governmental action, an act of God, or other events beyond the owner’s control created the hardship, and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the financial hardship, which may include offering the resource for sale at its fair market value or moving the resource to a vacant site within the historic district, have been attempted and exhausted by the owner.
(d) Retaining the resource is not in the interest of the majority of the community.

Mogensen, however, was also using the topic of chronological sequence as an opportunity to riff on some of the zoning history of Ann Arbor. First, he said, it was thought to be beneficial for students to be able to live off campus – so the R4C zoning district was created, which he suggested stood for “residential for cash.” When matter-of-right apartment buildings started to get built, he said, historic districts were established to preserve the character of the neighborhood. The zoning, together with the historic districts, combined to allow students to live off campus in multi-unit houses in a way that preserved the neighborhoods.

Mogensen urged the council to approve Zingerman’s proposal, but asked councilmembers to reflect on what might happen several years down the road. What if the Ann Arbor Public Schools decided that Community High School – on the property adjoining Zingerman’s – was no longer needed? What if that parcel, too, became a part of a huge Zingerman’s project?

Thomas Partridge drew a connection to the project and the need for increased affordable housing and a transportation system that so that Zingerman’s workers would have a place to live and a way to get to work.

Jared Belka, part of Zingerman’s legal team, spoke to the issue of the brownfield redevelopment plan. He described Zingerman’s total investment in the project as amounting to $6.7 million. He reviewed with the council how the brownfield application was being made under the provision that allowed for redevelopment of functionally obsolete buildings. The plan would cover up to $817,000 in eligible activities, Belka said, including site preparation [$534,800], demolition [$100,000], infrastructure improvements [$41,300] and lead and asbestos abatement [$25,000].

Also a part of Zingerman’s legal team, Gary Bruder indicated that the reason Zingerman’s was applying for brownfield financing was that the project is very expensive because it’s being undertaken in a historic district. But Zingerman’s is committed to Ann Arbor, he said, and to that site in particular. They’ll be using a surgical, even “micro-surgical” process in the construction, Bruder added. A specific example is that they’ll use pile and timber lagging in the course of construction, he said.

Singleton returned to the podium for the second public hearing, on the brownfield plan, to reiterate her earlier point about past growth at Zingerman’s and to suggest that in the next five years, they expected to add as many as 65 more jobs, having added 35 over the previous five years. She also mentioned the philanthropic work done by Zingerman’s, having founded Food Gatherers and the Delonis Community Kitchen, and donating 10% of profits to local nonprofit organizations. Singleton said she realized that the tax capture mechanism of brownfield development was not popular with some in the community, but she pointed to the return to the city’s nonprofit community as something that helped to counterbalance that.

Zingerman’s: Council Deliberations

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) led off deliberations on the brownfield plan, which had been reordered at the start of the meeting to appear first on the agenda. She urged support of the plan, saying Zingerman’s is an excellent corporate citizen, noting that they gave back to the community. They are good neighbors with the North Central Property Owners Association and the Old Fourth Ward, she said. Zingerman’s is the second most-requested location when visitors are seeking directions, she said – first is the University of Michigan hospital. The brownfield plan would allow Zingerman’s to stay in the city, she said.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) described the Zingerman’s project as exactly the kind of project meant for non-environmental brownfield plans. He noted how there were a lot of things going on in a tight space.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) echoed the sentiments of Smith and Hohnke.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said that as a member of the brownfield committee, he supported the plan because the buildings in question were functionally obsolete. He also noted that the implementation of stormwater detention is an important use of the tax credits.

Kunselman also reflected on the fact that Zingerman’s had existed for 28 years – he remembered a time when it was not there. He’d attended Community High School, before Zingerman’s was located there, and noted that it was not as “likeable” an area as it is now. He recalled how the entire area had been planned for urban renewal – everything had been planned for demolition. Alluding to Jim Mogensen’s speculation that Community High might be eliminated by the school system, Kunselman said that there was active speculation when he was in school there that the school would be eliminated, and fortunately, that had not taken place.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve Zingerman’s brownfield plan.

Deliberations on the site plan were brief. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) acknowledged that Zingerman’s was a valued community member. She noted that it was a sensitive site plan for a difficult site.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve Zingerman’s site plan.

While the site plan and the brownfield plan for Zingerman’s were before the city council for consideration as a standard part of the approval process, a third resolution fell outside that process. The measure called upon the city’s historic district commission to take note of the city council’s support of the Zingerman’s project:

RESOLVED, That City Council respectfully requests that the Historic District Commission consider this resolution during its deliberations as some evidence that the Zingerman’s Deli site expansion will be of substantial benefit to the Ann Arbor community; and

RESOLVED, That City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit this resolution to the Historic District Commission.

In deliberations on the resolution, Christoper Taylor (Ward 3) noted that in order for the project to move forward and grant a notice to proceed, the city’s historic district commission must reach the conclusion that the project will be a substantial benefit to the community. Taylor acknowledged that the HDC would come to its own conclusions on the matter, but contended that the city council, as elected representatives of the citizens of Ann Arbor, is competent to speak to the issue of what constitutes a benefit to the community.

So the resolution, Taylor contended, seeks to “affirm for all the world, not that it requires our affirmation, but nonetheless” that it’s the HDC that will make the determination on the community benefit. But the resolution also seeks to affirm, he continued, that it’s the city council’s judgment that the proposal constitutes a substantial benefit to the community.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) echoed the sentiments of Taylor and noted the “iconic” status of the business as expressed during the public hearing. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) indicated that when asked what would happen if the project did not go through, Zingerman’s had indicated that they would have to move from that location. Smith said that would be devastating to the area, but that Zingerman’s would be fine – their fans would follow them, she said.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to pass the resolution communicating to the historic district commission the council’s support of Zingerman’s.

Union Bargaining

The city council also communicated a clear message to its firefighter and police unions, with whom the city is currently bargaining.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2)

Before the council were labor agreements with two other groups – the Teamsters civilian supervisors and the Teamsters police professional assistants. That added to bargained changes with the police deputy chiefs union that were approved at the council’s previous meeting on July 6. All three agreements reflected cost savings to the city through greater contributions by union members to health and retirement benefits and no increase in wages.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who chairs the city council’s labor committee, indicated that the previous council meeting had run so late [concluding just past 1 a.m.] that he did not think many people noticed the approval of the agreement with the police deputy chiefs union.

From The Chronicle’s report of the July 6 meeting:

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) said that as chair of the council’s labor committee, he was pleased to see the agreement and the resolution come forward. The terms provide savings to the city, he said, specifically in the area of increasing their own contributions to health care benefits. The health care plan they were voting on, Rapundalo said, is the same one enjoyed by the city’s non-union workers, with the same contribution level. Rapundalo also highlighted the fact that there’ll be an increase in the pension contribution made by employees and no across-the-board increase in wages.

Rapundalo thanked members of the union for stepping up and making sacrifices to help the city work within its budgetary constraints.

Ann Arbor is not unique in the need to achieve savings, Rapundalo reminded his council colleagues. He ticked through several other Michigan cities where safety services personnel had accepted significant percentage decreases in total benefits.

With the council’s approval of the two additional bargained agreements, with similar terms to the previous one, Rapundalo made the implicit message to the police and firefighter unions explicit. From the position statement by the council’s labor committee:

Currently, the firefighters, the police officers and the police command officers pay only a deductible of $250 per person or $500 per family. They do not pay a monthly premium or co-insurance. The new plans ratified tonight include an increased deductible, a 20% co-insurance and the option of a monthly premium for lower deductibles and out of pocket maximums.

We are hopeful that negotiations with the remaining groups will be successful and lead to the type of savings that other bargaining units have already achieved and ratified. However, if negotiations are unsuccessful, we are supportive of staff pursuing Act 312 binding arbitration to resolve these contracts.

The collective bargaining units which have not yet ratified contracts should be aware of the current economic conditions facing the City and we hope they will act accordingly. We encourage all members of the remaining bargaining units to become more engaged in their respective negotiations and especially in learning the specific details of what is being bargained on their behalf.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the agreements with the Teamsters civilian supervisors and the Teamsters police professional assistants.

Crosswalks: Pedestrian Ordinance

Before the council for its second reading was a proposed change to the pedestrian crosswalk ordinance.

Before the change, it read:

[Old Language] 10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets.
(a) No pedestrian shall cross a street at a location other than at a crosswalk into which vehicle traffic is then restricted by a traffic control device unless such crossing may be done safely and without interfering with motor vehicle and bicycle traffic on that street.
(b) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger, but a pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

The ordinance revision provides greater protection for pedestrians approaching crosswalks. The revision requires motorists to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians not just in crosswalks, but also approaching them. Previous language was stricken, which limited the requirement on motorists to yield only to pedestrians in the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling.

In the course of deliberations, the “yield” language was strengthened to include “stop.” Additional language amended at the council table is in italics.

[New Language] 10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets.
(a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to every pedestrian approaching or within a crosswalk.
(b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.
(c) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

The ordinance change came at least in part due to advocacy from Ann Arbor resident Matt Grocoff, who contacted Ward 5 councilmembers Mike Anglin and Carsten Hohnke as early as Jan. 9, 2009 alerting them to the relatively weak protections that Ann Arbor’s ordinance provided to pedestrians, compared with other communities. From an email he sent to them and posted on the Washtenaw Biking and Walking Coalition‘s GoogleGroup:

The recent conversation about Roundabouts and neighborhood Mini-Roundabouts raised questions about pedestrian crosswalk and cyclist safety at both types of roundabouts. Roundabouts have been proven to be among the safest traffic tools available.

However, I strongly urge that these conversations MUST include revising the current Ann Arbor pedestrian right-of-way ordinance. Without absolute pedestrian right-of-way and strict enforcement of the rule, NO crosswalk, roundabout, or any other traffic device will make our roads as safe as those in other states. [...]

The fact is, Ann Arbor’s ordinance does not give true right-of-way to pedestrians. It is overly broad, complex, and ambiguous. When read carefully, drivers need to yield to pedestrians only if they are about to hit them.

In communities with clearly stated rules (Essex, NJ; Sarasota, FL; Boulder, CO, the entire State of California, Seattle, Portland, etc), cars come to a FULL STOP when a pedestrian APPROACHES a crosswalk in a roundabout or mid-roadway.

Crosswalks: Public Comment

Kathy Griswold spoke specifically about the mid-block crosswalk at King Elementary School, which she has for more than a year advocated be moved to a four-way stop intersection. She reviewed the history and work of the Transportation Safety Committee, which had evaluated the King School crossing. She indicated that the project had been engineered, funded, and staked out, with part of the expense for an asphalt path to be provided by a $500 contribution from an anonymous donor. She characterized the halt to the project as due to “good-old boy cronyism.”

On the more general issue of the proposed crosswalk ordinance, Griswold said during the public hearing that she fully supported it, but noted that she’d been unable to read the text of the proposed ordinance online as of 10 a.m. that morning. [According to the city clerk's office, the issue related to how that agenda item was submitted to the online Legistar system by the community services department – it had been marked as "not viewable via the web." By 2 p.m. the status of the item had been changed by the clerk's office to be visible.]

But Griswold likened the ordinance to giving a kid a bicycle and telling them we’d buy them a helmet later. She called for greater attention to sight-line issues at intersections and at other points along the roadway. Sight-lines, she said, can be obstructed by vegetation as well as utility boxes. A specific example she gave of utility boxes causing sight-line problems is eastbound Glazier Way at Huron Parkway.

Calling the council’s attention to the crosswalks like the one at State and William was Jim Mogensen during the public hearing. He said that due to limitations on his mobility, he only crossed when the walk signal indicated it was okay for him to go. But at that intersection, he pointed out, the walk signal coincided with a conflicting left-turn arrow for motorists. [A related column on the timing of walk signals was published almost two years ago in The Chronicle: "Column: Waiting Too Long for the Go"]

Kris Talley of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition speaks in favor of the pedestrian ordinance.

Speaking during the public hearing on behalf of the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, board member Kris Talley indicated the group had been working on the issue for more than a year. She pointed the council to a video that they’d created to illustrate what motorist behavior is like towards pedestrians who are trying to enter crosswalks. What had been particularly striking, Talley said, was a forum attended by city transportation staff, a city attorney, a police officer and advocates for non-motorized transportation where there’d been a lack of consensus about what was required by the city’s current pedestrian ordinance – for pedestrians and motorists alike. The proposed revision, she said, is language that makes crosswalks meaningful.

Crosswalks: Council Deliberations – Stop versus Yield

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who co-sponsored the ordinance change along with mayor John Hieftje, led off deliberations by saying that the change had come about through their work with a number of city staff and community members. He characterized the ordinance as one tool among many to help improve the environment for pedestrians in Ann Arbor – other tools include targeted enforcement, education, and engineering solutions [e.g., traffic islands].

Under the current ordinance, Hohnke said, a pedestrian has to actually “take ownership” of the crosswalk by entering it, before a motorist is required to yield. Hohnke described the video, to which Kris Talley had alluded during her remarks, as “scary to see.” He talked about how it depicts people trying to cross streets around Ann Arbor with motorists failing to yield and included images of young children dashing across the street after first hesitating but noticing other kids in their group crossing.

Hohnke identified the specific challenges that they had to work through as: (i) ambiguity – how do you know when someone is approaching a crosswalk? and (ii) change in culture – how are motorists supposed to know something different is expected? He said they’d concluded that the kind of ambiguity that might be present was no different from other kinds of ambiguity in traffic laws – like that associated with yellow lights, he said. And the changes in behavior that will be required, he concluded, would likely be similar to the adjustments that are necessary when a new stop sign is installed somewhere. He thanked the WBWC for their work on the issue.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that she’d seen people trying to cross Plymouth Road – they know they have the right-of-way, but nobody stops. How will we get them to stop?

