The architecture of councilmember snacks at the Feb. 19, 2013 meeting provided a nutritional buffer against zoning out during the meeting: a stacked configuration of units for fruit and nuts. (Photos by the writer.)

The item drawing that interest was a proposed six-month moratorium on site plan review by the city for projects in the D1 (downtown core) zoning district. After holding a nearly one-hour closed session to review written legal advice from the city attorney’s office, the council decided to postpone the issue until March 4, its next regular meeting.

Exceptions to the proposed moratorium are provided for projects that have already received a recommendation of approval from the city’s planning commission. While that exception applies to a large residential project at 624 Church St., it does not exempt a larger project at 413 E. Huron. Planning staff had concluded that the East Huron project meets all the zoning requirements. But the planning commission’s vote on 413 E. Huron was only 5-3 in favor of recommending approval – one vote short of the six it needed. Ordinarily developers can, on their own initiative, bring a site plan to the city council for action, even without the planning commission’s recommendation.

If the resolution is enacted, then during the period of the moratorium, the planning commission would be directed to review the D1 zoning standards against site plans submitted since 2009, when new zoning regulations were established. The commission would be asked to make recommendations by June 4, its first meeting in June. The postponed resolution states that the council is supposed to take any action by Aug. 19, its second meeting in August.

Legal counsel for the 413 E. Huron developer addressed the council, intimating that if a moratorium were enacted, then a lawsuit would be filed against the city. Attorney Susan Friedlaender expressed skepticism about a provision in the postponed resolution that provided a way for an aggrieved party to have a hearing before the council. The council will take up the moratorium again on March 4.

Also postponed was a related resolution to reconvene the design guidelines task force, which would be asked to recommend improvements in the design review process. That resolution also will be taken up on March 4.

In another item related to downtown land development, the council completed an accounting step – establishing a project budget – in connection with roughly $9 million of bonds recently sold by the city. Those bonds are funding the public parking deck portion of the private City Apartments project now under construction at First and Washington. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority will be making the bond payments.

Another land use issue postponed by the council was the proposed purchase of a parcel immediately adjacent to the Bluffs Nature Area. The postponement was based on council questions about the need for additional access from the west side of the nature area, and the price to be paid out of the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage. Related to that same millage, the council approved applying to the USDA Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) for matching funds to acquire development rights on two farms as part of the city’s greenbelt program.

In other land zoning issues, the council gave final approval to the owner-requested rezoning of some residential properties in the Arbor Hills neighborhood. The council also gave initial approval to a rezoning that would allow a retail project called The Shoppes to be built near the junction of Plymouth and US-23.

The council took action related to city-owned land at 721 N. Main, approving a $30,000 physical study of the main building on that former maintenance yard, to see if it can be re-used. At least part of that site is slated to become part of an Allen Creek greenway.

Across the street from 721 N. Main stands a collection of vacant houses that were supposed to be demolished to make way for the Near North affordable housing project. With that project now defunct, the city is moving to demolish the houses as nuisances. The council’s action on Feb. 19 was to accept about $96,000 in additional federal funds through a community development block grant, which can be used only for demolition of houses on the former Near North site.

In other action, the council formally adopted a sustainability framework that now will be part of the city’s master plan. And related to sustainability, the city council authorized the issuance of up to $1 million in bonds for the property assessed clean energy program (PACE). The PACE program provides low-interest loans for owners of commercial properties to invest in energy saving improvements.

Changes to the city’s living wage ordinance also were on the Feb. 19 agenda. The council had previously contemplated but ultimately postponed those changes. This time around, they were tabled. That means the issue will not come back, unless the council proactively decides to take up the proposal again in the next six months.

Also as a result of council action on Feb. 19, the municipal airport will get new fencing.

Moratorium on Downtown Site Plans

The council considered a six-month moratorium on the acceptance of new site plans for developments in downtown Ann Arbor.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) and mayor John Hieftje.

Councilmembers also considered a resolution that called for reconvening the downtown design guidelines task force to consider and make recommendations regarding improvements to the design review process. Currently, developers must follow a mandatory process of review for downtown projects, but are not required to comply with the review board’s recommendations. The resolution was added to the agenda about an hour before the meeting started. Members of the task force mentioned in the resolution are: Marcia Higgins (Ward 4 city council), Tamara Burns (architect), Dick Mitchell (architect), Bill Kinley (construction contractor), Norm Tyler (architect), Kirk Westphal (planning commission chair), and Doug Kelbaugh (University of Michigan professor of architecture and urban planning).

Under the proposed moratorium, a controversial project at 413 E. Huron would not be allowed to move forward, because its site plan did not receive a recommendation of approval from the city’s planning commission. However, the wording of the resolution provides for exemptions for site plans that have already received the planning commission’s recommendation of approval.

Specifically, the wording in the resolution means that the moratorium would not apply to the 624 Church St. project, which received a recommendation of approval from the city planning commission on Jan. 15, 2013. That project is expected to be considered by the city council at its March 4 meeting. The 14-story 624 Church St. project would offer 75 apartments with a total of about 175 bedrooms. Local attorney Scott Munzel, who represents the developer of the project, attended the council’s Sunday night caucus to get clarification on that point.

The moratorium also would not impact Kerrytown Place, a proposed development on North Main – the site of the former Greek Orthodox church – because it’s not in a D1-zoned area. It’s currently in a PUD area, but would meet D2 (interface) zoning requirements. Kerrytown Place consists of three 3-4 story buildings with a total of 19 units. The project was evaluated by the city’s design review board on Feb. 20.

Architect Norm Tyler attended the Feb. 19 meeting but did not address the council.

But based on the wording in the resolution, the moratorium would apply to the 413 E. Huron project, which recently failed to gain a recommendation of approval from the city planning commission, and could be on a city council agenda as early as mid-March. That project is located on a site zoned D1, the highest density allowed in the city. It would be a 14-story, 271,855-square-foot apartment building with 533 bedrooms, marketed primarily to university students.

But even without a planning commission recommendation, a developer ordinarily has the option of bringing a site plan proposal to the city council for consideration, which the 413 E. Huron developer intends to do. The developer is Greenfield Partners, a Connecticut-based firm doing business here as Ann Arbor Green Property Owner LLC. The real estate development firm Carter – based in Atlanta, Georgia – is a lead partner in the project.

The council’s resolution, if enacted, also would direct the planning commission to use part of the period of the moratorium to review recently approved and recommended site plans in the D1-zoned areas. The point of the review would be to determine if zoning standards provide appropriate guidance on form and use, and if the zoning conforms to the city’s master plan, downtown plan and character district overlays. The resolution states that the planning commission is to complete its work by June 4 (its first meeting in June) and the council is supposed to take any action by Aug. 19 (its second meeting in August).

The memo accompanying the resolution notes that an initial review of the relatively new A2D2 zoning, enacted in 2009, was supposed to take place after one year. But in that first year no projects had been proposed – because of the economic downturn. Since then, however, the memo points to four projects that have been proposed in D1 areas: Zaragon West (built), The Varsity (under construction), 624 Church St. (proposed) and 413 E. Huron (proposed).

Feb. 19 was the first council meeting after the city planning commission took action on the site plan for 413 E. Huron. The determination of the planning staff was that the project met the D1 zoning requirements, which in that part of the city includes a height limit of 150 feet. However, the outcome of the planning commission’s vote on Feb. 4, 2013 was not a recommendation for approval, because the 5-3 tally in favor did not give the project the required six-vote majority.

The planning commission vote came after long and harsh criticism during the public hearing on the 413 E. Huron site plan – at the two meetings when the planning commission deliberated on the proposal. Some residents called for a rezoning of the parcel, saying it was inappropriate for that area. The D1 zoning had been part of the A2D2 rezoning package for the downtown, which the council approved at its Nov. 16, 2009 meeting.

The resolution to establish a moratorium was brought forward by Ward 1 councilmember Sabra Briere and was co-sponsored by Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). Briere sits on the city planning commission as the council’s representative, and voted as a planning commissioner against the 413 E. Huron project. Joining her in that three-vote dissent were commissioners Wendy Woods and Ken Clein.

The council’s dilemma with respect to 413 E. Huron relates to the parcel’s zoning, which many residents contend was inappropriately zoned as D1. Opponents of the project argue that the site should have been zoned D2 (interface), in order to provide a buffer between densely developed areas and neighboring residential areas.

Last year, on April 16, 2012, the city council was asked to contemplate the reverse scenario, when a developer asked for conditional rezoning of a parcel at 1320 S. University – to change its 2009 designation of D2 to D1. The requested D1 zoning would have allowed for a much denser project, which would have exceeded the 60-foot D2 height limit by 85 feet. The council rejected that request. On that occasion, Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) argued that the community conversation about the South University area – which had led to the D2 designation – had been significant and warranted the council’s respect.

Moratorium: Public Commentary

Peter Nagourney told the council he supported the resolution to review conformance of site plans with zoning and the rest of the city’s planning documents. He told the council that his interest in the topic went back to his participation in the citizens committee that had worked on the design guidelines as part of the Ann Arbor Discovering Downtown (A2D2) process. He was speaking on behalf of eight different neighborhood organizations, he said. In the downtown area, he said, except for properties that are bounded by University of Michigan properties, all parcels zoned D1 step down to D2 zoning before they meet residential areas. That principle is true except for two blocks on the north side of Huron Street, he said. It had been originally zoned D2, but he said that “at the last minute” it had been changed to D1.

Sketch of “worst-case scenario” created four years ago in March 2009 during the debate on A2D2 zoning.

When the D1 zoning was proposed for that part of East Huron, neighbors who live on North Division Street had sketched out the worst possible potential impact of the zoning – which did not comply with any of the city’s planning documents, and which require step-down buffers to adjacent residential areas. [Chronicle coverage from March 24, 2009 – "A2D2 Zoning in the Home Stretch" – included the same sketch Nagourney showed the council on Feb. 19, almost four years later.]

The unanimously adopted design guidelines were intended to help developers in the city generate new projects that conform to appropriate design and planning documents, Nagourney said – including character overlay districts and historic district guidelines. The original goal was to have design guidelines integrated into the city zoning ordinances, and to evaluate the zoning and design guidelines to determine how well they had met their goals.

Nagourney told the council that the 2009 sketch of the worst possible potential impact of D1 zoning turns out to be conservative – because the 413 E. Huron project has been designed to occupy every square inch of the parcel. The proposed building has no step-down to the adjacent residential area, and casts the historic district to the north in shadow much of the year, while threatening landmark trees that predate the city’s founding. In addition, he continued, as it’s now written the inappropriate zoning will allow a 180-foot tall building to be constructed on the lot adjacent to city hall (to the east) with no setbacks or buffer.

If Ann Arbor’s legal or financial records were threatened by an oversight in security or procedures, the city would act as quickly as possible to close that loophole, he said. Today, he contended, the city’s zoning code has a loophole in the A2D2 process – but in this case, the consequence is not a temporary loss of data, but a permanent alteration of the city’s character. The council should act now to stop and review these problems while it can, and preserve the character districts and historic districts that were intended to create a city to serve multiple generations over many years.

Steve Kaplan told the council that he was a lifelong resident of Ann Arbor – born here, bred here, educated here, and now he works here. He works for a company that has been here for 50 years, he said. As an independent small business person, he continued, he welcomed density and development in most cases – because it helps his business. It helps the bottom line. However, in certain specific cases, he felt that it might do more harm than good.

Kaplan said he’d participated in many of the meetings that were held as part of the A2D2 process, and in this one particular area, on the north side of East Huron, he recalled it being a tricky part of the equation. He said he was not alone in being surprised that the proposed zoning had been changed at the “11th hour” from D2 to D1 zoning. He characterized a decision as possibly being driven by the “loud threatening calls of a few people” with specific interests. As the city contemplates reviewing the process as it should have done a year ago, Kaplan said, he worried that the same loud and specific calls of the few would outweigh the benefits and the needs of the many. So he asked the council to remember that as they deliberated on the issue. He cautioned the council to be very careful before they took permanent steps.

Jeffrey Crockett introduced himself as a resident of East Kingsley. He told the council that several landmark trees in the Old Fourth Ward historic district were being threatened by the current D1/D2 zoning law on the north side of Huron. He described two bur oaks with 40- and 50-inch diameters, as well as a hickory tree with a 24-inch diameter. The estimated age of the larger oak tree, he said, is about 250 years. He read aloud a substantial portion of a letter from Christopher Graham, a landscape architect who previously served on the planning commission and is currently chair of the natural features committee on the environmental commission. Graham’s letter states in part:

It is area of the grove of trees under which Indians camped and managed the landscape into a spectacular, open, old tree canopied setting. A few of those old trees still exist, and the one immediately nearby may be one of them. … is counter to the grain of the spirit and work and intent of all those who have so carefully crafted our historic districts, including this most special one, the one that is original Ann Arbor, the one named for a grove of trees and a couple of founders wives’ first names. [.pdf of Graham's letter] [.pdf of a second letter from Graham]

Crockett described the mitigation provided by the zoning ordinance for damage to trees as inadequate. Replacement of a landmark tree with smaller substitute trees, he said, is designed for the benefit and convenience of the developer. That can’t compensate the community for the loss of a 250-year-old tree that inspired the name of Ann Arbor. He pointed out that the historic district ordinance for the city does protect landmark trees.

