Eunice Burns and Shirley Axon, co-founders of Huron River Day, were at the podium to receive a proclamation honoring the event to be held July 11. (Photos by the writer.)

Public commentary and deliberations on those two issues sent the council’s meeting well past midnight. [Chronicle coverage of those issues is included in Part 1 of this meeting report: "Unscripted: Historic District, Immigration"]

The council transacted a lot of other business as well. Councilmembers approved a change to the zoning code that modifies the list of allowable uses for public land so that the planned Fuller Road Station can be accommodated. Also passed was a change to the site plan approval process, which relaxes the requirement that up-to-date site plans be accessible to the public on a 24/7 basis.

Parks were front and center, and not just because of the public hearing and council action on allowable uses of public land. At the start of the meeting, a proclamation was made for Huron River Day, which takes place at Gallup Park on Sunday, July 11. And the council continued its pattern at the first meeting of the month of recognizing volunteers who help maintain the city’s parks through the Adopt-a-Park program.

In other action, the council approved the $2.5 million purchase of development rights for the 286-acre Braun farm in Ann Arbor Township, as recommended by the city’s greenbelt advisory commission, and established a residential parking permit program for the South University area.

Public Land Uses

Before the council was the second reading of a proposed revision to the city’s zoning ordinances, which calls for a change to the list of allowable land uses for land that is zoned as public land (PL). Some public land, but not all, is used for parks. The change was proposed to include “transportation facilities” so that the planned Fuller Road Station would unambiguously be included in the allowable uses.

[During his communications time, city administrator Roger Fraser indicated the the fourth public meeting on the Fuller Road Station would be held July 8 from 7-9 p.m. at the lower level meeting room at the county building at 200 N. Main St.]

The council had given the item some discussion at its June 21, 2010 meeting:

The planning commission had considered and unanimously recommended the change at its May 4, 2010 meeting. It’s been the subject of conversation in the community over the last couple of months in connection with the proposed Fuller Road Station – the project that prompted the desire to change the possible uses in the PL designation. The proposed change would replace “municipal airport” with “transportation facilities.”

5:10.13. PL public land district.
(1) Intent. This district is designed to classify publicly-owned uses and land and permit the normal principal and incidental uses required to carry out governmental functions and services.
(2) Permitted principal uses.
(a) Outdoor public recreational uses, such as: playgrounds, playfields, golf courses, boating areas, fishing sites, camping sites, parkways and parks. No structure shall be erected or maintained upon dedicated park land which is not customarily incidental to the principal use of the land.
(b) Natural open space, such as: conservation lands, wildlife sanctuaries, forest preserves.
(c) Developed open space, such as: arboreta, botanical and zoological gardens.
(d) Educational services, such as: public primary and secondary schools, and institutions of higher education.
(e) Cultural services, such as: museums and art galleries.
(f) Public-service institutions, such as: hospitals, sanatoria, homes for the elderly, children’s homes and correctional institutions.
(g) Essential services, buildings containing essential services and electrical substations.
(h) Municipal airports Transportation facilities.
(i) Civic center.
(j) Government offices and courts.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) wanted to know why the change was a replacement of one term with another – why not add a term instead? Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, indicated that adding a list of possible facilities would possibly be seen as exhaustive. Higgins got confirmation that the impetus for the change was one project – Fuller Road Station.

Public Land Uses: Public Comment and Hearing

During the council’s general commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, Julie Grand – the current chair of the city’s park advisory commission (PAC) – addressed the council on the topic of Fuller Road Station. She reminded the council that in their communications packet there was a resolution passed unanimously by PAC concerning the Fuller Road Station. She asked the council to read the resolution. Highlights from the resolution are process and revenue, she said. It’s important that the process be public and that a clear schedule be presented. It’s also important that the parks not lose money on the proposal. [Chronicle coverage: "PAC Softens Stance on Fuller Road Station"]

John Satarino, former chair of PAC, addressed the council on the topic of altering the possible uses of public land.

Introducing himself as former PAC chair was John Satarino, who called the change of permissible uses of public land in the city’s zoning code “a peculiar form of municipal corruption.” He called the Fuller Road Station agreement with the University of Michigan probably the “greatest ripoff sweetheart deal” in the city’s history.