Chief of Ann Arbor police, Barnett Jones, told Briere that they’d need to “hit the community hard” with education. He said he would actually prefer language that was somewhat more blunt than “yield,” saying that the interpretation of “stop” is universal and clear.

Jones then cited the Canadian cultural practice of pedestrians standing on the curb and simply pointing to the cross walk, which prompted motorists to stop for them. The remark had earned a thumbs-up from Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who is a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen. Jones said it was important that citizens are “not playing Frogger” trying to cross the roadways.

Hieftje noted that the educational effort was made difficult by the fact that half the motorists on Ann Arbor roadways at any given time do not live in Ann Arbor.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) asked from a motorist’s perspective whether the new law meant they would need to yield to pedestrians at the second crosswalk of a four-way stop if they’d already begun through the intersection – she noted that at an intersection like Forest and South University Avenue, the pedestrians just “stream across.” Jones indicated that yes, you need to yield in that situation. Hohnke also pointed out that the new ordinance applies to crosswalks were there is no traffic control device.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) picked up on the remark by the police chief to the effect that the chief would prefer the ordinance say “stop” and pointed out that the current ordinance had similar language, which the revision proposed to strike: “slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield.”

Kunselman proposed that the new ordinance be amended to include the “slowing down or stopping” language. Hieftje was not inclined to entertain the possibility of changing the language, saying that he and Hohnke, along with the WBWC and the city attorney’s office, had worked on it. Rapundalo weighed in for keeping things simple. He didn’t see the need for “stopping or slowing down” if that’s what “to yield” means. Teall contemplated removing “yield” and simple using “slowing down or stopping.”

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) responding to Hieftje’s remarks, said that just because the language was vetted didn’t mean it isn’t ambiguous. She focused away from “yield” to the question of “approaching,” asking how close someone needed to be to the crosswalk to be considered to be “approaching” it. Hieftje responded by saying that under the old ordinance, a pedestrian would have to “dance out into the intersection” in order for a motorist to be required to yield. He contended that “approaching” isn’t ambiguous.

Rapundalo inveighed against “overthinking” the question, saying that currently “the car rules” and the ordinance should simply state that the pedestrian gets the right-of-way, period. There should not be language available, he said, that would allow a motorist to “worm their way out of it.” He concluded that no further massaging of the language was necessary. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she’d been impressed by her visit to Calgary nine months ago, when she’d been a curb and a car had stopped for her as a pedestrian, even though the car had a green light. Briere echoed Rapundalo’s sentiments.

Higgins then brought forward an amendment that won the day, which she suggested reflected the council’s real intent: insert “stop and” before “yield.” The resulting line, which Hohnke accepted as a friendly amendment, reads: “the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to every pedestrian approaching or within a crosswalk.”

Outcome: The council unanimously adopted the pedestrian ordinance requiring motorists to stop for pedestrians approaching crosswalks.

Downtown Liquor Licenses

Before the city council were two recommendation to the Michigan Liquor Control Commission that downtown development district liquor licenses be approved for two downtown businesses: @Burger, which will open at 505 E. Liberty St.; and Revive, located on the ground floor of Zaragon Place at 619 E. University.

The liquor licenses were recommended under Public Act 501 MCL 436.1521A(1)b, which enabled the MLCC to grant additional licenses to businesses located in development districts.

The city council’s liquor license review committee consists of Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), Mike Anglin (Ward 5) and Tony Derezinski (Ward 2).

From Chronicle coverage of the city council’s May 17, 2010 meeting:

Before the council was a resolution to approve issuance of a downtown development district liquor license to the New York Pizza Depot. It came before the council on a 2-1 vote from the council’s liquor license review committee. Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who chairs that council committee, indicated that he had been the dissenting vote and would not be supporting the issuance of the license. He noted that such licenses are meant to be an economic development tool and that he had tried to make his decisions on such licenses consistent across applications.

Specifically, such licenses are meant to provide a benefit to the community. In the case of the New York Pizza Depot, he contended, the petitioner could not show any anticipated growth in employment due to the issuance of the license. In addition, Rapundalo said, a consideration for issuance was the location – is it unique? The existing density of licenses in the area, he said, did not indicate to him a dire need for an establishment of that kind.

Liquor: Council Deliberations

At the request of Mike Anglin (Ward 5), representatives from @Burger gave a presentation to the council on how the business would work at the East Liberty location.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the recommendations that @Burger and Revive be granted downtown development district liquor licenses.

Human Services Funding

Before the council were the specific allocations to various nonprofits providing human services funding for FY 2011. The city funds for the allocations were approved as part of the city’s FY 2011 budget, which was adopted at the city council’s May 17, 2010 meeting.

The city allocates funding to these nonprofits based on a formal request for proposals (RFP). The RFP for this year’s funding cycle, as well as for last year’s funding, was issued in January 2009. The RFP indicated that the funding would be allocated for both FY 2010 and FY 2011. A total of 47 nonprofits applied, making 67 proposals for grant funding totaling $3,773,435.

Making the recommendations was the human services review committee – a nine-member body consisting of three members appointed by the Ann Arbor city council, three members from the Urban County and three community development staff members. In addition to making recommendations for the city’s allocation of human services funding, the review committee made recommendations on county funds as well as HUD’s community development block grants (CDBG).

          City of Ann Arbor

$  25,500 Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living, Inc.
    5,850 Ann Arbor YMCA
   80,750 Avalon Housing, Inc.
   20,000 Barrier Busters Action Group
    9,000 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Washtenaw County
   12,100 Fr. Patrick Jackson House (CSS)
   10,000 The Oaks (CSS)
   22,000 Maximizing the Independence (CSS)
    6,300 Emergency Food Program (CSS)
   17,550 Employment Skills/Goal Setting Workshops (CSS)
   50,000 Neighborhood Senior Services (CSS)
  210,000 Child Care Network
   20,400 Preventing Evictions (CAN)
   23,800 School Comes First! Hikone and Green Baxter (CAN)
    8,500 Food & Health Care Hikone and Green Baxter (CAN)
    8,500 Community Housing Alternatives
   19,295 COPE
   38,250 Domestic Violence Project, Inc.
   26,076 Family Learning Institute
  123,200 Food Gatherers
   13,200 HIV/AIDS Housing Assistance Program (HIV/AIDS RC)
    5,000 Harm Reduction Program (HIV/AIDS RC)
   25,000 Home of New Vision
   38,500 Interfaith Hospitality Network of Washtenaw Co.
   10,000 Jewish Family Services of Washtenaw County
   73,000 Legal Services of South Central Michigan
   34,000 Housing Supports Team (MAP)
   18,121 Representative Payee (MAP)
   38,250 Packard Health Inc.
   15,000 Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan
   10,000 Meal Delivery to Under Age 60 (Meals on Wheels)
   16,000 Weekend Meal Delivery (Meals on Wheels)
   16,250 UM Nurse Managed Centers/Maple Meadows
   24,000 UM Housing Bureau for Seniors
   19,500 The Student Advocacy Center of Michigan
   30,000 The Women's Center of Southeastern Michigan
  117,700 Washtenaw County CSTS/Project Outreach (PORT)
   27,500 Washtenaw Literacy  

1,268,092 SUBTOTAL
    7,652 Human Service Contingency  

1,275,744 TOTAL

CDBG Public Service Funds

$  40,885 Northfield Human Services
   51,700 Ozone House, Inc.
   58,300 Shelter Association Service Center (SAWC)
  151,015 Night Shelter Program (SAWC)
   32,500 Delonis Center Health Clinic (SAWC)
    8,600 SOS Community Center

  343,000 TOTAL      

Washtenaw County General Funds

   46,400 Housing Crisis Services (SOS)
   13,200 Homeless School-Aged Children's Program (SOS)
   20,000 The Corner Health Center
   20,400 Ypsilanti Meals on Wheels

  100,000 TOTAL

-

Human Services: Public Comment and Deliberations

Jim Mogensen’s red ribbon presentation has become an annual event associated with the allocation of human services funding. It includes the unfurling of a red ribbon as a bar in a bar chart representing the rest of the city’s budget excluding human services allocations. As the ribbon is unwound and stretches across the council chambers, the point is illustrated that the amount spent on human services is relatively small.

Coverage of last year’s red ribbon presentation: “Ann Arbor Allocates Human Services Funding.”

Though Mogensen attended the council meeting, he did not make the red ribbon presentation this year. When The Chronicle conveyed its disappointment after the meeting, Mogensen accepted the message with typical good cheer.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved its human services allocations.

Library Lot

Background for some public comment and councilmember communication at the meeting is the issue of what, if anything, should be built on top of the city-owned Library Lot – currently the construction site for an underground parking structure. The city issued a request for proposals last year, with the idea that if one of the proposals were approved, the underground garage design could be tweaked to accommodate certain design features.

Alan Haber addresses the council on the topic of the Library Lot.

The responses were all presented in a public forum, and the committee tasked with reviewing them subsequently winnowed them down to two proposals. Along the way, a citizen-generated proposal for a community commons was eliminated from further consideration, then added back to the pool, then finally eliminated. The two finalist proposals selected by the review committee were for hotel/conference center projects.

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority authorized money to hire a consultant to evaluate the financial merits of the two proposals, but that consultant has not been hired. The committee has not met in several months. The window of opportunity to make any design tweaks in the underground parking garage passed back in the spring, and the sense of urgency that drove the committee’s initial work has ebbed. A starting point for Chronicle coverage: “Hotel/Conference Center Ideas Go Forward.”

Library Lot: Public Comment

Addressing the city council during public commentary reserved time was Alan Haber, who had helped put together the proposal for a community commons on the Library Lot. He ticked through a number of specific questions for the council:

1. Will you call on the advisory committee to deliver its report?
2. Will you allow the city council to consider the proposal for the community commons?
3. Will you call for public hearings on the best use of the Library Lot?
4. Do you think that paving the top of the garage for use as a surface parking lot is the best use of the land?
5. Will you consider directing the DDA to re-allocate the bond funds allocated for paving the lot for landscaping materials like earth and bulbs?
6. Will you consider the idea of a conservancy for a community commons, which would be the entity charged with the maintenance of the commons?

Library Lot: Update from Council

During his communications, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who chairs the RFP review committee, gave an update on progress. He reviewed a recent update he’d given about a month ago at the council’s June 7, 2010 meeting. From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting:

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) responded to Haber’s comments on the Library Lot by describing the process as being in a “holding pattern.” The committee had been prepared to engage a consultant to assist in the review of the two finalist proposals, and the potential consultant had been reviewed by city administrator Roger Fraser and executive director of the DDA Susan Pollay, but they’d stopped short of signing a contract with the consultant. An unanticipated change in personnel within the consultant’s organization had led them to re-evaluate the pool. Rapundalo said it was unfortunate that Fraser himself was not there at the meeting to provide more details.

At Monday’s meeting, Rapundalo indicated that concerns centered on the “glitch” that had arisen on the consultant’s part – the staffing change – had now been eliminated. They were in discussions with the consultant to develop a work plan, he said, and they’d determined that the DDA would also use an intern to provide additional comparative analysis. In the coming week, Rapundalo said, they would sit down with the two Library Lot finalists, Valiant and Acquest, and “with a little bit of luck,” he concluded, by late August the committee would be able to pick things back up and continue their work.

At a recent candidate forum, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) expressed the view that the community conversation should begin anew with a completely clean slate.

Floods

A couple of items related to the impact of heavy rains in the area were brought up during the July 19 meeting.

Floods: Task Force for Bryant Neighborhood?

Speaking on behalf of the Community Action Network (CAN), during public commentary reserved time, Joan Doughty requested that the city council appoint a task force to address flooding in the the Bryant neighborhood. She asked that the charge of the task force specifically be to identify a remediation plan and a funding source. She allowed that nobody on the city council was responsible for causing the flooding, but noted that it was a long-standing and frequent problem. She cited the recollection of a civil engineer with the city 20 years ago who said it was already a problem back then.

Flooding is not a rare event in the neighborhood, Doughty said, but rather happens with every heavy rain, several times per month. She noted that Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) had some experience dealing with similar issues in the Orchard Hills neighborhood, while allowing that every neighborhood is unique. The Bryant neighborhood, she said, had lacked a political voice up to now.

Previous Chronicle coverage of the Bryant neighborhood flooding issue: “Bryant Neighbors Dig into Drainage” and “Water Main Project Set for Bryant Area.”

Floods: Insurance Board of Review

Also tangentially related to floods and heavy rains was confirmation of Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) as a member of the city’s insurance board of review. At the city council’s previous meeting, there had been a call for a council volunteer to serve on the city’s board of insurance administration – a three-person body consisting of the city treasurer and two councilmembers. Rapundalo volunteered at the last meeting to accept the mayor’s nomination and to join his Ward 2 colleague, Tony Derezinski, on the board.

Before the council on Monday night was confirmation of Rapundalo’s nomination.

The function of the board is to supervise the city’s self-insurance fund, to review all employee worker’s disability compensation claims and to handle any claims by citizens filed against the city.

The board’s composition is governed by chapter 8 of the city code, which addresses the organization of boards and commissions:

1:193. Board of Insurance Administration.
The Board of Insurance Administration shall consist of 2 members of Council appointed by the City Council, and the City Treasurer, ex officio. Said board shall supervise the self-insurance fund of the city, also referred to as the risk fund of the city, shall make recommendations concerning the actuarial sufficiency of said fund and the investment of accumulated reserves.

The board meets on the fourth Thursday of every month, so its next meeting is July 22. At that meeting the board will hear claims from residents on Iroquois Place, who experienced backups of sewage in their basements as a result of the heavy rains in early June of this year.