He quoted section 5:138 of the zoning ordinance, which reads “no approval of any plan, plat or division pursuant to this chapter shall be construed as authorizing any improvement or action not in compliance with all – not some – provisions of this code.” He called on the council to ensure the protection of landmark trees by ensuring that the historic district ordinance is upheld, which he said allows for protection of landmark trees. He described how the construction of the proposed 413 E. Huron could impact the nearby oak tree’s critical root zone and told the council that it might not happen immediately but within five years, the tree would be dead.

When the developers of tall buildings have cashed out their investment and left town, Crockett continued, it will be Ann Arbor’s citizens and their children and grandchildren who will be left to wonder why we didn’t do more to save the landmark trees in “tree town.” He urged the council to vote for the moratorium.

Attorney Susan Friedlaender introduced herself as a representative of the owner of the 413 E. Huron property. She began by quoting the political philosopher Jeremy Bentham:

With respect to property, security consists in no shock or derangement being given to the expectation which has been founded on the laws, of enjoying a certain portion of good. The legislator owes the greatest respect to these expectations to which he has given birth: when he does not interfere with them, he does all that is essential to the happiness of society; when he injures them, he always produces a proportionate sum of evil.

The result of the A2D2 zoning process, Friedlaender said, gave birth to the reasonable expectation that those new zoning laws would have some measure of stability. The city knew, or should have known, that the new laws would encourage significant investment in Ann Arbor. The council had drafted those laws specifically to encourage that investment, she said, observing: “Well, it came.” Her clients had reasonable expectation, she continued, that if investment was made in the city, that the rug would not be pulled out from under them. She noted that her clients had constitutionally protected property rights, which the moratorium was designed to take away. The last-minute addition of an appeal procedure, she said, would be completely futile – because if the council were to grant that appeal, it would destroy the whole purpose of the moratorium. She urged the council to vote against the resolution, which she characterized as “ill-advised.” It’s difficult and dangerous to try to legislate taste, she said.

Carl Hueter began with an allusion to the fact that his name had been rendered as “Carol” on the meeting agenda, joking that it’d been the first time he’d undergone a gender change. He told the council that he had been born in Ann Arbor sometime in the middle of the last half century, and he’s been a practicing architect in the city for the last 40 years. He had seen a great deal of change in his 60 years of life in the city, he continued.

Hueter described the site plan approval in the 1970s and 1980s as a relatively easy and uncontentious affair. But moving into the 1990s, more and more neighborhood groups got involved in the site plan approval process. More and more requirements were placed on the site plans, he said. It became harder and more difficult and more financially challenging to develop site plans in the city of Ann Arbor. As we moved through the 1990s and into the early 2000s, he continued, there were some very contentious projects. As an offshoot of that, the A2D2 process was established. The hope was that by re-looking at the city’s zoning ordinances, citizens would have a fair and adequate way to participate, and also to allow developers to see a clear path – if they followed through the course of the zoning ordinance, it would give them some certainty that they would receive approval.

The moratorium resolution the council is considering, Hueter said, was a “thinly veiled attempt to deny one specific project its due process.” He allowed that the D1/D2 zoning ordinance needs to be re-evaluated – and it was written into the code that it needed to be reviewed within a year after being enacted. But there were not a sufficient number of projects brought forward in that first year on which to base such a review, he said. And so far seven such projects have been proposed, he said. He described the opposition to the project as a “very well-organized minority of a small neighborhood in the city who have failed technically to deny the project moving forward.” So now the group is acting politically, he said.

Hueter allowed that the zoning needs to be reviewed, but asked the council not to deny this specific development – which was proposed by developers, who months ago had entered into a process with the trust that they would receive due process, review and consideration of their project.

Assistant city attorney Kevin McDonald touches base with Ward 2 councilmembers Sally Petersen and Jane Lumm.

Pat Lennon introduced himself as an attorney with the Honigman law firm, representing the developer of 413 E. Huron. He’s chairperson of Honigman’s land use and zoning group, and is also a chairperson of the West Michigan Program’s committee of the Urban Land Institute – so he has an opportunity to review a lot of zoning and land use matters. He said he had the pleasure of appearing before bodies like the Ann Arbor city council all over the state. He was there because he and his client felt that it was “a pretty extreme situation.” In his view, his client had been put in an unprecedented situation. He was there to urge the council to vote down the moratorium. If the motion were to pass, then his client would be reviewing his legal rights and protecting his legal position, Lennon said. “Our client was stunned to learn about this proposed moratorium,” he told the council.

The proposal came virtually on the eve, he said, of his client’s opportunity to have his project considered by the city council. In addition to the issues raised by Friedlaender, he saw additional legal questions that a moratorium would raise. Based on the circumstances, the moratorium appears to be directed at one applicant and one project – his client’s. If that’s not in fact the case, he said, he would urge the city council to exempt pending applications from the moratorium.

Second, he questioned the circumstances under which the matter has been put before the council. There had been no mention of a moratorium before his clients started the application process, which had already been going on for months. No review had been mentioned previously for the D1 category. “We are understandably frustrated by this turn of events,” he told the council. His client would review whether the moratorium followed the proper path on its way to counsel, and he will be ensuring that his client’s rights had not been violated along the way.

Finally, Lennon said, the timing of the moratorium is dubious. A measure that’s as impactful and far-reaching as the one the council is considering had come up with short notice and apparently little discussion before it came before the council. It appeared to him that the moratorium and the potential changes to the ordinance can be seen as a last effort to avoid making a final decision on his clients “by right” project. In his view, any such use of the moratorium process would be improper, and if it were put in place, it would entitle his clients to their legal rights. Putting aside the question of legal rights, he said, he asked the council to consider what is best for the city of Ann Arbor. Imposing such a moratorium in this manner at this time, he told the council, would be to discard the A2D2 process, and would override the city’s interest in developing its tax base and the redevelopment of the downtown core areas.

Stuart Gordon introduced himself as a member of the committee for the ice rink next to the downtown library. A moratorium, he told the council, would give the ice rink initiative the chance to flower and grow. It could possibly show the alternatives that might be explored with city-owned properties. He told the council that there is continuing community support for the ice rink and that businesses in the downtown area were continuing to come on board with the project. Similar projects were being undertaken in several cities in Michigan, he told the council. The committee would be soon generating a short report and financial analysis. He asked the council to guide the Ann Arbor DDA to sit down with the ice rink committee and to take it seriously.

During public commentary at the conclusion of the meeting, Alan Haber also spoke in support of establishing an ice rink on top of the Library Lane parking structure, next to the library.

Doug Kelbaugh, professor of architecture and urban planning at the University Michigan, told the council that he was a long-term and outspoken proponent of greater density downtown. He was addressing the city council in that context. The zoning code is very clear about its intent to have a buffer, or an interface zone, between D1 and residential zones – in order to avoid an abrupt, rude, and awkward adjacency. “It’s just plain good zoning,” he said.

Ann Arbor zoning. Darker red areas are zoned D1. Lighter brownish areas are zoned D2. A more limited core area is outlined in white, reflecting a suggestion by University of Michigan professor of architecture and urban planning Doug Kelbaugh.

There usually is such a transition, Kelbaugh continued, as D2 zoning or the university campus abuts D1 areas. The one major exception, he noted, had already been discussed that night – the north side of East Huron Street. It’s a troubling exception, he said, and a glaring one. He told the council that he wanted to focus on the edges of downtown.

Ann Arbor has an opportunity to have a well-defined downtown core, with crisp edges, rather than the usual loose checkerboard of most American downtowns, Kelbaugh told the council. If the D1 zone were limited to the “true inner core,” it would lend a distinctive character to the city’s center. He suggested specifically that the city institute a moratorium to reconsider the extent of the D1 zone. Personally and professionally, he said, he felt the city should consider containing the 180-foot high area within Maynard and William at one corner, and Ashley or First at Huron at the other corner. That would make for a very “legible core,” with existing and new tall buildings limited to the inside of it.

The existing code would allow for a 180-foot tall building right across the street from Hill Auditorium, across from the Ann Arbor Hands-on Museum, and right next to Nickels Arcade. That’s a pretty abrupt transition, he said. Instead of that, he said, the core area could be limited to 17 square blocks. That would allow the shaping of the city as a compact 24/7 core with more permanent residents of all ages, ethnicities, classes, income groups, and household sizes. That cluster would decrease the ecological footprint of the city, and add downtown vitality to attract the next generation of knowledge workers, who seem to want urban lifestyles, he said. Kelbaugh concluded by calling for surrounding the core completely with an interface to reinforce legibility and the normal build-up from leafy neighborhoods to vibrant downtowns.

Moratorium: Council Deliberations

The council held a closed session under the Michigan Open Meetings Act exemption that allows for material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal statute, which presumably was attorney work product in connection with anticipated litigation in the event a moratorium was imposed.

Subsequent council deliberations were scant. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) moved for postponement based on the desire of Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) to be part of the deliberations. [Higgins was not able to attend the meeting due to a professional commitment.] Deliberations on a separate resolution, to reconvene the design guidelines task force, were similarly brief.

Outcome on moratorium: The council voted unanimously to postpone consideration of the moratorium until March 4, 2013.

Outcome on reconvening design guidelines task force: The council voted unanimously to postpone consideration of the resolution to reconvene the design guidelines task force until March 4, 2013.

City Apartments Parking Deck

The council was asked to approve a step necessary for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to satisfy its commitment to support the construction of the parking deck within Village Green’s City Apartments project. The residential project is currently under construction at the southeast corner of First and Washington.

The step the council was asked to take was to create a project budget for the proceeds of bonds sold by the city on Jan. 22, 2013 – $8,666,075 total, of which $4,079,743 were taxable and $4,586,332 were non-taxable. The authorization to issue the bonds had come at the council’s Oct. 4, 2010 meeting.

The DDA is committed to covering payments on the roughly $9 million of bonds to support construction of the bottom two floors of the building – which will hold about 240 parking spaces. Of those, 95 will be available for public use. The remainder of the spaces will be used by residents of the 146-unit project, when construction is completed. Before then, the deck will be handed over to the city and the DDA after a certificate of occupancy for the parking deck is received.

City Apartments project under construction in early February at First and Washington.

As of early February, the construction was on a pace that would result in a certificate of occupancy for the parking deck by March 15. The construction of the entire building is expected to be complete by the end of the summer.

City Apartments Parking Deck: Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know if the bonds would show up on the DDA’s annual TIF (tax increment finance) report as part of the DDA’s indebtedness. CFO Tom Crawford indicated that the city issues the debt and the DDA repays the city. So it won’t show on the DDA’s books as debt. It’ll show up as a commitment to repay.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to establish the project budget.

Open Space Millage (Greenbelt) Issues

The council had two items on its Feb. 19 agenda related to spending proceeds from the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage.

For one of the items, the council was asked to approve applying for federal matching funds to help acquire development rights on two pieces of farmland outside the city. For another item, the council was asked to authorize the purchase of a parcel inside the city near the Bluffs Nature Area.

Open Space Millage: Farmland

For the two parcels outside the city, council was asked to approve applications for matching federal funds to purchase development rights – for the 72-acre Donald Drake Farm on Waters Road in Lodi Township, and for a 100-acre property owned by Carol Schumacher on Pleasant Lake Road in Lodi Township. The federal match is only up to $5,000 per acre.

At its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting, the council had given approval for the acquisition of development rights for the southern part of the Drake farm. On that occasion, the requested expenditure from millage funds amounted to $483,450. Of that amount, $23,867 went to cover costs related to closing, due diligence and a contribution to the greenbelt endowment. The total purchase price of the land was $549,478, with the city of Ann Arbor’s share supplemented by $109,895 from Washtenaw County parks & recreation and $1,000 from Lodi Township.

What the council approved on Feb. 19 for the Drake Farm was an application to the USDA Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) for matching funds to acquire development rights to the northern part of the farm. When the city failed to win an FRPP award for the farm as a whole last year, it divided the property – because the northern part is very suitable for agricultural production, and the city felt its chances were very good for winning an FRPP grant for just that portion of the farm. The Drake property had been mentioned recently at the Feb. 7, 2013 meeting of the city’s greenbelt advisory commission.

If the city wins the FRPP matching grants, the item will likely come before the city council in June.