He called it a “parkland grab” for the construction of a huge parking structure. Any transit use beyond the parking uses, he said, was years off. Secrecy and distortions, he said, had been used to limit public participation in the project. He said this was orchestrated by the city administrator, who seemed to have a disdain for the city’s parks.

Satarino then ticked through a number of items. He said that the “city bosses” had gotten an appraisal for the entire south end of Fuller Park for over $4 million, for the purpose of selling it to the University of Michigan to be used as housing. He contended there had been no public hearing yet on the Fuller Road Station. There’d been no public participation – by PAC or the Sierra Club – at the major organizational meetings where key planning was updated.

Gwen Nystuen, a current member of PAC, told the council that she’d attended the city planning commission meeting when the proposal had been reviewed by planning commissioners and had watched the city council’s treatment of the topic at the first reading. She said that the possible uses for public land could cover almost anything, and wondered if there was any use that was not possible for public land? She couldn’t think of any, she said. But isn’t the use of public land as open space and parks granted special legal status? she asked.

The real question is the standard by which the use is treated. If there’s a piece of land zoned PL, what is the process required in order to build an intermodal transit center on that land? What impediments currently exist, that have prompted the change in PL uses? The only place that she had found transportation facilities elsewhere in the zoning code is under M2 Heavy Industrial District, she said. There were many buffers required for adjacent land uses, she said, and she wondered if those standards would be used or not.

She concluded by reading aloud the first principal use for PL: “Outdoor public recreational uses, such as: playgrounds, playfields, golf courses, boating areas, fishing sites, camping sites, parkways and parks. No structure shall be erected or maintained upon dedicated park land which is not customarily incidental to the principal use of the land.”

Rita Mitchell suggested that the change meant a change from the way that people actually viewed parkland. Residents have different expectations of public land that’s used as a park than they do for other public land. The city hall building, for example, is also public land, she stated, but parkland is different – it’s something meant for recreation, for open space, available for people to come and go freely. The language change reflects an erosion of that expectation, she said.

Mitchell said that in some of the early meetings, it had been acknowledged that there was a need to change the zoning code to allow the Fuller Road Station project to “fit” better into the code. She said that she considered the current path for the project to be a “taking” of parkland from citizens that was intended to be used as open space. She cited the 2008 charter referendum, when voters expressed by an 80% majority that if parkland was to be sold, they wanted to vote on it. She challenged the council to make the case to the voters.

Brad Mikus noted the “such as” pattern to most of the items on the list – “… such as: conservation lands, wildlife sanctuaries, forest preserves.” That contrasts with the item that would swap in a single item “transportation facilities.” What is that, he asked? If the amendment is just for Fuller Road Station, he suggested that they should just change it to “parking deck” – so that the item would read “transportation facilities, such as a municipal airport or a parking deck.”

Introducing himself as a candidate for city council in Ward 5, “the only Republican in Ann Arbor,” was John Floyd. He suggested that if the city council thought that constructing a parking structure in the middle of Fuller Park was a great deal, why didn’t they just sell the land to the university? What’s the point of the city owning the land? he asked. The tortured legal reasoning involved by changing the language wasn’t fooling anyone, he said – the city was effectively selling the land to the university without having a sale. Why would the city want to own the university’s commuter parking lot? The idea that we would change the zoning code’s definition of public land use to avoid the process of selling the land just seems silly, he said.

Beverly Strassmann echoed the remarks made by Rita Mitchell and said that she had a new perspective on Fuller Park. In the fall of 2007, she said, she’d been a patient for two months at the University of Michigan hospital after returning from Africa with an undiagnosed illness. What had helped her get through that difficult time was that she’d looked out her hospital window at the parkland – she’d had a room with a view of the park.

Introducing himself as a candidate for the 18th District state senate seat in the Democratic primary was Thomas Partridge. He suggested that the city and the university could find a better location for the parking deck than the already very congested area of Fuller Road. He is not against a transit station, he said, but was against one at that location.

Public Land Uses: Council Deliberations

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) offered an amendment very much along similar lines as the suggestion from Brad Mikus during public commentary. The replacement language offered an elaboration of examples of what “transportation facilities” might include: ” … such as: municipal airports, train stations, bus stations, bicycle centers, auto and bicycle parking facilities.”

