Jackie and John Farah address the Ann Arbor planning commission at its Aug. 19, 2014 meeting. To the right is Andrew Walters of Metro Consulting Associates, who’s working on the Farahs’ project. (Photos by the writer.)

Both projects required approval of a special exception use from the commission, because the zoning doesn’t allow those uses without it.

It was the health spa/fitness center proposal that drew the most scrutiny from commissioners. John and Jackie Farah want to convert part of an existing office building at 3100 W. Liberty into a facility that would provide personalized training and guidance to help people develop healthier lifestyles. Jackie Farah stressed that the focus is on wellness, not on athletic fitness. The center would be in the same complex as John Farah’s dental practice.

Six people spoke during a public hearing on this project, including the Farahs as well as nearby residents. Concerns from neighbors included the disturbances that additional use of this site would have on their properties. Also speaking against the project was Brian Eisner, owner of the nearby Liberty Athletic Club, who expressed concern about increased traffic on West Liberty. The Farahs stressed that their effort would not increase traffic or negatively impact the residential neighbors.

During deliberations, commissioners considered putting limits on the hours of operation or restricting use to appointments only, but ultimately rejected those constraints. However, they did amend the special exception use to limit the amount of square footage that could be used for fitness center activities – to 9,000 square feet. It does not require additional city council approval.

The other special exception use was granted to the Community Music School of Ann Arbor, allowing it to operate at 1289 Jewett Ave., between South Industrial and Packard. The music school will share the building of Clonlara School, a private K-12 educational institution.

Commissioners also recommended the annexation and zoning of 2115 Victoria Circle, a half-acre vacant site west of Newport and north of M-14. If approved by the city council, the property would be annexed from Ann Arbor Township and zoned R1A (single family dwelling).

Farah Fitness Center

The Aug. 19 agenda included a request for a special exception use to create a fitness center at 3100 W. Liberty.

3100 West Liberty.

The proposal by the owners, John and Jackie Farah, is to convert part of an existing office building on the southern end of a 5.37-acre site into a fitness center that would operate similar to a physical therapy/rehabilitation facility, according to a staff report. The special exception use allows for indoor recreation on a site zoned office (O). It would be part of the Farah Professional Center, which was first developed in 1995 and expanded in 2005.

The site – on the north side of West Liberty, between Wagner and South Maple – includes a 13,000-square foot, two-story building and a 10,000-square foot, one-story building with an 89-space parking lot. The two-story building includes John Farah’s dental practice. The one-story building houses a dental consulting firm and a milling center for dentists and dental labs nationwide. The property is located in Ward 5.

The staff report stated that the proposed center “is a facility available to customers by appointment only, offering less than a dozen pieces of equipment such as treadmills, elliptical, bikes and nautilus machines. Yoga, spinning, massage therapy and acupuncture also will be offered. Hours of operation will be consistent with normal office/health practitioner business hours.” [.pdf of staff report]

The office zoning district is intended as a transition between residential areas and other types of uses that would be incompatible with neighborhoods. In addition to offices – including medical and dental – the office-zoned sites can include salons, funeral homes, artist studios, hotels, and private colleges. With a special exception use, the sites can include veterinarian hospitals and kennels, and indoor recreation.

Separately, the owners have submitted an administrative amendment to the previously approved site plan for changes to the office center’s parking lot. The proposal is to increase the number of spaces from 89 to 104 within the limits of the current parking area. The additional spaces are required to support the proposed indoor recreation use. The modified parking lot would have 70 full-sized spaces, 29 compact-sized spaces, and 5 barrier-free spaces. Of those 104 spaces, 12 would be “deferred” – meaning they will be shown on the planning documents, but not installed.

The administrative amendment does not require planning commission or city council approval. Nor is additional council approval required for the special exception use.

Staff recommended approval.

Farah Fitness Center: Public Hearing

Six people spoke during a public hearing on this project, including the Farahs as well as nearby residents. Some of them had also submitted letters to the commission.

Ira Mark.

Ira Mark told commissioners that he’s a resident of the adjacent subdivision, and lives on Trego Circle. “This building is literally in my back yard.” Almost 19 years ago, he addressed the commission with other neighbors who negotiated significantly with John Farah about the first building that was constructed. He said at that time, the neighbors were guaranteed that the development would have certain hours of operation. Over the years, he’s spent thousands of dollars on landscaping and blackout shades. His neighbors have done the same, Mark said. They still hear cars and see lights from the development.

He indicated that it’s good that the parking won’t be expanded. He hoped that any additional lighting would be minimized. He said he took offense at the Farahs’ statement that the hours of operation won’t be detrimental to the neighborhood. Sometimes there are runners in the parking lot at 5 a.m. – he can hear them talk about where they’ll be running. If the new facility is by appointment only, can people make appointments for 10 o’clock at night or 5 in the morning? Even now, sometimes there are lights on in the building after regular business hours, he said.

Mark said that Farah has been willing to talk to neighbors when they’ve had issues over the years, and those issues have been resolved. He gave the example of trash pickup that used to be done in the early morning. But if there’s a lot of traffic in the parking lot at odd hours, it will be disturbing, he said, and it would potentially impact his property value. [.pdf of Mark's letter]

Brian Eisner introduced himself as the owner of the nearby Liberty Athletic Club – it’s located on the opposite side of West Liberty, in Scio Township. His major concern was traffic. There’s already a problem along that section of West Liberty, he said, citing two very serious accidents in recent years. It’s almost impossible to make a left turn onto West Liberty from the south side, during certain times of the day. His business has been there for 40 years, and he’s seen the traffic pattern change.

Brian Eisner, owner of the Liberty Athletic Club.

Eisner said he knows how many people come to a fitness center, because he owns one. The Liberty Athletic Club has yoga classes with 40 people enrolled, “so these are not small numbers,” he said. The Farahs’ whole business model has been disguised, he said, and he’d like to know what the business model really is. He suggested that the planning commission restrict the number of people that could be in the building at any one time. “I’m just very, very leery about the very, very sketchy information that we have, and how that’s going to impact a serious, serious problem,” he said, referring to traffic. He said he represented the concerns of his club’s members as well. [.pdf of Eisner's letter]

Bill Moorhead, another nearby resident, said his concerns were similar to those stated by Mark and Eisner. He thought that the operation needed to be defined. Is it a spa, or athletic club, or rehabilitation facility? [.pdf of Moorhead's letter]

Andrew Walters of Metro Consulting Associates was attending on behalf of the Farahs, who were also at the meeting. The proposal is for a “modern lifestyle health spa,” he said. It would provide a combination of services that deal with maintaining a healthy lifestyle. The use is consistent with some of the other uses that are allowed without a special exception use, he said, such as health practitioner or beauty salons that provide massage. There is, however, an athletic component to their proposal, Walters added, and that’s what triggered the need for a special exception use.

No parking expansion is proposed, Walters noted. New spaces will be added by re-striping the existing parking lot. Nor is there planned expansion of the parking lot lighting, he said. Ultimately, it will just be a change in tenant of the building, and it won’t be a hindrance to the neighborhood. All the uses will be indoors, and the hours of operation will mostly be during general business hours – 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Regarding traffic, the site currently has office and medical/dental office uses, he said. A health fitness club use would be expected to produce the same or less traffic than a medical/dental office, he said. The people who visit would be spread out during the day, not all at the start and end of the business day.

Jackie and John Farah.

The Farahs also addressed the commission. John Farah said he’s lived in Ann Arbor over 50 years. He’s a runner and believes in fitness. The proposal is to really help people lead a healthy lifestyle, he said. Many of his friends who are his age aren’t in as good of shape as he is, Farah said. “I think I have ways of helping people in the community.”

The place will be limited in size and will be very personalized, Farah told commissioners. He said that Ira Mark knows that any time the neighbors had a problem, he would address it. “I hate to say this,” Farah added, talking to Mark, “but you have never seen any runners in that lot. We have never had anybody congregating there in that lot.”

Before this space became empty, the previous tenants employed up to 22 people at one point, Farah reported. “We will not employ any more than three or four people in that area.” It should not affect the traffic in any detrimental way.

Farah noted that he’s been a member of the Liberty Athletic Club for many years, and he appreciates it. He’s taken many yoga classes there, and there have never been 40 people in a class. Usually the size is 12-15 people, except on Sundays when there are up to 25. That club also has only ??23 bikes in the spinning room, he noted.

Farah said he’s contributed to this community in many ways, and he thinks this new project will benefit the community too.

Farah then introduced his wife, Jackie Farah. There are many interpretations of the word “fitness,” she noted. But their focus is on the healthy lifestyle aspect, “and not fitness in a gym where you work out to become a better athlete.” Their spinning room will have eight bicycles. There will be one private yoga room for one or two people, she said, and the other yoga room will fit 12 people. “We’re really trying to zoom in on a very personal fitness plan for people,” she said. They’re proud of trying to help people, including those who’ve finished physical therapy or are fighting debilitating illness and need to continue with yoga or other instruction. The focus is on wellness, not on being a better athlete, she concluded.

Farah Fitness Center: Commission Discussion

Kirk Westphal wondered whether the description of the operation that’s included in the staff report would be tied to the special exception use – that is, would the special exception use only be valid as long as the fitness center reflects what’s described in the report? For example, the report states that the center will have less than a dozen pieces of equipment. What if the center eventually has two dozen pieces?

Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff.

City planner Alexis DiLeo replied that the special exception use would be for an “indoor fitness center.” There are no limitations as to size or hours or maximum membership, she said, and the special exception use would apply to the entire site. However, it could be amended by commissioners to stipulate a limit on square footage, for example, or to put a limit on hours, she said.

Westphal wondered if city code for this zoning district puts any limit on hours of operation. No, DiLeo replied. There are city code limits on construction hours, but for not general business or retail hours.

Westphal also clarified with DiLeo that the special exception use would stay with the parcel, not the owner. “It’s not like a functional family,” she noted – a reference to a controversial request by local Jesuits for a function family special exception use earlier this summer.

Sabra Briere asked about the proposed use for the adjacent property that’s located in Scio Township. DiLeo replied that it’s owned by the Washtenaw County office of the water resources commissioner, and is part of the Sister Lakes drain. It’s open space, she said.

Briere ventured that the land creates a buffer between the residents on Trego Circle and the Farahs’ site. How wide is that buffer? DiLeo said she’d check to be sure, but she thought it was around 100 feet. Andrew Walters of Metro Consulting Associates reported that it’s at least 35 feet wide.

Ira Mark gives some information to Sabra Briere, who serves as the city council’s representative on the planning commission. Mark raised concerns about a proposed fitness center near his property off of West Liberty.

Bonnie Bona pointed out that in addition to the drain property, there’s also a landscape buffer for the parking lot. DiLeo said that it’s a conflicting land use buffer, so it should be a minimum of 15 feet. She added that some additional landscaping is being put in, as part of the redesign of the parking lot, in order to meet the city’s current square-footage requirement for a “vehicular use area.” DiLeo explained how the redesign was being handled. Walters reported that three trees are being added to the landscaping, mostly on the eastern side of the site – nearest to the residential area.

Eleanore Adenekan asked about the hours of operation, confirming with John Farah that it would be from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Farah said they haven’t worked out details about whether there would be weekend activity. It might be necessary to be there a few hours, to accommodate the schedules of certain individuals. He doubted they would do anything on Sundays.

Jeremy Peters asked whether the fitness center would take up the entire building – if not, how much space would be used? Farah replied that the building is two floors. His dental clinic is on the second floor, so the center would be on the first floor, with about 6,400 square feet.

Replying to another query from Peters, Farah said there would be trainers available to work with clients by appointment.

Bona commended the Farahs, saying that they’re proposing a great business, so her comments weren’t a critique of their business plan. “Creativity and keeping people healthy is all a good thing – it’s whether or not it’s appropriate in this location,” she said.

Bona said she’s struggling with the use of an indoor fitness center. What zoning district would allow for a more traditional fitness club, like Liberty Athletic Club? DiLeo replied that the bulk of the city’s zoning ordinance was developed in the 1960s, and terms like “gym” and “yoga” are not included. The ordinance does mention indoor recreation – for court games like raquetball, which were popular at that time.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona.

But the ordinance has to be interpreted for modern times, DiLeo said. So the staff has interpreted and applied the ordinance to allow for a gym or fitness use on sites that are zoned as commercial districts, as well as in other zoning districts – office and light manufacturing – that allow for indoor recreation as a special exception use.

Wendy Woods asked what entity is responsible for West Liberty Street? Briere responded that the road is actually in Scio Township. DiLeo noted that the road is under the purview of the Washtenaw County road commission.

No traffic study is required for this project, DiLeo explained. A study is triggered only if the Institute of Traffic Engineers manual indicates that a site’s use will generate more than 50 trips in a peak hour, she said. Based on this project’s square footage and type of use, it fell below that amount.

Bona said the concerns she’s heard relate to hours of operation, traffic, lighting, and the amount of parking. The principal uses that are allowed in an office district – such as beauty salons, institutions of higher education, hotels, health practitioners – vary widely in their hours of operation, she noted. The district allows for a lot more flexibility than what perhaps the neighbors would like, she said.

Bona added that she was struggling to figure out how the Farahs’ proposed use was different from a health practitioner. She wondered why a special exception was needed in the first place, and it didn’t make sense to limit the hours of operation when some of the other allowed uses would have even longer hours.

Planning commissioner Kirk Westphal.

Diane Giannola said she saw things a bit differently. In a commercial area, there are more comings and goings during the day. For an office area – including a medical center – there would be less coming and going, she said, because people would primarily be entering and exiting at the beginning and end of the work day. So a commercial fitness center would have much more traffic than an office, she said.

Giannola’s concern with this item was that the special exception use would be attached to the property. The Farahs’ project appears to be appointment-only, she noted, which would limit the number of people coming into the site. She suggested amending the special exception use so that it would be limited to appointment-only centers. That would limit it for future uses too, so that businesses like Curves wouldn’t be allowed to operate there.

Responding to a query from Briere, John Farah said the dental consulting firm and milling center combined employ about two dozen people, who work during standard business hours. The same is true for employees of his dental office, though in that case there are also patients who arrive and depart throughout the day. Briere noted that in a way, the fitness center would be like adding dental patients, because they’d have scheduled appointments.

Farah thought the flow of people to the fitness center would be much lower than for his dental office. Walters added that the fitness center wouldn’t be adding to peak-hour traffic.

Planning commission chair Wendy Woods.

Briere pointed out that the entire site won’t be used for one purpose, but it will continue to be used for multiple purposes. She agreed with Bona, saying she’s hard-pressed to see why this fitness center requires a special exception use. She suggested it might be time to revisit the city code, since it’s so outdated.

Bona clarified that her intent isn’t to change the rules, but rather to define businesses that exist today that are consistent with those already allowed. “We’re not talking about allowing things that would have characteristics dramatically different from what’s already allowed,” she said.

Westphal wanted to make sure commissioners all understood what would be allowed under this special exception use, which applies to the whole site. The lot hasn’t been developed as much as it could be, he noted, so if the property changed hands, this special exception use could allow for a significantly expanded fitness center, like a Planet Fitness. He didn’t doubt that the Farahs planned a smaller operation, but he wanted to be clear that in the future, something like a large gym would be a possibility.

DiLeo noted that the staff typically recommends some kind of quantity limit on any special exception use. For example, a special exception use for veterinary kennels would typically limit the number of dogs. Most schools come with a maximum number of students. So perhaps in this case, she said, it would make sense to limit the square footage allowed for a fitness center.

Planning commissioner Jeremy Peters.

Westphal said he’d be open to that, as well as to some kind of “generous” limit on hours of operation.

Peters supported a limit on square footage, and also suggested limiting the usage to appointments only. That might address at least some of the traffic concerns, he said.

Bona said she’d like to see this business operate at this location. Regarding the suggestion on limiting use to appointments only, she noted that this zoning district allows institutions of higher education – without a special exception use. Such institutions hold classes, she observed, and those are often held in the evening. “It’s a little odd to put restrictions on a use when some of the allowed primary uses can do more,” Bona said.

However, Bona added that in the interest of allowing this to move forward, the appointment limitation and square footage are reasonable, “especially since it looks like we need to have a more robust discussion about how we define primary use.” She suggested that if revisions to the city code are made, the district shouldn’t be called “office” if there are a lot of non-office uses that are allowed. It misleads the neighbors into making certain assumptions about what could be located there, she said.

Giannola asked whether Farah intended to sell unlimited-use passes for the facility.

Farah responded by saying he was trying to be creative with this project, and to accommodate people in various ways. “I mean, how many restrictions can you put, you know?” Farah asked.

Planning commissioner Eleanore Adenekan.

They’ve thought about whether to offer classes or a lecture to small groups, on topics like nutrition. They’ll probably experiment with different ideas, he said. But in general, it would be geared toward very small numbers of people. That makes it different from places like Liberty Athletic Club, he said.

Regarding limits on hours of operation, Farah said they want to cater to individuals – so occasionally, someone might need to be there until 8 p.m. He didn’t think it made sense to put time limitations. Giannola replied that it’s not a concern with his business, but if he sold the building, someone else could put in a different operation. “I’m not selling the building,” Farah said.

Giannola noted that in 10 or 20 years, that might change. The city can’t take back a special exception use, if all of the requirements are being met, she noted. So that’s why commissioners are being cautious.

Based on the discussion, Westphal said he’d withdraw his suggestion to limit the hours. He also questioned the enforceability of restricting the use to appointments only. However, he’d continue to support a limit on square footage.

Peters proposed amending the special exception use to limit it to 9,000 square feet.

Outcome on amendment: It passed unanimously on a voice vote.

There was no further discussion.

Outcome on amended special exception use: It passed unanimously and does not require additional approval from city council.

Community Music School

The planning commission was asked to grant a special exception use to the Community Music School of Ann Arbor to operate at 1289 Jewett Ave., between South Industrial and Packard. It would allow the private music school to use the Clonlara School building with a maximum of 150 students at any time.

Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff gave a report on the Community Music School request.

Clonlara School, a private K-12 institution, is located in a district zoned R1B (single family dwelling), which permits private schools if given a special exception use approval. Most of the surrounding properties are single-family homes or duplexes. Clonlara already has a special exception use to operate with a maximum of 150 students. No changes are planned for the exterior of Clonlara’s 16,900-square-foot, single-story building.

The music school will primarily use the facility on weekdays from 3:30-9 p.m., on Saturdays from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and on occasional Sunday afternoons. Over the last three years, the music school has enrolled 220-250 students, but on an average day, only about 25-30 students come in for lessons.

Even if there were an overlap in classes between Clonlara and the music school, there could only be a total of 150 students in the building at the same time.

Clonlara School’s 2.46-acre site includes 22 parking spaces in a parking lot off Jewett Avenue, plus three spaces behind a rental house located north of the school building. A one-way drive runs north from Jewett to Rosewood Street.

The city’s traffic engineer reviewed this request and thought that the number of instructors and students on that site at any given time would have a negligible traffic impact. Jill Thacher of the city’s planning staff reported that there’s good public transportation access to that location, with a bus stop near the corner of Jewett and South Industrial, and other nearby stops on Packard. [.pdf of staff report]

Thacher said she’d received two calls from neighbors about this request, both of them inquiring about how loud the music would be. Clonlara windows don’t open, she noted, so that helps to contain sound. “They don’t intend to hold lessons outdoors on the site,” she added.

Community Music School: Public Hearing

Two people spoke during the public hearing, both in support of the special exception use.

Kasia Bielak-Hoops, executive director of the Community Music School (formerly the Ann Arbor School for the Performing Arts).