Outcome: Without discussion, the council approved the FRPP grant applications.

Open Space Millage: Adjoining Bluffs Parcel

Inside the city, the council was asked to approve the $115,000 purchase of a roughly 0.357-acre piece of vacant land located at 1240 Orkney, with a current SEV (state equalized value) of $49,200. [SEV is based on 50% of market value.]

Map showing a parcel on Orkney proposed for acquisition by the city – the narrow parcel that’s highlighted in yellow.

The parcel is located immediately adjacent to the Bluffs Nature Area – in the north part of the city, near the confluence of North Main, M-14 and Huron River Drive. The parcel is intended to provide an additional access point to the nature area, from the west.

The total proposed appropriation of $128,000 in open space millage funds for purchasing the Orkney parcel included $3,000 in closing costs and $10,000 in due diligence. An environmental assessment would be done before the closing.

The proposed Orkney parcel acquisition is similar to one made last year for a parcel on Hampstead Lane immediately adjacent to the Kuebler Langford Nature Area. Like the Bluffs, Kuebler Langford is located in the northern part of the city. [.jpg of area showing cluster of nature areas in the city's north side] [.jpg image of map showing city-acquired parcel adjoining Kuebler Langford Nature Area]

The roughly 0.91-acre Hampstead Lane parcel was determined to have a fair market value of $110,000, with an additional $13,000 accounted for through closing costs and due diligence. The council authorized the acquisition of the Hampstead Lane parcel at its Oct. 15, 2012 meeting.

Open Space Millage: Adjoining Bluffs – Council Deliberations

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) objected to the purchase price, saying he didn’t think the assessment factored in the roughly $40,000 in utility connection charges that would apply to the parcel as developable land. If those charges were added in, Kunselman said, the total cost of the land would work out to $155,000 – which he did not believe reflected an amount a buyer would be willing to pay. So he thought the $115,000 purchase price was too high. [The council had debated the utility connection charges just recently, at its Jan. 22, 2013 meeting.]

Kunselman felt that the property was simply too expensive to acquire just to provide additional access. He wouldn’t support the city’s purchase of the property unless it came down in price to accommodate the utility improvement charges. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked if the park advisory commission’s land acquisition committee had looked at it. Mike Anglin (Ward 5), who serves as one of two city council liaisons to PAC, indicated that it had, in fact, been considered.

With respect to better access to the area, mayor John Hieftje said his concern is that access to the Bluffs Nature Area through the parcel wouldn’t be used except by people in that neighborhood. Sumedh Bahl, the city’s community services area administrator, confirmed that there’s no parking available, and that visitors to the nature area who’d get access through the parcel would need to park along the street.

Left to right: Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and local attorney Scott Munzel.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) noted that entrances already exist on three sides of the area, and some citizens have questioned the need for a fourth one – especially given the high cost. She asked Bahl to help her work through the rationale. Lumm said she’d heard from neighbors that they hadn’t been notified about the pending purchase. She felt that notification of neighbors would have been a normal step. Bahl told Lumm that the city doesn’t normally notify neighbors about pending land acquisition. [Land acquisition is a topic that can be discussed in closed session under Michigan's Open Meetings Act.]

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she remembered when the city was looking for ways to access the Bluffs other than from the Main Street side, the Orkney lot was identified, because it’s been used as informal access for years. She said that $115,000 is comparable in price to other unimproved lots in the area. The price itself didn’t bother her, but she found herself thinking about how useful it really is to have a small entrance to the nature area from a limited neighborhood. She wanted to understand why this is value. She described getting to the Bluffs Nature Area as “difficult and obscure.” But the city’s ownership of this parcel doesn’t help that, she felt. Why did PAC’s land acquisition committee feel the city ought to acquire this parcel as an entrance? Bahl indicated he had not been a part of all of LAC’s discussion, but that having access from all sides of the area had been a long-time goal.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) inquired if there’s a possibility of using the parcel as a parking area. Bahl said that could be considered. Teall ventured that she’d like to see the matter postponed.

Kunselman reiterated his objection based on the cost, and asked that the council be provided a copy of the appraisal. Hieftje indicated his view that a professional appraiser would have factored in the cost of utility connections. He went on to say that he was familiar with the neighborhood, and ventured that the value of property was legitimately high.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to postpone the vote on the Orkney property until March 4.

Plymouth Retail Zoning

The council was asked to give initial approval for the rezoning of land that would allow a proposed retail development at 3600 Plymouth Road, just west of US-23.

The change would rezone the parcel from R5 (motel-hotel district) to C3 (fringe commercial district). That followed a recommendation of approval given at the Jan. 15, 2013 meeting of the Ann Arbor planning commission. The project – called The Shoppes at 3600 – had been postponed by the commission on Nov. 7, 2012.

Aerial view of a proposed retail development on Plymouth Road west of US-23 – The Shoppes at 3600. The site is in the complex where the Holiday Inn North Campus is located, visible on the right side of this image.

But on Jan. 15, commissioners recommended that the city council approve the project’s zoning, as well as the original site plan. At its Feb. 19 meeting, the city council did not have the site plan on its agenda – only the rezoning request.

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

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

The planning commission’s recommendation of site plan approval was contingent on four conditions: (1) approval of a land division, to divide off a 1.15 acre parcel from the parking lot and front yard of the 10.85-acre hotel site where the Holiday Inn North Campus is located; (2) approval of an administrative amendment to the parent site plan to change the parking for the hotel, because some spaces will be removed to allow for the new building; (3) recording an ingress/egress easement along the existing drive from Plymouth Road, so that a new curb cut would not be needed; and (4) recording stormwater and cross-parking easements between the hotel and the new building.

The site plan will be considered by the council at a later date.

Plymouth Retail Zoning: Council Deliberations

Sally Petersen (Ward 2) asked about the turning pattern within the combined parking lot contiguous with the development, saying she was worried about how the new development would impact congestion within the parking lot. City planning manager Wendy Rampson told Petersen that the city doesn’t have standards related to interior drives, but when the city reviews site plans, the planning staff looks for continuity, pedestrian connections and the like. The city’s traffic engineer had taken a look at the traffic study. The petitioner had proposed adding signs, so that as someone exits the small shopping center, if a motorist wanted to go westbound on Plymouth, the sign would indicate that motorists should head toward Green Road – northbound Green could be used to turn left onto westbound Plymouth.

Left to right: Ward 2 councilmembers Sally Petersen and Jane Lumm.

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked about possible congestion at Green and Plymouth roads. Rampson replied that the traffic study indicated an additional four-second delay associated with the new retail development and that congestion would be limited. Lumm confirmed with Rampson that the city’s SCOOT (Split Cycle Offset Optimisation Technique) traffic signal system can adjust to help traffic flow. Rampson indicated that if you wanted to eliminate congestion at the intersection entirely, it would be necessary to add turn lanes.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) confirmed with Rampson that there’s a drive-through lane that goes behind the buildings. Given the parking in front of the buildings, Kunselman wanted to know where deliveries would take place. Rampson reported that deliveries would be made by small panel trucks, and they’d arrive early in the morning, and would park in the parking lot.

Kunselman felt the development seemed “very constrained.” It looked very difficult, he said. Rampson replied that the planning commission had similar concerns, and had asked for an alternate site plan that rotated the stores so that they fronted on the freeway ramp. A number of problems arose with that alternative, she said. In the end, based on the developer’s concern, the proposal that’s moving forward is the original one.

Responding to a question from Kunselman, Rampson explained that if the council approves the rezoning, then the owner would create a separate parcel within the lot. Kunselman concluded that the owner could come up with an alternate configuration. So he stated he would not support the rezoning.

Petersen asked about a berm that exists now. Rampson explained that it would be regraded for the proposed development. Rampson explained that there would be a net loss of parking in that area.

Outcome: The council gave initial approval to the rezoning. Voting against the rezoning on the initial vote was Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3). The rezoning will require a second and final vote by the council to be enacted.

Ann Arbor Hills Zoning Tweak

The council was asked to give final approval to the rezoning of six parcels in the northeast Ann Arbor Hills neighborhood.

The sites were rezoned from R1B to R1C. Both are types of single-family dwelling districts. The locations are 2014 Geddes Ave.; 2024 Geddes Ave.; 520 Onondaga St.; 2025 Seneca Ave.; 2023 Seneca Ave.; and 2019 Seneca Ave. [.jpg aerial view of parcels] These are six parcels in a block of 10 sites – the other four sites are already zoned R1C.

The rezoning would potentially allow three of the parcels – each lot size currently about 17,500 square feet – to be divided in the future, if other city code requirements are met.

Initial approval had been given by the council on Jan. 22, 2013. Prior to that, the city’s planning commission had recommended the rezoning at its Nov. 20, 2012 meeting. The planning commission had considered the item after the city council directed the planning staff to study the issue of rezoning the parcels. That direction came at the council’s Sept. 17, 2012 meeting.

According to a staff memo, the direction on the rezoning came from city council at the request of property owners: Raymond Maturo and Ann Mulhern; Joseph and Suzanne Upton; Rishindra and Gwendolyn Reddy; Shahrzad Vazirzadeh and Chad Patterson; Vassilios Lambropoulos and Artemis Leontis; and the Clan Crawford Jr. Trust.

R1B zoning requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 70 feet. Three of the parcels don’t conform with that zoning. Under the new R1C zoning, all parcels conform with required lot size and width.

Ann Arbor Hills Zoning: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a recent candidate for the Michigan state senate and house of representatives, and an advocate for the most vulnerable residents. He asked that the council reconsider the rezoning proposal and amend it – along with all other similar rezoning or annexation proposals – to require that for every acre of land that gains rezoning approval, if it enhances the property value of the lot, then an equal amount of land be dedicated to affordable housing.

Outcome: Without further discussion, the council unanimously approved the rezoning request.

721 N. Main Building: $30K Study

The council was asked to authorize $30,000 for a physical study of the building at the city-owed 721 N. Main property. The money is to be drawn from the city’s general fund balance.

A task force established by the city council on May 7, 2012 has been working to develop recommendations for a much broader area than 721 N. Main, including the North Main corridor and extending to the Huron River. The task force is supposed to provide recommendations for the area by July 31, 2013.

A map showing recommendations for the city-owned property at 721 N. Main St.

But the task force has been asked to provide recommendations on the 721 N. Main property even earlier than that – because of application deadlines for grants that the city is interested in seeking. The two grants would be from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund, which has an early April deadline, and the Connecting Communities grant from the Washtenaw County parks & recreation commission. The city’s $300,000 proposal to Connecting Communities – for trails to be constructed through the 721 N. Main property – was mentioned at the Feb. 12, 2013 meeting of the county’s parks & recreation commission. The Connecting Communities application had a deadline in December 2012, which the city met.

The task force submitted its initial recommendation on the 721 N. Main property to the city council in December, and based on that, the council approved making the two grant applications at its Dec. 17, 2012 meeting.

And at the council’s Jan. 7, 2013 meeting, two members of the North Main and Huron River Corridor task force – David Santacroce and Darren McKinnon – gave a presentation to the council summarizing the group’s work to date. The task force recommendations were divided into the floodway portion and the non-floodway portion of the site. For the floodway portion, there was not a lot to decide – because a city council resolution from Aug. 15, 2005 calls for the floodway area of the 721 N. Main site to be included within a planned Allen Creek greenway.

For the roughly 2.5 acre non-floodway portion, the task force is recommending that it be developed to include non-motorized paths to connect from Felch Street to North Main and West Summit streets.

Santacroce and McKinnon told the council during their January presentation that the task force thought the main building had potential for reuse, but that it would need about $30,000 of physical testing to make that determination. It was that $30,000 of testing that the council was asked to authorize at its Feb. 19 meeting. The physical testing is supposed to be completed by May 31, which gives the task force two months of lead time before their final recommendations are due.

At the council’s Jan. 7 meeting, Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had expressed a lack of enthusiasm for salvaging the building.

The city is undertaking similar physical testing on buildings that stand on another potential city-owned greenway property, at 415 W. Washington. At the council’s Dec. 17, 2012 meeting, an additional $32,583 for the study of 415 W. Washington property was allocated. The council had previously authorized $50,000 for physical testing of the property. That vote had come at the council’s July 16, 2012 meeting.

The 415 W. Washington property, with its three buildings, was previously used by the city as a vehicle maintenance facility, before the construction of the Wheeler Service Center south of town on Stone School Road.

721 N. Main: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that the property at 721 N. Main was previously part of the city maintenance yard, where trucks would pull in and out. There’s no way to know what it might cost to refurbish the building there, Briere said. But it’s known that there’s asbestos. Later, mayor John Hieftje added that the asbestos is visible. Briere reported that the task force believes that before demolishing the building, it’s worth exploring what it would cost to make the building usable again. Briere indicated it’s similar to the approach the city is taking at 415 W. Washington.