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) clarified with Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office that “such as” was not limiting language. Otherwise put, it was not construed as exhaustive of permissible facility types, and there was no limitation.

Mayor John Hieftje then clarified something that had also been discussed at the council’s previous meeting when the ordinance change had been given its first reading – the change in language was not substantial enough that it needed to go back to first reading.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) said he felt that simple use of a generic term was preferable, but had no objections to the “such as” language. However, Derezinski said he wanted to make sure that the minutes of the meeting reflected the belief of the council that the examples were not being given in a limiting way. [Note: The city council's minutes conform to the minimum requirements of the Open Meetings Act, but do not typically include the kind of detail that Derezinski wanted.]

Outcome: The amendment to the resolution as well as the ordinance change itself was unanimously approved.

Required Display of Plans

Before the council for its second reading was an ordinance revision affecting the availability of site plans for public inspection.

Currently, the city code on the approval process requires that up-to-date drawings for site plans be available in the lobby of the city hall 24/7 for a week before public hearings. The proposal recommended by the planning commission would relax the code by deleting the 24/7 requirement and by making clear that there’s not an obligation to continually update the material with any changes that might be made. Material recommended to be deleted is struck through, with proposed added language in italics.

5:135. Public information and hearings.

(2) Area plans, site plans, site plans for Planning Commission approval, PUD site plans, and preliminary plats and land divisions under review shall be displayed in a publicly accessible location in City Hall open to the public 24 hours per day, 7 days each week, for at least 1 week prior to the City Council and Planning Commission public hearings. Plans shall be current at the time of placement and subsequent revisions, if any, shall be available in the planning offices.

The issue had received brief discussion at the council’s previous meeting on June 21, 2010, with Sabra Briere (Ward 1) asking if technologies had been explored to expand accessibility to drawings. [For additional background, which includes how the accessibility requirement factored into a delay for the approval process for the City Place project last year, see Chronicle coverage: "Planning Commission: A Matter of Timing" The timing change referenced in that headline – from strict deadlines for planning commission and city council action, to a "reasonable time" standard – was approved on first reading at the July 6 council meeting, but will need approval on a second reading to be enacted.]

Required Display of Plans: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge decried the fact that the ordinance revision did not include a provision to ensure that fundamental requirements of affordable housing are included in the city’s ordinances. Mayor John Hieftje admonished Partridge to speak to the topic of the hearing, which was accessibility to site plan drawings. Partridge responded by saying that the issue related to a lack of transparency for site plans that lacked access to affordable housing. Because of the lack of transparency, he said, the city had been able to subvert the needs of residents for accessibility to affordable housing.

Required Display of Plans: Council Deliberations

The council did not deliberate on the resolution.

Outcome: The ordinance change that no longer requires updated site plans to be accessible to the public 24/7 a week before public hearings was unanimously approved.

Residential Parking District

The rationale for establishing Residential Parking Districts is to give residents of an area an advantage over non-residents in competition for street parking. From the city code:

Residential parking districts. If a residential area has excessive parking of vehicles not owned by residents of the area, the Administrator may, after notice to City Council, issue a traffic control order designating a residential parking district. The city shall install signs in a residential parking district indicating that parking time limits do not apply to vehicles with permits.

Before the council was a resolution establishing a residential parking permit program (RPP) in the South University area. The South University Neighborhood Association (SUNA) has not been able to file a petition with 60% signed support, which is required. The staff memo accompanying the resolution attributed the failure to achieve 60% to the low number of long-term residents in the area, and recommended the district be established by waiving the requirement that the association submit a petition request with 60% signed support. [.pdf map of SUNA RPP]

At its June 21 meeting, the council had considered and approved an RPP in the Old Fourth Ward, with a similar rationale for waiving the 60% requirement. [.pdf map of OFW RPP]

The installation of signs for the OFW and SUNA districts will cost $20,985 ($415.55 x 50.5) and $4,156 ($415.55 x 10), respectively. The money will be taken from the city’s unobligated fund balance.