State law lays out the specific conditions that must be met to overcome governmental immunity for sewage backups:

(3) If a claimant, including a claimant seeking noneconomic damages, believes that an event caused property damage or physical injury, the claimant may seek compensation for the property damage or physical injury from a governmental agency if the claimant shows that all of the following existed at the time of the event:
(a) The governmental agency was an appropriate governmental agency.
(b) The sewage disposal system had a defect.
(c) The governmental agency knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, about
the defect.
(d) The governmental agency, having the legal authority to do so, failed to take reasonable steps in a
reasonable amount of time to repair, correct, or remedy the defect.
(e) The defect was a substantial proximate cause of the event and the property damage or physical injury.

Previous Chronicle coverage of the drain disconnect program, which is intended to ameliorate the basement sewage backup problem: “Drain Disconnect Time for Homeowners.” Ann Arbor has separate sanitary and stormwater sewers systems. Under the disconnect program, houses that have storm drains connected to the sanitary sewer are connected to the stormwater sewer system instead.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved Rapundalo as a member of the insurance board, with the mayor thanking Rapundalo for stepping up to serve even while his other committee obligations were already heavy.

Energy Coordinator

Before the council was a $260,000 contract with Clean Energy Coalition (CEC), an Ypsilanti-based nonprofit, to hire a community energy program coordinator. The coordinator, to be hired by CEC with input from city staff, will be supervised by Andrew Brix, the city’s energy programs manager.

The contract also includes technical assistance from CEC to a community energy financing program such as a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. The funds for the contract come from a U.S. Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) worth $1,243,400.

Outcome: The council approved the contract without discussion.

Clean Communities

Before the council was an amendment to the city’s solid waste management code related to regulations on trash left outside. As the cover memo describes it, this is the ordinance used to compel clean up after parties:

Community Standards officers often use this ordinance to compel the clean-up of any type of solid waste strewn about on the exterior premises of a property. Solid waste includes, but is not limited to, party-related debris, paper, cardboard, building materials, appliances, and other solid waste.

The substantive change to the ordinance was laid out by Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). It was motivated by situations where there is a rental property, and it is tenants who have strewn the waste. Many landlords require tenants to pay fines associated with tickets issued under the ordinance. The fines are tiered based on the number of offenses at a property. However, a current tenant may not be guilty of every prior offense resulting in an increased fine amount. That inherent unfairness, said Taylor, can result in a “judicial downcharging” with lessor fines being imposed than they would otherwise.

So the amendment prevents landlords from requiring tenants to pay any fine amounts due to offenses committed prior to their own tenancy at the property [emphasis added]:

(e) No property owner, landlord, or agent who incurs fines and costs for a violation of this section shall require tenant(s) or occupant(s) to pay fines and costs for or reimburse the owner, landlord, or agent for payment of fines and costs, except in keeping with the following requirements:
(1) For a first violation within the period of time that the tenant(s) or occupant(s) reside(s) on the property, the owner, landlord, or agent shall not require the tenant(s) or occupant(s) to pay more than $200.
(2) For a second violation within the period of time that the tenant(s) or occupant(s) reside(s) on the property, the owner, landlord, or agent shall not require the tenant(s) or occupant(s) to pay more than $400.
(3) For each additional or subsequent offense within the period of time that the tenant(s) or occupant(s) reside(s) on the property, the owner, landlord, or agent shall not require the tenant(s) or occupant(s) to pay more than $1,000.

Outcome: After brief discussion, the council unanimously approved the amendment to the city’s solid waste code.

Rail Transportation

Added to the council’s agenda the same day as the meeting was a resolution expressing support for development of high-speed and intercity passenger rail service in Michigan, as well as the city’s interest in participating in a municipal rail caucus. The resolution had been requested from Ann Arbor by the The Michigan Municipal League (MML). The league is trying to enlist the support of cities located on three Amtrak routes for railroad initiatives.

Outcome: The resolution expressing support of rail transportation was passed unanimously.

Rail Transportation: Public Comment

Jim Mogensen addressed the council at the conclusion of its meeting on the topic of transportation. Several years ago, he said, the Federal Transit Administration had issued a report on the civil rights implications of rail versus bus service, he said. There is no plan for what happens to people who live on MacArthur Boulevard or other areas of Ypsilanti, he said.

There’s an Aug. 3 ballot initiative in Ypsilanti to fund transportation, he said, but it “doesn’t count” – the state attorney general has ruled that the proposal must be voted on during a general election, not a primary election. Still, he said, if it fails, people might come to the conclusion that the voters have spoken.

In the June 23, 2010 AATA board meeting packet, he said, there was an indication that $75,000 of Ann Arbor millage money had been allocated for the commuter express service to Ann Arbor from Chelsea and Canton. What, he asked, are the demographic differences between Canton and Ypsilanti? This is something that will “vex this community, if we don’t get it right,” Mogensen cautioned.

He noted that the AATA had a large public engagement process going on, but feared that we would find ourselves in a situation where people don’t understand the impact that it will have if there is no bus service to Ypsilanti. He noted that everybody adjusts and everybody will try to figure out how to cope, and stressed that he is not against rail service. But there has to be both rail as well as bus service for those who use public transportation to get around, he suggested.

Other Comment and Communications

A variety of topics were brought up during the meeting.

Communication: Design Guidelines

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) indicated that the committee working on the design guidelines as part of the A2D2 downtown rezoning process was on schedule, had really gelled as a group and might even finish its work sooner than expected.

Communication: Streetlights

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) reported on a field trip at night he’d made with neighbors of the Brockman area to assess the initial result of a city program to deenergize some streetlights in order to save money. The measure was approved as part of the city’s FY 2011 budget, adopted in May 2010, and is expected to save around $120,000. The reaction of neighbors, Taylor said, was uniform: “They did not care for it.”

Communication: Sidewalk Repair

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) reads the city’s public service ad about the sidewalk repair program from the Ann Arbor Observer.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) read aloud a letter from a somewhat dissatisfied constituent who had repaired their sidewalks in accordance with the city’s sidewalk repair program, but whose neighbors had not all complied.

Kunselman asked what the status of the sidewalk repair program is, noting that the city’s advertising in The Ann Arbor Observer seemed to provide conflicting information about when it ends – 2009 or 2010. Kunselman noted that citizens who complied with the city’s requirements to replace defective slabs are wondering why “scofflaws aren’t being held accountable.”

In response to Kunselman’s query, city administrator Roger Fraser indicated that the follow-up is in process.

Communication: Misc. from the City Administrator

City administrator Roger Fraser told the council that the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) would be hearing a presentation on Argo Dam at its Tuesday, July 20 meeting. The consent agreement with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment, as well as the request for proposals on repair and reconstruction of the earthen berm, would be discussed, Fraser said.

Fraser also gave an update on the city hall construction site. The DDA Fifth and Division streetscape project had come through the section of Fifth where the building is located and improvement in appearance is significant, he said. Interior work on the new building is continuing, as well as work in the basement of the old Larcom building, he reported.

Comment: Resolution Against Arizona’s Immigration Law

During public commentary reserved time, Joseph Miriani criticized the council’s resolution, passed at its last meeting on July 6, which opposed the law recently passed by the state of Arizona. The Arizona law requires local law enforcement officials to investigate the immigration status of a person, when there is reasonable suspicion they are in the country unlawfully. Miriani noted that the law explicitly prohibits racial profiling, and noted that there’s a difference between people who legally immigrate – like Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) – and those who enter the county illegally.

Comment: Partridge

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for 18th District state Senate seat. He called for a “Washtenaw Promise” that would assure middle- and lower-income residents that they would be protected. He called on the city council to address significant issues like job creation, affordable housing, transportation, health care and education.

During his communications time, Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) indicated that Partridge’s comments had provoked a thought – there’s been a group studying the Washtenaw Avenue corridor with respect to transportation and development. The group includes Eric Mahler of the city’s planning commission, Derezinski said, as well as Washtenaw County planner Anya Dale, who was recently appointed to the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

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

Next council meeting: Aug. 5, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

At his last meeting as chair of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board, John Splitt shows off the tchotchke of appreciation he was given by executive director Susan Pollay. The board is a piece of the kind of lumber currently being used for the earth retention system in construction of the Fifth Avenue underground parking garage. To the right of the frame is Joan Lowenstein, who was elected chair of the board for the coming year. (Photo by the writer.)

The board also approved a recommendation for details of a payment-in-lieu-of-parking (PILOP) program that allows developers to build fewer parking spaces than otherwise prescribed by the zoning code. The program recommended by the DDA allows for developers to replace required on-site spaces with monthly permits – plus a 25% surcharge – in parking structures managed by the DDA.

The DDA made the recommendation to the city’s planning department because the department had requested the DDA’s input on PILOP after the city’s new rezoning of downtown A2D2 was approved last year by city council.

The board also approved revisions to the FY 2010 budget so that expenditures do not exceed budgeted amounts.

Immediately following the regular monthly meeting, the board held its annual meeting, during which executive director Susan Pollay ticked through the significant accomplishments of the board over the last year. Officers elected for the next year are: chair, Joan Lowenstein; vice chair, Gary Boren; treasurer, Roger Hewitt; secretary, Russ Collins.

Board member Newcombe Clark pointedly abstained from each of the four officer votes.

Grant to Zingerman’s Deli

A planned expansion to Zingerman’s Deli is currently working its way through the city’s site plan approval process. It has already won approval from the city’s planning commission and will next come before the city council. Because the building is located in a historic district, the city’s historic district commission will need to give final approval. A previous similar proposal by Zingerman’s to expand the deli had started the approval process with the historic district commission, and that body had rejected the proposal in the summer of 2008.

The roughly $6.7 million project calls for tearing down a small fire-damaged house at 322 E. Kingsley – directly behind the brick deli building – and putting up a two-story, 10,340-square-foot addition that would be connected to the 5,107-square-foot deli building via a glass atrium.

The two-story “orange house” located at 420 Detroit, between the deli building and Zingerman’s Next Door, will be worked into the design, according to the proposal. The preservation of the orange house, also known as the Annex, is one key difference between the earlier project rejected by the historic district commission and this one.

Previous Chronicle coverage of the Zingerman’s Deli expansion includes:

“Zingerman’s Project Seeks Brownfield Status”

“Zingerman’s Deli Expansion Moves Ahead”

“Zingerman’s: Making it Right for the HDC”

For its brownfield application, Zingerman’s is requesting $407,000 from the DDA, which is the estimated tax-increment on the improvement to the property over the course of 15 years. The money would be used for improvements to sidewalks, sidewalk ramps, signage as well as for costs associated with LEED certification for the Zingerman’s expansion.

Zingerman’s: The Zingerman’s Deli Request

From a letter sent by Rick Strutz, a managing partner at the deli, the dollar amounts requested by Zingerman’s are:

• $100,000 to reimburse Zingerman’s for costs associated with LEED certification.
• $160,000 for costs associated with on-site water detention.
• $50,000 to install ADA-compliant curb ramps at the Detroit and Kingsley intersection.
• $45,000 for sidewalk removal and replacement.
• $10,000 for wayfinding signs pointing to the deli, plus a roof sign on the addition that can be picked up by Google maps.
• Several other items with a cost to-be-determined, including parking spaces for contractors and a staging area, plus replacement or repair of brick pavers, curbs and water/sewer lines on Detroit Street between Kingsley and Catherine.

Paul Saginaw a co-founder of Zingerman’s, led off public commentary at the DDA board meeting by noting a bit of trivia: both Zingerman’s and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority were founded in 1982. Around that time, he recalled, the Briarwood Mall had just been built and had “knocked the wind out of downtown.”

Saginaw thanked the DDA for their support of downtown, which Zingerman’s had taken advantage of, ticking off a number of specific programs: the go!pass program that some of their employees use for transportation to work, the energy audit program, the wayfinding signs and creation of a handicapped parking spot at Community High School.

Zingerman’s had taken in less than $100 on its first day of business, Saginaw said. But now there were 16 partners in eight different businesses that employ over 600 employees. He described the deli operation as an “anchor” for Kerrytown. There are more than 200 jobs at the deli alone, he said, and the deli attracts more visitors to Ann Arbor than any other for-profit business. Ten percent of profits go to Washtnaw County nonprofits, he said. Zingerman’s founded Food Gatherers and the Delonis Community Kitchen program.

Saginaw said they’d spend the last four years struggling through an attempt to expand the operation. He felt that the expansion is really in the “sweet spot” of the DDA strategy for helping to create a sense of uniqueness and place. It would increase downtown commercial activity and strengthen other Kerrytown businesses. He asked for the DDA to partner on the brownfield application, saying that the board could count on Zingerman’s to follow through. Zingerman’s keeps its promises and will be good stewards of the public money, he concluded.

Saginaw was followed to the podium by Grace Singleton, who is a managing partner of the deli. Singleton told the board she’d been a partner at the deli for eight years. The deli has been at that location for 29 years, she said, and they wanted to stay there another 29 years. Based on the experience of the last few years, she said, they expected that the expansion would create additional jobs over the next few years. They’d started with two employees, but had added 170 staff people in the last five years. They estimated that there would be an additional 40 jobs added over the next five years.

In their first year, they’d made 2,000 sandwiches, compared to an estimated 300,000 sandwiches last year – out of the same little kitchen, Singleton said. She described how they’d expanded the capacity of the kitchen with one-off changes to the equipment line. They had added outdoor seating, but she said that the approach had been somewhat “higgledy piggledy.” They simply couldn’t fit more sandwiches on the grill at this point.

So the expansion is an attempt to make it one beautiful attractive build-out, Singleton said, that would be comprehensive. The idea is to move the bulk of the heavy kitchen production out of  the deli building – that activity was really “beating up” the building, she said. They were also planning to use a lot of green energy design features, she said. Restaurants are high users of water and generate a lot of heat, and they were looking at ways of capturing some of that heat.

To undertake the expansion, she said, they would need to stay open, and that would be a challenge on the tight quarters of the site. It would have to be a “surgical” operation, she said. They’re trying to preserve the Annex [the "orange house"], which adds to the challenge and the difficulty and cost per square foot, Singleton said. But preserving that building, she said, is what they think will allow the project to go forward, and they hope to be able to remain on that site. She hoped the DDA would help them remain on the site.