Hieftje said he appreciated the work done by the task force. He’d toured the building and described it as not fit for habitation. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) thanked Briere for her leadership on the topic. He described the work as reflective of a long-term desire on the part of the community to see the property become a greenway.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to approve the $30,000 allocation for the physical testing of the building at 721 N. Main.

Former Near North Demolition

The council was asked to receive formally an additional $96,000 through federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocations, which the city will put toward demolishing six houses on North Main Street.

The houses are on the site of the former Near North affordable housing project. That project, on which the nonprofit Avalon Housing had partnered, ultimately did not go forward. The city must complete the demolition by March 15, 2013.

The additional $96,000 can only be used for the demolition of structures at 700-724 N. Main.

Council deliberations were brief. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she felt that many in the neighborhood were eager to see the demolition occur. She thanked the staff for an innovative solution to pay for it. Mayor John Hieftje added that he had been pushing to get those houses down for a long time, but he didn’t feel as bad about the wait, now that the grant has been received. It would preserve some of the city’s funds that were reserved for the specific purpose of demolishing nuisance properties.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the receipt of the additional $96,000 in grant funding.

Sustainability Framework

The council was asked to adopt a sustainability framework that had previously been adopted by the city planning commission, making it a part of the city’s master plan. The planning commission had taken action at its Jan. 3, 2013 meeting. The vote by the planning commissioners was unanimous.

The item had originally been on the planning commission’s Dec. 4, 2012 agenda. Action was postponed at that time, after some commissioners raised concerns regarding a goal for high-performance buildings.

The city has been developing this framework for nearly two years. In June of 2012, the planning commission had recommended approval of the 16 overarching sustainability goals, which are organized into four categories: resource management; land use and access; climate and energy; and community. In September, commissioners voted to disseminate the framework to neighboring jurisdictions, which was a necessary step on the path toward including it in the city’s master plan.

Additional background on the Ann Arbor sustainability initiative is on the city’s website. See also Chronicle coverage: “Building a Sustainable Ann Arbor,” “Sustaining Ann Arbor’s Environmental Quality,” “Land Use, Transit Factor Into Sustainability,” and “Final Forum: What Sustains Community?”

The sustainability framework is the seventh element of the city’s master plan. Other elements are: (1) land use; (2) downtown plan; (3) transportation plan; (4) non-motorized plan; (5) parks and recreation open space (PROS) plan; and (6) natural features master plan.

Sustainability Framework: Public Hearing

Thomas Partridge called on the council to redefine environmentalism and sustainability and told them the top priority has to be ending homelessness. He called for socially integrated housing.

When no one else rose to speak during the public hearing, Alan Haber came out of the audience to say that he felt more than one person should speak at a public hearing on a topic this important. He said he was glad the proposal was coming forward – especially in the context of climate change. He called “sustainable development” a bit of an oxymoron, saying that development has to be done in such a way that does not increase the land value so much that the people who live and work here now can’t continue to live and work here. Things have to remain “inviting” to those who are here already, he said. He also called for a gathering place in the center of town, which he said would add to the sustainability of the city.

Sustainability Framework: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asked about a language revision on the definition of sustainable buildings and respecting human contexts. She wanted to know if there were any other major themes that surfaced in the public hearings. Planning manager Wendy Rampson indicated that there were few comments at the public hearings, because it had been such a robust process that had led up to that point. Mayor John Hieftje clarified that a public hearing had been held, but nobody appeared from the public to speak. Rampson quipped that everyone was ready to move on to the action plan.

Lumm also confirmed that no comments had been received from adjoining communities. Rampson ventured that if other communities begin adopting similar frameworks, then it would be clear that they wanted to imitate it.

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to adopt the sustainability framework.

Clean Energy Bonds (PACE)

The council was asked to approve the issuance of bonds that will assist owners of commercial property in making improvements designed to help save energy under the city’s property assessed clean energy (PACE) program. The item had been postponed by the council on Feb. 4, 2013. That initial decision to postpone stemmed from the fact that the item had not been added to the agenda until the day of the Feb. 4 meeting.

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

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

PACE: Council Deliberations

Referring to the couple of years leading up to the enabling legislation by the state, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) described the city as hopeful that PACE funding would be available for single-family homes, in addition to commercial properties. While the city waits for legislation that would make it possible for single-family homes, she was pleased that the city could offer a program for commercial properties. It’s potentially one of the most effective ways to decrease the city’s energy footprint, she said, without costing property owners an incredible amount of money to get started.

Mayor John Hieftje characterized the council’s action as another step in a very long process. He described how the window of opportunity for the city’s stop loss load fund was set to expire next month, so it was important the council act. Hieftje picked up on Briere’s point about single-family homes, attributing the problem to the fact that Fannie Mae lenders didn’t want to be second in line if there were to be a foreclosure. He pointed out that PACE does apply to multi-family housing units.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved issuing the PACE bonds.

Living Wage Ordinance Changes

Consideration of several amendments to Ann Arbor’s living wage ordinance was back on the council’s agenda, because at its Nov. 19, 2012 meeting the council had specified Feb. 19 as the date to which it would postpone consideration of the ordinance changes.

The main proposed changes to the local law – which sets a minimum wage of $12.17/hour for those employers providing health insurance and $13.57/hour for those not providing health insurance – would exempt nonprofits that receive funding from the city for human services work. The changes would mean that such nonprofits would not need to meet the minimum wage requirements.

Following the council’s Nov. 19 postponement, consideration of the changes had been referred to the city’s Housing and Human Services Advisory Board (HHSAB) for more study. [For coverage of the HHSAB's Dec. 18, 2012 meeting, see: "Human Services Group Ponders Living Wage"] The HHSAB is taking a bit longer with its recommendations in part because those recommendations will be informed by work done by a class of University of Michigan students. The class is being taught in the winter 2013 term by Ian Robinson, a lecturer in the department of sociology. Robinson attended the Dec. 18 meeting of the HHSAB, and sketched out the range of work he thought his students might be able to do to assist the board.

The current law applies to organizations that have contracts with the city for more than $10,000 in a given calendar year, and that employ five or more people (10 or more for nonprofits). The current law also provides an exemption for organizations funded from the city’s community events budget – an exemption put in place to accommodate the Ann Arbor Summer Festival’s practice of paying its temporary employees less than the living wage and the city’s desire to fund the festival at a higher level.

Among the other contemplated amendments to the living wage ordinance was an increase from $10,000 to $25,000 for the amount of a contract triggering the application of the ordinance. The timeframe would also change from a calendar year to one fiscal year. Also included in the proposed amendments was one that would allow the city administrator to grant a waiver from compliance with the ordinance, instead of requiring the approval of the city council.

At its meeting on Nov. 8, 2012, the council had granted such a waiver to the nonprofit Community Action Network, which receives funding from the city to do human services work.

Living Wage Ordinance Changes: Council Deliberations

Jane Lumm (Ward 2), who serves as one of two city council liaisons to the housing and human services advisory board (HHSAB), led off discussion on the item. [Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is the other council liaison to HHSAB.]

Lumm said there’s not a consensus on HHSAB about whether the amendments should move forward along the lines currently proposed, so she thought it should be tabled. [A tabling motion is different from a motion to postpone to a date certain. If a matter is tabled, then it can be considered at any time in the future with a motion to take up the matter off the table – but it need not be taken up again. If a matter is postponed to a date certain, then it is automatically taken up on the date specified. A motion to table, according to Robert's Rules, is properly invoked when some other matter "of immediate urgency" has arisen, so that the other matter can be handled first. A motion to take the tabled matter up off the table can then come during the same session. If it's the desire of the body to kill the matter, without voting it up or down, then the proper motion is to postpone it indefinitely. A motion to table is also not supposed to be subject to debate.]

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) asked if this was a motion to postpone the matter indefinitely. City attorney Stephen Postema indicated his view that a tabling motion would have the effect of indefinite postponement.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that a matter that’s tabled has a finite period during which it can be taken up off the table, and after that it’s considered demised. Mayor John Hieftje stated the finite time period was one year. [According to the council's rules, the period specified for the demise of resolutions or for an ordinance approved at first reading is six months. The living wage ordinance before the council was being considered for its first reading.]

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if there was an expectation that HHSAB would make some kind of recommendation – because he was interested in seeing at least a few procedural changes made to the living wage ordinance. Lumm told Kunselman that HHSAB might make some recommendations. But she ventured that the changes to the ordinance that HHSAB might eventually recommend would be a 180-degree change in direction – broadening the ordinance’s application instead of limiting it.

Lumm said she was not willing to bring to the council the kind of amendments that HHSAB is contemplating now. Anything that she would support would at least resemble the amendments that were in front of the council that night. Lumm ventured that maybe Briere would introduce a different recommendation from HHSAB – but knowing what HHSAB is contemplating, Lumm herself would not bring it forward.

Kunselman said he would hate to see it “die in committee.” He didn’t know if there’s a fire under HHSAB to make a recommendation. Kunselman expressed his view that he’d like to see a change in the ordinance so that a waiver can be given to a nonprofit organization by the city administrator, instead of requiring city council approval.

Briere told Kunselman that HHSAB was focused on the opportunity to undertake a broader study of nonprofits – those that receive funding from the city as well as those that don’t. She ventured that some members of HHSAB were concerned that the living wage ordinance should actually be the purview of the human rights commission. Briere characterized the last meeting of the HSSAB, in January, as lively and not unanimous. But she ventured that there was “gentle agreement” that the study of the effects of living wage on nonprofits was important. Briere said it should be complete by the end of April.

Kunselman, felt that any revision to the living wage ordinance should be something that’s ready to go by the time the council adopts the budget [by the second meeting in May]. He wondered if a resolution of direction to the HHSAB would help that. He stated that he’s willing to help, but said he’s not familiar with what’s going on at HHSAB.

Lumm told Kunselman that there was strong sentiment expressed by HHSAB members to study other aspects of the ordinance outside of HHSAB’s purview and more in line with the purview of the human rights commission. Lumm ventured that the majority of HHSAB members expressed some interest in revisiting the policy and requiring that the city pay a living wage to its own part-time and seasonal workers, as well as eliminating the exemption for those organizations that are funded from the community events fund [like the Summer Festival].

Outcome: The council voted unanimously to table the living wage ordinance revision.

Ann Arbor Airport Fencing

The council was asked to consider two items related to fencing at the Ann Arbor municipal airport. The first item consisted of a grant approval, which totaled $157,895. Of that amount, $150,000 is federal money, $3,947 comes from the state of Michigan, and $3,948 comes from the city airport’s operating budget.

The fencing is meant to improve safety. According to the staff memo accompanying the council’s resolution, three incursions (someone getting in a restricted area of the airfield) took place in 2012. Before those three incursions, none had taken place since 2009.

The second vote was on a $32,000 contract with URS Corp. for engineering services related to the gate and fencing project. Funding for the contract is covered in the grant that was also on the Feb. 19 council agenda. The scope of the project includes installation of two new gate locations, the replacement of two existing gates, the upgrade of an existing gate location, upgrade of existing security fencing and the installation of new security fencing in the three hangar areas of the airport.

Ann Arbor Airport Fencing: Council Deliberations

Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) got clarification from fleet and facilities manger Matt Kulhanek that there was no eight-vote majority needed on the items because they did not reflect a budget adjustment. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) asked if there was no fencing currently. Kulhanek explained that two new gates would be installed in the northeast area of the airport. Three existing gates would be replaced. Kunselman wanted to know how that would prevent incursions.

Kulhanek described on incursion where an elderly woman was heading north on State Street, looking for Costco. And instead of turning on Ellsworth, she turned onto the airport property. She drove through the northeast hangar area, followed a vehicle through another gate and ended up pulling out onto an active taxiway.

Kulhanek characterized the city’s share as 2.5% of the total project. Kulhanek confirmed that the federal money comes from fees paid on airline tickets, not general tax dollars.

About the contract for the fencing installation, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) quipped: “It’s always good to get money and spend it immediately.”

Outcome: The council’s votes on the grant and the contract related to airport fencing were unanimous.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Public Art Ordinance Revision

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) gave the council an update on the work of a city council task force that was assigned to review and make recommendations on the city’s public art ordinance. [Besides Briere, the group consists of councilmembers Sally Petersen (Ward 2) Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3), Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Christopher Taylor (Ward 3). They'd been appointed at the city council's Dec. 3, 2012 meeting, when the council also voted to halt the spending of funds accumulated through Ann Arbor's Percent for Art program – except for projects that are already underway. The moratorium on spending lasts until April 1, 2013.]

The council’s resolution had not included a date in writing by which the task force was supposed to complete its work. But in making the appointments to the task force, mayor John Hieftje had indicated a date of Feb. 15. Briere reported that a draft resolution was now in the hands of the city attorney’s office. The task force would be meeting again on March 1, Briere said. [For the most recent Chronicle update on the activity of the task force, see the Jan. 23, 2013 meeting report of the public art commission.]