Permits for RPP districts are sold for $50, but only to residents, as defined in the application for a permit:

Residential Parking Permits will only be issued TO APPLICANTS LIVING IN THE AFFECTED AREA. You must show proof that residency has been established by providing a copy of:
1.    Motor vehicle registration showing the vehicle is registered in your name (applicant, spouse, or licensed dependent living at address – if last names differ, also provide a copy of birth certificate, marriage license, or other official document supporting request), and
2.    One of the Following: a. Current utility bill containing the appropriate name and address. b. Rent or lease agreement containing the appropriate name and address. c. Notarized declaration of residency by the owner or manager of a rental property. d. Driver’s license with the appropriate name and address.

The two residential parking permit programs are being established in connection with the University of Michigan dormitory at Huron and State, slated to open this fall.

During the brief council deliberations, Sandi Smith (Ward 1) described the SUNA parking district as the next area down the ring from the OFW parking district that the council had just put into place. The area has already been heavily impacted with commuter and long-term car storage, she said.

Outcome: The residential parking permit program for SUNA was unanimously approved.

Greenbelt

Before the council was an item to authorize $2,548,667 using money from the city’s greenbelt and open space millage to purchase development rights on the Charles F. and Catherine A. Braun property. [Previous Chronicle coverage: "Also, New Appraisals Hike City's Cost for Two Properties"]

Mayor John Hieftje asked Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) – who serves on the city’s greenbelt advisory commission – to explain some of the background for the item. Hohnke described the property as one of those that inspired the desire to create the greenbelt program. The property was appraised, he said, and Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) funds were awarded. Delays at the federal level in reviewing the application moved the process past a 12-month window, during which appraisals are required to be current, so a new appraisal was requested. In the interim, property values went down, and the appraisal was reduced. Consequently matching FRPP funds were also reduced, explained Hohnke.

The net impact to the city is $121,000, Hohnke said, or roughly 5% of the budget for the project. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission continues to recommend purchase of the property, he said.

Outcome: The purchase of development rights for the Braun property was unanimously approved.

Unions

Before the council was a resolution approving the terms of a collective bargaining agreement for Police Deputy Chiefs Unit, Teamsters Local 214. The contract runs from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2011 and was subject to a wage and health care reopener for the final year of the contract.

Highlights from the human resources staff memorandum on the terms:

1. Updated Healthcare Plan to include a High and Low Plan Options, with an increase in deductibles and premiums, an increase to Preventative Care from the current level of $750 to $1000, and an increase in Co-Pays for Mandatory Mail Order Prescriptions to two co-pays for every three months of mail order prescriptions, effective August 1, 2010.

2. Increase in pension contribution to 6% (pre-tax) effective August 1, 2010.

3. Elimination of ICMA 457 match by the City effective July 1, 2010.

4. A $500 HRA contribution for each member effective July 1, 2010.

5. No across the board increase in wages.

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.

Outcome: The resolution was unanimously approved.

Miscellaneous Communications

Communications: Parks and Procs

The Golden Paintbrush Awards were handed out by Margaret Parker, chair of the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission.

Carrie Hatcher Kay was honored for her volunteer work in the city’s parks.

The council continued its pattern of recognizing volunteers who help maintain the city’s parks through the Adopt-a-Park program. On Tuesday, Carrie Hatcher Kay was honored for her work in Waterworks and Maryfield Wildwood parks.

Huron River Day – which will take place at Gallup Park on the Huron River from 12-4 p.m Sunday, July 11, 2010 – was highlighted with a proclamation received by Huron River Day co-founders Shirley Axon and Eunice Burns.

Later, during his communications to the council, city administrator Roger Fraser highlighted the sponsors of the event: DTE Energy Foundation, Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing, Whole Foods, University of Michigan Credit Union, Stantec Consulting Services Inc, Bank of Ann Arbor, City of Ann Arbor, Washtenaw County Drain Commission, Washtenaw County Parks & Recreation, National Wildlife Federation, Huron River Watershed Council, and Huron Clinton Metroparks Authority.

Fraser also highlighted a variety of other activities that day – the Gallup Gallop, a 5K run and walk sponsored by the Ann Arbor Track Club, plus $5 canoe and kayak rentals.

Communications: Single-Stream Recycling

Single-stream recycling had started the previous day, Fraser reported. There’s no longer any need to keep paper separate from containers, he said. Except for #3 plastic, all clean plastic items can go into the curbside pickup program, including plastic yogurt cups. Even lawn furniture and 5-gallon buckets are also now acceptable.