Kasia Bielak-Hoops, executive director of the Community Music School (formerly the Ann Arbor School for the Performing Arts), explained why the school would like to move to Clonlara. “We feel that it is an incredible capacity-building opportunity for us,” she said, and also an opportunity to collaborate with a similar organization.

The music school’s activities will not disturb the peace of the neighborhood, she said, and it might even be a resource to the community. She quoted from an email she’d received from a resident who lives on Jewett. The resident described the move as a “win-win” for the neighborhood, enlivening it with kids and families. Maybe some nearby residents would even sign up for classes.

Bielak-Hoops said she’d be happy to answer any questions that commissioners might have.

Martha Rhodes, Clonlara’s campus director, also described the compatibility of the two schools and their focus on lifelong learning. Clonlara has worked hard to become a “green” school, she said, and this change would continue that effort – because it would bring more activity to a large building that sits empty after 3:30 p.m. and on weekends.

The music school also offers the opportunity for deeper programming for Clonlara’s students, Rhodes said, “and an opportunity for both programs to grow together.” She hoped the commission would see it as a really good use of empty space, and would approve the special exception use.

Community Music School: Commission Discussion

Diane Giannola asked why the music school needed a special exception use, since there’s already an active special exception use for a school at that location.

Planning commissioner Diane Giannola.

Jill Thacher replied that music schools are considered to be different “because they make more noise than elementary schools,” though she joked that as someone with experience at elementary schools, she might challenge that assumption.

Jeremy Peters noted that he works in the music industry and has a degree in music, so he joked that his question will probably cause his friends to yell at him. He wondered if the school was planning to hold lessons for amplified instruments.

Kasia Bielak-Hoops replied that they do offer a jazz studies program that includes electric guitar. They also have a guitar teacher who gives lessons in both acoustic and electric guitar. “But the plan is to have it indoors,” she said.

Peters cautioned that the music school should be aware of possible concerns from neighbors over noise. He said it didn’t seem like that would be an issue, but he wanted to raise it since the city had heard from residents about it.

Responding to comments made during the public hearing, Kirk Westphal noted that the planning commission does like to see buildings used longer and parking lots filled more times during the day.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously granted the special exception use for the Community Music School.

Victoria Circle Annexation

The Aug. 19 agenda included a resolution to recommend the annexation and zoning of 2115 Victoria Circle, a half-acre vacant site west of Newport and north of M-14.

2115 Victoria Circle.

If approved by the city council, the property would be annexed from Ann Arbor Township and zoned R1A (single family dwelling).

The owner, Abayomi Famurewa, wants to build a single-family home there and connect to the city’s public water and sanitary sewer service. The staff report notes that the city’s storm sewer system does not extend to that area at this point. [.pdf of staff report] Staff had recommended approval.

No one spoke during a public hearing on this item.

Victoria Circle Annexation: Commission Discussion

Sabra Briere noted that the city has recently annexed several properties on Victoria Circle. Homeowners in the adjacent neighborhood have concerns that driveways would lead onto Newport Creek or one of the nearby streets. She pointed out that the property under consideration looks like it could have a driveway onto Newport Creek. Briere wondered if the city has any restrictions on that type of thing.

City planner Alexis DiLeo replied that Newport Creek is a public street, and the number of curbcuts permitted for any particular property is based on the property’s frontage onto a road. She noted that the property didn’t actually connect to Newport Creek. She didn’t believe the 2115 Victoria Circle site had enough frontage to warrant two curbcuts on Victoria Circle.

Bonnie Bona observed that the property has public land on one side (the Riverwood Nature Area), as well as sites zoned for single-family dwelling (R1A) and two vacant lots zoned as planned unit developments (PUDs). She asked about the history of the PUDs. DiLeo replied those sites zoned PUD are city-owned parkland, though she could not recall why they were still zoned PUD. She explained that the sites are “virtually undevelopable,” because it would require a voter referendum to sell parkland.

Kirk Westphal asked if the city-owned PUD sites were used as cut-throughs to the nature area, and whether the property owner of 2115 Victoria Circle knew that people might use it for that purpose. DiLeo said she wasn’t sure on either count. Briere ventured that there’s not currently a trailhead at that location into the nature area. DiLeo replied that staff could mention it in the letter that would be sent to the owner after annexation is approved.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the annexation and zoning. The item will be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Present: Eleanore Adenekan, Bonnie Bona, Sabra Briere, Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods, Jeremy Peters.

Absent: Ken Clein.

Next meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2014 at 7 p.m. in council chambers at city hall, 301 E. Huron. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date.]

The revisions define a drive-thru in this way: “Any building or structure, or portion thereof, that is constructed or operated for the purpose of providing goods or services to customers who remain in their vehicle during the course of the transaction.” The revisions also clarify that a drive-thru is an accessory use, not the principle use of the building. A project in which a drive-thru would be the principle use would not be allowed. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance.

In addition, the changes require drive-thrus to obtain special exception use permits, which would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Drive-thrus would not be allowed in the C1, D1, D2, and other commercial districts.

Before the amendments drive-thrus were allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use, and allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

When considering whether to grant a special exception use – which does not require additional city council approval – the planning commission considers these issues:

1. Is the location, size and character of the proposed use compatible with the principal uses of the district and adjacent districts? Is it consistent with the Master Plan? Is it consistent with the surrounding area? Will it have any detrimental effects to the use or value of surrounding area, or the natural environment?

2. Is the location, size, character, layout, access and traffic generated by the use hazardous or inconvenient or conflicting with the normal traffic of the neighborhood? Is off-street parking safe for pedestrians? Do the necessary vehicular turning movements block normal traffic flow? Are any additional public services or facilities needed by the use, and will they be detrimental to the community?

3. Is the maximum density and minimum required open space at least equal to the standards normally required by the Zoning Ordinance for the district?

The planning commission recommended the changes at its April 1, 2014 meeting.

The amendments were first reviewed by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee in 2007, but didn’t move forward to the full commission for consideration. The ORC most recently reviewed these changes in March of 2014. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed amendments]

Details on the council’s deliberations are provided in The Chronicle’s live updates filed during the meeting.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall located at 301 E. Huron.

The proposed revisions define a drive-thru in this way: “Any building or structure, or portion thereof, that is constructed or operated for the purpose of providing goods or services to customers who remain in their vehicle during the course of the transaction.” The revisions also clarify that a drive-thru is an accessory use, not the principle use of the building. A project in which a drive-thru would be the principle use would not be allowed. Basic layout requirements would also be added to the ordinance.

City council action came at its May 5, 2014 meeting.

In addition, the changes would require drive-thrus to obtain special exception use permits, which would be allowed only in the O (office), C2B (business service) and C3 (fringe commercial) zoning districts. Drive-thrus would not be allowed in the C1, D1, D2, and other commercial districts.

Currently, drive-thrus are allowed in C3 districts without a special exception use. They are allowed as special exception uses in the C2B district.

When considering whether to grant a special exception use – which does not require additional city council approval – the planning commission considers these issues:

1. Is the location, size and character of the proposed use compatible with the principal uses of the district and adjacent districts? Is it consistent with the Master Plan? Is it consistent with the surrounding area? Will it have any detrimental effects to the use or value of surrounding area, or the natural environment?

2. Is the location, size, character, layout, access and traffic generated by the use hazardous or inconvenient or conflicting with the normal traffic of the neighborhood? Is off-street parking safe for pedestrians? Do the necessary vehicular turning movements block normal traffic flow? Are any additional public services or facilities needed by the use, and will they be detrimental to the community?

3. Is the maximum density and minimum required open space at least equal to the standards normally required by the Zoning Ordinance for the district?

The planning commission recommended the changes at its April 1, 2014 meeting.

The proposed amendments were first reviewed by the commission’s ordinance revisions committee in 2007, but never moved forward to the full commission for consideration. The ORC most recently reviewed these changes in March of 2014. [.pdf of staff memo and proposed amendments]

This item would require a second vote by the council at a future meeting for final approval.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The C1 zoning does not have restrictions limiting the products sold to those that are made on-site. The owners of Biercamp wanted the ability to sell products not made on-site, so the zoning accommodates their goal.

The council’s action came at its Feb. 18, 2014 meeting. The council gave initial approval to the zoning on Jan. 21, 2014.

The two parcels in question – just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The site at 1645 S. State is used for storage. In addition to housing Biercamp, the parcel at 1643 S. State also includes an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer, which is primarily a woodworking shop.

The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor Township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission and the city council. That was when Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site.

When the property was annexed into the city from the township, the site had been zoned by the township for light industrial. The closest equivalent in the city’s zoning code was M-1 (limited industrial zoning). The city’s master plan – prior to the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan – called for light industrial zoning in that area, but M-1 zoning would only allow for retail space to occupy 20% of the building’s floor area, to sell products made on-site.

At its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting, the planning commission unanimously recommended denial of that C3 zoning request, based on the proposed zoning being inconsistent with the city’s master plan. The request was then made directly to the city council, which also denied the request at a meeting on Feb. 21, 2012.

At the time, planning commissioners also were advocating for a broader study of the State Street corridor. That study was subsequently completed, and on July 15, 2013, the city council adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an amendment to the master plan’s land use element.

According to a staff memo, the adoption of the corridor plan into the city’s master plan prompted city planning staff to initiate the current zoning request. The C1 zoning is consistent with recommendations in the master plan, which calls for a mixed-use neighborhood retail center in that area to serve the Yost and Burns Park neighborhoods.

C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

The city’s planning commission recommended C1 zoning for these parcels at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron.

The council’s Feb. 18, 2014 agenda is highlighted by public art policy issues leftover from its previous meeting, as well as several items related to acquiring various pieces of basic equipment – from a garbage truck to a wood chipper.

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

The possible acquisition of land is also on the agenda, in the form of a resolution postponed from an earlier meeting. The resolution would exercise the city’s right of first refusal to purchase the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property on South State Street. This process began when the University of Michigan offered to buy the property. An item authorizing the $12.8 million purchase is on the Feb. 20 UM board of regents agenda, based on the assumption that the city won’t exercise its right of first refusal earlier in the week.

In other action, the council will consider an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance for a second and final vote on Feb. 18, having given initial approval to the item on Feb. 3. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment are two competing resolutions that would return money from the public art fund to the funds from which that money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money. And that point of possible disagreement is reflected in the amounts specified in the two resolutions. A resolution sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) would transfer $819,005 back to the funds of origin.

A resolution added later to the agenda is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1). Briere’s proposal would eliminate funding for the stalled Argo Cascades art project and would return $957,140 to the funds of origin. Briere’s resolution also directs the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

Either of the two proposed resolutions related to public art funds would require eight votes to pass.

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 agenda is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. It would need eight votes to pass. The result of the Feb. 3 council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid. The contract is supposed to be back on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled.

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda also features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is the repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost. The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break. Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. So the council will be asked to approve the purchase of one for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800. The purchase of two vans for a total of $50,320 is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation staff to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 wood chipper.

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations.

In addition to the Edwards Brothers deal, several other real estate matters are on the Feb. 18 agenda. The council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the greenbelt millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335.

Related to land use, council will also be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

On the consent agenda is a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items for the Feb. 18 meeting, which was shifted to Tuesday because of the Presidents Day holiday on Monday. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Tuesday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network.

The Chronicle will be filing live updates from city council chambers during the meeting, published in this article below the preview material. Click here to skip the preview section and go directly to the live updates. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.

Public Art

Four items related to public art are expected to be handled at the Feb. 18 council meeting: (1) a final vote on an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance; (2) two resolutions enabled by that change, which would transfer money out of the city’s public art fund back to the funds from which the money was drawn; and (3) a resolution extending by six months the contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator and appropriating funds to cover the $18,500 contract extension.

Public Art: Ordinance Amendment

Having given initial approval to an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance at its Feb. 3, 2014 meeting, the council is considering the item for a second and final vote on Feb. 18. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years.

The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

This ordinance revision reprises a previous effort to amend the public art ordinance to allow the transfer of money accumulated during previous years of the Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin. That unsuccessful effort came eight months ago at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. At that meeting, the council did eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism from the public art ordinance, and also allowed the most recent year’s accumulation of money to be returned to the funds of origin. The council also returned that most recent year’s worth of funding – $326,464.

The former Percent for Art program required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. As a part of the June 3 ordinance change, the council replaced the Percent for Art funding program with a new approach that would allow city staff, working with the public art commission, to identify capital projects suitable for “baking in” art. In addition to city funding of art designed to be an integral part of a specific capital improvement project, the approach envisioned general donations to a public art fund, and public art projects paid for with a combination of public and private funds.

The balance of unassigned funds accrued in the Percent for Art fund as of Jan. 14, 2014 is $839,507. An additional $535,853 is earmarked for three projects that are underway: artwork at East Stadium bridges ($385,709), a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($7,009), and at Argo Cascades ($143,134). [.pdf of financial summary]

Any actual transfer of money would require separate council action.

Public Art: Resolution on Return to Funds of Origin

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment are two items now on the Feb. 18 agenda. Both are resolutions that would return money from the public art fund to the funds from which the money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. Under the city charter, resolutions like this require eight votes on the 11-member council.

Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money. That’s already reflected in the two competing resolutions. The first is sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), joined by Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Lumm’s resolution would transfer $819,005, which would leave $20,500 – which is the total amount needed to fund an extension of the public art administrator’s contract and some additional administrative costs. It would also leave funds for three projects in the works at the following locations : East Stadium bridges, Argo Cascades, and the Kingsley & First rain garden.

A breakdown of the amounts that could be returned – and the funds to which that money would be returned – is covered here: [Art budget summary]

A second resolution transferring money from the public art fund to its funds of origin has now been added to the agenda as well. The second resolution is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and escalates the one initiated by Lumm. Briere’s resolution eliminates funding for the Argo Cascades art project – because the committee making the final selection between two artists has not been able to come to a consensus to move forward with either one of them. So Briere’s resolution would return $957,140, compared to the $819,005 called for in the proposal originally put on the agenda by Lumm.

The $138,135 difference in total amounts for the resolutions falls $5,000 short of the $143,134 cost of the Argo Cascades art project. That’s because Briere’s resolution allows $5,000 of funds to remain for a memorial to Coleman Jewett. The public art commission authorized $5,000 in Percent for Art funds for the project roughly five months ago, at its Sept. 25, 2013 meeting. Jewett was a long-time local educator who died in January 2013. After he retired, he made furniture that he sold at the Ann Arbor farmers market. A private foundation has committed $5,000 to create a memorial at the market, in the form of a bronze replica of one of Jewett’s Adirondack chairs. The current proposal, at a total cost of $15,000 is to create an artwork that includes  two such chairs. The $5,000 from the city plus the match from a private donor leaves a  $5,000 gap to be covered in private fundraising.

Briere’s resolution also calls for the city administrator to direct city staff to develop a transition plan to be implemented by staff and the public art commission, and for that plan to be presented to the council in about a year – before March 2, 2015. Briere’s resolution also calls for no additional projects to be initiated using funds set aside under the former Percent for Art program.

A further highlight of Briere’s resolution is direction to the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

The need for continued funding for arts administration is based on the new approach to the public art program established by the city council in June 2013. That new approach can include city-funded art when it’s designed as an integral part of a capital project, as well as projects funded through a combination of private and public money.

If the issue of the amount to be returned isn’t settled on Feb. 18 and the resolution does not pass in any form, another option would be to take up the question in the context of the annual budget resolution, which is considered at the council’s second meeting in May every year. Under the city charter, the budget resolution as a whole requires seven votes to be approved. But amendments to the budget resolution are subject only to the six-vote majority requirement.

On Feb. 10, the city released a list of budget requests made by department heads for the next fiscal year. And $80,000 from the general fund has been requested to fund a transition from the now defunct Percent for Art funding mechanism to the new public art program. The $80,000 would include compensation for a full-time art administrator for a year. In the meantime, the council will likely again consider a six-month extension of the part-time administrator’s contract at its Feb. 18 meeting.

Public Art: Resolution to Extend Public Art Administrator’s Contract

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. The result of the Feb. 3 council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid.

The contract will likely be taken up on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled. The art administrator’s contract was first considered at the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, but was postponed in the context of a political horse trade – support for the administrator’s contract being contingent on beginning a process to transfer money accumulated under Percent for Art in previous years, back to the money’s funds of origin.

The conversation between mayor John Hieftje and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council table toward the end of the Feb. 3 meeting indicated that Eaton would be bringing the item back for reconsideration on Feb. 18, provided that public art money was returned to its funds of origin. Only someone who voted on the prevailing side on Feb. 3 could bring back the item for reconsideration. Those councilmembers include Eaton, Lumm, Kailasapathy and Mike Anglin (Ward 5).

Equipment

The Feb. 18 agenda is relatively heavy on items related to acquiring basic equipment: a combination sewer truck, a hydraulic excavator, a garbage truck, two vans, a wood chipper, and a firefighter training unit.

Equipment: Water Main Breaks

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost.

Here’s a sampling of recent water main breaks – from alerts the city of Ann Arbor has sent out:

• Jan. 15: West Madison between Fourth and Fifth
• Jan. 22: Devonshire between Washtenaw and Melrose
• Jan. 28: S. Industrial between Jewett and Eisenhower
• Jan. 28: Yost between Washtenaw and Parkwood
• Jan. 31: Pontiac Trail at Brookside
• Feb. 5: Washtenaw east of Brockman
• Feb. 11: Pauline between Seventh and Stadium

The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break.

City of Ann Arbor water main breaks by year. It’s not unusual to have several water main breaks in a given year. (Data from city of Ann Arbor financial records, chart by The Chronicle)

Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. The council will be asked to approve the purchase of this type of equipment for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

In more detail, according to the memo accompanying the resolution, the combination sewer truck is to be procured from Jack Doheny Supplies Inc. It will replace a 2005 truck with 6,685 hours of use. Over the last two years, the truck had broken down and needed repairs 63 times – taking it out of service anywhere from fours hours to more than two weeks each time.

When that truck is unavailable to do water main break repairs, a similar truck used for stormwater system maintenance is re-tasked for water main breaks. But that poses a challenge to keep up with the scheduled preventive maintenance of the stormwater system. And failure to meet the cleaning schedule puts the system at risk for clogging and backing up into structures.

On the hydraulic excavator, the staff memo explains that the John Deere model 135G hydraulic excavator to be purchased will replace a 2002 mini excavator. The primary use for that excavator is for water main repair.

The new hydraulic excavator will be able to dig down to 19 feet, which is 7 feet deeper than the 2002 mini excavator. So the larger water mains, which are typically deeper and older, will be reachable.

The mini excavator has been in service over 5,350 hours of use and half its total repair costs have accumulated in the last 3.5 years. The old excavator will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Garbage Truck

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800 from Bell Equipment Company, in Lake Orion, Michigan. It’s a smaller truck – with a 6-yard capacity. It will be used for garbage collection in the city parks, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The new truck will replace a 2002 model with over 14,500 hours of operation. According to the staff memo, in the last three years, 57% of all time spent maintaining the vehicle has been spent on breakdowns while only 14% has been for preventive maintenance. In that three-year period, the cost of breakdown repairs has been more than $78,000, which is more than half of the 13-year lifetime total of $141,480.

Equipment: Vans

The purchase of two vans – from Red Holman GMC in Oakland County, for a total of $50,320 – is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation staff to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. The van purchase was recommended by the park advisory commission at its Jan. 28, 2014 meeting.