During his public commentary, Ann Arbor resident Brad Mikus began by observing that the downtown looks really nice – he noted that, because he allowed that he frequently stood before the board and offered criticism. But it could be better, he said, and that’s why he was there.

On the topic of the Zingerman’s expansion, he noted that the resolution indicated that taxes from the part of Zingerman’s property located in the DDA’s TIF (tax increment financing) district were estimated to increase by $407,000 over 15 years. The way it’s written, he said, it seems like the DDA was committing to the $407,000 now. There’s a disconnect there, he said, because $407,000 over the next 15 years is worth far less than $407,000 now.  He observed that Zingerman’s was a successful company and that he suggested cutting support for LEED certification, which is estimated to cost $160,000, but leaving the funding for the other projects in place.

During his report from the Downtown Citizens Advisory Commission, Ray Detter affirmed support by the commission for the project, calling Zingerman’s a special asset to Kerrytown and the downtown area.

Zingerman’s: Board Deliberations

The deliberations led off with Newcombe Clark and Joan Lowenstein recusing themselves, citing conflicts of interest.

Sandi Smith noted that at the state level, they liked to see the local support of brownfield applications come in the form of a TIF waiver, instead of taking the TIF capture and making a grant. So she asked for some clarification about why the DDA was taking the route of awarding a grant.

Roger Hewitt responded to Smith, as the chair of the operations committee, which had reviewed the proposal. He began by noting that the proposal should have probably been reviewed by the DDA’s partnerships committee, not the operations committee, but the operations committee was the only committee with a meeting on its schedule before the meeting of the whole board.

Hewitt said it used to be the case that TIF grants were given by the DDA to stimulate downtown development, but they’d been abolished 3-4 years ago. It became clear, he said, that any grant of TIF funds was a subjective decision. Whether a project was approved, he said, might depend on how strong an advocate there was for a particular project.

So the DDA had decided it would be appropriate to spend its public monies on public projects, Hewitt said. And that was why, Hewitt explained, that they were looking for ways to spend TIF revenue on public improvements, rather than in a way that benefited a private entity. Hewitt said that approving a grant directly to a private entity potentially opened up the DDA to requests for every new project downtown. And that’s why they’d taken the approach of looking at a grant to support public improvements around Zingerman’s.

Jennifer S. Hall indicated that she felt there was a difference between this grant and those grants awarded by the partnerships committee – the brownfield grant would require environmental remediation, which was a public benefit. Hall picked up on the note in the resolution that indicated both the city of Ann Arbor and the DDA would be making a contribution. Hall wanted to know if the city had approved the brownfield plan. Smith responded to Hall, saying that the brownfield review committee had recommended approval, but it had not yet been approved by the city council. [Smith serves on the city council and the brownfield review committee.]

A Zingerman’s representative and Matt Naud, the city of Ann Arbor’s environmental coordinator, answered Hall’s question by saying that the total TIF capture of city millages for the parcel over the course of 15 years is estimated to be $400,000.

[The site of the expansion includes areas both inside and outside the DDA TIF district. The brownfield plan will include a TIF capture of its own, but the DDA TIF is first in line for capture. The brownfield TIF outside the DDA district is the portion that the city will be contributing.]

Hall asked if the DDA had supported other brownfield projects, and Susan Pollay told her that the DDA supported a brownfield application for a project at Ashley and Washington, called Tierra on Ashley. Tierra is trying to achieve platinum LEED certification [the highest level of certification], but due to market conditions, Pollay said, the project has not yet been constructed. Pollay said that the DDA contribution to Tierra had come in the form of parking and other public improvements, similar to what was proposed for Zingerman’s.

Hall wanted to know some details about the wayfinding signs that were specified as part of the public improvements. She’d recalled that when the new wayfinding signs were installed, there’d been discussion about adding Zingerman’s because so many visitors asked for directions to the deli. But they’d decided not to add private entities to the signs, because that would open the door to other private entities as well.

Hewitt indicated that the new wayfinding signs indicated in the resolution would not specify Zingerman’s specifically, but rather would point to Kerrytown. Hall pointed out that a letter from Zingerman’s to the DDA making the request specifically asked for wayfinding signs to Zingerman’s, in addition to a logo on the roof so that GoogleMaps could pick it up. Hewitt assured Hall that the intent was to stick with the kind of wayfinding signs that are already in place.

Gary Boren said he strongly supported the application and pointed out that one of the “quirks” of the brownfield program is that it does not necessarily entail that there is remediation of toxic pollutants. In the case of Zingerman’s application, Boren explained, two of the buildings – the burned-out building on Kingsley and the Annex – had been declared “functionally obsolete” by the city assessor. Boren stressed that addressing functionally obsolete buildings is an above-board stated purpose of the brownfield program.

Boren said he never really understood why the DDA no longer used the strategy of forgoing TIF capture as opposed to estimating a dollar amount and awarding grants. But partly in response to a the question from Brad Mikus during public commentary, Boren clarified that the $407,000 was a good-faith estimate of how much the TIF capture would yield over 15 years, due to the improvements on the property.

Boren allowed that no rigorous time-value cost of money had been performed, but said if you took  what an actual TIF capture would yield – if it were to be granted in perpetuity, not just 15 years – and added 5% interest, the $407,000 figure was what you get.

Boren said he strongly supported the project, because Zingerman’s – like the Michigan Theater – is one of the identifying jewels of Ann Arbor. Zingerman’s is “not holding the project hostage,” making its completion contingent on getting the grant, he said.

John Mouat said he also supported the project, and confirmed with Smith that the work proposed was considered a local match for the brownfield application and not just a contribution. Naud clarified that the DDA’s grant, plus the city’s brownfield TIF, would all be considered local matches for Zingerman’s application to the state for Michigan Business Tax credits. The state wanted to make sure that the locals had as much “skin in the game” as the state.

In response to a follow-up from Mouat, Naud said that the state was not necessarily looking for a dollar-for-dollar match, but that they were looking to see that the locals were providing as much as they could.

Mouat said he did have some concern about the funding for the LEED certification that Zingerman’s is requesting. To him, he said, it did cross a bit of a line. The other items were more clearly public improvements, as opposed to a benefit specifically for Zingerman’s. LEED certification is also a large dollar amount, Mouat noted.

Mayor John Hieftje inquired about the level of LEED certification that Zingerman’s is seeking. Singleton explained that one challenge is the cost, but she believed that without changing the basic plan they would achieve the LEED silver standard, and gold might be within reach. Hieftje said he was certain that Zingerman’s would follow through, but wanted to make the reimbursement of the LEED certification costs contingent on actual achievement of at least silver level LEED certification. An amendment to that effect was accepted as friendly to the original resolution.

Smith also offered a friendly amendment that was accepted that specified the amount of the grant would be “up to” $407,000. Smith stressed that the amount of the grant for the work was roughly equivalent to the cost of renovating the Annex ["orange house"], which would entail picking it up, moving it off  the foundation, rebuilding the foundation, moving the house to its original location, and renovating the house. Because the work was being undertaken in a historic district, Smith said, the estimated cost would be around $500,000.

Keith Orr indicated that his concerns had been addressed and he felt like it fit well within the mission of the DDA.

Hall said she supported the project as well, but wondered how compatible the public sidewalk and ramp work proposed as part of the Zingerman’s project is physically in the scope of the Fifth and Division street improvements currently underway. Pollay said that an eventual Phase II part of the Fifth and Division project would include the area. That Phase II of the project, Pollay said, is very much about all the brick in the area. The conceptual plan for Phase II, which has been approved by the board, Pollay said, is to repair the bricked streets and to restore brick in places that have been paved over with asphalt.

Hall was concerned that the sidewalk improvements undertaken as part of the Zingerman’s brownfield application be compatible with eventual work done in Phase II of the Fifth and Division project. She didn’t want the work to be re-done. Pollay indicated that the work would be planned with Phase II in mind – any challenges were related to the brick streets, she said.

Hall got some clarification about how the LEED certification costs for Zingerman’s would be handled under the board’s policy that rescinds grants after two years if they’re not spent. Pollay explained that the board policy was not made explicit in the language of every resolution, but it would apply in this case, meaning that if the money was not spent by July 2012, the grant would expire.

With that, Leah Gunn called the question and the board voted.

Outcome: The DDA board voted unanimously to approve the grant requested by Zingerman’s.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Hieftje indicated he wanted to make clear that he supported the project because of Zingerman’s record in the community and that he would not support such a request for just anybody.

Payment in Lieu of Parking (PILOP)

Last year’s passage of the A2D2 rezoning of the downtown area by the Ann Arbor city council included a provision that allowed for developers to make a payment instead of actually constructing required parking on site. The relevant part of the city code comes from Chapter 59 [emphasis added]:

5:169.  Special parking districts. Lots located in the D1 or D2 downtown zoning districts are considered a special parking district and are subject to the following standards:

(1) No off-street motor vehicle parking is required in the special parking district for structures which do not exceed the normal maximum permitted usable floor area or for structures zoned PUD with usable floor area which does not exceed 300 percent of the lot area. Structures which exceed the normal maximum usable floor area by providing floor area premiums, or PUD-zoned structures that exceed 300 percent of lot area, shall provide parking spaces for the usable floor area in excess of the normal maximum permitted. This parking shall be provided at a rate of 1 off-street parking space for each 1,000 square feet of usable floor area. Each parking space reserved, signed and enforced for a car-sharing service may count as four (4) required motor vehicle parking spaces.

[...]

(3) The required bicycle or motor vehicle parking shall be provided on-site, off-site as described in this section, or by the payment of a contribution in lieu of required parking consistent with the formula adopted by City Council, or any combination thereof, consistent with the requirements of this section. The per-space payment shall be that required by Council resolution at the time of payment.

Wendy Rampson, head of the city’s planning staff, had asked the DDA to provide a recommendation on the formula for the payment in lieu.

Before the DDA board as a resolution was a recommendation to the city council to implement a PILOP program that has its main feature a 25% surcharge on a monthly parking permit in a DDA-managed parking structure. That is, instead of building N spaces of required parking as part of a downtown development project, a developer could instead purchase N monthly permits – with an added surcharge – in a DDA-managed parking structure.

PILOP: Public Commentary

During his public commentary, Brad Mikus questioned whether the recommendation for the PILOP that would use a 25% surcharge on monthly permits was adequate, if the DDA needed to actually use the proceeds from the program to build additional parking spaces. His math went like this: a 25% surcharge on a $130/month permit translates into about $160 a month, or $2,000 a year in round numbers. For the new underground parking structure, he said, the budget was $59 million for 677 spots, or roughly $90,000 per spot.

The $2,000 per year would come nowhere close to the cost of actually constructing parking spaces, Mikus concluded.

PILOP: Board Discussion

Roger Hewitt emphasized that the resolution being considered was just a recommendation – the city council would need to make the final decision.

Jennifer S. Hall wanted to know how the details of the PILOP became city policy. Would it be written into the city’s ordinances? Hall was also concerned about the adequacy of the surcharge to fund actual construction of parking spaces, if that were needed.

Hewitt responded to the concern about the adequacy of revenues from the PILOP to fund new construction of parking spaces by pointing out that the entire parking system funds new construction. Hall returned to her point that the challenge is to set a rate so that it’s not so much of a bargain that every developer takes the PILOP option.

Hewitt then addressed the “bargain” part of Hall’s point by pointing out that there’s a disincentive to developers to pay whatever the market rate is for a monthly permit – one alternative is to construct parking on-site and to charge whatever residents of a project are willing to pay, with all revenues going to the developer.

Newcombe Clark asked whether the DDA could be compelled to enter into a PILOP agreement. He was concerned about a possibility that such an agreement could be compelled, when the DDA on its own did not have the ability to build a parking deck – that would require city council approval. The DDA can’t add to the supply without city council approval, he said.

Hewitt acknowledged that there might be a market demand for DDA parking spaces that it did not have. Hewitt suggested that language be added to the recommendation to the effect that the DDA would enter into a PILOP agreement “if it is able to do so.”

Hall worried that if the PILOP were included in the zoning regulations, the DDA might not have an actual say about a PILOP for a project, because the process runs through the city planning commission and the city council.

John Splitt emphasized that the resolution was a recommendation to the city council and that it was not going to be “on a stone tablet.”

A question from John Hieftje to Susan Pollay addressed one of the points raised by Brad Mikus during public commentary: What is the actual cost per parking space in the new underground garage? Pollay explained that 1/4 to 1/3 of the cost of the project is unrelated to parking per se. Much of the project relates to utilities improvements, and she ventured an estimate that for the parking itself, it worked out to $57,000 to $59,000 per space. By way of comparison to above-ground spaces, she said that the recent Fourth & William addition that the DDA had undertaken had worked out to be “in the high 30s” – that had been pure parking, with no additional footings or elevators, she said. Russ Collins ventured a rule of thumb he’d used, that above-ground spaces cost $45,000 apiece, while underground spaces cost $55,000 apiece to construct.

John Mouat pointed out that revenues from the PILOP program might be an attractive source of revenue to fund alternative transportation.

Outcome: The board unanimously approved the recommendation that the PILOP program be based on a monthly permit with a 25% surcharge.

Budget Adjustment

Before the board was a resolution that modified the 2009-10 budget, whcih ended June 30, to account for items that had cost more than they’d originally been budgeted for. Hewitt explained that the budget modifications are required by state statute so that expenditures don’t exceed the budgeted amounts.

Most of the items receiving adjustment were relatively small dollar amounts. But one was fairly significant, which Hewitt indicated they should have caught when the budget was modified earlier in the year. Costs associated with the wayfinding signage project had been anticipated to be only $15,000 for the 2009-10 budget year, but the timing of the project had resulted in $850,00o being spent.