Batteries and motor oil, Fraser said, are no longer accepted as part of the curbside program – however, residents could continue to bring those items to the drop-off station at Ellsworth and Platt.

Later in the evening, mayor John Hieftje made a point in connection with a tangentially-related item that the new $3 entrance fee to the drop-off station would be included in the range of rewards that residents could earn through the new RecycleBank awards program. [RecycleBank will begin Sept. 1, 2010.] Solid waste manager for the city, Tom McMurtie, explained that the fee had been instituted by Recycle Ann Arbor when the county withdrew its funding. Recycle Ann Arbor then chose to not accept city funding, rather than try to distinguish between city residents and non-city residents in assessing an entrance fee.

The new recycling carts will be distributed, starting Friday, July 9 – it’ll take 6-8 weeks for that process to take place. In the meantime, Fraser said, residents can continue to use their dual-stream totes. The totes can continue to be used by residents as they like, or placed in the new recycling carts.

Communications: Environment

The city has been selected to compete for two $500,000 two-year grants from the Home Depot Foundation as part of the Sustainable Cities Institute program. The city is partnering with the University of Michigan’s Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute on a proposal to make the city’s rental housing stock more energy efficient. There are only four cities competing for the two $500,000 grants, Fraser said.

Speaking to the topic of the impact of the heavy rains from June 6 on the community, Fraser said that the city would be purchasing radar data to understand better how the storm hit the city and what the impact was. It would help to evaluate the sanitary sewer system’s response to the storm and to make decisions about future capital improvement investments, including the footing drain disconnect program and the maintenance of the sanitary sewer system.

Road damages sustained during the storm are being reviewed, Fraser said.

Communications: Infrastructure

Regarding funding for the replacement of the East Stadium bridges, Fraser reported that the federal TIGER 2 preliminary grant phase is open – those applications are due by July 16. On July 30, the city will find out if they’ll be invited to submit the application for the second phase. A crucial criterion for advancement to the second phase, said Fraser, is the existence of local matching funds. The deadline for the second phase application is Aug. 23, with news expected on approval anticipated by the end of the year. The project is expected to start after the spring thaw in 2011, Fraser said.

Fraser also ticked through a number of road construction projects that are in progress.

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

Absent: Mike Anglin,

Next council meeting: July 19, 2010 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave.

From the public notices published in the Oct. 1, 2009 edition of the Washtenaw Legal News: "Ann Arbor City Notice, Notice of Public Hearing on Proposed A2D2 Downtown Design Guidelines."

Ann Arbor City Council Sunday night caucus (Oct. 4, 2009): At its Sunday night meeting attended by only three councilmembers – Mayor John Hieftje, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) – downtown zoning was again center stage.

A dozen or so residents attended the caucus and many of them addressed the changes that can be traced in the draft documents for A2D2 downtown building design guidelines from Oct. 15, 2007 to April 30, 2008, to Aug. 28, 2009, and most recently in the Sept. 30, 2009 version of the document.

The council will open a public hearing on the proposed guidelines on Oct. 5, but is not scheduled to vote on the matter until at least Oct. 19. At caucus, Hieftje said that the public hearing might be left open until Oct. 19 and that it was possible that no vote would be taken then – there was “no rush,” he said.

The complaint of many of those who addressed caucus was this: A commitment to the design guidelines as a compulsory part of project review had been gradually written out of the various drafts.

The challenge in following the changes to the draft was made more difficult, some speakers contended, by the fact that the city had altered its strategy for publicizing public hearings. That’s a strategic necessity driven by the fact that the closing of The Ann Arbor News leaves The Washtenaw Legal News as the only local “newspaper of general circulation.” Other issues that came up at caucus included an item on Monday’s agenda to spend $122,480 to have the consulting firm Clarion Associates to review the city’s zoning code – as well as master plans, and other documents related to development – for inconsistencies. Clarion has offices in Colorado, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Although an ordinance addressing toy guns returns to Monday’s agenda, it will likely be put off again – this time to be tabled instead of postponed to a date certain. Caucus also previewed an extension of a moratorium on the installation of parking meters in residential neighborhoods.