According to a parks staff memo, the city’s current fleet of seven 15-passenger vans was unable to keep up with the increasing shuttle transportation demands for Huron River trips in 2013, following the opening of Argo Cascades. More vans are needed to transport people on these trips, which start at the Argo livery and end at Gallup Park. One van in the fleet needs to be replaced. The van purchase would increase the total van fleet to eight.

Equipment: Wood Chipper

Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 Bandit model 1990XP diesel engine-powered wood chipper. According to the staff memo, the new model will replace a 2002 wood chipper, which is used for tree removals, tree trimming and storm clean-ups. The unit is a whole-tree chipper – it will process up to 21-inch diameter logs.

The chipper to be replaced has been in service for 11 years. It has 4,100 hours of use and 35% of its total repair cost ($74,600) has accrued in the last 2.5 years. The old chipper will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Firefighting Simulator

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations. The kind of unit that the grant money, if awarded, would allow the city to purchase is comparable to this: [.pdf of brochure for training unit]

Land

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several land and land use items: two greenbelt properties; a green streets policy; a zoning issue; and the possible exercise of the city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers Mallow property on South State Street.

Land: Greenbelt

The council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor, through its greenbelt program, will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The deal was recommended by the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission at its Jan. 2, 2014 meeting.

Property owned by Thomas E. and Eleanor S. Moore in Scio Township. The Moores applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program. The city is partnering with the township on the deal.

The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended moving ahead with this deal at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting.

Property owned by Maria E. White in Scio Township. White applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program and the city of Ann Arbor is partnering with the township on the issue.

Land: Green Streets

On the council’s agenda is a policy item related to land: infiltration standards to be followed whenever a city street is reconstructed. The “green streets” policy initiative came at the direction of the city council in a July 2, 2012 resolution.

Land: Hofmann Rezoning

Related to land use, council will be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The council gave initial approval to the zoning at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting.

The two parcels in question – just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The site at 1645 S. State is used for storage. In addition to housing Biercamp, the parcel at 1643 S. State also includes an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer, which is primarily a woodworking shop.

The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor Township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission and the city council. That was when Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site.

When the property was annexed into the city from the township, the site had been zoned by the township for light industrial. The closest equivalent in the city’s zoning code was M-1 (limited industrial zoning). The city’s master plan – prior to the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan – called for light industrial zoning in that area, but M-1 zoning would only allow for retail space to occupy 20% of the building’s floor area, to sell products made on-site.

At its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting, the planning commission unanimously recommended denial of that C3 zoning request, based on the proposed zoning being inconsistent with the city’s master plan. The request was then made directly to the city council, which also denied the request at a meeting on Feb. 21, 2012.

At the time, planning commissioners also were advocating for a broader study of the State Street corridor. That study was subsequently completed, and on July 15, 2013, the city council adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an amendment to the master plan’s land use element.

According to a staff memo, the adoption of the corridor plan into the city’s master plan prompted city planning staff to initiate the current zoning request. The C1 zoning is consistent with recommendations in the master plan, which calls for a mixed-use neighborhood retail center in that area to serve the Yost and Burns Park neighborhoods.

C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

The city’s planning commission recommended C1 zoning for these parcels at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

During council deliberations on Jan. 21, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that the staff memo gave the historical perspective, but he hadn’t been sure if the proposal met Biercamp’s needs. Warpehoski told other councilmembers that the Biercamp owners are supportive of the C-1 zoning.

Land: Edwards Brothers Malloy Property

A resolution postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land, and a resolution to authorize that purchase is on the Feb. 20 agenda of the UM board of regents. A UM staff memo notes that the site is “strategically located next to the Donald R. Shepherd Women’s Gymnastic Center, Varsity Tennis Center, and Bahna Wrestling Center and contiguous to other University of Michigan property…”

The council had on Feb. 3 postponed the item “to our next meeting” – which at that time was scheduled for Feb. 18. But subsequently a special meeting was called for Feb. 10 to consider the question. That special meeting was then cancelled.

The Feb. 18 resolution would approve the exercise of the city’s right of first refusal, appropriate necessary funds, and direct the city administrator to notify Edward Brothers Malloy about the exercise of the city’s right. The agenda item contained no other background information.

At its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, the council had directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information about the Edwards Brothers land. The due date for that gathering of information was specified in the council’s resolution as Jan. 30 – the same day that the land-purchase item was added to the Feb. 3 agenda.

At its meeting on Jan. 21, 2014, the council approved without discussion a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services on the property. That assessment included a survey of asbestos-containing materials.

The pending sale of the property to UM was announced in a Nov. 27, 2013 press release. The business – a fourth-generation Ann Arbor publishing and printing firm – had signaled its intent to put the property on the market in late July.

The city’s right of first refusal on the property was a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million. In 2013, Edwards Brothers paid a total of $182,213 in real property taxes, not all of which is the city’s levy. The total city levy of 16.45 mills on $3 million of taxable value works out to about $50,000.

According to the tax abatement agreement, the event triggering the city’s 60-day right-of-first-refusal window is a formal notification to the city by Edwards Brothers, which was made on Nov. 27, 2013. The council will still be within the 60-day window when it votes at its Feb. 18 meeting.

The resolution the council will be taking up on Feb. 18 requires an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council – because the resolution changes the city budget and involves a purchase of real estate.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons

On the Feb. 18 consent agenda is  a contract with the Michigan Dept. of Transportation for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, part of the rationale for the choice of locations is “a history of pedestrian crashes that made them candidates for safety grant funding.” Responding to an emailed request from The Chronicle, city engineer Patrick Cawley provided the following accident history for the locations:

• Fuller Road (2) on May 13, 2009 and Feb. 11, 2010.
• S. University (3) on Feb. 7, 2006, Nov. 24, 2007, and Sept. 8, 2008.
• Geddes (1 involving a bicyclist) on Feb. 9, 2008.

Road Salt

Also on the agenda is a resolution to approve purchase of additional ice-control salt. Based on the $47,200 amount to be appropriated, and the $36.23 price per ton, the council will be authorizing the purchase of roughly 1,300 tons of additional salt.

A city staff estimate provided to The Chronicle puts the amount of salt used so far this season – through early February – at about 6,600 tons. That’s roughly at least as much or more than has been used in each of the previous five winter seasons. If the city uses all of the additional salt to be purchased – bringing this season’s total to about 7,900 tons – that would approach the maximum amount of salt used by the city over the last seven seasons. In the 2007-2008 season, the city of Ann Arbor used 8,500 tons of salt on its roads.

Ice-control salt usage in the city of Ann Arbor by year. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor. Chart by The Chronicle.)

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, the city’s snowplow equipment uses “electronically calibrated spreader controls” to keep the amount of salt used to the minimum amount that is still consistent with traffic safety. The price the city is paying for the salt to be authorized on Feb. 18 is established through a state of Michigan’s MIDEAL program. According to the staff memo, the cost for purchasing additional material on the open market would be about $140, or nearly four times as much as under the MIDEAL program.

3:37 p.m. City staff responses to city councilmember questions are now available: [Feb. 18, 2014 responses to agenda questions]

4:09 p.m. Additional information on the Edwards Brothers land sale is now available: [Edwards Brothers Chart][Additional Offer for Edwards Brothers 2-18-14][Memo to Council]

4:53 p.m. From the due diligence memo: “The analysis shows that there is a possible negative impact in every scenario, except where the benefit of the taxes to all taxing jurisdictions is taken into account. Also, we note that if the City is unable to recoup the $4.5 million of General Fund balance that is assumed will be used to finance the acquisition of the site, the General Fund balance would fall to the 9% to 10% of expenditure range from the existing 14% to 15% range.” Indications are that the council will have two resolutions to choose from – one waiving the right of first refusal and another exercising it.

6:38 p.m. Pre-meeting activity. The scheduled meeting start is 7 p.m. Most evenings the actual starting time is between 7:10 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. Chambers are relatively quiet. Four members of the audience have arrived. No councilmembers or staff are in chambers.

7:04 p.m. Nearly everyone is here. We’re settling in.

7:09 Call to order, moment of silence, pledge of allegiance. And we’re off.

7:10 p.m. Roll call of council. All councilmembers except for Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) are present and correct.

7:11 p.m. Approval of agenda. Jack Eaton wants DC-2 (the return of Percent for Art funds and timeline, sponsored by Sabra Briere) to be heard before DC-1 (return uncommitted public art funds, sponsored by Eaton, Jane Lumm, Sumi Kailasapathy and Mike Anglin). Briere wants DC-3 (a resolution to recommend the Ann Arbor Housing Commission’s request for an allocation from the Ann Arbor Affordable Housing Trust Fund) until just after the consent agenda.

7:11 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved its agenda as amended.

7:12 p.m. Communications from the city administrator. City administrator Steve Powers is highlighting the street closures on the consent agenda that are signs of spring – street closures for art fair and the Ann Arbor marathon.

7:13 p.m. Powers encourages people to help clear out storm drains as the snow melts. The frost is down to about four feet, he says. A hard rain would be problematic. The city released a map of all catch basin locations today.

7:13 p.m. Public commentary reserved time This portion of the meeting offers 10 three-minute slots that can be reserved in advance. Preference is given to speakers who want to address the council on an agenda item. [Public commentary general time, with no sign-up required in advance, is offered at the end of the meeting.]

Tonight’s lineup for reserved time speaking includes four people speaking on public art topics: Margaret Parker (former Ann Arbor public art commission chair), Bob Miller (current AAPAC chair), Dave Olson and Mary Underwood.

Rita Loch-Caruso is signed up to talk about the green streets policy. And Thomas Partridge is signed up to talk about a more racially and politically just Michigan.

7:17 p.m. Margaret Parker is now at the podium. She introduces herself as co-owner of Downtown Home & Garden. She recalls her longtime service on the public art commission. The set-aside from sanitary sewer and stormwater funds was originally meant to convey the city’s pride in those systems. She refers to “negative city councilmembers” who say no to everything. To some councilmembers that say they’re for public art, she asks, “Who can believe you?” She tells the councilmembers that as an “act of good faith” the funds should be left in place. She ventures that transferring the money out would allow Ann Arbor to grab the headlines as a “reactionary art-phobic city” that destroyed its public art program.

7:19 p.m. Bob Miller introduces himself as the current chair of the public art commission. “We represent your goals and direction,” he says. Two projects are jeopardized by the process, he says: Canoe Imagine Art and the Coleman Jewett memorial chair. Both projects now have matching funds that are at risk, Miller says. Those projects are important to AAPAC, he says. He says that he’s proud of the work done at the wastewater treatment plant. Those who work at those various facilities are proud of their work and public art can celebrate their work, he says.

7:23 p.m. Dave Olson tells the council he lives in Water Hill near Fountain Street. He’s reading aloud from a statement that has been circulated in the arts community. It describes people as “alarmed” at council’s recent actions. Failing to fund a transition is one significant criticism in the statement. He and others are advocating for a real sustainable art program. The statement is signed by roughly 25 people, all of whom support the statement, he says. He tells the council their actions have alienated the arts community. He doesn’t want to miss the opportunity to work together.

7:26 p.m. Rita Loch-Caruso is addressing the council as a member of the water committee of the environmental commission. She’s supporting the green streets policy that’s on the agenda. The policy will improve water quality as well as help control runoff, she says. Why focus on streets? She tells the council that streets make up 26% of total impervious surface area in the city, but contribute 54% of stormwater runoff. The requirements in the policy are consistent with the city’s stormwater permit as well as with new county rules that are pending. She calls it a forward-thinking policy. She thanks the other members of the committee and various city staff.

7:29 p.m. Thomas Partridge introduces himself as a recent candidate for various public offices. He calls on the council to create a more racially and politically just society in Michigan. He calls for expanding affordable housing in the city. Partridge says the public art issue should be postponed to give time for cooler heads to come forward to solve this problem.

7:33 p.m. Mary Underwood says that she’s a member of the arts community, but asks that some of the money be returned to the funds of origin. She points to the reduction in city staff levels and the resulting reduction in services. She recalls in a earlier era getting excellent service regarding a dying maple tree. She laments the loss of other employees over the years in the context of the part-time public art administrator’s position.

7:35 p.m. Communications from council. This is the first of three slots on the agenda for council communications. It’s a time when councilmembers can report out from boards, commissions and task forces on which they serve. They can also alert their colleagues to proposals they might be bringing forward in the near future.

7:36 p.m. Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) is talking about an article published in The Ann Arbor Observer. He’s reading aloud a paragraph from the original article about the filing of TIF (tax increment financing) reports by the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority. Kunselman then reads the correction to the December 2013 article. But Kunselman is contending that the correction is also mistaken. So Kunselman wrote an email to city administrator Steve Powers about the issue. [Kunselman is pointing out the history that the DDA did not submit some TIF annual reports before 2011. He is referring at least in part to the DDA annual reports for 2003, 2008, 2009 recorded in Legistar as filed in 2011. Kunselman asks that Powers correct the public record. Powers says that he'd be happy to share his statement with anyone who'd like it.

7:39 p.m. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) is announcing a neighborhood meeting for the Barton Drive sidewalk and Northside traffic calming project. It's on Feb. 25 at 6:30 p.m. at Northside Elementary School, 912 Barton Drive. Sally Petersen (Ward 2) says she has good news to share: a $250,000 contribution from the Rotary Club of Ann Arbor to fund a universal access playground at Gallup Park.

7:41 p.m. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) is raising the issue of special assessments for construction of sidewalks, to help low-income residents. It's something we should think about as a community, he says.

7:43 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) is talking about the number of broken water mains. She relates how Kunselman was out walking his dog and had seen a water main break; Kunselman had called 911, she says. She asks what people are supposed to do.

7:46 p.m. City administrator Steve Powers calls public services area administrator Craig Hupy to the podium: 994-2840 is the number to call for a water main issues, he says. It's hard to tell sometimes the difference between puddling and an actual leak, he says. But if there's water spurting up, then that's probably a break.

7:46 p.m. Eaton says that on Feb. 14, the city attorney had circulated a confidential memo on property assessments, which Eaton would be asking the council to waive privilege on at its next meeting. Following up on Hupy's information, Eaton mentions that ArborWiki has a handy page with all the emergency numbers.

7:46 p.m. Mayor John Hieftje calls for the city to come together to clear the walks as the weather thaws.

7:47 p.m. Nominations. Being nominated by mayor John Hieftje tonight to serve on the local officers compensation commission (LOCC) is Jason Morgan. For background on this group, see: "What Do We Pay Ann Arbor's Mayor?" The council will vote on the confirmation at its next meeting. Morgan is director of government relations at Washtenaw Community College.

7:49 p.m. Kunselman raised his hand on this, but wasn't called on. Now he's called on. He's asking about the start of the term on the LOCC appointment, which is October 2014. Hieftje allows that it's odd. But it's a matter of getting all the appointments back to their proper timing, he says.

7:49 p.m. Public hearings. All the public hearings are grouped together during this section of the meeting. Action on the related items comes later in the meeting. Two public hearings are on the agenda: (1) the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street; and (2) the amendment of the public art ordinance.

The zoning item would give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. [For additional background, see Land: Hofmann Rezoning above.] The public art ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

7:49 p.m. PH-1 Hofmann zoning. Thomas Partridge is calling for rezoning to be approved only if access is provided to all members of the community to the property.

7:52 p.m. That’s all for this public hearing.

7:55 p.m. PH-2 Amend public art ordinance. Thomas Partridge notes that the public art issue has been coming before the council repeatedly and has been a divisive topic. Why? he asks. Public art is a treasure. Why can’t the mayor and council initiate a “cease fire,” a “detente” by postponing the question tonight. That would allow cooler heads to prevail, he says. Why does there have to be an art commission just for Ann Arbor? Why isn’t there a Washtenaw County or region-wide public art commission?

7:56 p.m. And that’s it for this public hearing.

7:56 p.m. Minutes. Outcome: The council has approved the minutes from its previous meeting.

7:56 p.m. Consent agenda. This is a group of items that are deemed to be routine and are voted on “all in one go.” Contracts for less than $100,000 can be placed on the consent agenda. This meeting’s consent agenda includes:

• CA-1 Transfer responsibility for billing of water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater service from the public services area to the city treasurer. The city code explicitly allows for this: “Billing for water service, sanitary sewer service, and stormwater service shall be the responsibility of the Public Services Area of the City, but the Council may, by resolution, transfer such responsibility to the City Treasurer.”
• CA-2 Approve a purchase order for AutoDesk engineering design and drafting software licensing status upgrade ($24,431). This is an update. From the staff memo: “Environmental and infrastructure management planning issues and the upkeep of critical City infrastructure is improved through use of engineering design and drafting software.”
• CA-3 Revise and approve board of review guidelines for poverty exemptions. From the staff memo, maximum income levels range from $19,500 for one person to $54,500 for eight people.
• CA-4 Approve street closings for Ann Arbor Marathon. The marathon takes place March 30, 2014. The map of street closings is here: [.pdf of map of street closings]
• CA-5 Approve street closings for 2014 Ann Arbor art fairs. The fairs take place from July 15 through July 20. The map of street closures is here: [.pdf of map of art fairs street closings]
• CA-6 Approve purchase of one 6-yard rear loading garbage truck ($93,800). The 6-yard capacity truck would be purchased from Bell Equipment Company, in Lake Orion, Michigan. It will be used for garbage collection in the city parks, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution. [For additional background, see Equipment: Garbage Truck above.]
• CA-7 Approve purchase of a wood chipper ($83,208). The chipper is a Bandit model 1990XP diesel engine-powered wood chipper. According to the staff memo, the new model will replace a 2002 wood chipper, which is used for tree removals, tree trimming and storm clean-ups. [For additional background, see Equipment: Wood Chipper above.]
• CA-8 Approve purchase of two 15-passenger vans ($50,320). The vans will be used by the parks and recreation department to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. [For additional background, see Equipment: Vans above.]
• CA-9 Approve agreement with the MDOT for installation of rectangular rapid flashing beacons ($47,971). This is a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179. Part of the rationale for the choice of locations is “a history of pedestrian crashes that made them candidates for safety grant funding.” [For additional background, see Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons above.]

7:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has approved the consent agenda, without pulling out any of them for separate consideration.

7:57 p.m. DC-3 Recommend Ann Arbor Housing Commission request. Background to this resolution includes a city council decision made on Dec. 16, 2003 to allocate the full net proceeds of the pending sale of the former Y lot to the affordable housing trust fund. That amount is almost $1.4 million. Background also includes an Ann Arbor housing conversion initiative to convert its properties to ownership through a private-public partnership – with a goal of putting those properties on a financially stable foundation for the longer term.

For the shorter term, that AAHC initiative requires investment in capital repairs. The AAHC has asked the city and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority to contribute $600,000 each to the shorter-term effort. At a meeting of the DDA partnerships committee on Feb. 12, the request was reportedly met with a somewhat lukewarm reception, as DDA board members were interested in possibly making a contribution in installments. The DDA is also keen to see its contribution matched by the city. The resolution on the council agenda directs the city administrator to prepare a budget amendment for the allocation of $600,000 from the affordable housing trust fund for the first phase of the Ann Arbor housing commission’s plan and to place that resolution on the agenda when the city receives the proceeds of the old Y lot sale.

7:59 p.m. Briere is reviewing the content of the resolution, which comes as a result of an Ann Arbor housing & human services advisory board resolution approved last week. It does not change the budget, but directs the city administrator to prepare a budget amendment when the old Y lot is sold. Briere says that AAHAC does not need the money in their hands but needs to know that the money can be in their hands by the end of March.