Another adjusted line item with a significant dollar amount was a $400,000 grant to Avalon Housing for rehabilitation of properties. Questions from John Splitt and Sandi Smith clarified that the $400,000 was not for the Near North project.

Outcome: Adjustments to the 2009-10 budget were unanimously approved.

Parking Demand

A standard feature of DDA board meetings is a report out from the operations committee meeting on the most recent parking report. During his public commentary, Brad Mikus noted that the May 2010 numbers showed that for the third month in a row, hourly patrons had decreased compared to the previous year. [In May 2009 – which had the same number of business days as May 2010 – 184,821 hourly patrons used the parking system, as compared to the 169,466 hourly patrons who parked in May 2010.]

In his report to the board, Roger Hewitt attributed the decrease in hourly patrons to the loss of all the spots on the Library Lot, where an underground parking structure is being built. Total revenues, however, continue to show slight increases: $1,145,740 compared to $1,064,284. The revenue increase, Hewitt explained, was due to the parking rate increase.

Partnerships Committee

Russ Collins gave the report out from the partnerships committee.

Partnerships: Energy Saving Grants

Highlights included the fact that the energy saving grant program would start its third year in 2010-11. In 2009-10, Collins said, 13 audits had been completed, with four owners now contemplating renovations based on those audits. The program is structured with two phases, Collins explained, with the DDA helping to fund an energy audit in the first phase and also a portion of actual improvements in the second phase.

In the 2008-09 fiscal year, 32 audits had been completed and energy improvements had been implemented in 17 buildings, Collins said, costing $84,000. The improvements are projected to save $32,000 a year, for a payback on the investment of around 2.5 years.

Partnerships: Shelter Association Grant Request

Collins reported that the Shelter Association of Washtenaw County had asked for a significant grant, as the organization began to transition from a reliance on state and city funding, because that funding had started to dry up. The idea is to provide two years worth of transitional funding, said Collins, as the association began efforts at private fundraising. Although there was no resolution before the board at the meeting, Collins indicated that he strongly supported the idea.

Partnerships: Downtown Beat Patrols

Collins said that continuing to receive some discussion was Newcombe Clark’s suggestion to reallocate funding for the WALLY project – a Howell-Ann Arbor commuter rail proposal – to fund downtown police. They’d requested information on crime statistics for the downtown area and learned that downtown crime is at “very low” levels, but there are still questions about perceptions of crime. While 86% of residents report feeling safe at night in the downtown area, he wondered if the 14% who don’t feel safe are significant to consider.

Clark suggested the potential of a nighttime board retreat to tour the downtown at night.

Partnerships: City-DDA Parking Agreement Negotiations

Collins also reported out on the activity of the board’s “mutually beneficial” committee, which is charged with the responsibility of renegotiating a parking agreement with the city council’s corresponding committee. Collins indicated that possible code enforcement by the DDA – other than parking violations – had been taken off the table for further consideration. [A new agreement is hoped to be in place by Oct. 31, 2010. Most recent Chronicle coverage: "Parking Deal Talks Open Between City, DDA"]

Earlier in the meeting, Roger Hewitt reported out on the mutually beneficial committee as well, saying that Susan Pollay would be working on a plan for what it would mean for the DDA to take responsibility for development of the city-owned surface parking lots in the downtown area.

At the work session held prior to the city council’s July 6 meeting, Hewitt said, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) had expressed opposition to the idea of the DDA enforcing parking regulations outside the DDA boundaries. Hewitt said he’d assured the city council at the work session that the DDA understood that any process led by the DDA would be subject to step-by-step approval by the city council.

Partnerships: Art Fairs

Collins also noted that Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA, had exercised her authority to make grants up to $10,000 to award a grant to promote the combined Ann Arbor art fairs as a single event.

Transportation Committee

Reporting out from the transportation committee, John Mouat said that the Commuter Challenge organized by getDowntown in May had gone well. There’d been more people and more companies participating, he said. Later during public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Nancy Shore, director of getDowntown, thanked the board for their continued support, saying that in May there had been 41,000 go!pass rides.

Mouat also gave an update on the connector feasibility study currently underway. The $640,000 study is taking a look at the Plymouth and State street corridors. [Chronicle coverage: "Transit Connector Study: Initial Analysis"] From the initial results of the study, Mouat highlighted the fact that the number of trips between the University of Michigan central campus and north campus would support a light rail system.

A proposal to sponsor an annual bike rack contest, he said, has been paused, while the getDowntown program and DDA staff undertake an inventory of all the bike racks in the downtown.

Talks continue with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority about the reconstruction of Blake Transit Center and Ypsilanti-Ann Arbor commuting.

Russ Collins noted that the University of Michigan was interested in mass-transit growth. He wanted to know who the contact person was at the university for that. Mouat indicated that there’d been a change of leadership with David Miller’s retirement as head of UM transportation. Pollay acknowledged that Collins was right about UM having an interest in mass transit, pointing to the forum that had been hosted on the north campus back in March.

Pollay also indicated that Miller’s replacement had been hired. [Stephen Dolen was appointed executive director of Parking and Transportation Services, effective July 12.]

Capital Improvements Committee

Reporting out from the capital improvements committee was John Splitt. He reported that on June 26, there’d been a massive pouring of concrete for the underground parking garage on Fifth Avenue. The pour was over 1,400 cubic yards of concrete, which required 150 trucks, he said.

The water main installation at Fifth and Liberty is now complete, Splitt said.

The Fifth and Division streetscape improvements are continuing on course, Splitt said.

Local Sourcing: Food and T-Shirts

During public commentary, Lindsay-Jean Hard, whose previous work for the DDA as a special projects manager earned her a “Welcome back!” from Russ Collins, gave the board a presentation on Real Time Farms. The live local food guide is a new company, Hard said, which has a flagship operation in Ann Arbor. From the RTF mission:

To excite and educate people about where they can find fresh local sources of food, bringing transparency to the food web.

Hard described how the website allowed food consumers to keep up to date on the fresh foods that are available currently in farmers markets, by giving people a way to upload current pictures of the actual produce available at farmers markets.

Visiting the DDA board meeting from North Carolina, but not addressing the board, was Eric Henry, who’s been in town visiting Paul Saginaw of Zingerman’s. Henry described to The Chronicle how his T-shirt company, TS Designs, sources the cotton for its T-shirts from local growers.

Annual Meeting: Officer Elections

Immediately following the July monthly meeting, the DDA board held its annual meeting and elected its officers for the coming year.

The officer elections for the next year offered little of the overt drama that had unfolded at last year’s officer elections. [Chronicle coverage: "Split Board Agrees on Splitt"]

Officers elected for the next year are: chair, Joan Lowenstein; vice chair, Gary Boren; treasurer, Roger Hewitt; secretary, Russ Collins.

Abstaining from each of the officer votes was board member Newcombe Clark.

Clark explained to The Chronicle after the meeting that there’d been no indication from the mayor whether the two board members whose appointments are expiring July 31 – Jennifer S. Hall and John Splitt – would be re-appointed. Clark said he could thus not be certain of the full range of choices for board officers.

Susan Pollay, executive director of the DDA for the last 14 years, summarized for the board highlights of DDA activities over the last year: (i) the parking and transportation strategies report to the city council; (ii) the energy grant program; (iii) the start of construction on the underground parking garage and the associated utility upgrades; (iv) the start of construction on the Fifth and Division streetscape improvements; and (v) the transfer of $2 million to the city as well as diversion of revenues from the 415 W. Washington and Fifth & William parking lots to the city.

Pollay presented outgoing board chair, John Splitt, with a tchotchke of appreciation – a commemorative plaque mounted on the kind of lumber used as part of the earth retention system for the underground parking garage currently under construction along Fifth Avenue.

Present: Gary Boren, Newcombe Clark, Jennifer S. Hall, Roger Hewitt, John Hieftje, John Splitt, Sandi Smith, Leah Gunn, Russ Collins, Joan Lowenstein, John Mouat, Keith Orr.

Next board meeting: Noon on Wednesday, Sept. 1, 2010, at the DDA offices, 150 S. Fifth Ave., Suite 301. [confirm date]

Grace Singleton, a managing partner with Zingerman's Deli, talks about plans to apply to the local and state brownfield program as part of the deli's renovation plans. The business hosted a public meeting about the plans on June 21. (Photos by the writer.)

On June 21, Zingerman’s hosted a public meeting to answer questions about their plans for the brownfield application. Matt Naud, the city’s environmental coordinator, was on hand as well, and distinguished between this project and those that are typically associated with the term “brownfield.” In the case of Zingerman’s Deli, “it’s economic development,” he said, “It’s not about environmental cleanup.”

Specifically, brownfield status would allow Zingerman’s to be eligible for tax increment financing (TIF), a mechanism that would let the business recoup certain qualified expenses related to the project – possibly as much as $817,000 over 15 years.

It’s a different approach than the brownfield application most recently approved by city council for the Near North affordable housing project on North Main. In that case, the site’s need for environmental cleanup qualifies it for a brownfield status. Zingerman’s application also differs from Near North’s in that Near North isn’t seeking reimbursement through TIF. Both projects plan to apply for Michigan Business Tax credits.

Though Zingerman’s mailed out 1,014 postcards to surrounding residences and businesses to announce the meeting, only three members of the public attended, plus The Chronicle. One of those attending was Ray Detter, head of the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council. He offered at least a partial explanation for the low turnout: The city’s Historic District Commission was holding a reception at the same time for its annual preservation award recipients – lots of people were at the Hands On Museum for that event, he said. One of the winners – Quinn Evans Architects – is also the architect for the Zingerman’s expansion.

There’s perhaps an even more crucial HDC connection to the project: Assuming Zingerman’s secures site plan approval from city council, they would still need to seek a “notice to proceed” from the commission. If denied, the project can’t move forward as planned.

At a city of Ann Arbor brownfield plan review committee on Monday, the “what if” question was raised by Marcia Higgins, one of three councilmembers who serves on that committee. They were meeting to review the project’s brownfield plan and make a recommendation to council, which is expected to consider both the site plan and brownfield plan at their July 19 meeting. While affirming Zingerman’s commitment to that location, Rick Strutz, a managing partner in the deli, said that as a business decision, at the end of the day if the project doesn’t get HDC approval, they’d likely have to move.

How the Brownfield Program Works

The Michigan legislature passed the Brownfield Redevelopment Financing Act – Act 381 – in 1996. The law allows local municipalities to set up brownfield redevelopment authorities and to use various financing mechanisms to promote the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated properties. It was later amended to include sites that are designated as “blighted” or “functionally obsolete” – Zingerman’s is seeking the “functionally obsolete” designation. The latter two categories are designed to promote economic development.

Brownfield status allows projects to get reimbursed for certain qualified expenses via tax increment financing (TIF). Redevelopment of a site increases its taxable value – the difference between its original taxable value and the new value is the “increment.” In the case of Zingerman’s Deli, the business paid $49,100 in real property taxes in 2009. A preliminary estimate by the owners is that their taxes would increase to $107,000 when the project is complete.

After tax revenues are collected, the owners of approved projects apply to get repaid out of the funds available from the “increment.” The TIF is authorized for only a certain period – after that, all tax revenue is kept by the taxing authorities.

The act also allows owners of brownfield properties to apply for Michigan Business Tax credits, which are granted by the Michigan Economic Growth Authority, or MEGA. Those credits – awarded to spur job growth and economic development – can amount to up to 20% of costs related to demolition, lead and asbestos abatement, infrastructure and other qualified expenses.

Locally, the Washtenaw County board of commissioners set up the Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority in 1999. Within the county, 23 municipalities have joined the authority, including the city of Ann Arbor. Because these municipalities operate under the county brownfield authority, the county board of commissioners must approve the plan before it’s submitted to the state. But first, the county requires that the local municipality sign off on the project. [.pdf file of brownfield application used for projects in the city of Ann Arbor]

The county has never rejected a brownfield plan.

As part of the process, the county charges an application fee based on the total project investment – $3,000 for projects of up to $5 million, and as much as $5,000 for projects over $10 million. The county can also take up to 10% of the total tax increment annually, for the duration of the project, for administrative expenses.

Near North, Other Ann Arbor Brownfield Plans

The Ann Arbor city council has approved one other brownfield plan so far this year – for the Near North affordable housing project on North Main. That development, just north of the downtown district, is eligible for brownfield status because of cleanup needed on the 1.19-acre site along 626-724 N. Main St., south of Summit. [.pdf file of Near North brownfield plan]

Specifically, the plan cited results from soil and groundwater samples taken in April 2009 and February 2010:

Benzo(a)pyrene, arsenic and lead were measured in soil samples at concentrations above the Part 201 Generic Residential Cleanup Criteria and Screening Levels (residential cleanup criteria) for Drinking Water Protection and/or Direct Contact.

Arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver and zinc were measured in groundwater samples at a concentration above the residential cleanup criteria for Drinking Water and/or GSI.

Unlike Zingerman’s, Near North developers – led by the nonprofit Avalon Housing – will not seek reimbursement through TIF. But Near North does plan to apply for Michigan Business Tax brownfield redevelopment credits, which require that the brownfield status is authorized at the local level. Near North developers have identified $720,000 in eligible expenses to which the tax credits can be applied. The plan must next be approved by the Washtenaw County board of commissioners, and will likely be considered at their Aug. 4 meeting.

Beyond that, no other brownfield plans have been approved in Ann Arbor since 2008, when city council authorized three projects for brownfield status: The site of the former Michigan Inn on Jackson Road, the 601 S. Forest housing development in the South University area, and Maple Shoppes at the northeast corner of Maple and Dexter-Ann Arbor Roads, where the Aldi grocery is now located. To date, only the Maple Shoppes site has been redeveloped.