Briere characterized the issues addressed by the task force as including how and where public art should be placed, as well as changes to the funding mechanism. The task force is looking at ways to fund art that could include temporary art, publicly selected art, art the public helps to pay for, or performance art. The task force is working with language that would eliminate the “percent for art” funding mechanism, but would still allow capital improvement projects to have public art associated with the project as a “baked-in” ingredient.

Briere indicated that she hoped an ordinance change would be in front of the council by the end of March. [The council's second of two meetings that month falls on March 18.] She also indicated that a resolution separate from the ordinance change would also be brought forward, which she said would include additional guidance.

Comm/Comm: DDA Ordinance Amendments

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) announced that he now has a draft version of the ordinance amendments he’d mentioned at the council’s Feb. 4, 2013 meeting, regarding the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.

He asked that the city clerk add the draft to the city’s online Legistar system for the Feb. 19 meeting. He’d be looking for co-sponsors, he said.

Among the revisions to the DDA ordinance Kunselman reflected in the draft are changes to the DDA governance, which would include term limits on board members, and a prohibition against elected officials serving on the board. But more significantly, Kunselman is proposing to change the way that the tax increment finance (TIF) capture by the DDA is calculated. The draft language leaves the issue still somewhat unclear. [.pdf of draft amendment to the DDA ordinance]

Comm/Comm: Housing Commission, CIP

During communications time, Kunselman conveyed his desire to see the properties of the Ann Arbor Housing Commission (AAHC) included in the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP). That came in the context of a presentation the council had recently received from AAHC executive director Jennifer L. Hall, who’s proposing a private-public partnership to address capital improvement needs for AAHC properties. Kunselman has expressed opposition to Hall’s proposal. [For background on the AAHC's efforts, see: "Housing Commission Selects Co-Developer."]

Comm/Comm: Taxicabs

Kunselman indicated that the Feb. 28 meeting of the city’s taxicab board – which he chairs – would include an update to the public about increased enforcement of the taxicab ordinance. He’s looking to see if any other changes can be made to the taxicab ordinance to make the taxi industry more responsive to the needs of the community. [For recent coverage of the taxicab board, see: "Ann Arbor Taxicab Board Grants Appeal."]

Comm/Comm: Former Y Lot

Kunselman also indicated that he’d be requesting brokerage services for the sale of the former Y lot at Fifth and William. Mayor John Hieftje indicated that he wanted to look at what could be included as an offer, but leave the property as unencumbered as possible.

Comm/Comm: Human Rights Commission

Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) noted that the city’s human rights commission is looking for additional members.

Comm/Comm: Anglin, WALLY

During communications from council, Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said that his name has been mentioned as someone who is a supporter of the WALLY north-south commuter rail project. [The project currently has a funded study for station location design]. Anglin said information was being publicly distributed to the effect that he’s a supporter of WALLY and that people should contact him about it. Anglin indicated he did not support WALLY, but was very much in favor of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority’s bus system, saying that rail was “foolhardy at this time.” He wanted to stop discussion of funding rail transportation until people accept the public transportation that already exists.

Comm/Comm: Ward 2 Website

During communications time, Sally Petersen (Ward 2) alerted people that she and Jane Lumm (Ward 2) had created a website for Ann Arbor’s Ward 2. Anyone is welcome to visit it, she said, and there’s a link to a Ward 2 resident satisfaction survey. She encouraged people to take the survey, especially residents of Ward 2.

Comm/Comm: Aging Conference

During communications time, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) noted that she’d placed a flyer on her council colleagues’ seats about the AARP’s Age Friendly Communities Conference, which takes place on Feb. 28 in Ann Arbor.

Comm/Comm: Israel/Palestine

Henry Herskovitz responded to some remarks that Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) made at the council’s Jan. 22, 2013 meeting. Warpehoski had indicated he wouldn’t be contemplating a resolution on Palestinian rights as long as demonstrations continue outside Beth Israel on Saturdays during worship services. Herskovitz asked whether Warpehoski’s remarks contained elements of a “friendly offer” or a possible quid pro quo from Herskovitz’s group – Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends – to cease their demonstrations at Beth Israel. He contended that Warpehoski’s comment contains an “odd element” – because it recognizes that a problem exists in Palestine, which Warpehoski could, or would, act on as an elected official. So Herskovitz concluded that Warpehoski was not saying that the city shouldn’t divest from Israel, or that there are no grounds for divestment – only that Warpehoski is conditioning his action on the actions of Herskovitz’s group.

Herskovitz drew an analogy to the abolitionist movement in the 1800s, as John Brown conducted violent raids against pro-slavery interests. Some in the abolitionist movement decried Brown’s tactics, but they did not allow Brown’s actions to distract them from their goal of abolishing slavery, Herskovitz said. The situation in Palestine cries out for moral intervention, he said. But based on Warpehoski’s remarks, it appears that intervention will not take place until Herskovitz’s group stops expressing its point of view – in a manner that is protected by the First Amendment. Herskovitz allowed that it’s difficult for Warpehoski to accept his group’s tactics. But allowing the actions of another to determine one’s own actions, Herskovitz said, raises doubts about that person’s reasoning and commitment to resolving the issue.

Comm/Comm: General Criticism

Thomas Partridge introduced himself as a resident of Washtenaw County and Ann Arbor’s Ward 5. He noted that he been a recent candidate for the Michigan senate and house of representatives. He called for ending discrimination and corruption in the Ann Arbor city government.

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

Present: Marcia Higgins, Christopher Taylor.

Next council meeting: Monday, March 4, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle listings to confirm date.]

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

The postponement of an initial vote to the council’s next meeting, on Feb. 21 22, means that a final vote on licensing could not come sooner than the council’s March 7 meeting. An initial vote on zoning regulations for medical marijuana businesses was already taken by the council at its Oct. 18, 2010 meeting. On Monday, the final vote on those zoning regulations was also postponed to March 7. The council’s pattern over the last two months has been to postpone the final vote on zoning regulations for medical marijuana businesses so that it will coincide with the final vote on licensing.

Betsy and Alex de Parry listen as councilmembers deliberate the question of whether to grant a fee waiver if de Parry resubmits his Heritage Row project to the city.  (Photos by the writer.)

The council also took action on several development-related issues. Without discussion, councilmembers approved an amendment to a contract with Village Green to develop a 244-space parking deck as the first two stories of a 9-story building, City Apartments – a 156-unit residential planned unit development (PUD) at First and Washington. The contract approval is part of a series of milestones that is planned to culminate in Village Green’s purchase of the city-owned land parcel for $3 million by June 1, 2011, and with construction starting later in the summer.

The council also approved an application fee reduction, from nearly $5,000 to $2,000, for the developer of Heritage Row, a residential project proposed for Fifth Avenue just south of William Street – if  the project is resubmitted within 90 days. The resolution began as a fee waiver, but was amended to be a reduction. On resubmission, the project will go through the complete review process, starting with a citizen participation meeting.

The council also took action to implement the city’s new design guidelines for new downtown buildings. It sets a purely voluntary review and compliance process in place for now, with the expectation that the mandatory review process with voluntary compliance will be implemented later.

The council unanimously approved the city’s new capital improvements plan (CIP) after a close 6-5 vote that removed an item calling for an extension to the Ann Arbor municipal airport runway. And one item appearing in the CIP was moved ahead to possible fruition: A possible roundabout for the Maiden Lane and Fuller Road intersection will be studied and engineered under a $460,139 contract with DLZ Michigan Inc.

At Monday’s meeting, the council also authorized applications for federal matching funds to acquire development rights for two greenbelt properties.

And labor issues found their way into the deliberations in two ways. First, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), chair of the council’s labor committee, gave a breakdown of the large disparity between health care costs paid by the city’s fire and police union members as contrasted with the city’s non-union staff, as well as with University of Michigan employees. Second, as part of its consent agenda, the council approved a $54,000 contract with a consultant to study fire protection service requirements in Ann Arbor. The city administrator cited such a study at a recent council budget retreat as useful if the city decides to contemplate a shift to a combined paid-on-call and full-time staff fire department.

Medical Marijuana Licenses

Considered again by the council was a proposed set of licensing requirements for medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities in the city.

By way of background, at its Oct. 18, 2010 meeting, the council gave its initial approval to a set of zoning regulations for medical marijuana businesses, but it has not yet given its final approval to those regulations. The council’s strategy is to bring both licensing and zoning forward at the same time for a final vote. All new city ordinances require two votes by the council, the second of which is accompanied by a public hearing.

The context for developing zoning regulations was set at the council’s Aug. 5, 2010 meeting, when councilmembers voted to impose a moratorium on the use of property in the city for medical marijuana dispensaries or cultivation facilities. They also directed the planning commission to come up with zoning regulations. Subsequently, the city attorney’s office began working on a licensing system, which the council first considered at its Dec. 6, 2010 meeting.

At its Jan. 3, 2011 meeting, the council heavily amended the licensing proposal. Among the key amendments made at that meeting was one that stripped “home occupation” businesses out of the proposal. At the Jan. 3 meeting, the council also increased a cap on the total number of licenses available to 20 for dispensaries and 10 for cultivation facilities. Another major amendment made on Jan. 3 was the creation of a board to govern the issuance of licenses. However, the council delayed voting on the first reading of the proposal. [.pdf of licensing ordinance language at the start of the Feb. 7, 2011 meeting]

At its Jan. 18 meeting, the council was poised to undertake further amendments to the licensing proposal, including many that concerned limiting the amount of information that is required to be divulged by those associated with license applications. However, the council did not amend the proposal further at that meeting.

The moratorium on additional facilities in the city to be used as medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities was extended by the council at its Jan. 18 meeting to go through March 31, 2011.

Medical Marijuana: Public Commentary

At its meetings over the last few months, the council has heard extensive public commentary on medical marijuana, but that commentary does not constitute a formal public hearing, which will be held at the same meeting when the council votes on final approval of the licensing, provided it eventually gives initial approval to the licensing system. At Monday’s meeting, several speakers addressed the issue during time set aside for public commentary.

T.J. Rice introduced himself as the owner of the first dispensary in Ann Arbor – he’d established it at Fourth and Washington on Feb. 2, 2010, he said. He reminded the council that people’s lives and our future is at stake. He told the council he hoped by the end of the evening that the provisions for list-keeping would be written out of the proposed licensing system. He reminded the council of Ann Arbor’s rich history of tolerance for cannabis, pointing to the large plurality of local support for the 2008 state referendum, as well as the 2004 Ann Arbor city charter amendment. He asked the council not to forget the city charter amendment in the process. He allowed that his past felony conviction for cannabis is real, but that his concern is for patients and he hoped the council would make wise decisions.

Dennis Hayes began by saying that the council’s work on the issue is yet unfinished. He stated that in the legislative intent section of the ordinance, the 2004 charter amendment should be mentioned. It should also include a statement about state and constitutional mandates as they apply to patients and caregivers. He asked the council to think about what they could do besides maintaining lists of information so that the lists themselves would not become evidence of violating federal law. He asked the council to consider the geographic transportability of licenses. He said that labeling also needs to be addressed. He suggested that the proposed licensing board doesn’t currently have a slot for a patient as a member, and that it should have one.

Like many of the speakers, Tony Keene had previously addressed the council on the topic of medical marijuana. At the council’s Jan. 3, 2011 meeting, he’d been critical of dispensaries as a business model to provide access to medical marijuana for patients. From The Chronicle’s report of that meeting:

[Keene] had distributed a yellow two-side sheet to the audience that described an alternative strategy to the city’s proposed licensing scheme. During his public commentary turn, Keene highlighted some of main points of the alternative. Key among them is the idea that “dispensaries” are in concept not lawful under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, but that business models developed along the lines of “compassion clubs” and “co-ops” are. So the proposal would be to close down all dispensaries and start from scratch – with compassion clubs and co-ops and individual caregivers making up “caregiver centers.”

Keene attended the council’s Feb. 6 caucus, on the Sunday night before its regular meeting, and reiterated to the one councilmember who attended, Sabra Briere (Ward 1), his view that dispensaries are not a good solution, and that dispensaries are the only voices being heard. At the caucus, he told Briere that the council had no understanding of the topic and that they had no idea what they were doing. As an example, he pointed out that the current licensing had no explicit definition for a “cultivation facility.” [Briere brought forward an amendment on Monday that provided a definition of such facilities.]

On Monday night, Keene complimented the council for keeping the spirit of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act in mind, noting that nothing would require his business, which involves caregiver support services, to have a license.