8:01 p.m. Briere notes that it’s a notional approval.

8:01 p.m. Eaton moves for postponement. Lumm offers her take on the result of the HHSAB meeting. She’s concerned about the process. She and Briere both attended the HHSAB meeting. She felt the HHSAB board’s consensus was that it wasn’t essential that the item be on the council’s agenda tonight.

8:03 p.m. Lumm also objects to the fact that the item was placed on the agenda after close of business on Friday. Margie Teall (Ward 4) says she sees no reason why the item has to be postponed. If the council moves ahead on this, that will ensure that the DDA also moves ahead, she says.

8:06 p.m. Hieftje asks Teall as liaison to the AAHAC about the RAD conversion. It’s an urgent project, he says. Hieftje says that the agenda item was actually in on time. Lumm disputes that. Hieftje notes that it’s actually possible to add an item at any time. He says it doesn’t actually do anything but is still important. Lumm says that everything that Hieftje wants to happen can happen at the next meeting, on March 3. Lumm appeals to the notion of good behavior by councilmembers towards each other.

8:07 p.m. Briere says that she and Lumm had a different understanding of the outcome of the HHSAB meeting. She says that Lumm had missed the fact that Briere had indicated she was going to bring the resolution forward. Briere reviews the exact timing of her submission of the item. She allows that Lumm is correct that it isn’t an emergency. She notes that the council had a long three-day weekend to review it.

8:08 p.m. Eaton calls it a simple request for courtesy. It would establish the respect that councilmembers talked about earlier in the year.

8:11 p.m. Teall calls the mission of the AAHAC is much more important than the fact that someone got their toes stepped on. Kunselman recalls that he had thought he submitted an item by 5 p.m. on the Fuller Road MOU (memorandum of understanding) but hadn’t and so he had agreed to postpone out of courtesy. Kunselman raises the question of whether the council is posturing for the DDA. He’s concerned that the DDA will only be able to contribute to Miller Manor and Baker Commons. So that might be a reason for the DDA to vote first on the issue. Is the DDA going to wait for the council? asks Kunselman.

8:13 p.m. Powers tells Kunselman that the DDA as a whole board does not yet have a position. Kunselman ventures that Powers could get clarification about what the DDA’s position is – because Powers sits on the DDA board. He asks Powers to convey to the other DDA board members that he doesn’t think it’s suitable for the DDA to hold the AAHC hostage.

8:14 p.m. Briere reviews how the whole DDA board doesn’t meet until March 5. The council meets on March 3. Briere reviews how she’d asked Lumm to co-sponsor this resolution.

8:16 p.m. Warpehoski asks Jennifer Hall, executive director of the AAHC, to the podium. She tells Warpehoski that he’s put her in the middle of a ping pong match. She stresses that she’s focused on getting the rehabilitation project done. She reviews Phase 1. About $1 million from the federal Home Loan Bank that AAHC had hoped to get did not materialize, she says. They were placed on an alternate list. About the DDA and the city, she says, “I don’t really care who goes first.”

8:18 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted postpone the item. Voting for postponement were Kailasapathy, Petersen, Lumm, Kunselman, Eaton, and Anglin.

8:18 p.m. B-1 Hofmann zoning. This change would zone two parcels totaling 0.6 acres from an unzoned status to C1 (local business district). The council gave initial approval to the zoning at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting. The C1 zoning does not include any restriction that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site. And that’s something the owners of Biercamp had tried to achieve with a previous zoning request that had ultimately been denied by the council.

8:18 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve the zoning of the Hofmann property as C1.

8:18 p.m. B-2 Amend public art ordinance. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

8:19 p.m. Lumm reviews the content of the ordinance. She stresses that the ordinance change does not actually return any funds. A separate action will be required, she notes.

8:22 p.m. Kunselman says, “Boy this is a tough one.” Back on June 3, 2013, he had voted against changing the ordinance. At this point he’s willing to amend the ordinance. But he cautions that he’ll probably be voting against both of the other resolutions about returning funds. He feels that the discussion should probably happen in the context of the annual budget resolution in May. He won’t vote for either resolution, he says.

8:24 p.m. Eaton says that at an earlier meeting he’d proposed a compromise involving the art administrator: If public art money is returned, and the mayor assures he won’t veto the ordinance, then he’d bring back the art administrator’s contract for reconsideration. Otherwise not. He doesn’t want to surprise anyone, he says.

8:24 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to give final approval to the public art ordinance amendment, allowing the return of Percent for Art money to its funds of origin.

8:25 p.m. DC-2 Return $957,140 from public art fund to funds of origin and establish timeline. This resolution would cancel the art project at Argo Cascades, resulting in a return of a total of $957,140 from the public art fund to the funds of origin. This resolution is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1).

As a part of the council’s elimination of the Percent for Art funding mechanism last year, it established a new approach to funding public art, based on integrating public art into some selected city capital projects and pursuing a mix of private-public funding for other projects. Briere’s resolution also calls for the city administrator to direct city staff to develop a transition plan to the new program – to be implemented by staff and the public art commission and for that plan to be presented to the council in about a year – before March 2, 2015.

Briere’s resolution also calls for no additional projects to be initiated using funds set aside under the Percent for Art program. A further highlight of Briere’s resolution is direction to the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

8:26 p.m. Note that the council flipped the two resolutions on the agenda. Briere is now describing the rationale for her resolution.

8:28 p.m. Returning funds without committing to funding administration of the new public art program amounted to a “pocket veto,” Briere says, which she did not want to pursue. She felt that the Argo Cascades would not be able to be finished in the timeframe of the transition – given that it has stalled. That’s why her resolution does not leave funds for that project. If the council is going to move forward with a new art program, then the council needs a plan to move forward.

8:29 p.m. Petersen says that not returning the funds is a barrier to creating the kind of public art program that the community wants. She now proposes two amendments.

8:31 p.m. Petersen suggests that the report on the plan be due on Oct. 6, 2014 instead of March 2, 2015. Six months is a reasonable amount of time, she says. Briere and Kailasapathy are OK with that. Petersen’s amendment is accepted as friendly.

8:32 p.m. Petersen also wants to fund the Canoe Imagine Art project, which means that the total amount to be returned is $936,140. That’s also accepted as friendly.

8:34 p.m. Hupy is explaining the cost of the Canoe Imagine Art project – at the request of Warpehoski. There’s a $21,000 match requirement, Hupy says. The original plan was to raise $11,000 of that through fundraising. But the full amount could be provided by the city, Hupy says, if that’s what the council wants. Briere wants the city contribution to be just $10,000.

8:35 p.m. Hieftje calls it a worthy project. He doesn’t want to risk the match and wants to leave it as $21,000. Petersen also wants to leave it at $21,000.

8:36 p.m. Lumm allows that it’s unusual to have two competing resolutions. She supports the elements that overlap between the two resolutions. But she has a problem with establishing a budget for FY 2015 and 2016. It’s too vague. Where would the money come from? she asks.

8:38 p.m. Lumm says it’s clear that the council has different views on which projects should continue. “Keeping it simple is a good principle,” she says. Briere’s resolution is trying to do too much at once, Lumm says, offering a little something for everyone.

8:39 p.m. Kailasapathy identifies her problem with the resolution: establishing a budget for public art administration for FY 2015 and 2016. She has not come to terms with the nature of the priority for public art, she says. There are other competing needs for public services. She calls the resolution “open ended.” She says there’s a “public art fatigue” in the community.

8:41 p.m. Anglin alludes to private collaboration. He won’t support this resolution.

8:42 p.m. Warpehoski reviews the two points of Eaton’s bargain: return of the money and the funding of the part-time public art administrator. A third item on Warpehoski’s agenda is a good transition to the new public art program. He wants all three parts as part of a compromise.

8:44 p.m. During the public hearing on the ordinance, Warpehoski says that Partridge observed that public art has divided the community. Warpehoski notes that the regular annual budget process requires only six votes for amendment.

8:45 p.m. Petersen says that the ordinance revision approved in 2013 calls out a 2-3 year transition. Yes, the transition will take money, she says. Approval of the funds isn’t being requested, only a plan, Petersen adds.

8:47 p.m. Lumm says she doesn’t support the concept of a full-time public art administrator. She says she really doesn’t know what it means to establish a budget for FY 2015 and 2016. How much? Where will it come from? she asks. It’s way too vague, she says, with way too many unknowns. Drip by drip by drip, money is being spent, Lumm says. So she doesn’t want to wait until the regular budget process.

8:50 p.m. Kunselman says he won’t vote for either resolution. The issue can be left to the city administrator to put in the budget proposal for FY 2015, he indicates. The resolution directs Powers to do something that he needs to do anyway. As far as the money in the public art fund, FY 2014 is already appropriated, Kunselman notes. If there’s an emergency, then the council now has the ability to transfer money. He says it’s difficult to maintain the commitment to the transition when he’s being badgered by the members of the public art community. They say they don’t trust the council, Kunselman adds, but he doesn’t trust some of them. Still, it’s important to stay committed to the transition, he says. He points out that it will be difficult without a staff person between now and July when the new fiscal year begins.

8:52 p.m. Briere says she felt it was a logical step to discuss how to create a plan and a funding strategy for that plan at the same time that funds are being returned. She wants the city administrator to tell the council how much the transition is going to cost. Responding to Kunselman’s characterization of her resolution as micromanaging, Briere says she saw it as “reaffirming.”

8:53 p.m. Briere appreciates Kunselman’s view that it’s really a budget process discussion. But her concern is that the council is once again leaving AAPAC with uncertainly about what the city council is doing. Giving clear guidance is what the council is supposed to, she says.

8:54 p.m. Hieftje floats the idea of postponement. That motion is on the floor now.

8:55 p.m. Lumm doesn’t want to postpone. Hieftje reiterates that he wants to review the work of the council’s committee on public art from last year. It doesn’t do any harm to postpone, he says.

8:57 p.m. Eaton says the harm is that it puts the compromise in jeopardy, regarding the contract extension for the public art administrator. Eaton says he doesn’t think this resolution has the votes to pass. Hieftje says that the other one doesn’t have the votes to pass, either. Hieftje says that he can’t imagine public art in Ann Arbor without a public art administrator.

9:00 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone this resolution. Teall hesitated for several seconds before casting the final and deciding vote in the roll call. Voting for it besides Teall were Briere, Petersen, Kunselman, Warpehoski, and Hieftje.

9:01 p.m. DC-1 Return $819,005 from public art fund to funds of origin. This resolution would return $819,005 from the public art fund to the funds from which that money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. This resolution is sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5). It requires eight votes on the 11-member council t pass. [For additional background, see Public Art above.]

9:02 p.m. Lumm is now reviewing the details of her resolution. The rationale for returning the funds is compelling, she says. She wants a “clean break.” It’s especially true when significant dollars are at stake, she says.

9:04 p.m. Eaton says that in addition to Lumm’s points, this approach sends an important message to the public art commission. It recognizes that the three projects have been approved. He doesn’t want AAPAC to get the message (as they would with Briere’s resolution) that if they don’t spend the money, then they lose it. He wants AAPAC to be “selective.”

9:07 p.m. Briere says that over a year ago, she and Lumm had come with different proposals about what to do if the public art millage failed. Lumm’s had been defeated, and Briere had withdrawn hers, she says. Instead, a council committee had been established. So she wants to postpone this. She ventures that it doesn’t have eight votes to pass. In an ideal world, she and Eaton and Kailasapathy and Lumm would iron out some differences. She hopes that some agreement could be reached before the next meeting.

9:08 p.m. Lumm says, “My breath is taken away.” She refers to Briere’s comments as a “lecture about an ideal world.” Lumm tells Briere a lot can be accomplished if people work together and that she wishes Briere had taken the opportunity to do that.

9:11 p.m. Kunselman is reviewing the specific ordinance language. He wants to make sure the city administrator could set up the FY 2105 budget with the money moved back to the funds of origin. City attorney Stephen Postema isn’t sure of the answer to Kunselman’s question. Kunselman says he supports postponement.

9:13 p.m. Hieftje is asking Hupy about the matching grant that the Canoe Imagine Art needs. The state seems to need a commitment from the city on that sooner rather than later.

9:16 p.m. Hieftje seems to be floating the idea of funding the Canoe Imagine Art from the money earmarked for the Argo Cascades project. He asks for a friendly amendment that would fund the Canoe Imagine Art project. Briere also wants $5,000 for the Coleman Jewett memorial chair.

9:16 p.m. Eaton says there’s no time pressure on the Jewett project.

9:19 p.m. Kunselman says: “I’m getting really confused.” If the council does nothing, then the money is there available to AAPAC. They might not have a public administrator to assist them, yet they’d have some assistance. Some back and forth between Hieftje and Kunselman ensues. Hieftje says he’s trying to save the part-time administrator’s contract as a part of the compromise.

9:19 p.m. Lumm says that she’ll support the $5,000 for the Jewett memorial.

9:20 p.m. Briere says she’s not sure there’s enough affirmative votes to pass it. Her own bias it to “postpone the thing” and work out the details. She won’t withdraw the motion to postpone.

9:21 p.m. Kunselman says if it’s postponed and a single resolution comes back, then he’d reconsider his position and possibly vote to support it.

9:23 p.m. Eaton tells Hieftje that if this is postponed, then he’ll move for reconsideration, as long as no one yells “Shame on you!” at him. This was an allusion to Warpehoski’s outburst at the Feb. 3 meeting, following the council’s rejection of a contract extension for the public art administrator.

9:23 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted unanimously to postpone this resolution as well.

9:24 p.m. Recess. We are now in recess.

9:39 p.m. Here’s the email to Kunselman from Powers, backing Kunselman’s position that the DDA didn’t file its TIF annual reports in a timely way: [.pdf of Feb. 17, 2014 Powers email] We’re still in recess. Several conversational pods. WEMU is interviewing everyone in sight.

9:41 p.m. We’re back.

9:41 p.m. DB-1 Adopt Green Streets stormwater guidelines. This resolution sets infiltration standards to be followed whenever a city street is reconstructed. The “green streets” policy initiative came at the direction of the city council in a July 2, 2012 resolution.

9:43 p.m. Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) says he’s glad to see this on the agenda. He’s complimentary of the work the environmental commission and its water committee did. The council had provided general policy guidance, he says, but the commission and its committee had done the work that lets the council takes this step.

9:46 p.m. Jane Lumm (Ward 2) asks Craig Hupy to come to the podium. She asks for construction cost premiums. Hupy indicates the policy is to look at each site and to look at the toolbox of options that are available. It may or may not be expensive, he says.

9:48 p.m. Hupy clarifies that the city is moving away from using porous pavement. Given 400 miles of standard pavement, he ventured that it was unlikely that a few blocks of porous pavement would be treated with its particular maintenance needs. The strategy is now to put a rock bed under the roadway. The expectation is for the water to drain through it. Briere asks how deep. They’re about 10-12 feet comes the answer from Jen Lawson in the audience. Lawson is the city’s water resources manager.

9:50 p.m. Kunselman ventures that this policy reflects what the city has already been doing. Hupy confirms that. Kunselman asks if the policy will allow the city to qualify for grants. Hupy says the city has received grants before having a policy. The grant availability, however, is diminishing, just as the city is adopting a formal policy.

9:51 p.m. Anglin says thank you to the staff. People have worked on this for at least 10 years, he says. He cites the Carusos specifically. It’s about flood control, he says. Anglin says he’s supportive of buying land to detain water.

9:52 p.m. Hupy invites Jen Lawson to stand up to be acknowledged. She gets a quick round of applause.

9:52 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to adopt Green Streets guidelines.

[Ed. note: In the original live update file, the descriptions of DB-2 and DB-3 below were erroneously flipped.] 

9:52 p.m. DB-2 Development rights on the White property. This resolution would approve expenditure of money from the city’s greenbelt program to help acquire development rights on a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, in Scio Township. For this deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335, with the township contributing the remainder. [For additional background, see Land: Greenbelt above.]

9:53 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted without discussion to approve expenditure of greenbelt funds to acquire development rights on the Moore White property.

9:53 p.m. DB-3 Development rights on Moore property. This resolution would approve expenditure of money from the city’s greenbelt program to help acquire development rights on a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. [For additional background, see Land: Greenbelt above.]

9:54 p.m. Lumm says she’ll support this. Scio Township is paying 70% of the price. She says that this is consistent with the greenbelt guidelines, so she’ll support it.

9:55 p.m. Kunselman says he won’t support this. It’s isolated from other greenbelt properties, he says. It’s just providing open space for people who live in Loch Alpine.

9:56 p.m. Outcome: Outcome: The council has voted 8-2 to approve expenditure of greenbelt funds to acquire development rights on the White Moore property. Dissenting were Kunselman and Kailasapathy.

9:56 p.m. DS-1 Approve Blue Cross Blue Shield renewal contracts. This resolution renews the city’s contract with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for the current calendar year, from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 to provide health care coverage to city employees, their eligible dependents, retirees, and their eligible dependents. The amount indicated in the resolution is $1,437,042.

9:56 p.m. Lumm says the city has a good strategy on stop-loss.

9:56 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the contract extension with Blue Cross Blue Shield.

9:56 p.m. DS-2 Apply for firefighter training facility grant. This resolution would approve a $334,140 grant application to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations. The kind of unit that the grant money, if awarded, would allow the city to purchase is comparable to this: [.pdf of brochure for training unit] [For additional background, see Equipment: Firefighting Simulator above.]

9:57 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the grant application to purchase a mobile firefighter training facility.

9:57 p.m. DS-3 Purchase road salt. The resolution would authorize the purchase of an additional $47,200 worth of road salt.

9:58 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the road salt purchase.

9:58 p.m. DS-4 Purchase sewer truck. The council is being asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break. [For additional background, see Equipment: Water Main Breaks above.]

10:01 p.m. “This is really exciting because this is a big piece of equipment!” says Kunselman. Hupy says that his wife describes the truck as looking “like an elephant going down the road.” Kunselman says this is the kind of truck that was used to repair a water main break in his neighborhood. The equipment provides for worker safety, Kunselman says. “Vactors make the best pumps out there,” Hupy says.

10:01 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of a sewer truck.

10:01 p.m. DS-5 Approve purchase of hydraulic excavator. The council is being asked to approve the purchase a hydraulic excavator for $176,472. The equipment is used for repairing water main breaks. [For additional background, see Equipment: Water Main Breaks above.]

10:03 p.m. Lumm wants to know if it’s worth $68,000 more. Hupy says it speeds up being able to do the repair when the water main is deep. If you’re one of the folks doing the work, it might have a different value, he says.

10:04 p.m. Briere asks if the city is retaining an excavator that digs shallower. Yes, explains Hupy.

10:04 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to approve the purchase of a hydraulic excavator.

10:05 p.m. DS-6 Right of first refusal on Edwards Brothers property. This resolution was postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting. It would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land. [For additional background, see Land: Edwards Brothers Malloy Property above.]

10:06 p.m. Lumm makes a motion to go into closed session under Michigan’s Open Meetings Act. The council votes to do so, over dissent from Kunselman.

10:06 p.m. Closed session. We’re in closed session under the OMA exception for land acquisition.

10:21 p.m. Only seven in the audience here in chambers. Planning manager Wendy Rampson is chatting with community services area administrator Sumedh Bahl.

10:29 p.m. We’re back.

10:31 p.m. The council is now in open session again.

10:31 p.m. Lumm moves to postpone the Edwards Brothers item until a special session on Feb. 24 at 7 p.m.