The largest brownfield plan approved by the city was for the Broadway Village at Lower Town project, which qualified for environmental cleanup. The plan, approved in 2003, requested TIF reimbursement of up to $40.4 million over a period of up to 30 years. Existing structures on the site were demolished, but otherwise the development hasn’t moved forward. On the county’s brownfield project website, its status is listed as “unknown.”

Zingerman’s Deli Expansion

Zingerman’s Deli has been working on plans for its major renovation for about four years – managing parter Rick Strutz reports that when the project team first began meeting every Tuesday morning, they didn’t think they’d still be at it 200 weeks later.

Because it’s located in the Old Fourth Ward historic district, the project needs approval from the city’s historic district commission. Business owners officially approached the HDC in 2008, asking for permission to demolish two buildings on the site – a fire-damaged house at 322 E. Kingsley St., directly behind the main deli building, and a two-story building at 420 Detroit St., known as “the orange house” or the Annex.

That request was denied, and set in motion a different approach to first seek approval for the project from the city planning commission and city council, then to return to the HDC for a “notice to proceed.” [See Chronicle coverage: "Zingerman's: Making It Right for the HDC"]

Project Timeline To Date

At the same time, the city was working through an extensive revision to its zoning ordinances, known as A2D2. Among those revisions was the rezoning of the 322 E. Kingsley parcel from residential to D2, which allows for commercial development. Here’s a timeline of the Zingerman’s project over the past two years, and related city zoning initiatives:

• June 12, 2008: Historic district commission denies request for demolition of 322 E. Kingsley St. and 420 Detroit St. [Rocco Disderide's former residence, aka "the orange house" or the Annex]
• Feb. 19, 2009: Planning commission adopts downtown plan with various revisions but no change to existing R4C zoning of 322 E. Kingsley St.
• April 6, 2009: City council gives initial approval to zoning revisions to downtown requiring alterations to the downtown plan adopted by the planning commission; major alterations include changes in South University area, but also included a rezoning of 322 E. Kingsley St. from R4C to the new D2 classification. The amendment on 322 E. Kingsley St. is introduced by Sandi Smith (Ward 1) and passes with dissent only from Sabra Briere (Ward 1). [link]
• May 19, 2009: Planning commission approves revisions to the downtown plan to accommodate part of the city council’s South University zoning revisions, an East Huron zoning revision, and the 322 E. Kingsley St. revision. [link]
• June 15, 2009: City council adopts downtown plan as revised by the planning commission. [link]
• Nov. 16, 2009: City council gives final approval to downtown zoning revisions, including the D2 designation to 322 E. Kingsley St.
• Jan. 14, 2010: At an HDC work session, Zingerman’s presents plan showing demolition of two houses.
• March 8, 2010: Zingerman’s holds a public participation open house on its proposed expansion.
• March 11, 2010: At an HDC work session, Zingerman’s presents a plan showing demolition of one house only. [link]
• May 18, 2010: Zingerman’s gets unanimous approval for its site plan from the Ann Arbor planning commission. The plan includes renovation of the Annex and demolition of 322 E. Kingsley. [link]
• June 21, 2010: Zingerman’s holds public meeting regarding brownfield application.
• June 28, 2010: Zingerman’s meets with the city’s brownfield plan review committee, which recommends approval. Both the site plan and brownfield plan are expected to be on the council’s July 19, 2010 meeting.

The site plan now calls for tearing down the house at 322 E. Kingsley and building a two-story, 10,340-square-foot addition that would be connected to the 5,107-square-foot deli building via a glass atrium. They’ll add underground tanks for stormwater detention and several environmentally-friendly design elements, including a green roof on the deli’s existing one-story wing. Phoenix Contractors of Ypsilanti is the project’s construction manager and general contractor.

All along, Zingerman’s executives have cited concerns over the project’s expense, particularly the cost of renovating the Annex. The overall project is expected to cost about $6.7 million. Roughly $500,000 is associated with renovating the house, which is relatively small – less than 900 square feet. Renovation will entail moving the Annex off its existing foundation, replacing the foundation, renovating the house, then moving it onto the new foundation and incorporating the structure into the new deli addition.

That expense was one motivation for seeking brownfield status.

Brownfield Plan Review Committee Weighs In

Because Ann Arbor has been identified by the state as a “core community,” the brownfield designation can be applied more broadly – not just for environmental cleanup, but for economic development as well, to reimburse expenses such as public infrastructure improvements and stormwater management. That’s the path that Zingerman’s is pursuing.

They’re making their case based on their track record as well as plans for future growth. Since 1982, the business has grown from four employees to around 200. Because of added capacity from the expansion, they plan to add another 40 deli employees over the next five years, and a total of 65 employees throughout all of Zingerman’s operations, which include their mail order business, bakery and creamery, among others.

One of the first steps in the brownfield process was to ask the city assessor to designate the property at 322 E. Kingsley as “functionally obsolete.” Because that property is part of the entire parcel to be redeveloped, the whole site qualifies for a brownfield under that designation. The city’s assessor, David Petrak, is expected to submit a letter to that effect this week, after it’s vetted by the city attorney’s office.

The process also includes hosting a public meeting – that happened on June 21, at the second floor of Zingerman’s Next Door, which is adjacent to the deli. Three members of the public attended.

Zingerman's Deli managing partner Rick Strutz, left, and attorney Gary Bruder, the owner's representative on the deli's expansion project, at the June 28 meeting of the city's brownfield plan review committee, held at city hall.

The turnout was much higher at the June 28 meeting of the brownfield plan review committee, which is charged with making a recommendation to city council. The committee consists of three city councilmembers – Sandi Smith (Ward 1), Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4). All of them attended Monday’s meeting, as did several city staff: Matt Naud, environmental coordinator; Tom Crawford, chief financial officer; and Matt Horning, city treasurer. Also at the meeting were Susan Polllay, executive director of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority; and Brett Lenart, a Washtenaw County staff member who handles brownfield issues. Three members of the Zingerman’s team were there as well: Rick Strutz, managing partner of the deli; Gary Bruder, an attorney and owner’s representative; and Jared Belka, a paralegal with Warner Norcross & Judd, a Lansing-based law firm that’s helping with the brownfield plan.

In describing the project, Strutz told the group that their No. 1 priority is to preserve the historic brick structure that houses the deli. “We are beating the crud out of this building,” he said. The addition will allow them to move all cooking out of the old building, to eliminate the moisture and humidity that’s generated in the kitchen.

Bruder and Strutz highlighted several other aspects of the project: meeting ADA standards of accessibility; adding bathrooms and a staff breakroom; building a storage area which will allow them to take fewer deliveries, with an aim of reducing traffic congestion; sharing an area for trash and composting with neighboring Community High School, and working with students on an instructional composting project.

Strutz said the project’s general contractor, Phoenix Contractors of Ypsilanti, calls it a “surgical construction process” because of the tight site within a neighborhood setting, and the need to keep the deli open throughout construction. In response to a query, Bruder noted that it’s not a planned unit development (PUD), which prompted Higgins to say, “Thank god!”

But much of the meeting’s discussion centered on issues related to the historic district.

Challenges of the Historic District

Bruder reiterated that because the Historic District Commission had determined that 322 E. Kingsley and the Annex were “contributing” structures and could not be demolished, the only alternative for Zingerman’s was to request what’s called a “notice to proceed” from the HDC.

The criteria for issuance of such a notice, from the city code, are as follows:

8:416. Notice to proceed.
(1) Work within a historic district shall be permitted through the issuance of a notice to proceed by the commission if any of the following conditions prevail and if the proposed work can be demonstrated by a finding of the commission to be necessary to substantially improve or correct any of the following conditions:
(a) The resource constitutes a hazard to the safety of the public or to the structure’s occupants.
(b) The resource is a deterrent to a major improvement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all necessary planning and zoning approvals, financing, and environmental clearances.
(c) Retaining the resource will cause undue financial hardship to the owner when a governmental action, an act of God, or other events beyond the owner’s control created the hardship, and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the financial hardship, which may include offering the resource for sale at its fair market value or moving the resource to a vacant site within the historic district, have been attempted and exhausted by the owner.
(d) Retaining the resource is not in the interest of the majority of the community.

Before Zingerman’s can make a request for the “notice to proceed,” their site plan must be approved by city council and their financing must be in place, among other things. Bruder said they’d held four working sessions with the HDC – the project as it stands is one that Zingerman’s is comfortable with, he said, and one that they think the HDC will be able to support.

At the June 21 public meeting, Detter had said he couldn’t imagine anyone on the HDC who’d be against the project – only an “extreme historic preservationist” wouldn’t want it to proceed, he said. He also said the Downtown Citizens Advisory Council – which he chairs – supports the project, and he felt it undoubtedly had the enthusiastic support of the entire community. But members of the Zingerman’s team indicated that they didn’t take approval for granted.

During Monday’s meeting of the brownfield plan review committee, Sandi Smith clarified that it was possible for the HDC to turn them down. “We really hope they don’t,” Bruder said, “But they could.”

Bruder pointed out that Zingerman’s is taking a big risk – if the HDC denies their request, their investment of time and money in the project so far will be for nothing.

Smith asked how much additional cost was added to the project due to preserving the Annex. About $500,000, Bruder said – or $550 per square foot. That doesn’t include all of the fees and expenses spent up until this point, he noted, related to working with the HDC and revising the site plan based on the rejection of Zingerman’s original plan, which included tearing down the Annex.

Smith asked whether it was fair to say that they were seeking tax credits because of those additional costs. Bruder responded by saying that the Zingerman’s team had recently met with the DDA’s operations committee, which had asked the question more bluntly: Will the project proceed if Zingerman’s doesn’t get the assistance it’s seeking? The project will go forward, Bruder said, but not necessarily as it’s now envisioned. Contrary to urban legend, he added, Zingerman’s does have finite resources. And if they get TIF reimbursement and state tax credits, it would allow them to do other things to enrich the project.

Strutz noted that at one point they’d talked about putting in a geothermal system, but when they found out they’d have to “put lipstick on the pig” – referring to the renovation of the Annex – that removed some options in other areas, he said.

Smith suggested that keeping the Annex was actually costing taxpayers. Kunselman then asked whether Zingerman’s planned to apply for historic preservation tax credits. They’re pursuing it, Bruder said, but they might not qualify. He noted that because they’re committed to that site, they realize that it adds to their costs.

Kunselman said he recalled the time before Zingerman’s was founded – he went to Community High School, and remembers the site before it became the well-known deli. The historic district helps give Zingerman’s its ambiance, he noted, saying he didn’t want the discussion to become one about how costly a historic district is.

Strutz said that after their staff, the most important thing to the business is its look and feel. They’ve spent a lot of time making sure the Annex won’t look out of place in the new campus, he said, but it’s been challenging.

Higgins asked what would happen to the business if the project weren’t approved. Bruder said they’ve never wanted to come to the city and threaten to move if they weren’t approved – Higgins assured him that she wasn’t getting that impression.

Strutz reported that at one of the working sessions, they’d been told by a member of the HDC that the greenest building was one that was already built, and that Zingerman’s should move to another location if it wanted to expand – the vacant commercial space at Liberty Lofts was suggested, he said.

The Chronicle has attended two working sessions between Zingerman’s and the HDC, and reported the exchange that Strutz referenced. From coverage of the Jan. 14, 2010 meeting:

Commissioners discussed how far the notion of “necessity” in the criteria for a notice to proceed extended – was it “necessary” that Zingerman’s undertake the expansion at that location?

Commissioner Ellen Ramsburgh wondered if the expansion was more than the site could take. She noted that the Zingerman’s Creamery and Bake House had moved to peripheral locations. “Do you need to be there?”

In her remarks, Ramsburgh was echoing sentiments expressed by then-commissioner Michael Bruner back in June 2008, when he had made the suggestion that Zingerman’s think of moving their operations. The specific location he had in mind was the Old West Side structure adjoining the Liberty Lofts development:

“Commissioner Bruner – [...] This may be less than what they need, but there stands today, a project that we reviewed and was approved, a development that includes a 20,000 square foot commercial retail area with parking that is begging to be occupied. [An apparent allusion to the Liberty Lofts greenhouse building.] As preservationists that want to encourage the success of economic projects in the city, perhaps Zingerman’s should consider moving their location as they have with their Creamery, which is at a satellite location, their Bakery which is at a satellite location, their Roadhouse that is a satellite location – this could be relocated as a satellite component at another location, nevertheless retaining this location as it is.”

Ken Clein [a Quinn Evans architect who's handling the Zingerman's project] responded to Ramsburgh at the January 2010 HDC working session by wondering if there were another historic district in another town where Zingerman’s could contemplate locating their operations. Ramsburgh: “That’s a threat!”

On Monday, Strutz said that at the end of the day, as a business decision they probably would have to move if the project isn’t approved. They’re losing business because they lack capacity now – you can see it when people are waiting in lines that wrap around the block, he said. Bruder added that there’s a breaking point, but they haven’t hit it yet.

Kunselman wondered if rejection of the plan would lead to a Glen Ann scenario. [He was referring to Glen Ann Place, a project that won approval from the planning commission and city council but was denied by the HDC. The situation ended in a lawsuit, settled in the summer of 2007 in a way that allowed the project to move ahead. But so far, nothing has yet been built on that vacant lot just north of Ann Street on the west side of Glen Avenue, where two houses previously stood.]

Strutz replied that he didn’t think they had the time to deal with it in that way.

Other Issues: Pro Forma Analysis

Matt Horning, the city’s treasurer, said that in the past they’ve looked at a project’s pro forma income statements with and without the brownfield TIF capture, and he wondered whether councilmembers wanted that kind of anaylsis on this project. Higgins suggested making it part of the committee’s recommendation to council.

With that, the committee voted unanimously to recommend approval of the brownfield plan, pending the pro forma analysis. “It’s moving forward!” Higgins said.

What’s Next?