Design Guidelines Draft: A Work in Progress

The latest draft of the design guidelines document, which is a part of the A2D2 rezoning process, was released by the city on Sept. 30. The specific guidelines themselves seem to be materially the same as those in the Aug. 28 draft, which underpinned the city council’s mid-September joint work session with planning commission and the Downtown Development Authority board. [See previous Chronicle coverage: "Downtown Design Guides: Must vs. Should."] However, the role that those guidelines play in the project review process has changed in the Sept. 30 version as compared to the Aug. 28 draft. To get a clearer picture of how the guidelines’ role has changed since the earliest draft, we’ve excerpted the language in relevant part, dating back two years.

[Oct. 17, 2007 Draft] The Design Review System …
Design Advisory Resource Panel A special panel will be established to provide advice to staff in making design review decisions. The majority of this group shall be design professionals, but it should also include some downtown property owners and community advocates. The panel will meet on an as-needed basis. Since their actions will only be advisory, no formal hearing will be required. All meetings will be open to the public and advance notice will be given in order to give the public an opportunity to attend their meetings. The panel will provide their advice to staff on the interpretation of the design guidelines as needed/requested …

Six months later, the “system” had become a “process.” But the notion of a panel or a board of some kind was retained.

[April 30, 2008 Draft] Design Review Process …
Design Advisory Panel. A special design advisory panel will be established as a resource for the decision-making process. Their role will be advisory only. Staff may draw upon the expertise of this panel for interpreting the design guidelines. Applicants may also request the assistance of the panel as part of the review.

More than a year after that, the “process” had become a discussion of “application” of the guidelines. No notion of a review panel is included in the Aug. 28 draft. But there is a specific requirement that a submitted project include a statement by  developers explaining how their projects meet the goals of the guidelines :

[Aug. 28, 2009 Draft] Application of the Design Guidelines …
Compliance with the design guidelines is voluntary but applications for site plan approval in the D1 and D2 zoning districts must include a Design Guidelines Statement describing how the proposed project relates to the priority guidelines in Chapter 2: General Design Guidelines and any priority guidelines for the relevant character district in Chapter 3: Design Guidelines for Character Districts. Refer to the Land Development regulations within Chapter 57 of the City Code for specific requirements.

Those regulations in Chapter 57 would need to be enacted – there’s nothing currently in the code requiring such a statement.

Considered as a whole document, the  latest version of the guidelines includes some superficial differences – mainly the symbol used to designate high-priority guidelines. It’s been changed from the “Texaco Star” symbol to a tree – which to The Chronicle’s eye appears to be the same tree that appears in the city of Ann Arbor’s seal.

By way of material differences between the Aug. 28 and the Sept. 30 drafts, there is no reference to specific requirements in Chapter 57 of a statement that’s required from a developer:

[Sept. 30, 2009 Draft] Application of the Design Guidelines …
The design guidelines in this document apply to development on all properties within the Downtown Core (D1) and Downtown Interface (D2) zoning districts. For properties that are in a designated historic district, refer to the separate Design Guidelines for Historic Districts. When considering a project downtown, property owners, developers and architects are encouraged to refer to the downtown design guidelines. Compliance with the design guidelines is voluntary.

There is also a checklist included in the appendix to the Sept. 30 draft, but there is no role in the project review process specified for it. So in terms of the scale of voluntary-to-compulsory described at the council’s joint work session by the consultant on the project, the changes in the draft documents correspond to a change from (3) to (1).

1. Completely voluntary: Design guidelines exist as a resource for developers. Developers are free to look at the guidelines or not. They’re free to incorporate the guidelines into their downtown projects or not.
2. Obligatory process, voluntary compliance – a checklist: As a part of the site plan approval process, developers must submit a statement evaluating their project against a checklist of design guidelines. The statement would explain how a project does and does not meet the intent of the design guidelines. Regardless of how the project stacks up based on the developer’s self-evaluation or planning staff’s evaluation and feedback, the developer would not be legally compelled to change the project based on the design guidelines alone.
3. Obligatory process, voluntary compliance – a design review board/panel: As part of the site plan approval process, a design review panel/board reviews the proposal independently of city planning staff with respect to meeting the intent of relevant design guidelines. The panel/board would issue a written opinion of their evaluation, but the developer would not be legally compelled to change the project based on that opinion.
4. Obligatory process, obligatory compliance: As part of the site plan approval process, a design review panel/board reviews the proposal independently of city planning staff with respect to meeting the intent of relevant design guidelines. The panel/board would issue a written opinion of their evaluation and that opinion would be legally binding. Otherwise put, a project could be denied based on a design review board’s assessment.