10:32 p.m. Outcome: The council has voted to postpone the vote on the city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers property until a special session on Feb. 24

10:34 p.m. Communications from council. Kunselman is talking about Mary Beth Doyle Park. He’s happy that the asphalt paths will have snow cleared. He appreciates city staff’s work with the Washtenaw County water resources office to ensure that the paths can be treated.

10:36 p.m. Kunselman also announces his intent to bring forward a repeal to the contribution in lieu (CIL) ordinance for parking requirements. [That allows developers to satisfy on-site parking requirements by purchasing monthly permits in the public parking system.] And he says he’ll bring forward an amendment to the city’s crosswalk ordinance to make it consistent with the wording of mayor John Hieftje’s veto. [That involves insertion of a requirement for motorists to stop, if they "can do so safely."] He calls the Edwards Brothers question “speculative development.” He ventures that it would be prudent for the council to engage in a conversation about that regarding the Library Lane site. He’s trying to do his part by learning more about the Build America Bonds used to construct the Library Lane underground parking garage. He wants to review the “as built” documents for the structure. He says that he wants to handle the property above the Library Lane structure in a way that’s similar to the way the council handled the old Y lot – by hiring a broker and putting the air rights up for sale.

10:40 p.m. Reconsideration of public art administrator’s contract. Eaton moves to re-open the agenda. The council approves the agenda amendment to include the resolution on the public art administrator’s contract that was defeated on Feb. 3. Eaton moves the resolution’s reconsideration. The council then agrees to postpone.

10:41 p.m. Outcome: The council postpones this until March 3, 2014.

10:42 p.m. Communications from the city attorney. City attorney Stephen Postema gets clarification about whether the council wants a closed session to be part of the Feb. 24 special meeting agenda. That is what the council wants.

10:43 p.m. Clerk’s report. Kailasapathy asks about a note from the state tax commission about tribunals. CFO Tom Crawford says there will be follow-up from the city administrator.

10:43 p.m. Public commentary general time. There’s no requirement to sign up in advance for this slot for public commentary.

10:45 p.m. Thomas Partridge says he was up almost all night last night due to a landscaping company’s snow removal activity. Snow removal is important, he says, but it’s not being done responsibly. Giant piles of salt-laden snow and ice are at the shopping centers, he says. Partridge wants the council to establish an ordinance regulating snow removal.

10:46 p.m. Kai Petainen is now at the podium, and he says “I’m not here to complain.” He’s from Sault Ste. Marie he says, and the city has done a great job with snow removal.

10:48 p.m. Ed Vielmetti tells the council he attended the last building board of appeals meeting and says it’s good to see progress, even if it’s slow. He also raises issues about late filing of meeting minutes from various boards and commissions. He says he doesn’t know what reasonable expectations might be for meeting minutes, but thinks it’d be useful for the city administrator to set appropriate expectations.

10:50 p.m. Margie Teall (Ward 4) is responding to Partridge’s complaint about noise during snow removal. She allows it’s a problem. She mentions the noise ordinance and suggests that a call to the police desk would result in action.

10:50 p.m. Adjournment. We are now adjourned. That’s all from the hard benches.

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

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

Screenshot of Legistar – the city of Ann Arbor’s online agenda management system. Image links to the Feb. 18, 2014 meeting agenda.

The possible acquisition of land is also on the agenda, in the form of a resolution postponed from an earlier meeting. The resolution would exercise the city’s right of first refusal to purchase the Edwards Brothers Malloy property on South State Street.

The meeting is shifted to Tuesday because of the Presidents Day holiday on Monday.

Having given initial approval to an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance at its Feb. 3 meeting, the council will consider the item for a second and final vote on Feb. 18. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years. The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment is a resolution that would return $819,005 from the public art fund to the funds from which that money was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. That kind of  resolution is typically analyzed as needing an eight-vote majority to pass, but it’s not yet indicated as an “eight-voter” on the online agenda. [Updated 1 p.m. Friday: It's now recorded as needing eight votes.] Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money.

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 agenda is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. It would need eight votes to pass.  The result of that council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid. The contract is supposed be back  on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled.

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda also features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is the repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost. The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break. Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. So the council will be asked to approve the purchase of one for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800. The purchase of two vans for a total of $50,320 is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation department to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 wood chipper.

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations.

In real estate matters, the council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the greenbelt millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335.

Related to land use, council will also be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

A bit south of Biercamp on State Street is the topic of the most significant land acquisition matter on the Feb. 18 agenda. A resolution postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land.

On the consent agenda is a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

This article includes a more detailed preview of many of these agenda items. More details on other agenda items are available on the city’s online Legistar system. The meeting proceedings can be followed Tuesday evening live on Channel 16, streamed online by Community Television Network starting at 7 p.m.

Public Art

Three items related to public art are expected to be handled at the Feb. 18, 2014 council meeting: (1) a final vote on an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance; (2) a resolution enabled by that change, which would transfer money out of the city’s public art fund back to the funds from which the money was drawn; and (3) a resolution extending by six months the contract for the city’s part-time public art administrator and appropriating funds to cover the $18,500 contract extension.

Public Art: Ordinance Amendment

Having given initial approval to an amendment to the city’s public art ordinance at its Feb. 3, 2014 meeting, the council will consider the item for a second and final vote on Feb. 18. The ordinance amendment would allow the council to transfer money that accumulated in the public art fund through the (now demised) Percent for Art funding mechanism in previous years.

The money would be transferred back to the funds from which it was originally drawn – but that transfer would require a separate council action. To be approved, the ordinance change will need a six-vote majority on the 11-member council. The enactment of an ordinance can be vetoed by the mayor, but a veto can be overridden by an eight-vote majority.

This ordinance revision reprises a previous effort to amend the public art ordinance to allow the transfer of money accumulated during previous years of the Percent for Art program to the money’s funds of origin. That unsuccessful effort came eight months ago at the council’s June 3, 2013 meeting. At that meeting, the council did eliminate the Percent for Art funding mechanism from the public art ordinance, and also allowed the most recent year’s accumulation of money to be returned to the funds of origin. The council also returned that most recent year’s worth of funding – $326,464.

The demised Percent for Art program required 1% of all capital fund project budgets to be set aside for public art. As a part of the June 3  ordinance change, the council replaced the Percent for Art funding program with a new approach that would allow city staff, working with the public art commission, to identify capital projects suitable for “baking in” art. In addition to city funding of art designed to be an integral part of a specific capital improvement project, the approach envisioned  general donations to a public art fund, and public art projects paid for with a combination of public and private funds.

The current balance of unassigned funds accrued in the Percent for Art fund as of Jan. 14, 2014 is $839,507. An additional $535,853 is earmarked for three projects that are underway: artwork at East Stadium bridges ($385,709), a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($7,009), and at Argo Cascades ($143,134). [.pdf of financial summary]

Any actual transfer of money would require separate council action.

Public Art: Resolution on Return to Funds of Origin

Dependent on the public art ordinance amendment is an item that’s on the Feb. 18 agenda – a resolution that would return about $819,005 from the public art fund to the funds from which it was drawn. That includes funds like the sanitary sewer fund and the street millage fund. That kind of resolution is typically analyzed as meeting a charter requirement for an eight-vote majority to pass. However, as of mid-morning on Feb. 14, the item was not flagged in the online agenda as an “eight-voter.” Responding to an inquiry from The Chronicle, the city clerk’s office was checking into the question of how many votes are required. [Updated 1 p.m. Friday: The online agenda has been updated to reflect the eight-vote requirement.]

Based on the Feb. 3 council deliberations, the debate on such a resolution would likely center on the amount to be returned to funds of origin, not the question of returning at least some of the money. Returning $819,005 in funding would leave $20,500 – which is the total amount needed to fund an extension of the public art administrator’s contract and some additional administrative costs.

A breakdown of the amounts that could be returned – and the funds to which that money would be returned – is covered here: [Art budget summary]

If the issue of the amount to be returned isn’t settled on Feb. 18 and the resolution does not pass in any form, another option would be to take up the question in the context of the annual budget resolution, which is considered at the council’s second meeting in May every year. Under the city charter, the budget resolution as a whole requires seven votes to be approved. But amendments to the budget resolution are subject only to the six-vote majority requirement.

On Feb. 10, the city released a list  of budget requests made by department heads for the next fiscal year. And  $80,000 from the general fund has been requested to fund a transition  from the now defunct Percent for Art funding mechanism to the new public art program. The $80,000 would include compensation for a full-time art administrator for a year. In the meantime the council will likely again consider a six-month extension of the part-time administrator’s contract at its Feb. 18 meeting.

Updated 9 p.m. Friday: The wrangling over the amount of public art money to be returned has already begun. A second resolution transferring money from the public art fund to its funds of origin has now been added to the agenda. The second resolution is sponsored by Sabra Briere (Ward 1), and escalates the one sponsored by Jane Lumm (Ward 2), Jack Eaton (Ward 4) and Sumi Kailasapathy (Ward 1). Briere’s resolution eliminates funding for the Argo Cascades art project – because the committee making the final selection between two artists has not been able to come to a consensus to move forward with one of them. So Briere’s resolution would return $957,140, compared to the $819,005 called for in the proposal originally put on the agenda by Lumm.

Briere’s resolution also calls for the city administrator to direct city staff to develop a transition plan to be implemented by staff and the public art commission and for that plan to be presented to the council in about a year – before March 2, 2015. Briere’s resolution also calls for no additional projects to be initiated using funds set aside under the Percent for Art program.

A further highlight of Briere’s resolution is direction to the city administrator to establish a budget for public art administration for both the 2015 and 2016 fiscal years. [An initial list of requests from department heads for FY 2015, released by the city on Feb. 10, shows an $80,000 request for arts administration, which includes funds for a full-time art administrator.]

The need for continued funding for arts administration is based on the new approach to the public art program established by the city council in June 2013. That new approach can include city-funded art when it’s designed as an integral part of a capital project, as well as projects funded through a combination of private and public money.

Public Art: Resolution to Extend Public Art Administrator’s Contract

Also expected back from the Feb. 3 is a resolution that was defeated at that meeting – to extend the contract for the part-time public art administrator by six months and to appropriate funds to cover that $18,500 contract. The result of that council vote was that public art administrator Aaron Seagraves cannot currently be paid.

The contract will likely be taken up on Feb. 18 for reconsideration – as part of the political bargain among councilmembers on the overall question of how the Percent for Art money that accumulated in the public art fund will be handled. The art administrator’s contract was first considered at the council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting, but was postponed in the context of a political horse trade – support for the administrator’s contract being contingent on beginning a process to transfer money accumulated under Percent for Art in previous years, back to the money’s funds of origin.

The conversation between mayor John Hieftje and Jack Eaton (Ward 4) at the council table toward the end of the Feb. 3 meeting indicated that Eaton would be bringing the item back for reconsideration on Feb. 18, provided that public art money was returned to its funds of origin.

Equipment

The Feb. 18 agenda is relatively heavy on items related to acquiring basic equipment: a combination sewer truck, a hydraulic excavator, a garbage truck, two vans, a wood chipper, and a firefighter training unit.

Equipment: Water Main Breaks

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several pieces of equipment essential to core services. One of those core services is repair of water main breaks, which have increased in frequency in recent weeks as the ground moves due to deeper and deeper penetration of frost.

Here’s a sampling of recent water main breaks – from alerts the city of Ann Arbor has sent out:

• Jan. 15: West Madison between Fourth and Fifth
• Jan. 22: Devonshire between Washtenaw and Melrose
• Jan. 28: S. Industrial between Jewett and Eisenhower
• Jan. 28: Yost between Washtenaw and Parkwood
• Jan. 31: Pontiac Trail at Brookside
• Feb. 5: Washtenaw east of Brockman
• Feb. 11: Pauline between Seventh and Stadium

The council will be asked to approve the $441,535 purchase of a combination sewer truck, which is outfitted with a vacuum device – often used to control water in an excavation during the repair of a water main break.

City of Ann Arbor water main breaks by year. It’s not unusual to have several water main breaks in a given year. (Data from city of Ann Arbor financial records, chart by The Chronicle)

Also deployed when repairing water main breaks is a hydraulic excavator. The council will be asked to approve the purchase of this type of equipment for $176,472. Both of those authorizations are replacements of existing city equipment.

In more detail, according to the memo accompanying the resolution, the combination sewer truck is to be procured from Jack Doheny Supplies Inc. It will replace a 2005 truck with 6,685 hours of use. Over the last two years, the truck had broken down and needed repairs 63 times – taking it out of service anywhere from fours hours to more than two weeks each time.

When that truck is unavailable do to water main break repairs, a similar truck used for stormwater system maintenance is re-tasked for water main breaks. But that poses a challenge to keep up with the scheduled preventive maintenance of the stormwater system. And failure to meet the cleaning schedule puts the system at risk for clogging and backing up into structures.

On the hydraulic excavator, the staff memo explains that the John Deere model 135G hydraulic excavator to be purchased will replace a 2002 mini excavator. The primary use for that excavator is for water main repair.

The new hydraulic excavator will be able to dig down to 19 feet, which is 7 feet deeper than the 2002 mini excavator. So the larger water mains, which are typically deeper and older, will be reachable.

The mini excavator has been in service over 5,350 hours of use and half its total repair costs have accumulated in the last 3.5 years. The old excavator will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Garbage Truck

The council will also be asked to approve the purchase of a new garbage truck for $93,800 from Bell Equipment Company, in Lake Orion, Michigan. It’s a smaller truck – with a 6-yard capacity. It will be used for garbage collection in the city parks, according to the staff memo accompanying the resolution.

The new truck will replace a 2002 model with over 14,500 hours of operation. According to the staff memo, in the last three years, 57% of all time spent maintaining the vehicle has been spent on breakdowns while only 14% has been for preventive maintenance. In that three-year period, the cost of breakdown repairs has been more than $78,000, which is more than half of the 13-year lifetime total of $141,480.

Equipment: Vans

The purchase of two vans – from Red Holman GMC in Oakland County, for a total of $50,320 – is also on the council’s Feb. 18 agenda. The vans will be used by the parks and recreation department to shuttle passengers when they start a river trip at one of the cities liveries on the Huron River. The van purchase was recommended by the park advisory commission at its Jan. 28, 2014 meeting.

According to a parks staff memo, the city’s current fleet of seven 15-passenger vans was unable to keep up with the increasing shuttle transportation demands for Huron River trips in 2013, following the opening of Argo Cascades. More vans are needed to transport people on these trips, which start at the Argo livery and end at Gallup Park. One van in the fleet needs to be replaced. The van purchase would increase the total van fleet to eight.

Equipment: Wood Chipper

Rounding out equipment purchases is a $83,208 Bandit model 1990XP diesel engine-powered wood chipper. According to the staff memo, the new model will replace a 2002 wood chipper, which is used for tree removals, tree trimming and storm clean-ups. The unit is a whole-tree chipper – it will process up to 21-inch diameter logs.

The chipper to be replaced has been in service for 11 years. It has 4,100 hours of use and 35% of its total repair cost ($74,600) has accrued in the last 2.5 years. The old chipper will be sold at the next city auction.

Equipment: Firefighting Simulator

Another piece of equipment shows up on the agenda in the form of a grant application the council is being asked to approve. The $334,140 grant application is being made to the 2013 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – to acquire a mobile training facility to train firefighters. The 48-foot-long unit will allow live fire and tactical simulations. The kind of unit that the grant money, if awarded, would allow the city to purchase is comparable to this: [.pdf of brochure for training unit]

Land

The council’s Feb. 18 agenda features several land and land use items: two greenbelt properties; a green streets policy; a zoning issue; and the possible exercise of the city’s right of first refusal on the Edwards Brothers Mallow property on South State Street.

Land: Greenbelt

The council will be asked to approve the acquisition of development rights for two properties, using funds from the city’s open space and parkland preservation millage. The first is a 24-acre parcel just north of the Huron River in Scio Township. The city of Ann Arbor, through its greenbelt program, will be contributing $25,200 to the total $84,000 cost of purchasing development rights, with the township contributing the difference. The deal was recommended by the Ann Arbor greenbelt advisory commission at its Jan. 2, 2014 meeting.

Property owned by Thomas E. and Eleanor S. Moore in Scio Township. The Moores applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program. The city is partnering with the township on the deal.

The second greenbelt property on the agenda is a 64-acre property on Zeeb Road, also in Scio Township. For that deal, the city is contributing $39,000 to the total purchase price of $130,335. The city’s greenbelt advisory commission recommended moving ahead with this deal at its Nov. 7, 2013 meeting.

Property owned by Maria E. White in Scio Township. White applied to the Scio Township Land Preservation program and the city of Ann Arbor is partnering with the township on the issue.

Land: Green Streets

On the council’s agenda is a policy item related to land: infiltration standards to be followed whenever a city street is reconstructed. The “green streets” policy initiative came at the direction of the city council in a July 2, 2012 resolution.

Land: Hofmann Rezoning

Related to land use, council will also be asked to give final approval to the zoning of the Hofmann property on South State Street – to C1 (local business district). The property houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The council gave initial approval to the zoning at its Jan. 21, 2014 meeting.

The two parcels in question – just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The site at 1645 S. State is used for storage. In addition to housing Biercamp, the parcel at 1643 S. State also includes an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer, which is primarily a woodworking shop.

The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission and the city council. That was when Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site.

When the property was annexed into the city from the township, the site had been zoned by the township for light industrial. The closest equivalent in the city’s zoning code was M-1 (limited industrial zoning). The city’s master plan – prior to the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan – called for light industrial zoning in that area, but M-1 zoning would only allow for retail space to occupy 20% of the building’s floor area, to sell products made on-site.

At its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting, the planning commission unanimously recommended denial of that C3 zoning request, based on the proposed zoning being inconsistent with the city’s master plan. The request was then made directly to the city council, which also denied the request at a meeting on Feb. 21, 2012.

At the time, planning commissioners also were advocating for a broader study of the State Street corridor. That study was subsequently completed, and on July 15, 2013, the city council adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an amendment to the master plan’s land use element.

According to a staff memo, the adoption of the corridor plan into the city’s master plan prompted city planning staff to initiate the current zoning request. The C1 zoning is consistent with recommendations in the master plan, which calls for a mixed-use neighborhood retail center in that area to serve the Yost and Burns Park neighborhoods.

C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

The city’s planning commission recommended C1 zoning for these parcels at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

During deliberations on Jan. 21, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that the staff memo gave the historical perspective, but he hadn’t been sure if the proposal met Biercamp’s needs. Warpehoski told other councilmembers that the Biercamp owners are supportive of the C-1 zoning.

Land: Edwards Brothers Malloy Property

A resolution postponed from the council’s Feb. 3 meeting would approve the city’s exercise of its right of first refusal on the 16.7-acre Edwards Brothers Malloy property. The University of Michigan has offered $12.8 million for the land.

The council had on Feb. 3 postponed the item “to our next meeting” – which was scheduled for Feb. 18. But subsequently a special meeting was called for Feb. 10 to consider the question. That special meeting was then cancelled.

The resolution would approve the exercise of the city’s right of first refusal, appropriate necessary funds, and direct the city administrator to notify Edward Brothers Malloy about the exercise of the city’s right. The agenda item contained no other background information.

At its Jan. 6, 2014 meeting, the council had directed the city administrator and the city attorney to explore options and gather information about the Edwards Brothers land. The due date for that gathering of information was specified in the council’s resolution as Jan. 30 – the same day that the land-purchase item was added to the Feb. 3 agenda.

At its following meeting, on Jan. 21, 2014, the council approved without discussion a $25,550 contract with Atwell LLC for environmental site assessment services on the property. That assessment included a survey of asbestos-containing materials.