Keene’s commentary was distilled into a simple message: Say yes to medical marijuana, say no to dispensaries. It’s time to shut down the dispensaries, he said. There are adequate mechanisms of caregiver support that patients who cannot grow for themselves can find a way to get their medicine, he said. A dispensary is a million-dollar-a-year business, he said. If a medical marijuana business owner is not willing to purchase marijuana from an exchange and to be completely open and transparent, Keene said, then that person has no business being in the medical marijuana business.

Rhory Gould reminded the council that their challenge is to find a balance between the concerns that some people might have and the interests of patients. Offering patients more choices, he said, would result in competition, thus lower prices and better service. He reminded the council that Ann Arbor is surrounded by more conservative communities. He suggested that parking affects ease of access to dispensaries, and in light of that called for a geographic distribution of licenses: 10-15 licenses for downtown and 15 for the rest of the city, and 5-8 licenses for growing facilities. He noted that the original moratorium was only for 120 days and had then been extended well beyond that time. He wanted to get employees hired, space rented and start paying taxes, he said.

Chuck Ream told the council that they’d come a long way and that he wanted to focus on three remaining areas. First, the section expressing the legislative intent of the licensing ordinance, said Ream, is negative and pejorative and should be changed to reflect the city’s charter amendment. Second, he said there is no need to have more than one person’s name posted on the wall – warning that 15 people have been killed and others robbed. There is no need to post people’s names so that every junkie and robber can have access to that information. Third, he said there’s no need to require a listing of all suppliers. That kind of listing would drive the “little guy” out of business, he said.

Medical Marijuana: Council Deliberations

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) led off deliberations by noting that some of the proposed changes that had been analyzed by the city attorney’s office had been forwarded to councilmembers only around 6 p.m. [The council had a budget work session that began at 6 p.m.]

Medical Marijuana: Council Deliberations – Amendment 1 (Define Cultivation Facility)

Briere then waded into proposed changes, starting with definitions. The amendment offered and eventually approved defined cultivation facilities this way:

Medical marijuana cultivation facility means a structure or each space in a structure that is separately owned or leased by a person other than the owner of the structure, in which marijuana plants are being cultivated other than as a medical marijuana home occupation.

Queried by Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) about the motivation for the change, Briere observed that the definition of “cultivation facility” in the original draft was essentially a tautology: “Cultivation facility means a medical marijuana cultivation facility.” She added that the desire was to distinguish cultivation facilities from home occupation-type businesses. [At the Jan. 3 meeting, the council had stripped out home occupation businesses from the licensing requirements.]

Higgins said the definition seemed to indicate a large structure, leased to different people – could there be several cultivation facilities in one structure? City attorney Stephen Postema did not answer Higgins’ specific question, but essentially reiterated the content of the definition. Higgins indicated that she found the definition more confusing now than before. Postema said some definition of cultivation facility was needed.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) clarified with Postema that the consequence of the proposed definition was that each individual cultivation facility in a larger structure would need to have a license.

Amendment outcome: With dissent from Rapundalo and Higgins, the definition of “cultivation facility” was approved.

Medical Marijuana: Council Deliberations – Amendment 2 (Define Authorized Person)

Next up was the definition of an “authorized person.” The eventual language accepted by the council was this:

(e) Authorized person means:
(i) an owner of a dispensary or cultivation facility;
(ii) the directors, officers, members, partners, and individuals of a dispensary or cultivation facility that is a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, or sole proprietorship;
(iii) any person who is in charge of and on the premises of the dispensary during business hours.

Briere explained that the definition of an authorized person is important in the context of the licensing requirement that city staff be able to enter the premises for inspection, if allowed by an “authorized person.” Briere drew an analogy to the idea that a plumber working at a resident’s home would not be authorized to allow someone else to enter.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) wondered why “an employee” was not on the list of possible persons who would meet the definitional criteria.

Briere explained that depending on the business model, some employees might be more in charge or less in charge of the facility. A cleaning person would not be in charge, for example.

Amendment outcome: The new definition of “authorized person” was unanimously approved.

Medical Marijuana: Council Deliberations – Amendment 3 (Combined Facilities)

Briere carried the next amendment forward, indicating some weariness. The next amendment clarified whether a combined operation that includes both a cultivation facility and a dispensary would require two licenses – one for the cultivation facility and one for the dispensary. The eventually approved language reads:

(4) The first year’s licenses shall be capped at a number 10% higher than the licenses applied for in the first 60 days, but not more than 20 dispensaries and 10 cultivation facility licenses. Any license terminated during the license year returns to the City for possible reissuance. A business that is a combined dispensary and cultivation facility shall require two separate licenses.

Briere reported that the metaphor she’d discussed with city attorney Stephen Postema that morning was that of a brewpub, which manufactures and distributes alcohol on the same premises. Having both kinds of operation puts you in a different position, Briere said. Sandi Smith (Ward 1) asked that the word “possible” be inserted before “reissuance” to make clear that the city was not obligated to reissue a returned license.

Amendment outcome: The council unanimously approved the amendment making it clear that a combined facility would need two licenses.

Medical Marijuana: Council Deliberations – Amendment 4 (Proof  of Insurance)

Saying that she would love it if someone else would take up the issue of bringing amendments forward, Briere trudged ahead. Next up was a general provision that required proof of insurance for licensees. The exact types were left blank in the amendment, with the idea that the blanks would be filled in before the second vote on the ordinance. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) expressed some reluctance in leaving the items blank, but said that if city attorney Stephen Postema could provide the information to fill in the blanks by the second vote, he was okay with it.

(4) Before the City officially issues a license, the applicant shall provide the City with proof of insurance in the following types and amounts:
(a)
(b)
(etc.)

Amendment outcome: The council unanimously voted to insert a requirement of proof of insurance.

Medical Marijuana: Council Deliberations – Amendment 5 (Strike Physician Names)

Next up was an amendment to strike the names of physicians who would be rendering services on the premises from the information required on an application form.

(f) Name and address of all physicians who will render services on the premises of the cultivation facility or dispensary.

Briere said there were undoubtedly reasons for wanting to know this information. But she pointed out that if the goal was to find out which physicians were referring patients to a dispensary, then this requirement would not meet that goal, because a physician need not be on the premises to make the referral. She also pointed out that the physicians doing the referrals could change from time to time.

Smith supported striking the requirement, saying that it would not inform a licensing board decision about whether to grant a license.

City administrator Roger Fraser and Marcia Higgins share a humorful aside during the Feb. 7 meeting.

Higgins asked why a physician would render services at a dispensary. Why would they do that? she asked. If this is an additional place the physician would be practicing, then she’d want to know that, she said.

Assistant city attorney Kristen Larcom explained that there is locally at least one dispensary with a physician on the premises to review and make referrals for state of Michigan medical marijuana registry cards. Why can’t a physician do that at their office? wondered Higgins. Higgins stated she’d not be supporting the amendment.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) raised the practical issue of whether the changing of a physician on the premises could cause the license to be invalid. Postema indicated that the information should be updated with the city if it changed. He also said there’s no requirement that a physician be on the premises and that the majority of dispensaries don’t have one.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) and Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) both said they’d support the amendment.

Amendment outcome: With dissent from Rapundalo and Higgins, the requirement was eliminated that physicians’ names be included in a license application.

Medical Marijuana: Council Deliberations – Amendment 6 (Strike Services)

Next up was an amendment that altered the requirement that the license application include a description of products and services to be offered by the licensee. In its final form, the language was simply stricken:

(j) A description of the products and services to be provided.

Briere said that there simply needed to be language indicating whether an applicant is applying for a dispensary license or a cultivation facility license. Smith suggested striking the item in its entirety. She said a licensing board decision would not be informed by knowing what strain of marijuana or delivery methods were being offered.

A back and forth that included Rapundalo and Derezinski – who serve on the council’s liquor license review committee – drew out the fact that liquor licenses are specific to the kind of alcohol served and the specific types of entertainment offered on the premises. So they were keen to see the language stay in the ordinance.

Mayor John Hieftje questioned whether the analogy to liquor licenses was the best one to use – he thought a pharmacy would be a better point of comparison.

Amendment outcome: The council voted to strike the language about products and services, with dissent from Higgins, Derezinski, Rapundalo, and Taylor.

Medical Marijuana: Council Deliberations – Amendment 7 (Security Measures)

The council next considered an amendment to modify the requirement on video security measures. [Language to be stricken is displayed in strike-through; added language in italics.]

(i) security cameras to monitor all areas of the licensed premises where persons may gain or attempt to gain access to marijuana or cash. Recordings from security cameras shall be maintained for a minimum of seventy-two hours in a secure off-site location. The Administrator may adopt regulations implementing this requirement, including but not limited to regulations on the design, location, maintenance, and access to the cameras and recordings. Those regulations shall take effect 30 days after being filed with the City Clerk unless modified or disapproved by the City Council.

Smith stated that she was uncomfortable with the city administrator having that role. Kristen Larcom indicated there are a number of ordinances where the city administrator promulgates such regulations. Higgins ask if Larcom had had a conversation with city administrator Roger Fraser about it – no, she hadn’t. Taylor noted that the language doesn’t give an instruction to the administrator, but rather gives the administrator an authority.

Kunselman expressed reluctance to adopt measures modeled after Colorado’s laws – which had been mentioned in connection to the video requirement – because for Colorado, the video recordings are all about tracking revenue. [At the Sunday night caucus, Tony Keene had said that in Colorado, the video feeds go straight to the treasury department.]

Amendment outcome: The council approved the video surveillance language, with dissent from Kunselman, Higgins, Smith and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Medical Marijuana: Council Deliberations – Amendment 8 (Package Labeling Warning)

Next up was insertion of additional language [indicated in italics] on the package labels for medical marijuana.

THIS PRODUCT IS MANUFACTURED WITHOUT ANY REGULATORY OVERSIGHT FOR HEALTH, SAFETY OR EFFICACY. THERE MAY BE HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INGESTION OR USE OF THIS PRODUCT. USING THIS PRODUCT MAY CAUSE DROWSINESS. DO NOT DRIVE OR OPERATE HEAVY MACHINERY WHILE USING THIS PRODUCT. KEEP THIS PRODUCT OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN. THIS PRODUCT MAY NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA ACT OR BY ANY PERSON WHO DOES NOT POSSESS A VALID MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT REGISTRATION CARD.

Smith said that she hoped that they might eventually also contemplate some language indicating educational resources.

Amendment outcome: The council unanimously approved the additional language.

Medical Marijuana: Council Deliberations – Amendments 9, 10 (Rephrase to Positive)

Two amendments were made that essentially replaced “no person shall fail to” with language that asserted what is required. In their approved form, the amended portions of the ordinance read:

An authorized person shall consent to the entry into a cultivation facility or dispensary by the Building Official and zoning inspectors for the purpose of inspection to determine compliance with this chapter pursuant to a notice posted in a conspicuous place on the premises two (2) or more days before the date of the inspection or sent by first class mail to the address of the premises four (4) or more calendar days before the date of the inspection.

…

All security measures required in this chapter shall be maintained in good working order. The premises shall be monitored and secured twenty-four hours per day.

Amendment outcome: The council unanimously approved the rephrasing of the language.

Medical Marijuana: Council Deliberations – Amendment 11 (Changes to Facility)

Next up was an amendment to make clear how changes to the operation of a business and possible changes to the physical structure would be handled in the licensing. These acts would be prohibited [deleted text is shown as strike-through, with added text in italics]:

(d) Make any changes or allow any changes to be made in the operation of the cultivation facility or dispensary as represented in the license application without, applying for and being issued a new license first notifying the City by amending its application.

(e) Make any changes or allow any changes to be made to the structure in which the business is operating without applying for and being issued appropriate permits and obtaining final inspection approval.

Amendment outcome: The council unanimously approved the amendment.

Medical Marijuana: Council Deliberations – Amendment 12 (Posting Names)

An amendment that reduced the number of names required to be posted on the premises of a business, together with the license, was approved [deleted text is shown as strike-through, with added text in italics]:

A cultivation facility or dispensary license issued by the City under this chapter, including the name and contact information for the owner(s) and business manager(s),  for an authorized person and business manager(s), if any, shall be conspicuously posted in the cultivation facility or dispensary where it is easily open to public view.

Higgins asked why you wouldn’t want to display the names on the license itself. Taylor drew a distinction between posting ames versus the city having the names in the city’s hands. Higgins summarized her objection by saying that this is a big business, and it seems shady not to list the owners.

Amendment outcome: The council voted to modify the number of names required to be posted, with dissent from Higgins and Rapundalo.

Medical Marijuana: Council Deliberations – Unresolved Issues

In the course of handling the multiple amendments, one was withdrawn – it would would have provided a specific way to trace the origin of the medical marijuana by requiring the state registry ID number of a caregiver.

Another issue was not formally introduced as an amendment – the provisions in the licensing that address prior convictions of felonies.