As previously reported, the direction to the consultant, Winter & Company, to craft the document in a way that presented the guidelines as voluntary came from the A2D2 oversight committee this past summer. The three-member committee consists of Marcia Higgins (city council, Ward 4), Evan Pratt (planning commission), and Roger Hewitt (DDA board).

Residents at caucus pointed out that the Sept. 30 draft had come just a day before the public notice had been published – and the publication of that notice had been in a newspaper some of them didn’t know existed: The Washtnaw Legal News.

Publication of Public Notices

The closing of The Ann Arbor News has had an impact on the city of Ann Arbor’s ability to cost-effectively meet its legal obligations to publish notices, as well as to adequately disseminate the information. The topic has come up recently with great frequency, most recently at the last regular meeting of the city council.

From The Chronicle’s Sept. 21 city council meeting report:

During public commentary on the need to adopt a sense of “diminished astonishment” when trying to follow public events, Jim Mogensen mentioned the fact that the public hearing on City Place had been published in the Detroit Free Press, but not in AnnArbor.com’s print edition.

It’s worth noting that the state statute requires that a newspaper be in publication for a year before it meets the legal requirement for publication of legal notices – so AnnArbor.com, which started publishing in July 2009, doesn’t qualify.

During a break in council’s meeting, city clerk Jackie Beaudry clarified for The Chronicle that from the point of view of cost, the Washtenaw Legal News is the city’s preferred choice, but that sometimes the timing of the once-a-week Legal News publication schedule forces the city to resort to the more expensive Detroit Free Press. Compared to the old Ann Arbor News, Beaudry said, the Free Press notices cost 10 times as much.

It was the Washtenaw Legal News (Oct. 1, 2009 edition) that the city used to publicize the Oct. 5 public hearing on the design guidelines. The Legal News is a weekly publication that comes out on Thursdays. Subscribers, who currently pay $5 per year, receive their copy of the paper in the mail.

One resident at caucus described her frustration visiting the Legal News website, discovering that she needed a subscription to see the content, then having difficulty finding the notices after she subscribed.

Mayor Hieftje acknowledged the challenge now faced by the city in meeting its legal obligations for publication, and suggested that the charter amendments to appear on November’s ballot would address part of that challenge. However, as Sabra Briere (Ward 1) pointed out, the amendments to the charter do not address printing. [The proposed amendments would allow the city to satisfy its legal obligations for publication of ordinances by posting them on its own website.]

One idea floated by a resident at caucus was to recruit the University of Michigan Record and/or the Michigan Daily, which both have printed editions, in the effort to publicize public hearings and the like. The idea involved expanding the distribution area beyond campus.

In the course of the discussion among councilmembers and residents, an important distinction crystallized: Legal obligation versus effective dissemination. Part of the challenge in using the Legal News for effective dissemination of information is related to its weekly publication schedule. City council rules allow changes to its agenda up until the last minute, with recent revisions to those rules only requiring members to use “best efforts” to make such changes by the Friday before a Monday meeting.

Asked at caucus why the council had not enforced more discipline on itself with respect to these rules, Briere said that in her service on the rules committee, for late agenda changes she’d weighed in for language like “emergency” or “rare occurence,” but that she’d been talked out of it. There were, she said, occasions on which the council needed to be able to respond quickly to a situation. The response from the resident who raised the question: The council always has the option of suspending the rules. Briere summed up by saying, “It’s difficult to change people’s mind when life has been convenient.”

For reference, here’s how the State of Michigan defines “newspaper,” which is the source of the city of Ann Arbor’s challenge in meeting its legal obligations as well as serving the public interest.

Michigan Compiled Laws 691.1051: Newspaper; definition; publication of notices.