The pending sale of the property to UM was announced in a Nov. 27, 2013 press release. The business – a fourth-generation Ann Arbor publishing and printing firm – had signaled its intent to put the property on the market in late July.

The city’s right of first refusal on the property was a condition of a tax abatement granted by the city council three years ago, on Jan. 18, 2011. Purchase by the university would remove the property from the tax rolls. Washtenaw County records show the taxable value of the property at just over $3 million. In 2013, Edwards Brothers paid a total of $182,213 in real property taxes, not all of which is the city’s levy. The total city levy of 16.45 mills on $3 million of taxable value works out to about $50,000.

According to the tax abatement agreement, the event triggering the city’s 60-day right-of-first-refusal window is a formal notification to the city by Edwards Brothers, which was made on Nov. 27, 2013. The council will still be within the 60-day window when it votes at its Feb. 18 meeting.

The resolution the council will be taking up again on Feb. 18 requires an eight-vote majority on the 11-member council – because the resolution changes the city budget and involves a purchase of real estate.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons

On the Feb. 18 consent agenda is  a contract with MDOT for reimbursement to the city for a portion of the cost to install rectangular rapid flashing beacons at three locations: on Geddes Road at Gallup Park; Fuller Road 400 feet east of Cedar Bend Drive; and on South University Avenue at Tappan Avenue. The city’s cost for the $47,971 project would be $14,179.

According to the staff memo accompanying the resolution, part of the rationale for the choice of locations is “a history of pedestrian crashes that made them candidates for safety grant funding.” Responding to an emailed request from The Chronicle, city engineer Patrick Cawley provided the following accident history for the locations:

• Fuller Road (2) on May 13, 2009 and Feb. 11, 2010.
• S. University (3) on Feb. 7, 2006, Nov. 24, 2007, and Sept. 8, 2008.
• Geddes (1 involving a bicyclist) on Feb. 9, 2008.

Road Salt

Also on the agenda is a resolution to approve purchase of additional ice-control salt. Based on the $47,200 amount to be appropriated, and the $36.23 price per ton, the council will be authorizing the purchase of roughly 1,300 tons of additional salt.

A city staff estimate provided to The Chronicle puts the amount of salt used so far this season – through early February – at about 6,600 tons. That’s roughly at least as much or more than has been used in each of the previous five winter seasons. If the city uses all of the additional salt to be purchased – bringing this season’s total to about 7,900 tons – that would approach the maximum amount of salt used by the city over the last seven seasons. In the 2007-2008 season, the city of Ann Arbor used 8,500 tons of salt on its roads.

Ice-control salt usage in the city of Ann Arbor by year. (Data from the city of Ann Arbor. Chart by The Chronicle.)

According to a staff memo accompanying the resolution, the city’s snowplow equipment uses “electronically calibrated spreader controls” to keep the amount of salt used to the minimum amount that is still consistent with traffic safety. The price the city is paying for the salt to be authorized on Feb. 18 is established through a state of Michigan’s MIDEAL program. According to the staff memo, the cost for purchasing additional material on the open market would be about $140, or nearly four times as much as under the MIDEAL program.

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 The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!

The currently unzoned parcels – located in Ward 4 just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The site at 1645 S. State is used for storage. In addition to housing Biercamp, the parcel at 1643 S. State also includes an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer, which is primarily a woodworking shop.

Action to give initial approval of the zoning came at the city council’s Jan. 21, 2014 meeting. A second vote by the council after a public hearing at a future meeting is required for final approval.

The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission and the city council. That was when Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site.

When the property was annexed into the city from the township, the site had been zoned by the township for light industrial. The closest equivalent in the city’s zoning code was M-1 (limited industrial zoning). The city’s master plan – prior to the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan – called for light industrial zoning in that area, but M-1 zoning would only allow for retail space to occupy 20% of the building’s floor area, to sell products made on-site.

At its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting, the planning commission unanimously recommended denial of that C3 zoning request, based on the proposed zoning being inconsistent with the city’s master plan. The request was then made directly to the city council, which also denied the request at a meeting on Feb. 21, 2012.

At the time, planning commissioners also were advocating for a broader study of the State Street corridor. That study was subsequently completed, and on July 15, 2013, the city council adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an amendment to the master plan’s land use element.

According to a staff memo, the adoption of the corridor plan into the city’s master plan prompted city planning staff to initiate the current zoning request. The C1 zoning is consistent with recommendations in the master plan, which calls for a mixed-use neighborhood retail center in that area to serve the Yost and Burns Park neighborhoods.

C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

The city’s planning commission recommended C1 zoning for these parcels at its Dec. 17, 2013 meeting.

During deliberations on Jan. 21, Chuck Warpehoski (Ward 5) noted that the staff memo gave the historical perspective, but he hadn’t been sure if the proposal met Biercamp’s needs. So he had visited the business to get some jerky and to get a growler so that Sally Petersen (Ward 2) was clear about what a growler is. He then lifted a growler onto the table. [At a previous meeting – on Dec. 17, 2012 – Petersen had asked what a growler was. Typically it's a half-gallon jug for holding draft beer.]

Warpehoski told councilmembers that the Biercamp owners are supportive of the C-1 zoning.

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

Rendering of 624 Church apartments, looking south from South University. Zaragon Place is pictured to the west, immediately next to the proposed 624 Church building. (Image included in the planning commission meeting packet.)

The largest proposal was a revised version of a 14-story apartment complex at 624 Church St. The development, located in Ward 3, was expanded after an additional property was acquired next to the original site. The project is a 116,167-square-foot building with 123 apartments and about 230 bedrooms. It would stand adjacent to and over the existing two-story Pizza House restaurant at 618 Church, and would extend to the southeast corner of Willard and Church, where the building’s entrance will be located.

Questions from commissioners covered a range of topics, including concerns over the 48 parking permits that the developer has secured from the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in the Forest Avenue parking structure. Two commissioners expressed concern that the structure is frequently full already, and that additional spaces taken up with 624 Church St. residents will make it even more difficult to park there.

Other issues raised during deliberations related to the location of the bike storage room, the use of a proposed outdoor plaza space next to Pizza House, the type of materials to be used in the building and design of the building. The vote to recommend approval of the project was unanimous.

Also recommended for approval on Dec. 17 was the zoning of two properties on South State Street – 1643 and 1645 S. State – as C1 (local business district). One of those properties houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky. The land had been annexed into the city from Ann Arbor Township in 2011. That same year, a previous request for zoning the land as C3 had been recommended for denial by commissioners.

Another State Street project – a revised version of an expansion at Germain Motors – was recommended for approval by commissioners in a unanimous vote. The commission had voted to postpone action on Nov. 19, 2013, pending issues that were resolved in the version presented on Dec. 17.

624 Church St.

An expanded proposal for a residential development at 624 Church St. was on the Dec. 17 agenda. Commissioners were asked to recommend approval of both the site plan and draft development agreement. [.pdf of site plan] [.pdf of draft development agreement] [.pdf of staff memo]

Nearly a year ago, the planning commission had recommended approval of an earlier version of this development at its Jan. 15, 2013 meeting. Subsequently, the developer bought an adjacent parcel at 1117 Willard to expand the project, which is located next to and over the Pizza House restaurant on the west side of Church, south of South University. The Tice family, which owns Pizza House, is partnering with Opus Group of Minnetonka, Minnesota, and 624 Partners LLC. When Pizza House expanded in 2006, the project included foundations that would allow for a taller building eventually to be constructed.

The original plan was for an 83,807-square-foot, 14-story building addition with 76 residential units. The current plan is for a 14-story, 116,167-square-foot building with 123 units and about 230 bedrooms. The apartment building would stand adjacent to and over the existing two-story restaurant at 618 Church, and would extend to the southeast corner of Willard and Church, where the building’s entrance will be located. Existing buildings at 624 Church Street and 1117 Willard would be torn down.

Premiums offered in the D1 zoning district – for buildings with residential uses, and LEED silver certification – are being used to allow a larger structure than would otherwise be permitted, gaining an additional 267% in floor area ratio for a total of 667% FAR. To use the residential premium, each bedroom must have a window directly to the outside.

The project includes a 1,491-square-foot outdoor dining area for Pizza House, which will be built underneath the apartment structure on the south side of the restaurant, opening onto Church Street. It will be partially enclosed, with large garage-style overhead doors along the front property line opening to the sidewalk.

Other features of the project and development agreement include:

• Two small offices for building management on the ground floor of the addition, with a solid waste/recycling room and bicycle parking room at the rear. There will be no new retail space.
• The top floor will include a small “club room” for residents and a rooftop patio with benches, a small grilling area, and garden trellis.
• The second floor will contain a fitness room, study lounge and five apartments. Other floors will have 11 apartments each. The apartments will be divided into: 23 one-bedroom (19%); 88 two-bedroom (72%); and 11 three-bedroom (9%). The units will range in size from 490 to 1,100 square feet.
• The developer will make a contribution of $47,120 to the city’s parks and recreation unit for improvements to the nearby Forest Plaza, adjacent to the Forest Avenue parking structure.
• The development agreement includes a requirement to disconnect 27 footing drains as part of the city’s footing drain disconnect program.

The new version of this development was evaluated by the city’s design review board, which was generally supportive of the project. [.pdf of September 2013 DRB report]

City planner Matt Kowalski

The development requires 53 parking spaces under the city’s zoning. Five of those will be provided in spaces underneath the building. The previous proposal had no on-site parking. At its Nov. 6, 2013 meeting, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority granted the owner the ability to buy a total of 48 monthly parking permits in the Forest Avenue parking structure, through the city’s contribution in lieu (CIL) program. That program requires the developer to pay 20% more than the standard rate for monthly parking permits.  The DDA had already granted a request for 42 permits under the original version of the project.

At the DDA board’s Dec. 4, 2013 meeting, board members considered a request, which was ultimately tabled, for an extension of the contractual agreement under which parking permits for 624 Church could be purchased. The developer wants the ability to extend the contract’s 15-year commitment to instead cover a 30-year financing period – based on feedback from firms that would be providing the financing. The DDA board ultimately voted to table the question pending further review by the board’s operations committee.

City planner Matt Kowalski reported that planning staff and the city’s design review board had some concerns about the placement of the building’s bike storage room. To address concerns about the room’s location and safety, the architect has added more glass windows to increase visibility into the room. Even so, staff would still prefer that the room be located in a more prominent part of the site, Kowalski said. Other recent developments have included bicycle rooms that aren’t used very much, he reported.

The previous development proposal had drawn concern from representatives of the adjacent Zaragon Place apartments, at 619 E. University. The concerns stemmed in part from the fact that under the previous plan, the new building would have been built up to the lot line next to Zaragon Place. The current proposal calls for a setback of 10 feet and 20 feet from that property line. Kowalski reported that the city hasn’t received any feedback from adjacent property owners about this current proposal.

624 Church St.: Public Hearing

The only speaker during the public hearing was Brad Moore, the project’s architect. Several other members of the development team, including Dennis Tice, attended the meeting but did not formally address the commission.

Brad Moore, architect for the 624 Church development

Moore noted that the previous project had been approved. That project had resulted in concerns from the adjacent property owner to the west regarding the lack of any setback on the property line, he said. So the building has been redesigned to address some of those concerns.

In the process of that redesign, they became aware that the owner of the property to the south was willing to sell, Moore reported. So that’s been folded into the redesign and has resulted in a better project overall, he said. The city’s design review board agreed, and liked it better than the previous version, he added.

Moore highlighted some of the changes. Using different fenestration patterns helps break up the mass, he noted, as do changes in color and materials. An outdoor space for residents on the roof was added.

He pointed out that one of the biggest concerns from the design review board for the original proposal was that the outdoor plaza on the ground level hadn’t been “definitively programmed.” The owners of Pizza House had reported that they didn’t have much outdoor seating, so the new design includes overhead glass, rolling garage doors, which will help control the wind that might move through that space. The interior designer for Pizza House has come up with a “garage bar” concept, Moore explained, with the idea that it would be a very active space on the street.

Regarding the bicycle parking issues, Moore said they’ve done as much as they can to address the concerns, by adding transparency to the room. There’s a conflict over “who gets the street space,” he noted. The design review board really wanted to have active space near the street, and he didn’t feel that a bike room would qualify as active streetscape – and that’s why the room wasn’t moved to the front of the building. He said the developer plans to promote the bike room, which will be well-lit and under security observation at all times, Moore said.

Moore concluded by saying that other representatives of the design team were on hand to answer any questions.

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Trash Collection

Sabra Briere asked about the trash and recycling collection. Her understanding was that containers would be wheeled out into what looks like a “blind alley.”

Planning commissioner Sabra Briere, who also serves on city council

Brad Moore explained that there will be a trash room with compactors and recycling bins in it.

On trash days, the trash collection truck will pull into an alley off Willard. Dumpsters that are similar in size to those used by Zaragon Place will be wheeled out from the trash room, he said. The truck will lift and empty the dumpster, which will then be wheeled back into the trash room.

Moore said that designers met on site with city staff – including drivers of the trash collection trucks – to make sure it was a workable solution.

Briere said that, in general, she’s heard complaints from residents about the “warning claxon” from trash trucks – the sound that’s made when those trucks back up. She said she didn’t see a way around that issue, but she was eager to come up with a different mechanism for devising alleys so that they aren’t blind and don’t require trucks to back up.

Moore replied that he understood those concerns, but he noted that the alley already serves a dumpster for a neighboring property. “So we’re not doing anything that isn’t already occurring in that location,” he said.

Briere pointed out that now there will be several hundred more people listening to the “beep beep beep … and I will get complaints.”

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Plaza

Briere then asked about the street-level plaza area, asking Moore if he had a good rendering of that. Kowalski noted that some renderings of that area were included in the commission’s meeting packet. Moore said the renderings were uploaded to the city’s eTRAKit site.

Briere asked if the space would be for use in three seasons or four seasons. Moore replied that it won’t be used year-round, because there’s no way to heat it. The space could be used on rainy days, however, because it’s covered. He described its use as primarily from mid-April through mid-October.

Image of proposed Pizza House plaza at 624 Church

In response to another query from Briere, Moore noted that there will be security cameras monitoring the space, and that it won’t be open 24 hours a day. The site will be secured by closing the garage doors on one side. The other side is secured with chain-link fencing, he said. There will be a door into the plaza from the inside of Pizza House. People who use the space will be “age-verified,” Moore said.

Kirk Westphal asked about the materials of the garage doors. Moore described the doors as being completely transparent, made out of polycarbonate glazed panels in a steel frame. Westphal said it seems a shame to not be able to use the space during colder periods, and he wondered if space heaters that are used in other outdoor locations could be used there too. Moore said he’d have to check with the city’s fire marshal. The ceiling will need to be fire-rated, he said, but he wasn’t sure if space heaters would be permitted.

Diane Giannola clarified with Moore that this plaza would be part of Pizza House, and wouldn’t be a “party room” for apartment residents.

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Parking

Wendy Woods asked about parking. Moore explained that 53 spaces are required by city code, and five will be provided on site. The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority board had already granted permits for the remaining 48 spaces in the Forest parking structure about a half-block away, he noted. What the developer is asking for now is an extension option for the term of the permits, he said. The zoning ordinance calls for a 15-year term, but the developer needs a longer term than that in order to get financing for the project, Moore explained.

Woods reported that she parks at the Forest structure, because she works for the University of Michigan at East Quad – which is located near the proposed development. The parking structure is shared by the university and the city, she noted. The structure sometimes fills up, Woods said, adding that she’s always wondered whether the DDA is overselling some of these spaces. She said she understood that it’s not the developer’s problem. People are encouraged to bike or walk, but the reality is that it’s difficult to find available spaces in the parking structures that are near campus, she said.

Planning commissioners Wendy Woods and Paras Parekh

Woods described it as “a problem in the making,” and she wanted to highlight it. “Already there are days when you get there and you can’t get into that lot because it’s already full.” She joked that some people say a UM parking pass is just a license to look for a space – it doesn’t guarantee that you’ll get a space.

City planning manager Wendy Rampson responded, explaining that the construction of the Forest parking structure had been a partnership between the city and UM. A percentage of the spaces are designated for the city, with the other portion for university parking. [The DDA's website indicates that 497 spaces are available for public parking. There are 854 total spaces in the structure.]

Paras Parekh noted that he also works for the university and parks at the Forest structure on occasion, “and it’s been a frustrating experience.” He wondered if the DDA has indicated why the 48 permits would be acceptable. Moore replied that he didn’t have data from the DDA about the percentage of parking that’s still available. He pointed out that the DDA staff had looked at the entire parking system’s capacity, and had determined where those permits would be located. They could have given out parking permits in multiple structures, he said, adding that “I wasn’t privy to that analysis.” [The developer had requested that the permits would be located in the Forest structure.]

Parekh said that whenever he’s parked at the Forest structure, it’s always been a challenge to find a spot. He thought that adding 48 parking permits could increase the challenging experience that everyone faces there. He joked that perhaps there’s been a study showing that if you look long enough, you’ll eventually find a spot. Moore reiterated that it’s a DDA decision.

Bonnie Bona continued the focus on parking. She clarified with Moore that the development was seeking a contribution-in-lieu by securing permits from the DDA. She asked whether there is an option to buy parking and not use it.

By way of background, the Ann Arbor DDA, which operates the public parking system under contract with the city, had approved its recommendation of a specific contribution-in-lieu-of-parking policy more than two years ago, at its July 7, 2010 board meeting. The city council then formally adopted the DDA’s recommended policy, at its April 2, 2012 meeting, with the policy’s two options: (1) purchase monthly parking permits in the public parking system for an extra 20% of the current rate for such permits, with a commitment of 15 years; or (2) make a lump sum payment of $55,000 per space.

Planning commissioner Bonnie Bona

At the Dec. 17 planning commission meeting, Moore responded to Bona by saying he wasn’t aware of a buyout option for parking. [Planning manager Wendy Rampson clarified details of the CIL options later in the meeting.]

Bona said she understood the need of having parking in order to secure financing for the project. She asked what the arrangement is if residents don’t actually have a need for parking. Are the spaces incorporated into the unit’s rent? No, Moore replied – the parking spaces would be a separate rental contract.

Bona asked what happens if it turns out that the development doesn’t use all of the parking permits. Moore said it would be determined by the building’s management. They might choose to discount the permits until the permits were sold – he imagined that would be the first approach. Moore noted that feedback from other high-rise apartment buildings in the area indicates all available parking spots are always rented out to residents.

Bona said she wanted to ensure that the parking spots aren’t tied to apartment rentals, and that there would be some flexibility “so that we’re not encouraging residents to park there if they really don’t need a car.” She said she didn’t know how the resale market for parking permits worked – whether someone could put an ad on Craigslist, for example, and resell a permit.

Regarding bicycle parking, Bona said she was disappointed that the bike room is located in the back of the building. Based on observations of other buildings, a bike room doesn’t get used in that location, she said. “You may become one of our posterchilds for changing the bike storage requirement, and not allow them to be put in places where they’re not actually going to be used,” she told Moore. If residents don’t use the bike storage room, where would they park their bikes?

Moore replied that residents always have the option of taking their bikes to their apartments.

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Top Floor

Bona asked whether the roof on the top floor was “solar ready.” It certainly would be available for that, Moore said. He knew that the developers were making a list of features that could be counted as points toward LEED certification, but he didn’t know if solar panels would be a part of that.