One pending issue is related to the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. The property straddles the boundary of the DDA, which also gets its funding, in part, from a TIF. The DDA is first in line to get new TIF revenues, which would amount to about $407,000 from that site over a 15-year period.

Rather than asking the DDA to forgo those revenues, Zingerman’s is asking that it identify other things of equivalent value to contribute to the project. They discussed possibilities with the DDA’s operations committee at a meeting last week.

Following Monday’s brownfield committee meeting, DDA executive director Susan Pollay told The Chronicle that the project is attractive to the DDA for several reasons, including the number of new jobs it will create and the amount of tourism dollars it attracts to the downtown, as a destination for visitors. The business has become an iconic identifier for the city, she said – and building a unique identity is one of the DDA’s strategies for creating a vibrant downtown.

On Tuesday, Strutz sent a letter to Pollay outlining some specific requests for the DDA board to consider. They include:

• $100,000 to reimburse Zingerman’s for costs associated with LEED certification.
• $160,000 for costs associated with on-site water detention.
• $50,000 to install ADA-compliant curb ramps at the Detroit and Kingsley intersection.
• $45,000 for sidewalk removal and replacement.
• $10,000 for wayfinding signs pointing to the deli, plus a roof sign on the addition that can be picked up by Google maps.
• Several other items with a cost to-be-determined, including parking spaces for contractors and a staging area, plus replacement or repair of brick pavers, curbs and water/sewer lines on Detroit Street between Kingsley and Catherine.

The letter states that support from the DDA would significantly improve their changes to receive Michigan Business Tax credits. Pollay expects the DDA board will consider and vote on a resolution of support for the Zingerman’s project at their July 7 board meeting.

City council is expected to consider the site plan and brownfield plan at their July 19 meeting. The county board of commissioners will likely vote on the brownfield plan at their Aug. 4 meeting – if approved, the brownfield plan would then be forwarded to the state.

Bruder said they hope to have the project considered by the historic district commission in September.

Assuming all approvals are in place, site work would begin in the late fall of 2010, with work on the addition starting in February of 2011. The goal is to complete the project by March of 2012, in time for the deli’s 30th anniversary celebration. They plan to keep the deli open during construction.

More information about the Zingerman’s project is available on a section of the deli’s website.

Grace Singleton, a managing partner of Zingerman's Deli, sits next to Zingerman's co-founder Paul Saginaw as the planning commission deliberates on a proposed expansion of the deli, which was ultimately approved. Behind Saginaw is Michael Quinn of Quinn Evans Architects, who is working on the project. (Photos by the writer.)

The farmers market has no further steps to take – it opens on June 3, from 3-7 p.m. But the approval process for the deli expansion is far from over. After seeking approval from city council for its plans, deli partners will need to circle back to the city’s historic district commission – the site is located in the Old Fourth Ward historic district. The Chronicle has previously reported on their earlier efforts down this path: “Zingerman’s: Making It Right for the HDC.”

Pending approvals, Zingerman’s hopes to break ground on the project early next year.

Also at last week’s meeting, commissioners reviewed the site plan for the Windsong affordable housing project off of Stone School Road, north of Ellsworth. They ultimately approved plans for building 32 townhomes financed in part by the Michigan State Housing Development Authority. But concerns were raised over problems that some residents in the site’s existing 12 townhomes are causing for their neighbors. Three of those neighbors spoke at a public hearing, saying they’d like a higher fence around the property, at the least, to deal better with harassment, fighting, graffiti and other issues.

Zingerman’s Deli Expansion

The owners of Zingerman’s Deli are seeking site plan approval for a major expansion at their Detroit Street location. The roughly $3.5 million project calls for tearing down a small fire-damaged house at 322 E. Kingsley – directly behind the brick deli building – and putting up a two-story, 10,340-square-foot addition that would be connected to the 5,107-square-foot deli building via a glass atrium. A six-foot-tall privacy fence would be built between the site and the neighboring residences.

The two-story “orange house” located at 420 Detroit, between the deli building and Zingerman’s Next Door, will be worked into the design, according to the proposal. A green roof will be added to the deli’s existing one-story wing.

The city’s planning staff recommended approval of the site plan and development agreement, with one issue related to loading zone access off of Kingsley yet to be resolved.  If Zingerman’s decides it needs a curb cut and driveway off of Kingsley, they’ll need a variance from the city’s zoning board of appeals to allow a one-way drive opening.

Zingerman’s Deli: Public Hearing

Ten people spoke during the public hearing, including neighbors who supported the project, though some had concerns. There were also several speakers with ties to Zingerman’s.

Grace Singleton, a managing partner for the deli, thanked commissioners for their time and noted that the expansion plans had been in the works for four years. She recounted the history of the deli, how it had been founded at that location – the corner of Kingsley and Detroit – in 1982 by Paul Saginaw and Ari Weinzweig. They sold 2,000 sandwiches that first year, she said, compared with about 300,000 in 2009. They started with three employees, and now have 180. Over the years, they’ve added on in a piecemeal way – acquiring the building that houses Zingerman’s Next Door in the 1990s, for example.

The main goals for this expansion, Singleton said, include creating an efficient, unified design to take them through the next 25-50 years while preserving the key elements of the current campus. They’ll also be building a larger kitchen, receiving and storage area, as well as additional seating space, better ADA accessibility and a staff breakroom. Singleton said they’ve always been committed to Kerrytown and Ann Arbor, and want to give back to the community.

Both Christy Summers of Beckett & Raeder Inc. and Michael Quinn, a principal of Quinn Evans Architects, walked commissioners through highlights of the site plan and design. Summers noted several features, including better accessibility between buildings, a service alley to the east, some vertical landscaping elements mounted on the buildings, and the use of sustainable design techniques that could lead to LEED certification. Quinn said the expansion will be difficult to build, but will maintain the same “delightful feel” that customers now experience at the deli. He said they’ve met informally with the historic district commission to discuss aspects of the design, including removal of a building on Kingsley [one that's been gutted by fire]. He said he believes they have the HDC’s support.

Bernard Puroll was one of several neighbors who spoke. He described the expansion as an attractive, desirable plan intended to maximize profits, which was entirely appropriate. It would fit into the character of the neighborhood. He noted that the planning staff report indicates there are no nuisances created by the project, but he disagreed. He said his home overlooks the loading dock, and there are already significant nuisances created by noise and traffic from deliveries – that will only increase as the deli expands, he said.

Traffic management should be part of the site plan, Puroll added, especially at the intersection of Kingsley and Detroit. Large trucks often park in the loading zone along Kingsley east of Detroit, creating noise and traffic congestion. Also, noise abatement from the deli’s HVAC system isn’t addressed in the site plan, he noted. Hopefully as they build more storage, some of these problems will be diminished.

Jim Mogensen reminded commissioners that at their most recent working session, he’d talked to them about how processes can make people feel like processed cheese. He noted that the process for Zingerman’s had taken four years so far. The owners have strong roots in the community, he said, and have listened to residents and designed an expansion that is at least within the scale of other buildings in the neighborhood.

Mogensen asked commissioners to imagine how the Glen Ann Place development would have turned out if it had used the same process. [Glen Ann Place won approval from the planning commission and city council but was denied by the historic district commission. The situation ended in a lawsuit, settled in summer of 2007 in a way that allowed the project to move ahead. The lot just north of Ann Street on the west side of Glen Avenue is now denuded of the two houses that previously stood there, but nothing has yet been built.]

Noting that he lived nearby on Detroit Street, Peter Pollack said he had spoken in favor of the Zingerman’s project in the past and he was there to do the same thing again. Historically, “this site has always been a bit adventuresome,” he said, bringing retail into a residential neighborhood. The proposed expansion is consistent with the site’s past. Pollack said he’s lived on Detroit Street since 1980, and the fact that it’s a busy location is part of the joy of living there. He said the issues of noise and traffic are being addressed, and he hoped that the planning commission would approve the site plan.

Chris Crockett identified herself as president of the Old Fourth Ward Neighborhood Association. She lives about a block and a half away from the deli, and was glad that the owners had worked with the historic district commission on this project. The size and scale seem appropriate, she said. However, she had two concerns: 1) that there will be an increased nuisance to the neighbors, and 2) that the project sets a precedent. Owners of houses on Kingsley east of Detroit are “chomping at the bit” to turn the houses from residential into commercial use, she said. Crockett asked that the approval be framed in such a way as to indicate clearly that it was a special exception, not a precedent.

Patrick Thompson said he was a neighbor directly to the north of Zingerman’s, on Kingsley. The loading zone and activity from the front of the business spills over into the residential area, he said. There’s an alley created when delivery trucks park on both sides of the street on Kingsley, creating a blind spot that pedestrians have to navigate – two people have been hit there, he said. Clarifying that he didn’t want to impede the project in any way, Thompson said he was asking for greater restrictions be put on the residential side of the street – perhaps additional signs, or painting the curb yellow. He said that he and Paul Saginaw are great neighbors, but they do need to address the issue of traffic.

Rick Strutz, who’s also a managing partner at the deli, said that they’ve been working on these issues with Thompson, and that nothing Thompson said is untrue. They also are concerned for Zingerman’s staff, who come through that intersection too, he said. There isn’t one simple solution, he added. Creating a new receiving area will help make deliveries faster, and having a bigger storage area means that they won’t need deliveries as frequently. In some cases, vendors make 3-4 deliveries a week, which could be reduced significantly.

Noting that he was a board member of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority, Gary Boren said he was speaking as an individual in support of the expansion. He lives in a house on East Washington that was built in 1890 – he mentioned that to show he’s also concerned about historic preservation. He echoed Crockett’s concerns about setting precedent, but in this instance, it was a very clear case and not something that could be confused as a precedent. He cautioned that there’s only so much you can exact from Zingerman’s, and that a lot has to be taken on faith. They aren’t a franchiser putting down a building without worrying about local implications – they’ve chosen to invest their energy and money and heart into this community because they live here and want it to be a good place.

Boren said he believed they would put their best efforts into dealing with the traffic problems. He said he strongly supported the project, saying it would bring more jobs, more customers, more tourists and more of the good type of density.

Zingermans’ Deli: Commissioner Deliberations

Bonnie Bona, the commission’s chair, began by asking staff about concerns that had been raised regarding noise from the HVAC system. What assurances did they have that it wouldn’t be a nuisance? Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, said the building code covers mechanical equipment – it’s not a planning and zoning issue.

Bona noted that Glen Ann Place had been referenced during public commentary in regard to the approval process. She asked Jill Thacher of the planning staff to describe the approach that Zingerman’s is taking regarding the historic district issues. Thacher said that in 2008, Zingerman’s had asked the historic district commission for permission to demolish two buildings – at 322 E. Kingsley Street, which had been gutted by fire, and another at 420 Detroit Street, referred to by many people as the “orange house.”

The HDC determined that both houses are contributing structures in the historic district, Thacher said, which meant that the HDC couldn’t authorize the demolition via a “certificate of appropriateness” – the typical approval process. Instead, Zingerman’s is first seeking site plan approval from the planning commission and city council, and will then return to the HDC to seek a “notice to proceed.”

From the planning staff report on Zingerman’s site plan proposal:

There are only four circumstances under which a Notice to Proceed may be granted. Zingerman’s will apply under one that reads “The resource is a deterrent to a major improvement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all necessary planning and zoning approvals, financing, and environmental clearances.” (From Section 8:416.) All approvals are required so that the HDC has as many assurances as possible that the applicant seriously intends to build the project and is in a position to do so. This is necessary since the Notice to Proceed will result in the permanent removal of historic resources.

In order to apply to the HDC for a notice to proceed, the project must have an approved site plan from City Council, have proof of financing, and have any other zoning or environmental approvals that may be necessary to build the project. In order for the HDC to grant the project a Notice to Proceed, Zingerman’s must prove that their project will be of substantial benefit to the community. How that benefit is defined and whether it is substantial enough to warrant the removal of contributing resources is determined by the HDC.

Picking up the discussion, Eric Mahler said Zingerman’s had a great site plan, fitting in with the character of the area. He appreciated their efforts at energy efficiency, and the wise use of space. He said everyone on the commission had likely traversed the intersection at Kingsley and Detroit, either by car or on foot, and knew about the issues there. He asked Zingerman’s owners to address in more detail how much deliveries would be decreased.

Grace Singleton said they hadn’t quantified the reduction in terms of percentages, but that off the top of her head she expected it could be as much as 30%. She said 60% of vendors deliver multiple times a week. The hope is that if vendors deliver three times now, they’ll reduce deliveries to twice a week. Those who deliver twice a week now would only come once. She said the 30% reduction was probably a conservative estimate.

Erica Briggs agreed with Mahler, and said she felt that Zingerman’s was doing everything it could to address the traffic concerns. Perhaps it was something the city or the Downtown Development Authority could help with too, she said.

Other commissioners also expressed support. Diane Giannola liked the green roof, saying it was a unique feature. Tony Derezinski said the site plan reflected an incredible use of space, packing a lot onto the site yet retaining a “homey” quality.

Jean Carlberg asked about the function of the alleyway behind the new building, on the east side of the site. Singleton explained that it would be a service alley, with an entrance to the kitchen. Currently, there’s overlap between the staff access and guest access, she said, and that’s a challenge. The new design would allow the staff to do its work more efficiently and behind the scenes.

In response to another question from Carlberg, Singleton said they plan to have a large portion of the new building’s second floor available for customer seating, both inside and on a deck.

Bona again raised the issue of mechanicals, saying that in the past the commission has required noise restrictions on rooftop mechanical systems. Michael Quinn of Quinn Evans Architects said that on the new addition, they’ll have a six-foot screen to create a visual and acoustic barrier. He also described design efforts aimed to reduce the need for intense heating and cooling. The building will be super insulated, he said, and they’ll use high-efficiency equipment. They’re considering a geothermal system as well. He also said they’d be relocating the HVAC system to a building that’s more remote from the residential neighbors, which should help improve noise issues.