As it became apparent that the council’s inclination was to again postpone the measure, Hieftje reiterated some of the frustration that he’d expressed midway through the handling of the amendments, saying that he would like to see a marked-up copy of the licensing proposal that reflected all the amendments the council had made. He wanted to be able to consider the material in a form that was more appropriate than what they’d had to contend with that evening.

In response, Postema told the mayor that he could have such a copy to the council by next week. Hieftje seemed to indicate that next week [it was Monday evening] would not be an acceptable delay, saying that it would be very helpful if the council had the material available several days in advance of their next meeting.

Outcome: The council unanimously voted to postpone its initial vote on the licensing scheme until Feb. 22, 2010, but passed several amendments before postponement. [.pdf of licensing proposal as amended on Feb. 7, 2011] The vote that was postponed is the first of two votes the council must take on any new ordinance it enacts. The second vote on licensing would come no sooner than March 7, 2011. A second vote on the zoning regulations for medical marijuana businesses, which won council’s initial approval at its Oct. 18, 2010 meeting, also was scheduled for March 7, 2011.

Heritage Row Application Fee

Before the council was a proposal to waive the application fee if the developer of the Heritage Row project, Alex de Parry, resubmits the planned unit development (PUD) within 90 days.

To qualify for the fee waiver, the project would also need to include the same revisions that previously had been reviewed by city staff – after the project had been rejected, and then rejected again upon reconsideration by the city council in the summer of 2010. The resolution notes that to date, de Parry has paid the city over $30,000 in review fees, a number that was revised upward during council deliberations to more than $42,000.

The residential project, located on the east side of South Fifth Avenue, would renovate seven houses and construct three new 3.5-story apartment buildings behind those houses, with an underground parking garage. The council initially rejected Heritage Row on June 21, 2010, with a 7-4 vote in favor. It required an 8-vote majority for approval, due to a petition filed by adjoining property owners. The city council then reconsidered the project at its July 6, 2010 meeting, and it failed again, on a 7-3 vote. Then at the council’s Dec. 6, 2010 meeting, some councilmembers seemed poised to suspend council rules to allow another reconsideration, but the vote to suspend council rules failed.

The last proposal reviewed by the city includes the following revisions: (1) the top floor of the new south building would be removed from the design; (2) the density would be reduced from 79 units to 76 units and the number of bedrooms would be reduced from 154 to 147; (3) the project would include five affordable units at the 50% AMI (average median income) level, in addition to six affordable units at the 80% AMI level; and (4) the three new buildings would be LEED certified.

Complicating the decision-making on Heritage Row is a different, matter-of-right project called City Place, for which de Parry already has site plan approval. That approval was given at the council’s Sept. 21, 2009 meeting.

Heritage Row Fee: Public Comment

Dissenting views held by the public were expressed in letters to the city from nearby property owners Tom Whitaker and Beverly Strassmann, whose communications were attached to the council’s online packet of materials.

Among other points, Whitaker’s letter raised the question of whether the project would be considered a new project or would be considered to be the same project as before:

But will the City really treat this as a new project? Will Heritage Row Revisited actually receive the same rigorous and comprehensive review that any other new PUD petition would receive? The resolution explicitly says NO, it will not. This time, Heritage Row is to only receive the most minimal of reviews by staff in order to justify the waiving of all fees and to speed it through the process (which will invariably lead to the same conclusion as the last three times). So which is it – the same or new?

Strassmann’s message to the council – as well as Whitaker’s – included a specific issue that emerged during council deliberations: Would de Parry actually build the City Place matter-of-right project? For Strassmann, it’s clear:

The de Parry’s have no intention of building their R4C project. The R4C project would be very foolish to build and it is unlikely to get bank approval. They know that. Nor is it likely that the de Parry’s are about to cash in and move out of state given that they have another local project.

Heritage Row Fee: Council Deliberations

The resolution was introduced by Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who had co-sponsored it along with Sandi Smith (Ward 1). He recalled that when the council had last had the project on its agenda, on Dec. 6, 2010, the parliamentary requirements would have entailed what some people considered to be extraordinary rule suspensions. The resolution before the council takes care of that, Derezinski said.

Derezinski went on to say that the resolution to waive the application fee had come at the request of the developer, Alex de Parry. Though the information accompanying the resolution indicated that de Parry had paid more than $30,000 in application fees in connection with projects at the site, Derezinski said the exact number was $42,020. The rationale for the fee waiver, he said, was that the city’s planning staff would have relatively little work to do in reviewing the plans, which they’ve seen before.

From left: councilmembers Sabra Briere (Ward 1), Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), and Sandi Smith (Ward 1) at the budget work session before the Feb. 7 city council meeting. At right is Kevin McDonald of the city attorney’s office.

Derezinski said that he and Smith as well as other councilmembers had worked with the developer to make changes to the project to make it better.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said she thought it was great to see that the project would be coming back, but noted that waiving fees was not standard practice. She suggested instead a reduced fee that would be commensurate with the 15-20 hours of staff time that would be required for the review. The actual fee worked out to $4,900, and Higgins suggested something like half that – $2,000 was the figure she settled on. Derezinski said he didn’t like the idea, but as a practical matter he would not oppose it as a friendly amendment.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) said he had concerns about making such an exception, but said he was prepared to support some version of the resolution. He described how a previous version of the project had been unanimously rejected by the city council. He said that progress had been made in improving the project and he felt the council had some responsibility to be proactive.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) said he did not like the idea of waiving fees. He wondered if the council would be waiving fees for the developer of the Georgetown Mall property. He did not agree with the conclusion that the alterations to the project represented a substantial change. He also wondered what level of LEED certification would be achieved.

Kunselman went on to discuss taxes owed on the individual properties that constitute the site of the project, which came to more than $19,000. He concluded that the developer was a “tax scofflaw.” He also noted that not all the sidewalks had been repaired in front of the properties – the city’s ordinances require that property owners maintain their own sidewalks. He said he did not think City Place would get built, because all the properties would have to be paid off – he seemed to indicate a general skepticism that the developer had the financial wherewithal to build the project.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) said there’d been a good dialogue on the project. He noted that the city’s R4C/R2A zoning study was not yet finished. There were ways the council could have dealt with preventing City Place from being built, he said, which included a proposed moratorium on projects in R4C areas and establishing a historic district. [A prior proposal from Anglin for a moratorium got little traction on the council. And the council had previously rejected a historic district study committee's recommendation to establish a district in the area.]

Mayor John Hieftje said he would normally not support a fee waiver. The mayor picked up on a comment that Derezinski had made to the effect that in Derezinski’s short time on the city council, he’d never seen anything like the history of the Heritage Row project: Hieftje said in his long time on the council [more than 11 years], he’d also seen nothing like it. He called it a special situation. If it weren’t for City Place, he said, he wouldn’t contemplate supporting the resolution. But he did believe that City Place would be built, if Heritage Row weren’t approved. In an apparent allusion to Whitaker’s letter, Hieftje said that people had suggested other ways to block City Place, but he did not think there were any that were legally acceptable.

Hohnke acknowledged the unusual nature of the situation. He said that the long, hard, tough negotiations had served the community well – City Place had not yet been built.

Outcome: The council approved the application fee reduction for Heritage Row by a 9-2 vote, with dissent from Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Design Guidelines

Before the council for approval was a program of design guidelines for downtown buildings as the final piece of its A2D2 rezoning project. The program was long in the works but the item was a late addition to the Feb. 7 agenda, getting added the same day as the council meeting. [Previous Chronicle coverage, which includes a detailed timeline of the design guidelines work, dating back to a work group formed in 2006: "Ann Arbor Hotel First to Get Design Review"]

Local architect Norm Tyler consults with Marcia Higgins (Ward 4).

The resolution did not incorporate a mandatory process of design review into the city’s ordinances, but instead creates a framework for eventual incorporation of such a mandatory process. Part of the temporary arrangement will be a design review committee consisting of: Chet Hill (landscape architect); Mary Jukari (landscape architect); Richard Mitchell (architect); Tamara Burns (architect); Paul Fontaine (planner); William Kinley (developer); and Geoff Perkins (contractor).

Compliance with the recommendations of a permanent design review board to be established by ordinance would be voluntary. For now, developers would be asked to participate voluntarily with the process, with recommendations coming from the design review committee that was appointed as part of the council’s resolution.

Design Guidelines: Public Commentary

Peter Nagourney addressed the council by recapitulating the long history of the effort to formulate design guidelines. He recounted how the design guidelines had been presented to the city council at their work session on Jan. 10, 2011. He said he was impressed with the work of the task force.

Design Guidelines: Council Deliberations

During the first slot for communications time, Sabra Briere (Ward 1) was critical of the belated way the item had been brought to the agenda. [Items are ideally to be ready for the agenda's first publication on the Wednesday before the council's Monday meetings, but according to their own council rules, councilmembers are supposed to use best efforts to make sure that items are placed on the agenda before the Friday prior to a Monday meeting.] Briere said that placement of an item on the agenda as late as Monday should be reserved only for emergencies. Something as important as the design guidelines, said Briere, should not be added to the agenda that late.

At the start of the meeting, a mayoral proclamation was presented to Peter Pollack’s widow, Eleanor Pollack, for his wide-ranging contributions to civic life in Ann Arbor, which included work on the design guidelines task force that produced the final program of guidelines. Upon presentation of the proclamation, the council rose from their seats and were joined by the audience in their applause honoring Pollack’s memory.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who led the design guidelines task force, said the task force wanted to dedicate their report to Pollack’s memory. Higgins had announced Pollack’s imminent passing at the council’s Dec. 20, 2010 meeting.

When the council came to the agenda item, Higgins led things off by describing the task force’s work as diligent and noted the public input over the last five years. After the Jan. 10 work session, Higgins said the task force had met again to discuss how the mandatory review process and voluntary compliance would be implemented.

She said the completely voluntary process that the resolution put into place sees the design review taking place before the citizen participation meeting, which is required by city ordinance for all new project submissions.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved adoption of the design guidelines program.

Fuller-Maiden Lane Intersection

Before the council was the authorization of a $460,139 contract with DLZ Michigan Inc. to review previous studies of the Fuller Road/Maiden Lane/East Medical Center Drive intersection and propose a design for reconfiguring the intersection. Previous studies point to a roundabout as a good solution to the traffic congestion at the intersection. The poor level of service (LOS) in that area has prompted the city to propose various solutions to the intersection redesign, dating back at least to 2005. Depending on the time of day, the intersection currently rates D and E on the letter-grade scale used to evaluate traffic flow.

In the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP), the intersection improvement is categorized with bridge projects – it’s immediately adjacent to the Maiden Lane bridge over the Huron River.

In 2009, the city studied the intersection in the context of increased traffic load due to possible construction of the Fuller Road Station – an intermodal transit center and parking deck proposed for the area between Fuller Road and East Medical Center Drive. The city’s online meeting packet included drawings of the current configuration of the intersection, as well as the possible roundabout configuration.

The engineering and design of the roundabout project will be funded out of the FY 2011 capital budget for the city’s street reconstruction millage. Construction is expected to be funded out of a combination of: (1) millage revenues in future years; (2) possible funds from a federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant; and (3) a contribution from the University of Michigan.

In a telephone interview Monday morning before the evening council meeting, Homayoon Pirooz, in the city’s project management unit, told The Chronicle that construction on any project would not begin before the summer of 2012, with 2013 a more likely timeframe. Pirooz ballparked the construction cost of a project like this – once all the traffic lanes leading to the intersection are modified, and the pedestrian amenities are installed – as possibly more than $2.5 million.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the contract for design and engineering of the Fuller-Maiden Lane intersection.

Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)

At its Feb. 7 meeting, the council voted on approval of the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP). The plan covers the fiscal years 2012-2017, and includes a list of major capital projects – for projects that have identified funding sources, as well as those that do not. The city code requires that the CIP be developed and updated each year, looking ahead at a six-year period, to help with financial planning. It’s intended to reflect the city’s priorities and needs, and serves as a guide to discern what projects are on the horizon.

Included in this year’s proposed CIP was a plan for a runway extension at the city’s municipal airport, an item that the council had voted to remove last year before last year’s CIP was finally adopted.