Jim Caesar of Opus Group came to the podium to respond. He said the management team is very concerned about putting anything on the roof, because it will be used for hooks to hold scaffolds for window-washing. There will also be a lot of PVC pipes, ducts and other rooftop equipment, he noted. The footprint is so small that he expects it will be “a maze of mechanical equipment” and not suitable for solar panels or a green roof.

Bona asked what mechanicals will be on the roof. Caesar said there will be three or four heat pump plant condensers, which he described as coils with fans beneath them. The heat pump system will be in the mechanical “penthouse” on the roof next to the elevator shaft. The condensers will be outside because they need to blow heat into the atmosphere, he said. Caesar described other equipment that will be on the roof, including 20-22 bathroom exhaust shafts and about 35 plumbing vent stacks.

Bona noted that the sound from that mechanical equipment will also result in phone calls to Briere – a reference to Briere’s previous comments regarding noise from trash trucks. Bona recommended that the development team should be prepared to address the issue of noise from the rooftop when they present the project to city council for approval.

624 Church St.: Commission Discussion – Materials

Kirk Westphal followed up on some issues raised in the design review board report about building materials.

Planning commission chair Kirk Westphal.

Specifically, the report stated that: (1) the base of the building should be broken up and varied – the east and south side should have as much detail as the other sides of the building; and (2) the horizontal elements at the top of the second floor and top floor of the building are not visually strong enough.

Westphal said that for him, the plane of the windows and the pre-cast concrete is pretty flush, and that might be troubling to people who want more articulation at the second floor and top floor. “It reads pretty flat to me,” he said, “but that’s not our purview.” Westphal indicated that any changes to the design in that regard would be welcome.

Responding to another query from Westphal, Moore replied that one of the design review board members had noticed some fading of the red-colored pre-cast concrete. To address that, Moore said the building will use concrete that balances the red and brown pigments, to try to mitigate concerns that the red pigment tended to fade more quickly.

Bonnie Bona pointed out that the details in the drawings were different in some of the renderings. For example, one of the renderings showed more articulation in the design than was visible in other renderings, she noted. She suggested making sure that when the project is presented to the city council, the intended design should be consistent throughout all of the renderings – “just so everyone knows what they’re approving.”

Sabra Briere noted that one of the lampposts in the rendering is white. Most of the lampposts she’s seen are black. “Or rust,” Westphal quipped – a reference to the rusted-out lampposts on Main Street that are being replaced.

Moore said the lamppost that Briere indicated was an existing one, and he’d make sure that the color was represented accurately.

Outcome: Commissioners recommended approval of the site plan and development agreement for the 624 Church St. development. It will now be forwarded to the city council for consideration.

South State Zoning

The planning commission was asked to recommend zoning two properties on South State Street – 1643 and 1645 S. State – as C1 (local business district). One of those properties houses Biercamp Artisan Sausage and Jerky.

The unzoned parcels – located in Ward 4 just south of Stimson and the Produce Station – are owned by Stefan Hofmann. The site at 1645 S. State is used for storage. The parcel at 1643 S. State currently houses Biercamp, as well as an auto repair shop and furniture manufacturer, which is primarily a woodworking shop.

The zoning for these parcels, which were annexed into the city from Ann Arbor Township in 2011, has previously been considered by the planning commission. Biercamp owners Walt Hansen and Hannah Cheadle wanted to zone the property C3 (fringe commercial district), so their business could sell a wider variety of merchandise, including products not made on site.

When the property was annexed into the city from the township, the site had been zoned by the township for light industrial. The closest equivalent in the city’s zoning code was M-1 limited industrial zoning. The city’s master plan – prior to the adoption of the South State Street corridor plan – called for light industrial zoning in that area, but M-1 zoning would only allow for retail space to occupy 20% of the building’s floor area, to sell products made on-site.

At its Sept. 8, 2011 meeting, the planning commission unanimously recommended denial of that C3 zoning request, based on the proposed zoning being inconsistent with the city’s master plan. The request was then made directly to the city council, which also denied the request at a meeting on Feb. 21, 2012.

At the time, planning commissioners also were advocating for a broader study of the State Street corridor. That study was subsequently completed, and on July 15, 2013, the city council adopted the South State Street corridor plan as an amendment to the master plan’s land use element.

According to a Dec. 17 staff memo, the adoption of the corridor plan into the city’s master plan prompted city planning staff to initiate the current zoning request. The C1 zoning is consistent with recommendations in the master plan, which calls for a mixed-use neighborhood retail center in that area to serve the Yost and Burns Park neighborhoods.

C1 is a more restrictive type of zoning than C3, primarily related to limits on the size of a business. No drive-thru restaurants are allowed in C1 districts, and there’s an 8,000-square-foot limit on the size of a business, for example. There is no restriction in either C1 or C3 that limits the products sold to those that are made on-site.

No one spoke during the public hearing on this project.

South State Zoning: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona noted that some of the discussion regarding development of the South State corridor plan had involved a desire not to discourage small-scale industrial uses, because there are very few locations in the city where that is allowed. She wondered if there was any opportunity in C1 zoning districts to get a special exception use, that would allow industrial uses.

Planning manager Wendy Rampson

Not for a truly industrial use, replied city planner Matt Kowalski. The existing auto repair shop also wouldn’t be allowed under C1 zoning – so the operation will be considered a non-conforming use, he said. Paras Parekh clarified with Kowalski that even though the auto repair shop is non-conforming, it would be allowed to continue operating, and could change ownership and still remain in operation.

Bona said the storage use and auto repair don’t make a lot of sense to her, in an area where the city wants to encourage a more vital environment.

Sabra Briere recalled the earlier discussion about the proposed C3 zoning of these properties. There had been a desire to have a larger retail establishment at Biercamp, she noted. Will C1 be better for that purpose than C3? Kowalski reiterated the two main restrictions of C1 zoning compared to C3 – that C1 zoning doesn’t allow for drive-thrus, and limits the size of a business to 8,000 square feet. In C3, there are no limits on size.

Briere asked what the zoning was for the adjacent parcel where the Produce Station is located. That parcel is C3, Kowalski reported.

Briere indicated that she’d like to see a map of that entire South State area, with preferred zoning indicated for all the parcels. Planning manager Wendy Rampson noted that the State Street corridor plan didn’t actually have a proposed zoning map. Rather, it showed clusters of properties with recommendations for those clusters – not for specific parcels.

Wendy Woods recalled when commissioners had taken a walking tour of the State Street corridor, and how it had been helpful in understanding the different uses in that area and the traffic flow. [See Chronicle coverage: "South State Corridor Gets Closer Look."] She supported the C1 zoning.

Outcome: The C1 zoning for 1643 and 1645 S. State St. was recommended for approval. It will now be forwarded to city council for consideration.

Germain Motors Expansion

A proposed expansion for Germain Motors – an auto dealership on South State Street near the intersection with Oakbrook, formerly Howard Cooper Imports – was on the Dec. 17 agenda. The item had previously been postponed by commissioners on Nov. 19, 2013.

Commissioners were asked to recommend approval of the project’s revised site plan, subject to variances for modifications related to parking lot and landscaping requirements. Those variances will be considered by the city’s zoning board of appeals. Also on the agenda was a request of the planning commission, which does not require review by the city council – to approve landscape modifications that would reduce the city code’s Chapter 61 requirement for depressed landscape islands within the site – was also on the agenda.

The planning staff had supported a recommendation of approval on Dec. 17, noting that the owner had addressed several issues that had previously raised concerns. Changes from the plan presented on Nov. 19 include:

• Adding 5,027 square feet of porous pavers to be installed in the expanded vehicle display areas along State Street and Oakbrook Drive.
• Adding eight new depressed landscape islands to the parking storage areas in the back of the site. The changes means a loss of about 24 parking spaces.
• Changing the landscape modification request. The original request had included reducing the number of required trees to be planted on site by eight. The owner now plans to plant all of the required trees.

The project’s architect also explored the possibility of adding a “green” (vegetated) roof, but ultimately determined that it wasn’t feasible without making significant changes to the existing buildings. The question of whether the architect had considered a green roof to help with stormwater management was raised on Nov. 19.

Other parts of the proposed project, which is located in Ward 4, are unchanged. It calls for a 4,877-square-foot addition to the Volkswagen building on the northern portion of the State Street frontage, bringing the total square footage to 18,722 for that structure. A 6,429-square-foot addition is proposed for the Porsche/Audi building, in the center of the site, which would create a total building size of 31,097 square feet. The site’s third building, housing the Honda dealership on the southern part of the property, would remain at 36,101 square feet.

Owner Steve Germain – who had attended the Nov. 19 meeting with several members of the project team, but did not come to the meeting on Dec. 17 – would like to add 248 parking spaces, bringing the total number of spaces to 1,039. The new spaces would be in three locations: (1) along the southern half of the South State Street frontage; (2) along the Oakbrook Drive frontage; and (3) in the rear car storage lots. The proposal would require three variances from Chapter 59 (off-street parking) in order to allow tandem parking, to reduce the aisle widths, and to exceed the maximum percentage (30%) of allowable small car parking spaces.

The total expansion is estimated to cost $5.5 million. No one spoke during a public hearing on the project.

Germain Motors Expansion: Commission Discussion

Bonnie Bona began by asking why the porous pavers were being proposed for that particular location, in the vehicle display area. City planner Matt Kowalski replied that part of the reason was that the owner didn’t want to put the pavers in areas that would be used by customers, because it could be a potential trip hazard. Kowalski noted that the city staff didn’t give advice for the specific location.

From left: Bob Wanty of Washtenaw Engineering, and John Oney of Architectural Alliance in Worthington, Ohio. They were on hand to represent the Germain Motors project.

Bob Wanty of Washtenaw Engineering confirmed that they didn’t want to put the pavers in customer areas, and there really wasn’t another good location – other than the one that’s proposed for display vehicles.

Bona also pointed out that she was the one who had brought up the potential of a green roof for the project. She thanked the architect for looking into it. She referred to a written response from the architect that stated any energy savings would be insignificant. Bona contended that “may not necessarily be true.” She said she knows there’s a significant temperature difference between a white roof and a green roof, and allowed that more data is needed for an analysis.

Regarding the requested variances, Bona said they all seemed reasonable to her.

Wendy Woods thanked the project’s representatives for the work they’d done to make changes in the site plan. She was curious about how the traffic flows in the lower back area of the property. How do cars get in and out? It looked pretty full to her.

Kowalski replied that the aisle will be slightly reduced in a couple of areas, but he’d been out to the site and had seen how the staff handles the vehicles there. The lower storage area doesn’t get a lot of customer traffic, he noted. Wanty confirmed that description, noting that it’s a fairly steep slope between the State Street level and the lower level at the back of the site, and customers generally don’t go there. It’s almost all storage.

Woods asked about snow removal – where does the plowed snow go? Wanty replied that cars are moved so that the plow can go in, and the snow is pushed over to the stormwater detention basin area.

Outcome: Commissioners recommended approval of the site plan. It will now be forwarded to the city council for consideration. The planning commission also approved the project’s landscape modifications.

Present: Sabra Briere, Bonnie Bona, Diane Giannola, Paras Parekh, Kirk Westphal, Wendy Woods. Also: City planning manager Wendy Rampson.

Absent: Eleanore Adenekan, Ken Clein, Jeremy Peters.

Next meeting: The regular meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2014 has been scheduled as working session instead. The session begins at 7 p.m. in the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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

Julie Weatherbee is chair of the R4C/R2A advisory committee, which met most recently on Aug. 28, 2013. The next meeting is scheduled for Sept. 11. (Photos by the writer.)

Two main priorities have emerged as areas of concern: lot combinations, and a proposed “group housing” overlay district. Parking is also a concern, but several committee members noted that there isn’t time to reach consensus about parking recommendations. Only two more two-hour meetings are scheduled – on Sept. 11 and Sept. 25.

The committee’s original report had recommended imposing a maximum lot size of 6,525 square feet. This would limit the ability of a developer to combine lots in order to build larger structures. It would be a way to limit the size of developments within R4C districts.

The planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee made a different recommendation, however, which was adopted by the full commission. Rather than requiring a specific lot size limit, lot combinations would be approved on a case-by-case basis. Review standards would be developed, as well as standards for design and massing, to ensure that new development is compatible with the neighborhood. The planning commission has not yet developed details of how what standards would be used. Advisory committee members didn’t like this approach, saying that it seemed too arbitrary.

There are even fewer details at this point about a proposed group housing district, which planning commissioners envision as a future phase of R4C ordinance revisions. The planning commission recommendations call for a new zoning overlay district, located south and west of the University of Michigan’s central campus. It would be roughly an area outlined in the city’s Central Area Plan, but with final boundaries to be determined. [.pdf of Central Area Plan] The idea is to address issues that are somewhat unique to neighborhoods with a large amount of student housing.

In general, the new district would be intended to allow for flexibility by putting limits on density, but with premiums provided in exchange for community benefits such as pedestrian-friendly character and conformance with architectural design standards. For example, parking might be based on a building’s total floor-area ratio (FAR), independent of the number of units in a structure. The commission’s recommendations call for details of this new district to be fleshed out in a second phase, after other ordinance changes are made that are seen as more straightforward.

Advisory committee members were extremely skeptical of this approach, which one member characterized as “redlining.” Targeting housing for a particular type of resident – in this case, students – made many members uncomfortable. There was also uncertainty about the exact intention behind the recommendation.

Committee members have invited planning commissioner Bonnie Bona, who also serves on the commission’s ordinance revisions committee, to attend their Sept. 11 meeting. Their hope is to get clarity about the commission’s recommendations, as well as the intent behind those recommendations.

Several committee members stated that their overarching goal is to protect the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods, and to prevent older houses from being demolished. That’s the scenario that unfolded when seven houses were torn down along South Fifth Avenue to make way for the City Place apartments – a controversial development that was part of the impetus for the R4C/R2A review.

R4C/R2A Background

Over four years ago, on March 2, 2009, the city council directed the city’s planning staff and planning commission to review the R4C/R2A zoning districts in Ann Arbor’s “central area” neighborhoods. A few months later, in July 2009, the council created an advisory committee to provide input on the R4C/R2A zoning review. The committee’s recommendations were presented to the planning commission in a final report in May of 2012, with a set of recommendations and analysis. That report had been compiled by the planning staff. [.pdf of original advisory committee recommendations]

For the next year, planning commissioners who were members of the commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC) reviewed the recommendations and discussed other possible changes as well.

The ORC ultimately made a different set of recommendations, which were approved by the full planning commission at its April 16, 2013 meeting. Those recommendations were forwarded to the city council, and did not include actual wording of the proposed ordinance changes. The ordinance revisions were expected to be the next step, following direction from the council.

The planning commission’s recommendations are described in two phases. There are some significant differences from the recommendations of the advisory committee, although many of the recommendations are the same. The changes in the first phase are seen as somewhat less controversial. For the first phase, here’s how the planning commission’s recommendations diverged from the advisory committee:

• Lot combinations need approval: Planning commission approval would be required for lot combinations in R4C districts, as part of a project’s site plan review. Review standards would be developed, as well as standards for design and massing, to ensure that new development is compatible with the neighborhood. [The advisory committee had recommended imposing a maximum lot size of 6,525 square feet, equal to an allowable density of three units. The consensus on the ordinance revisions committee (ORC) of the planning commission was that this maximum lot size would be too restrictive.]
• Conflicting land use buffer for vehicle areas only: The only areas that would require screening would be those used for vehicles – such as areas used for parking. This recommendation essentially reverts to the requirements used prior to 2011, when the city instituted changes to its landscape ordinance. Those changes expanded the conflicting land use buffer requirement in R4C districts to apply to the screening of buildings, in addition to vehicular use areas. The change resulted in an increase in variance requests for redevelopment in R4C districts, given the small size of the lots. [The issue was not part of the advisory committee's recommendations.]
• Further study of R2A district: Further study is recommended – to determine if the R2A lot size should be reduced to 6,000 square feet, allowing opportunities for duplex conversions. This number is based on the lot size requirement that was in place prior to 1984, when the requirement was raised to 8,500 square feet. [The advisory committee did not recommend zoning changes in the R2A district.]

A second phase would focus on creating a “group housing” zoning overlay district, but that is recognized by planning commissioners and staff as controversial. This “group housing” district was not part of the advisory committee’s recommendations.

Carl Luckenbach, an architect and member of the R4C/R2A advisory committee, at the Aug. 14, 2013 meeting of that group.

There was sentiment by some members of the original advisory committee that their work had been cut short by the planning staff, and that the final report presented to the planning commission on behalf of the committee did not fully reflect the committee’s consensus.

So at its July 1, 2013 meeting, the city council voted unanimously to reconstitute the advisory committee, with the goal of completing its work and responding to the planning commission’s recommendations.

There are 12 members on the reconstituted citizens advisory committee, including many who served on the original committee. City councilmember Sabra Briere (Ward 1) will represent the planning commission. [Former councilmember Tony Derezinski and former planning commissioner Jean Carlberg were on the original committee.] Jay Holland replaces Chuck Carver to represent rental property owners. From the wards: Ilene Tyler and Ray Detter (Ward 1); Wendy Carman and Carl Luckenbach (Ward 2); Ellen Rambo (Ward 3); Julie Weatherbee and Nancy Leff (Ward 4); Eppie Potts and Anya Dale (Ward 5). Weatherbee is chair of the group. Michelle Derr was also appointed to represent Ward 3, but decided not to participate. Dale will be giving feedback in writing, but does not plan to attend the committee meetings.

The group is working on a tight timeline, with only four meetings scheduled. Two of those meetings have taken place so far – on Aug. 14 and Aug. 28. Both were attended by The Chronicle. In addition, meetings are scheduled on Sept. 11 and Sept. 25, from 7-9 p.m. at city hall.

More information about the R4C/R2A zoning review is on the city’s website. [.pdf of planning commission recommendations] [.pdf of original advisory committee report] [.pdf of chart by Sabra Briere outlining differences between the advisory committee and planning commission recommendations] See also Chronicle coverage: “Planning Commission Signs Off on R4C Draft.”

Priority Areas

At the advisory committee’s first meeting on Aug. 14, the group discussed priority issues to focus their work, given that they planned to meet only four times. On Aug. 28, they reviewed a summary of those priorities that had been identified at their first meeting. [.pdf of priority areas document]

Julie Weatherbee, chair of the committee, stressed the need to focus their efforts and be clear about what they’re trying to “fix.” She noted that the two main consensus priorities were: (1) lot combinations, and (2) the proposed group housing overlay district.

From left: R4C/R2A advisory committee members Ellen Rambo and Nancy Leff.

Nancy Leff suggested that the committee make a clear statement about why they felt these two areas were a high priority. She cited part of the original charge from the city council as one of her main concerns: “Develop site design standards that encourage creative design while maintaining sensitivity for existing neighborhood character; …” [This is one of the "priority action strategies" identified in the 1992 Central Area Plan, which is part of the city's master plan. It was highlighted in the March 2, 2009 council resolution that directed the planning staff and planning commission to review R4C/R2A zoning districts. The advisory committee was subsequently established, on July 6, 2009, to provide input to the planning commission on this process.]

Leff said that for her, the advisory committee’s work boils down to addressing that charge. With the exception of some large fraternity houses and churches, the character of the neighborhoods in R4C districts is overwhelmingly single-family homes, she said – regardless of who is actually living in those homes. “If you eliminate the single-family homes in this zone, you are completely destroying the current and original nature and character of the properties in that zone,” she said. If developers are allowed to tear down those existing homes through lot combinations or group housing, Leff added, it will “completely obliterate” what’s left of the neighborhood’s character.