Bona said she’d like to see something more specific in the plans, beyond what’s required by code.

Briggs wrapped up the discussion by praising Zingerman’s citizen participation report, saying they’d gone beyond what most petitioners do. [.pdf file of report from March 8, 2010 citizens participation meeting] In addition, during the meeting Zingerman’s co-founder Paul Saginaw distributed 13 letters of support from neighbors and business owners, including Timothy and Maureen Riley, who live in a home adjacent to the site; Elaine and Carl Johns, owners of Treasure Mart at 529 Detroit Street; Debra Kirk, owner of Emerald Dragonfly at 419 Detroit, directly across the street from the deli; Joe O’Neal, developer and chair of Kerrytown Market & Shops; and Jennifer Hein, dean of Community High School.

A letter from Randy Trent, executive director of physical properties for the Ann Arbor Public Schools, describes how Zingerman’s is working with AAPS and Community High School to develop a program that would consolidate solid waste management and recycling on the two sites. He noted in the letter that Zingerman’s has offered to pay for all costs.

Outcome: Commissoners unanimously approved the site plan and development agreement for Zingerman’s Deli expansion. It will be voted on by city council at an upcoming meeting, and also require a “notice to proceed” from the city’s historic district commission.

Westside Farmers Market

Also on Tuesday’s planning commission agenda was another item with a Zingerman’s connection . The Westside Farmers Market, located next to Zingerman’s Roadhouse at the intersection of Jackson and Maple, has been operating for the past four years every Thursday during the summer and early fall. However, last year the city notified organizers that they were in violation of zoning codes. The issue was initially addressed during a July 20, 2009 city council meeting. From a Chronicle report of that meeting:

The council’s agenda included an item to allow temporary outdoor sales and displayed goods and services as a special exception use for C3 commercial zoning districts. Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) thanked the city staff for moving the change along quickly. The impact of the change included the ability to hold a farmers market in the Westgate parking lot next to Zingerman’s Roadhouse.

Council unanimously approved that change. The city allowed the market to be held last year without getting the special exemption use, and now market organizers are applying for their first one as they head into the 2010 season. This year, the market opens on June 3 and runs through Sept. 30. It’s open on Thursdays from 3-7 p.m.

Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff gave a report to commissioners, noting that the market would occupy 28 parking spaces and that Westgate Shopping Center, where the market is located, has 40 spaces above the number required by code.

A special exemption use is required because the primary building there – Zingerman’s Roadhouse – doesn’t sell fresh produce. If it did, then temporary outdoor sales would be allowed without approval of a special exemption use. The staff recommended approval of the application.

Westside Farmers Market: Public Hearing

Only one person spoke during the public hearing. Rodger Bowser, a founder of the market and a Zingerman’s Deli chef, said he represented the market’s steering committee. Going into their fifth season, they’ll have about two dozen vendors this year, he said, compared to 10 when they started. The idea was to have a new market for small and medium-sized vendors, and to provide customers on that side of town with fresh produce. They would appreciate the commission’s support, he said.

Westside Farmers Market: Commissioner Deliberations

There were no deliberations. Jean Carlberg observed that since the market had been operating for a few years, they knew what was intended on the site and had no questions. It was great to have a market on that side of town, she noted, especially since Fresh Seasons Market had closed last year.

After commissioners voted unanimously to approve the special exemption use, Carlberg quipped: “Now you’re legal.”

Windsong Affordable Housing Project

The planning commission considered site plan approval for a 32-unit affordable housing complex called Windsong, located off of Stone School Road, south of I-94 and north of Ellsworth.

The city had approved a site plan in 2005 at that location for a 44-unit project called The Oaks of Ann Arbor. However, only 12 townhouses were built and the site plan expired in 2008. The current proposal calls for the development to be financed in part by low-income housing tax credits administered by the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA).

Windsong: Public Hearing

Three residents of the surrounding neighborhood spoke during the public hearing. All expressed concerns over problems they’ve encountered with residents of the existing 12 townhouses.

Map showing the location of the Windsong townhome site. (Links to larger image)

Audrey Lucas told commissioners she lived behind the current buildings on that site and has a “terrible time” with trespassers – people from the complex will jump a fence between the properties, or tear it down. It’s a disconcerting feeling to no longer have peace of mind in your home, she said. The developer has promised to build a new six-foot fence, but she hoped it would be 10 or 12 feet. Lucas described the situation as a “terrible nightmare” for neighbors, who frequently call police because of fights that break out.

Rob Finch identified himself as president of the nearby Stone School Townhomes condo association. Residents of his neighborhood have many complaints about the current situation, he said, including people from the 12 existing units yelling after midnight on school nights. There’s little to no supervision of children there, he said, and kids throw rocks into the parking lot, deface the area with graffiti and one time even turned off power to a building. Residents in his complex are frightened and intimidated – but they don’t want to start a war, he said. When one young mother questioned a boy who had come into her yard, he pulled a knife on her – she later moved out, he said.

Finch objected to expanding the number of units in Windsong and making them all Section 8 eligible. Many people in his condo complex had worked hard to better their lives, and they didn’t want to live in an unsafe environment. He said Windsong was known for drug trafficking, and he couldn’t believe the police were excited about expanding the development. At the very least, he said, make the developers put up an 8-foot fence on the south side of Windsong.

Stacey Vanwashenova said she lived in the nearby Stone School Circle development and had a young family. The neighborhood dynamics have changed since the 12 units were built – having more housing there would just add to the problem, she said. She echoed Finch’s remarks, saying at the least the developers should built a taller fence.

Windsong: Commissioner Deliberations

Peter Jobson, president of Excel Realty Group – the new lead developer in the project – was on hand to answer questions. Commissioner Jean Carlberg began by asking whether the new units would be rental or owned. Jobson said they were planned to be rental townhomes. He also clarified that his firm had been asked to take on the project by the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) – his firm hadn’t been involved in the initial development.

Peter Jobson is president of Excel Realty, the new lead developer of the proposed Windsong townhome complex.

Carlberg asked – in light of what he’d heard from neighbors during the public hearing – how Jobson intended to select residents to live in the new units. Jobson replied that there’s nothing wrong with the existing property, but that people who are living there are causing disturbances.

The city’s planning staff had recently forwarded to him an extensive police log about incidents there, Jobson said, so he was now aware of the problems. It’s a matter of screening the residents, he said – if there are lease violations in those 12 units, then that needs to be dealt with. His firm had a long history of working with MSHDA, he said, and the state agency had confidence in their management and development skills.

With a 44-unit complex – the existing 12, plus the proposed 32 – it might be possible to have an on-site manager, Jobson said, which would help the situation. He also noted that the present owner was absentee, living in Florida. Jobson said his firm planned to take a strong role in managing the property.

Carlberg pointed out that Jobson’s firm was also out of state – it’s based in Ohio. How is that different, she asked, and when does the closer on-site management begin?

Jobson initially said it begins now, then modified that to say as soon as they started construction on the 32 new units. They don’t have ownership of the existing parcel at this point, he said. Eventually, however, they’ll take over asset management of the 12 units.

What does “asset management” mean? Carlberg asked – what will that enable them to do? Jobson replied that they know the existing owners well, and that they’ll be able to demand that the property be managed in ways that don’t create conflicts with residents of the 32 new townhomes.

At that point, Wendy Rampson – head of the city’s planning staff – asked Jobson to clarify his firm’s ownership status. They’ll be the managing general partner of the 32-unit phase, he replied. Rampson said she was perplexed, because that’s not how it had been presented to planning staff. Staff had been led to believe the entire site would be a single condo development, but now it seemed that the site would be divided into two parcels. If that’s the case, it wouldn’t meet the location’s R4B (multi-family) zoning, she said.

Jobson said that though the actual ownership of the 12-unit property isn’t theirs, if there’s one condo association and they control 32 of the 44 units, then they’ll have the majority vote in the association.

Tony Derezinski, a planning commissioner who also represents Ward 2 on city council, asked whether Jobson’s firm had ever worked with the owner of the 12-unit site, Epic Development Co. No, they hadn’t, Jobson replied. But they had developed several properties throughout Michigan, including the Armory Arts Village in Jackson, Mich. The important thing is to have strict residency rules, he said. They’d been brought in by MSHDA, which had made a loan to the previous developer, in order to finish developing the property and make a positive contribution to Ann Arbor, he said.

Evan Pratt asked if Jobson had met with public safety officials about the problems at the site. Rampson noted that the planning staff had just been made aware of the police reports the previous day, and had forwarded them to Jobson. She said they could also talk with the Ann Arbor Housing Commission, which administers the Section 8 voucher program for this region. When asked by Pratt if they should address this problem before voting on the site plan, Rampson suggested moving ahead. MSHDA was interested in moving the project forward, she said, and behavioral issues really were out of the planning commission’s purview.

Jobson assured commissioners that he’d be contacting Epic Development immediately. He would forward them the police reports, saying the last thing he wants is a chaotic situation.

Pratt wanted to include some of the behavioral issues in the development agreement with the city. When Rampson said those issues weren’t typically included in the development agreement, Pratt replied that they don’t typically encounter these concerns. He was worried that if there’s a change of ownership, it wouldn’t be addressed.

Erica Briggs pressed Jobson on his ability to manage the problems in the existing townhomes. She wondered why he hadn’t already picked up the phone to call the current property owners. It seemed like a recipe for disaster, she said, to build and fill an additional 32 units for Section 8 housing, before the situation was addressed. She added that it seemed to her like they should put the brakes on the project and deal with these issues.

Rampson said they’d just recently received the police report. MSHDA’s timeframe might be tied to financing issues, she said.

Eric Mahler expressed concern that the discussion of the Windsong development was stigmatizing people who used Section 8 vouchers. To the left is Jill Thacher of the city's planning staff.

Eric Mahler noted that a fence would not be an absolute deterrent to the problems on the site. However, he said he was concerned about the tone of the discussion, which he felt was possibly stigmatizing people in Section 8 housing. He didn’t want the public to think that everyone in Section 8 housing caused problems, or that MSHDA properties were inherently problematic. They shouldn’t have a “throw-the-bums-out mentality” toward everyone in the existing 12 units.

Jobson said he didn’t mean to suggest that they wanted to get rid of all the Section 8 tenants. He also noted that there’s no requirement that the housing complex be filled with Section 8 tenants. He noted that the owner of the 12-unit property is a partner in the new 32-unit phase, but doesn’t have a controlling interest. That’s why his company will have a lot of influence, Jobson said.

Diane Giannola asked whether they might postpone a vote until the city attorney looked at the issue of ownership. Jobson characterized the property as “fragile” in terms of closing the deal, and noted that KeyBank was a big player and wanted to move forward quickly.

Bonnie Bona said she had similar concerns to those cited by Briggs, and was uncomfortable feeling pressure to move forward, in light of the concerns that had been brought forward. She wanted the developer to come back with specific ways in which the problems would be addressed.

Saying he was glad another company had stepped in to take on the project, Derezinski noted that if the deal falls apart, nothing gets done. Though he had concerns, he was in favor of moving ahead with a project that provides affordable housing, which the community needs.

Carlberg pointed out that they were in a Catch-22 – they couldn’t get an on-site manager until the additional units were built. The site looks like a wasteland now, she said – the actual townhouses are nice, but the undeveloped property around them, which includes some foundations that are overgrown with weeds, looks abandoned. She wanted to add a contingency asking the developer to show concrete evidence that they were working on problems with the existing tenants.

It’s also important, Carlberg added, that the two councilmembers representing that area start working with police and neighbors to deal with the problems there. [The site is in Ward 3, represented by councilmembers Stephen Kunselman and Christopher Taylor.]

Briggs said she hadn’t been saying anything negative about Section 8 housing. Rather, it was unacceptable to her that people who had few housing choices – like those who used Section 8 vouchers – were forced to live in that type of situation. The city talks a lot about affordable housing, she said, but it’s unfair to locate that housing in areas where there are already problems.

After some further discussion, Pratt proposed three amendments stating that final site plan approval would be subject to: 1) review by the city attorney’s office regarding the project’s ownership structure, 2) recommendations from the city’s public safety department – incorporated into the development agreement, and 3) the owner of the existing 12 units and the new developer reaching an agreement about how to deal with the problems on the site.

Mahler objected, saying the commission was overstepping its bounds in trying to establish affordable housing policy. They can implore, but they can’t legally bind the new developer to work with the owner of the 12-unit site as a condition of site plan approval, he said. Derezinski agreed.

Briggs suggested putting together a memo outlining the commission’s concerns, so that council would be made aware of these issues. Bona noted that the minutes of the meeting would also reflect their discussion.

Mahler said he was quite uncomfortable with a public safety requirement. When Carlberg observed that it was standard in the past, Rampson clarified that years ago the site plans had been reviewed by the “crime prevention through environmental design” team, but those jobs had been eliminated.

Derezinski characterized the first amendment – regarding the ownership structure – as valid, but the others were “warm fuzzies.” He was concerned that their actions might discourage MSHDA and KeyBank from pursuing the project.

The amendments were voted on separately, with the amendment on reviewing the site’s ownership structure passing unanimously. The amendment requiring the development agreement to reflect recommendations from the city’s public safety department also passed, with dissent from Mahler and Derezinski. The third amendment – requiring a report from the new developer and current owner on efforts to address problems on the site – failed, with only Bona, Briggs, Carlberg and Pratt voting in favor of it.

Overall site plan outcome: The Windsong site plan was approved, with dissent from Mahler. Commissioners Westphal and Woods were absent.

Present: Bonnie Bona, Erica Briggs, Jean Carlberg, Tony Derezinski, Diane Giannola, Eric Mahler, Evan Pratt.

Absent: Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods.

Next meeting: The planning commission next meets on Tuesday, June 1 at 7 p.m. in city hall council chambers, 150 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]