Sec. 1. The term “newspaper” as used in any statute of this state, except the revised judicature act of 1961 relative to the publication of a notice of any kind, shall be construed to refer only to a newspaper published in the English language for the dissemination of local or transmitted news and intelligence of a general character or for the dissemination of legal news, which

(a) has a bona fide list of paying subscribers or has been published at not less than weekly intervals in the same community without interruption for at least 2 years, and

(b) has been published and of general circulation at not less than weekly intervals without interruption for at least 1 year in the county, township, city, village or district where the notice is required to be published. A newspaper shall not lose eligibility for interruption of continuous publication because of acts of God, labor disputes or because of military service of the publisher for a period of not to exceed 2 years and provided publication is resumed within 6 months following the termination of such military service,

(c) annually averages at least 25% news and editorial content per issue. The term “news and editorial content” for the purpose of this section means any printed matter other than advertising.

If no newspaper so qualifies in the county where the court is situated, the term “newspaper” shall include any newspaper in an adjoining county which by this act is qualified to publish notice of actions commenced therein.

Zoning Code Overhaul

Residents asked the caucusing councilmembers to provide some clarity on a resolution to approve $122,480 for a contract with the consulting firm Clarion Associates to review the city’s zoning code. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) explained that there was money in the city attorney’s budget to reorganize the city’s zoning ordinances to make them more compatible with each other.

After caucus, Briere cited for The Chronicle as an example of problems with compatibility various wetlands regulations, which had arisen during the contentious approval process for the 42 North development. [Briere voted against the project when it was brought forward as a matter of right proposal, based in part on the interpretation of wetlands rules.]

Briere clarified that the work to be done by Clarion is not the A2D2 process and does not involve the substance of the code. She said that for her, given the cost, the question about the need to resolve conflicting language was this: Is this the year to do it?

Here’s the rationale for the legal work to be done by Clarion, taken from the administrative memo accompanying the resolution:

The current zoning and development ordinances have many issues that make it difficult to use. The issues can be summarized as: 1) the overall organization structure is cumbersome and it can be challenging to find code sections; 2) related standards are often contained in different code sections and can be difficult to navigate; 3) a lack of clarity in code language makes the code difficult to interpret; 4) there are some ordinance gaps and provisions that are out-of-date or may have minor inconsistencies with state law, and 5) the use of terms is inconsistent.

The professional services agreement with Clarion Associates is for consulting services to reorganize eleven different chapters of the Ann Arbor City Code and to address the identified issues to produce an integrated, internally consistent and user-friendly version that is: 1) comprehensive – to eliminate cross referencing between code sections to determine standards governing development and redevelopment; 2) clear and internally consistent; 3) usable, both internally by staff and externally by the public; 4) enforceable and legally defensible based on objective standards and Michigan enabling laws; and 5) adaptable and structured to make it easy to amend or to add/ delete provisions in the future.

Material changes to the code will not be addressed in this project. This effort will focus on the development of a solid framework so that future code changes – both technical and substantive – can be more easily incorporated. Material code changes will be undertaken as a rewrite of zoning standards following the development of the City of Ann Arbor Master Plan: Land Use Element, Phase II: Update Land Use Recommendations, a three-year process scheduled to begin in 2010. Material code changes that may surface as part of this effort will be collected in a “Suggestions for Future Changes” document for use as a part of the future zoning rewrite effort.

Toy Guns

At the council’s Sept. 8 meeting, a second reading was heard of an ordinance that would allow enforcement of prohibitions against so-called look-alike weapons. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) had raised questions about the adequacy of the language in the ordinance. [See Chronicle coverage: "City Council Begins Transition."] For that meeting, the city attorney’s office had asked that the resolution be tabled so that the language could be rewritten.

The council voted to postpone the resolution – until Oct. 5. As Briere clarified at caucus, the attorney’s office had actually wanted a tabling of the resolution (with no date fixed). No changes have been made to the language in the interim. As a consequence, explained Briere,  the request from the attorney’s office is again to table the resolution so that adequate time can be put into reworking the language.

Based on her deliberations at the Sept. 8 meeting, Marcia Higgins (Ward 2) might float the idea of simply voting down the ordinance, instead of tabling it, and letting it come back clean, thus eliminating the need to track changes from one version to the next.