Sabra Briere cautioned against calling these structures single-family homes, saying it could cause people to quibble about whether the houses are rentals or owner-occupied, or about how many people are living there. It’s the visual fabric that the city needs to protect, Briere said, but not necessarily for the original use. There can be a lot of variance in that visual appearance, depending on where the lots are located, she said. Briere thought that lot combinations should be the committee’s top priority.

Eppie Potts agreed that the committee should avoid calling the buildings single-family homes. It’s not important who’s living there now, she said. It’s important to talk about the original plats. “It’s the buildings and their lots that we’re wanting to preserve,” she said, with traditional sizes and setbacks.

Ray Detter pointed out that the council’s original charge had quoted directly from the city’s Central Area Plan, and that those statements could back up the committee’s recommendations on lot combinations and group housing.

Weatherbee noted that some of the difficulty in addressing issues within the R4C district is that there are many different types of structures there now, from large older apartment buildings to smaller homes to duplexes. Some neighborhoods have tiny lots with hardly any setbacks, while other neighborhoods have large lots and setbacks. Sometimes, even opposite sides of the street have different character, she observed.

Priority Areas: Lot Combinations

The advisory committee’s original report had recommended imposing a maximum lot size of 6,525 square feet. However, this recommendation was not accepted by the ordinance revisions committee (ORC) of the planning commission. ORC members felt that this maximum lot size would be too restrictive, and so they instead made the recommendation to handle lot combinations in R4C districts as part of a project’s site plan review, on a case-by-case basis. The ORC recommended that review standards be developed, as well as standards for design and massing, to ensure that new development is compatible with the neighborhood. This recommendation was adopted by the full planning commission, but specific standards have not been proposed.

At the advisory committee’s Aug. 28 meeting, Eppie Potts said she thought the 6,525-square-foot maximum lot size was workable. It meant that there could be some lot combinations, but they’d be relatively small. Nancy Leff noted that the number of 6,525 wasn’t arbitrary – because it had been based on a survey of lot sizes within the R4C districts, she said, and that justification was supposed to be included in the committee’s report. But the justification hadn’t been part of the report, she noted.

Ellen Rambo recalled that when the advisory committee was first formed, it focused on the issue of non-conforming lots in the R4C district – because that was the problem that had been stressed most by planning staff. The intent of the 6,525-square-foot maximum lot size was to minimize the number of non-conforming lots within the R4C district.

Jay Holland of Jay Holland Construction Co. and Sabra Briere, who serves on the Ann Arbor city council and planning commission.

Julie Weatherbee pointed out that the committee hadn’t wanted to prohibit lot combinations entirely, because combining lots makes sense in some situations. She wondered if the committee wanted to bring back that same number of 6,525 square feet as part of their new set of recommendations.

Ilene Tyler supported that approach. “We need a number,” she said. Under the planning commission’s proposal, all lot combinations would require the commission’s review. “Who knows what judgment or criteria they’re going to use?” Tyler said, adding that there needs to be clear guidelines.

Ray Detter felt that the ORC and planning commission want to set up an “arbitrary” approach to lot combinations, similar to the customized zoning of a planned unit development (PUD). He referred to a memo that the advisory committee had received from Jeff Kahan of the city’s planning staff regarding how to regulate lot combinations. [.pdf of Kahan's memo] The planning commission’s proposal is “exactly what Kahan seems to suggest that we shouldn’t do,” Detter contended.

Detter liked the idea of allowing a specific lot size or following the original plats. He also said he wanted to be fair to developers. He and Christine Crockett, president of the Old Fourth Ward Association, worked hard to support developer Tom Fitzsimmons for a development on Catherine Street, Detter said. It had been proposed for two vacant lots zoned R4C in an historic area, he said. If there had been restrictions on lot combinations at the time, Detter noted, Fitzsimmons had indicated that the project would not have been possible. Detter wanted to make sure that zoning would allow projects like the Catherine Street development to occur, calling it a “special case.”

Eppie Potts found it disturbing that the planning commission didn’t set any standards for making its decisions related to lot combinations. Eventually, those standards would be developed, she noted, “but meanwhile, a lot of damage is done.”

Regarding lot combinations, Jay Holland – owner of Jay Holland Construction Company – felt that problems with new developments generally relate to massing, not to the size of the lot. He also noted that some very large homes in historic districts survived, because they were converted to multi-family homes or offices.

Holland reported that he’d been around in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the city expanded the minimum lot size in R4C districts from 6,000 square feet to 8,400 square feet. That’s contradictory to what some advisory committee members are now proposing, he said. “It seems like if it were broken, it would have been fixed long before now.”

Holland said he believed in urban redevelopment, “in a good way.” There’s a benefit to restoring structures that are deteriorating, he said, even if it means shifting the buildings and the existing lot lines. If the city makes that kind of project too difficult, “it won’t be happening,” he said.

Nancy Leff said she didn’t think she and Holland were very far apart in what they wanted. Her concern was simply the possibility that a developer could tear down multiple houses and put up a large apartment building, for example. Once built, it’s unlikely that an apartment building would be torn down in the future in order to build smaller homes, she noted. Holland replied that perhaps a developer would want to tear down old dilapidated homes in order to build newer houses – though perhaps not as many. His point was that it’s the massing that’s more of a concern.

Weatherbee told Holland that if there were more developers like him, “this town would be better off. I think the trouble is, whether it’s our processes or the people, we don’t get a lot of great projects,” she said. At this point, people might be reacting to the bad projects that have come forward, she noted.

Potts agreed that massing was an issue, and that’s why she’s in favor of limiting lot combinations. “The only reason anyone seems to want to combine lots and take down houses is to build something very massive,” she said, which violates the character of these neighborhoods. “So mass is our problem.”

The only way Potts said she can think of to prevent this is to restrict the lot combinations to a specific square footage, which probably amounts to two or three lots at the most.

Holland countered by saying that lot combinations would be needed if someone wanted to build several detached homes as part of the same development. Other committee members were supportive of that idea, but unsure how it could be accomplished. Briere asked Holland how he would write that outcome into the city code. “That’s the challenge,” she said.

Ray Detter, a member of the reconstituted R4C/R2A advisory committee. Detter was not a member of the original committee, but attended many of their meetings.

Detter brought up the City Place development on South Fifth Avenue, saying he sat through all the meetings when the project was first brought forward as a planned unit development (PUD). He said the developer threatened the city that if the PUD wasn’t approved, then a by-right project based on R4C zoning would be proposed instead. Ultimately, the project was built based on R4C zoning, Detter said, “and what we got was that awful thing [done by] combining lots.” Detter added that he wanted to revise the zoning so that no one can threaten to build anything like that again.

Holland said he was under the impression that the developer had proposed to save the existing homes there. Detter replied that such an alternative had been proposed, but it didn’t happen “because it was all baloney, and the money wasn’t there.” [By way of additional background, the city council had denied approval of the project.]

Weatherbee characterized the City Place project as “kind of a failure on everyone’s part” – a failure of the planning process, the city council, the owner, and the neighbors. People didn’t believe that the developer would be able to build a project using the existing homes along Fifth Avenue, she noted, “but we didn’t let him try it.”

City Place was a failure of the city’s process, Weatherbee said. “We don’t want our current zoning to be the worst of all options, where nobody’s really happy.” The hope would be to make it possible to have developments that everyone can live with, she said – “or something better.”

Ellen Rambo quoted from the 2009 land use element of the city’s master plan – the final sentence in this paragraph:

Action F – Reinforce residential neighborhoods in the area south and west of Central Campus by developing new zoning definitions and standards that support organized group housing opportunities. Examples of ordinance revisions include amendments to reduce nonconformities, elimination of special exception use approvals and minimum house size in some areas. Additional buffer areas between single-family and student areas may be needed. Off-street parking requirements and density limitations, however, should not be reduced in these areas.

Rambo wondered how Holland envisioned creating “friendly, livable streets” with new developments that are aesthetically pleasing. Was there a way to prevent the kind of monolithic buildings that are being constructed?

Holland replied that he’s not a designer, but he was under the impression that the planning staff, planning commission and city council are interested in developing some kind of design overlay. It takes a lot of time, he added, “and you don’t always get it right the first time.”

At the end of the meeting, the group – with the exception of Holland – reached consensus on the recommendation of limiting lot combinations to a maximum lot size of 6,525 square feet, which is 1.5 times the current minimum lot size.

Tyler noted that the original priority for the advisory committee was to try to bring more of the existing lots into conformance with zoning. “It wasn’t that we were opposing development,” she said. Currently, any time owners of a non-conforming property want to make changes, they have to get approval from the zoning board of appeals. “So it wasn’t just a protectionism angle on this,” Tyler said. “It really was a bigger gesture on our part to say that there are a lot of people who suffer, and not just single-family owner-occupants.”

Holland said he agreed with the ORC recommendations regarding lot size, not with the advisory committee. He suggested that the committee’s report could reflect the majority opinion as well as his dissent.

Weatherbee noted that she’d be shocked if the committee had 100% agreement on these recommendations. “We’re not screaming at each other – that’s one step forward,” she joked.

Priority Areas: Group Housing

In their discussion about the proposed group housing overlay district, Julie Weatherbee noted that the original advisory committee had talked about the idea of overlay districts, and had liked the idea of using those to capture the different characteristics of neighborhoods within the R4C zoning districts. But the planning commission’s proposal for a group housing overlay district isn’t one that committee members like, she said. “I personally don’t like the idea of zoning districts that are set up for certain types of people,” Weatherbee said. If you substituted a racial or gender designation instead of students, “then I would be ballistic.” Setting up a zoning for a student district makes her very uncomfortable.

Sabra Briere noted that there are currently some areas that are already zoned for group housing, but there are housing cooperatives in other parts of the city too. For group housing that’s not in an area zoned for that use, then any changes to that structure must seek variances from the zoning board of appeals, she said.

If someone wanted to establish a new residence that’s considered group housing – located in an area where that type of housing isn’t allowed – the developer would have to petition both the planning commission and zoning board of appeals, she said.

Ilene Tyler, an architect and member of the R4C/R2A advisory committee who lives in Ward 1.

Ray Detter called the current boundaries for a possible group housing district as “malleable” and “very arbitrary.” Some areas are included that he didn’t consider student housing districts, he said, while some areas with student housing “dumps” aren’t included. [As a possible later phase proposal, details of the group housing designation haven't been fleshed out by planning commissioners or staff.]

Eppie Potts voiced concern about a lack of clarity regarding what a group housing overlay district means, compared to other possible overlays, such as those for design standards. Nancy Leff agreed, saying the proposal for a group housing district seems like a new type of zoning, rather than an overlay.

Ilene Tyler noted that some people view historic districts as a form of overlay zoning, because it crosses boundaries of different zoning districts.

Jay Holland said that in the case of historic district requirements, the restrictions related more to massing than to lot size. Leff didn’t think it was possible to separate lot size from massing.

Detter said that even if there were an overlay for group housing, development in that area should still have to conform to the requirements of R4C zoning too. The problem is that decisions related to the group housing overlay might be made by the planning commission “in almost an arbitrary way,” he said. “I don’t want that kind of situation at all.”

Briere clarified that a zoning overlay district would go on top of the underlying zoning. For example, in a group housing overlay district, it might be possible to increase the number of people per unit or per acre, she explained. But the zoning as it relates to lot combinations wouldn’t change. “The lots are restricted the way they are everywhere else in R4C,” she said. Or it might be desirable to add even more restrictions using an overlay approach, Briere said. There are some overlay areas in the D1 district that restrict building height more than the standard D1 regulations, she noted.

An overlay district is designed to be non-arbitrary and enforceable, Briere said, as well as clearly understandable and predictable. “That we haven’t managed that yet is a shame.”

Based on Briere’s explanation, Leff replied that the group housing proposal “violates all those principles, because there are no regulations or standards.” Briere pointed out that the planning commission plans to develop those standards in the second phase of these revisions.

Potts felt the only rationale for a group housing overlay would be to create more density, and she expressed skepticism about the approach. Detter quipped: “You don’t want a fraternity next to your house.”

Weatherbee again stressed that this is a topic that the advisory committee needs to explore with Bonnie Bona, because none of the committee members are comfortable with the vague proposal. Bona, a member of the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee, is expected to attend the Sept. 11 meeting of the advisory committee.

Priority Areas: Parking

Parking was another concern raised by advisory committee members. But committee chair Julie Weatherbee told the group that she didn’t think they’d be able to reach consensus on that topic, given their time constraints. She felt the best approach might be to give some general guidance, rather than a detailed recommendation for parking.

Ilene Tyler wanted to recommend against having the planning commission introduce any change to the existing parking regulations.

Ray Detter felt that residential parking permit programs were effective in controlling parking in the neighborhoods. He suggested that might be a strategy deployed more widely in R4C districts. He noted that enforcement is still a problem, however.

Eppie Potts said she felt strongly about the parking issue. She felt parking regulations could be used to address the problem of six-bedroom student apartments. When developers don’t have to provide parking, she said, they can build a larger structure with more bedrooms per unit.

Related to the six-bedroom concern, Sabra Briere wondered why the previous advisory committee hadn’t recommended that the city put a limit on the number of people per unit that a development could accommodate. Tyler reported that the committee had talked about it, but they couldn’t reach consensus so it was not included in the final report.

Potts noted that the committee had also made parking recommendations that didn’t get included in the report.

Weatherbee added that the committee had decided to let the planning staff take the lead on some of these issues, and as a result, some of the recommendations got “derailed.” She said she didn’t blame staff, noting that the committee had been complicit in this approach.

Jay Holland thought that the parking requirements for high-rise developments “have really put a burden on the neighborhoods.” It’s not fair that smaller, existing home have to provide more parking, proportionally, than large apartment buildings with more residents. The same disparity also applies to setbacks, he said.

The advisory committee will likely take up the issue of parking at a future meeting.

Questions for Ordinance Revisions Committee

At the advisory committee’s initial meeting on Aug. 14, the group discussed differences between its original recommendations – presented in a report that was delivered to the planning commission in May of 2012 – and the ultimate recommendation of the planning commission’s ordinance revisions committee (ORC), which was approved by the full planning commission and forwarded to city council. They also noted that some of their recommendations didn’t make it into the final advisory committee report, which was prepared by Matt Kowalski of the city’s planning staff. Committee members felt that in some cases, that report didn’t accurately reflect the advisory committee’s actual consensus.

At the suggestion of Julie Weatherbee, the R4C/R2A advisory committee members agreed to limit their speaking turns. They were given 2 minutes per turn. Weatherbee used her iPad as a timer.

In their discussion on Aug. 14, several advisory committee members had questions about the intent and meaning of some of the ORC’s recommendations. Ultimately, the group decided to invite a member of the ORC to one of the advisory committee meetings, to answer questions and help get clarity on some of these issues. Committee members talked about which ORC member might be best suited to handle the questions. Ray Detter suggested either Bonnie Bona or Kirk Westphal, saying that he did not want Diane Giannola to come. [Westphal is running for city council in Ward 2. Wendy Woods also serves on the ORC.]

The group reached consensus that Bona would be invited to attend. Julie Weatherbee, chair of the advisory committee, suggested providing questions to Bona in advance of the meeting, so that Bona wouldn’t be “blindsided.”

Although the hope was for Bona to attend the Aug. 28 meeting, she couldn’t make it until the group’s session on Sept. 11. So on Aug. 28, advisory committee members spent part of their meeting discussing possible questions for Bona. [.pdf of draft questions]

The main concerns focused on the proposed group housing overlay, with committee members questioning the purpose of such an overlay, as well as concerns over a lack of details and the targeting of a specific group – in this case, students. Nancy Leff called it a kind of redlining. Detter added that the committee isn’t opposed to overlays that protect the scale and character of the neighborhoods, but they are opposed to the creation of a student neighborhood.

Eppie Potts said the overarching question for Bona should be: Why did the ORC make the recommendations that it did? Detter added that the committee is really asking Bona to justify the ORC’s positions. When he has asked Bona in previous conversations about the rationale, she indicated that it was based on the city’s central area plan, Detter reported. “At this point, it’s not our job to simply put in everything that’s in the central area plan,” he said. “It’s our job, at least as far as this committee is concerned, to preserve the character and scale of the R4C areas.”

Several committee members suggested narrowing down the number of questions, so that there would be time for Bona to answer, along with time for some dialogue. Briere volunteered to compile a shorter set of questions for Bona.

Public Commentary

Three people spoke during the opportunity for public commentary at the end of the Aug. 28 meeting.

Eppie Potts, a member of the R4C/R2A advisory committee, talks with resident Eleanor Linn prior to the committee’s Aug. 28 meeting.

Eleanor Linn said she had several notes, but that the committee had addressed all of the topics she was interested in. She noted that not all of the draft questions for Bonnie Bona were appropriate, and some should be answered by city staff – questions about legal issues, for example. Linn also wanted to make sure the committee asked Bona about what problem these zoning revisions are trying to correct. That would be good to know, she said, rather than guessing the intent of the ORC.

Gwen Nystuen characterized the committee’s discussion as good. The issue of group housing is a big one, she said, and it’s unclear what is meant by that. Nystuen was happy to see that there seemed to be unanimity on the committee that a student overlay district was not appropriate. Nystuen joked that she has lived next to a fraternity for about 50 years, so she’s familiar with group housing.

Regarding group housing, Christine Crockett said it’s important to avoid designating zoning for a particular demographic, such as students. “It’s creating a ghetto – saying that this is the senior citizen part of town, or this is the Asian-American part of town.” It’s a way of encouraging people where to live, Crockett added, and “that’s a very dangerous direction to go in.”

One issue that concerns her is the demolition of older houses, Crockett continued, even houses that could be rehabilitated. That’s what bothered people more than anything regarding the City Place development, she said. So it’s more than just a simple issue of lot size. She noted that Tom Fitzsimmons, for example, has taken down houses in the city’s central area and built new structures that are more suburban in nature – and he didn’t have to combine lots to do that. She said it was alarming when you have the bullnose of a garage facing the sidewalk, where there once was a porch.

Crockett also thought the committee needed to be more specific. “The more vague your recommendations are, the more it’s going to be interpreted by the planning commission,” she said. The committee needs to imagine the worst possible scenario, she added, “because that has happened in this town.”

Julie Weatherbee asked Crockett for an example of a specific recommendation. R4C neighborhoods vary widely, Weatherbee noted, so what’s appropriate for one neighborhood might not be appropriate for another. In her neighborhood, Weatherbee said, all of the houses have porches, but in some neighborhoods they don’t.

Crockett replied that for the most part, all houses originally had porches. Ilene Tyler noted that houses built after the mid-1920s or 1930s don’t necessarily have porches. Linn added that her house was built in 1914 and it doesn’t have a front porch, because the house is rotated on the lot – so the side of the house faces the street.

Weatherbee asked Crockett if she was referring to design specifics. Crockett replied that she’d like the committee to include a recommendation that discouraged the demolition of houses. She noted that a house of historical significance had been demolished in the north central area, and replaced with a house “that’s so suburban looking, it’s offensive” – even though it fits the current zoning.

Committee members present: Sabra Briere, Ellen Rambo, Julie Weatherbee, Ilene Tyler, Ray Detter, Nancy Leff, Eppie Potts, Jay Holland.

Absent: Wendy Carman, Carl Luckenbach.

Next meeting: Wednesday, Sept. 11, 2013 at 7 p.m. in the basement of city hall, 301 E. Huron St., Ann Arbor. [Check Chronicle event listings to confirm date]

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