The city’s planning commission recommended adoption of the CIP at its Jan. 4, 2011 meeting, when commissioners discussed in detail how the plan was developed and how public input was sought. [Previous Chronicle coverage of the possible airport runway extension: "Ann Arbor Airport Study Gets Public Hearing"]

CIP: Public Hearing

Libby Hunter rendered her public commentary in the form of a song, as has become her standard practice. She used the melody from the University of Michigan fight song “Hail to the Victors” and sang lyrics critical of the Fuller Road Station project, which is included in the CIP: “Hail to Hieftje’s transit center …”

Joel Batterman introduced himself as a 2006 graduate of Huron High School and currently a master’s student in the University of Michigan urban planning program. He discussed the Fuller Road Station, an item in the CIP. He said there needs to be a prioritization. The city of Ann Arbor, he said, has a desire for a train station. And the University of Michigan, he continued, has a desire for greater parking capacity. Batterman urged consideration of UM’s own phase 2 draft reports for its Integrated Assessment of Campus Sustainability. Batterman suggested that a better strategy than increased parking capacity was to make better use of existing parking resources. He described thousands of empty spaces on outlying lots, which could be used more effectively through judicious setting of parking fee levels. [Batterman addressed the UM regents at their January meeting on the same topic: .pdf file of Batterman's remarks to regents].

Andrew McGill, prior to the start of the Feb. 7 city council meeting. It was a long wait for McGill to hear the vote on the city’s capital improvements plan. He left knowing that the council had removed the airport runway extension project from the plan – he’d advocated for its removal.

Andrew McGill spoke on behalf of The Committee for the Preservation of Community Quality, noting the 2012 line item in the CIP for the municipal airport runway extension. He said that labeling the extension as a “runway safety extension” is disingenuous. He reminded the council that they’d removed the item from the plan last year by a majority vote. He reminded them that they had only approved an environmental assessment of the airport, not a plan to extend the runway. The environmental assessment, he said, was still being evaluated by the Federal Aviation Administration. McGill concluded by asking the council to affirm the decision made the previous year and to delete the item again.

Providing a counterpoint to McGill’s remarks was Chris Gordon, who introduced himself as president of the Ann Arbor General Aviation Association. Gordon, who lives in Dexter, emphasized the idea that the Ann Arbor municipal airport is not just a city asset – it’s a regional, state, and national asset. He noted that in terms of number of operations, Ann Arbor’s airport is ranked eighth out of the state’s 238 public use airports. He stressed that there are aviation funds that can only be used on aviation assets – it’s not as if money not spent on airport projects could be spent on other, non-aviation projects elsewhere in the city. He urged the council’s support of all the airport projects in the CIP.

Thomas Partridge called for development of a unified plan to invest in people and services.

CIP: Council Deliberations

This year, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) raised the same objection about the runway that he had voiced the previous year, and the council again removed the item by a narrow 6-5 vote.

Amendment outcome: Voting for keeping the runway extension in the CIP were: Teall, Higgins, Smith, Derezinski and Rapundalo. Voting against the runway extension were Kunselman, Hohnke, Anglin, Hieftje, Briere and Taylor.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) questioned what the principles were for developing the CIP and expressed some frustration that there are projects included in the plan that the council has not yet voted on, but they’re included in the plan as if the city is moving forward with them. Anglin also wondered to what extent input from the public had been included in the plan.

Cresson Slotten, senior project manager with the city, described for Anglin how the plan had been developed, including the survey of the public that had been conducted. Slotten’s remarks mirrored his presentation to the planning commission about the plan at their meeting a few weeks ago.

City administrator Roger Fraser noted that the planning commission is required to propose the CIP, but that not every item in the plan needs to have funding identified. Development of the plan, he said, complies with state law, and technically, the city council should simply be voting to receive the plan – implying that it was not really expected that the council would alter the plan.

Outcome: The council unanimously approved the CIP after the narrow 6-5 vote that eliminated the airport runway extension.

Greenbelt Matching Funds

The council was asked to approve applications to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRLPP) for matching grant funds. The funds would be used for the purchase of development rights on two additions to the city’s greenbelt program: 110 acres on the Lindemann-Weidmayer farm in Lodi Township, and 92 acres on the Grosshans farm in Superior Township.

The city’s cost would be paid out of the greenbelt millage funds. The federal match would be up to 50% of the appraised fair market value of the development rights, up to a maximum of $5,000 per acre. The greenbelt advisory commission recommended at its Dec. 8, 2010 meeting that the city make the applications to the FRLPP.

Outcome: Without comment, the council unanimously approved the two recommendations to submit applications for the federal matching grants, to be used for greenbelt properties.

Village Green Contract Amendment

Before the council was approval of an amendment to a contract with Village Green to develop a 244-space parking deck as the first two stories of a 9-story, 99-foot-tall building, City Apartments – a 156-unit residential planned unit development (PUD) at First and Washington. Among other items, the amendment clarifies the ability of the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority and the city to provide oversight to the construction process.

Once the parking deck portion of the building is completed and issued a certificate of occupancy, the city of Ann Arbor has agreed to issue $9 million worth of bonds to purchase the deck, and the Ann Arbor DDA has agreed to make the payments on those bonds. The DDA board approved its part of the contract amendment at its Feb. 2, 2011 meeting.

The contract amendment comes in the context of a series of milestones that were put in place last year, when the council extended Village Green’s option to purchase the parcel at First and Washington, where City Apartments would be built, for $3 million. That most recent extension came at the council’s Aug. 5, 2010 meeting, and provides a purchase option through June 1, 2011. The $3 million from the transaction would be put towards the construction fund for the city’s new municipal center, which is now largely complete and partly open for business.

If the $3 million transaction does not go through, the city has said it would borrow money to cover the construction shortfall, a step that would require city council approval. Based on The Chronicle’s conversation at the council’s meeting with a Village Green representative, the company expects the deal to go though and is planning for construction to start in the summer of 2011.

At a Wednesday morning meeting of the DDA partnerships committee, Wendy Rampson – head of planning for the city – told The Chronicle that Village Green had not yet made a formal request to lift the entire building by a few feet, in order to avoid having to dewater the site during construction. Depending on the number of feet, she said, such a request could be handled as an administrative change or else as a request that the city council would need to approve.

Outcome: Without comment, the council unanimously approved the Village Green contract amendment.

Fire Services Analysis

As part of its consent agenda, the council considered a resolution that authorized the city administrator to negotiate a contract to get an analysis of and recommendations for Ann Arbor’s fire protection needs. The contract, for not more than $54,000, will be signed with International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Center for Public Safety Management.

The move comes in the context of two recent budget retreats conducted by the council, where the council discussed the possibility of transforming Ann Arbor’s fire department to a staffing arrangement that would combine full-time career firefighters with paid on-call firefighters.

The city’s current contract with the firefighters union IAFF Local 693 expired on June 30, 2010. Councilmember Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), chair of the council’s labor committee, reported at the council’s Jan. 18, 2011 meeting that the city had been negotiating with its firefighters since February 2010, and has used the services of a state mediator on three occasions. Concessions sought by the city from all its unions include a wage freeze and higher employee contributions to the health care and pension plans.

Outcome: The council does not deliberate on consent agenda items. The fire protection services was approved unanimously along with other consent agenda items.

Communications and Comment

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

Comm/Comm: Labor Negotiations

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) – consistent with the indication he’d made at the council’s previous meeting that he would give updates on the topic of the city’s negotiations with its labor unions – gave some background meant to correct misperceptions that had been indicated in comments written on the AnnArbor.com website. He clarified that city councilmembers do not participate in negotiations with the city’s unions. Those conversations are handled by the city administrator and other city staff, he said. What the council does is set general parameters for the conversations. [One of the legitimate reasons for the council to go into a closed session under the Open Meetings Act is to discuss labor negotiations and to develop a strategy for those negotiations.]

A second point Rapundalo made was that the firefighters were not the only workers to have made concessions in the past. [At the council's previous meeting, Rapundalo had cited non-union workers as well as the Teamsters police deputy chiefs unit, the Teamsters civilian supervisors and Teamsters police professionals as workers who'd made concessions.] Rapundalo also noted that the firefighters’ concessions had enjoyed a duration of only six months.

As a third point, Rapundalo rejected the idea that the city’s instigation of Act 312 arbitration was somehow an indicator that the city did not want to negotiate with its unions. He said the city is compelled to resort to that strategy, because there is little if any incentive for unions to negotiate – their existing contracts remain in effect even if they expire.

Rapundalo then went on to lay out the disparity between what non-union staff pay in the way of health care and what members of the police patrol union, the firefighters, and the AFSCME workers pay. Non-union city workers pay 20% for co-insurance, plus a $300-$1,000 deductible per year. In contrast, union workers pay a $225-250 deductible per year and that’s it. He then went on to compare University of Michigan health benefits with union benefits. UM, Rapundalo noted, is generally considered to offer fairly generous benefits. For an individual in UM’s system, the cost per year in premiums is $1,416, compared to the $225-250 deductible per year that city union members might pay. For family insurance, the comparison was: UM – $6,480; city of Ann Arbor unions – $500.

The city has dealt with rising health costs year after year, and it continues to negotiate to reduce the disparity in health care costs between its employee groups, Rapundalo concluded.

Comm/Comm: Snow Removal Cost

City administrator Roger Fraser noted that the cost of the previous week’s snow removal had been around $250,000.

Comm/Comm: City-DDA Parking Contract

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority has a contract with the city under which it manages the city’s public parking system. Two committees – one drawn from the DDA board and one drawn from the city – are responsible for negotiating a new contract.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) at the council’s budget work session before their Feb. 7 meeting.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) reported that the Ann Arbor DDA’s committee is currently working on contract details. Joint meetings of the two committees, said Taylor, would reconvene shortly. [Under terms of a 2005 amendment to that contract, it appears the DDA would have the option unilaterally to extend the existing contract for at least three years past the 2015 term of that contract. However, the idea of the DDA exercising that option has not been a part of the public discussions of the contract.]

Comm/Comm: Downtown Street Outreach Task Force

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) reported that the downtown street outreach task force, which she is chairing, had completed its fact-finding work and is currently writing up its report. The report would be presented to the council, she said, at the second council meeting in March, if not sooner. [The council had appointed the task force at its Sept. 20, 2010 meeting. Previous Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Task Force Consults Panhandlers"]

Comm/Comm: Environmental Commission Vacancy

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) told his colleagues that for the current vacancy on the city’s environmental commission left by Steve Bean – who chose not to continue his service on the EC – he was nominating Susan Hutton, development director at Leslie Science and Nature Center. He also announced that there would be another vacancy soon on the EC and that the council was actively soliciting applicants. [Anya Dale's term on the EC ends on Feb. 20, 2011.]

Comm/Comm: Advocating for Least Fortunate

During public commentary reserved time at the start of the meeting, as well as the general time at the meeting’s conclusion, Thomas Partridge told the council that he was advocating for the least fortunate among us. He called for ending discriminatory housing and transportation policies. He criticized the city snow plows that piled the snow up into “glaciers,” making it difficult to traverse them. He called for a “kinder, more reasonable mindset.” He called for leadership that is forward-looking and fair.

Comm/Comm: Parks Volunteer Recognition

A mayoral proclamation at the start of the meeting recognized Delta Rho Chapter of the Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity as volunteers for the city’s parks program. The fraternity focuses its volunteer efforts on Liberty Plaza downtown and includes food distribution to the homeless population who frequent the park.

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: Feb. 22, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the Washtenaw County administration building, 220 N. Main St. [confirm date]

The vote that was postponed is the first of two votes the council must take on any new ordinance it enacts. At its meetings over the last few months, the council has heard extensive public commentary on medical marijuana, but that commentary does not constitute a formal public hearing, which will be held at the same meeting when the council votes on final approval of the licensing, provided it eventually gives initial approval to the licensing system.

At its Oct. 18, 2010 meeting, the  council gave its initial approval to a set of zoning regulations for medical marijuana businesses, but it has not yet given its final approval to those regulations. The council’s strategy is to bring licensing and zoning forward at the same time for a final vote.

The context for development of zoning regulations was set at the council’s Aug. 5, 2010 meeting, when councilmembers voted to impose a moratorium on the use of property in the city for medical marijuana dispensaries or cultivation facilities. Subsequently, the city attorney’s office also began working on a licensing system, which the council first considered at its Jan. 3, 2010 meeting.

At its Jan. 3 meeting, the council heavily amended the licensing proposal. Among the key amendments made at that meeting was one that stripped “home occupation” businesses out of the proposal. At the Jan. 3 meeting, the council also increased the cap on the total number of licenses available to 20 for dispensaries and 10 for cultivation facilities. Another major amendment made on Jan. 3 was the creation of a board to govern the issuance of licenses. However, the council delayed voting on the first reading of the proposal. [.pdf of licensing ordinance language at the start of the Feb. 7, 2011 meeting]

At its Jan. 18 meeting, the council was poised to undertake further amendments to the licensing proposal, including many that concerned limiting the amount of information that is required to be divulged by those associated with license applications. However, the council did not amend the proposal further at that meeting.

The moratorium on additional facilities in the city to be used as medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities was extended by the council at its Jan. 18 meeting to go  through March 31, 2011.

This brief was filed from the boardroom in the Washtenaw County administration building, where the council is meeting due to renovations in the city hall building. A more detailed report will follow: [link]