Ann Arbor / Ypsilanti Regional Chamber

Ann Arbor Chamber Takes Pro-Development Stance on Library Lot
Friday, March 26
By Ryan J. Stanton, AnnArbor.com

The Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce has stayed out of the debate - until now - on what should happen with the so-called Library Lot along South Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor.

The community has debated whether the area atop an underground parking structure being developed on the site should remain preserved as an open public park space. At the other end of the spectrum, the city is giving consideration to two competing proposals, both calling for building a hotel to go along with a publicly financed conference center.

The chamber now says it favors vertical development, though its endorsement doesn't go as far to state a preference for a hotel and conference center - or any specific project.

"The Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce supports creating a denser, more vibrant downtown urban core," it states. "The Library Lot presents our community with a tremendous economic development opportunity, which should support the area’s economy as a whole. By having more business and residential activity in the downtown area, the business environment will grow, jobs will be created, and the Ann Arbor area’s reputation as a destination will be enhanced."

The chamber also points out a new development affords the city an opportunity to grow its tax base to fund essential services.

"If public investment is proposed, however, it must be based on an objective analysis of the market for and economic feasibility of the development in question," the statement reads. "Single sites in the downtown area should not be developed in isolation. Library Lot development should be comprehensively planned and coordinated with other downtown area properties, including the former YMCA site, as well as presumed makeovers to the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown branch and the Ann Arbor Transit Authority’s Blake Transit Center."

Due to problems with past requests for proposals issued by the city, the chamber is urging the city to explore new methods in the future, such as selling city-owned properties to private developers who will then assume associated risk and liabilities.

"This will also permit the market to dictate ultimate land use within the confines of current zoning," the chamber states in its letter. "The hidden costs of the city-owned former YMCA site and failed William Street Station development (and pending lawsuit) are telling in this regard. By one conservative estimate, the total cost to Ann Arbor taxpayers amounts to approximately $6 million (which includes the site’s purchase price, the former YMCA’s demolition costs, surface parking lot site preparation costs, combined debt service payments, and foregone property tax revenue assumed for a vacant downtown area parcel)."

Click here to read the chamber's full statement.

Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at 734.623.2529.

Public Policy—It’s Everyone’s Business
Sunday, March 21
Debra Power, blogger for AnnArbor.com

If I say public policy, what comes to mind? Legislation, politics, people sitting in a boardroom arguing about an issue?

Public policy, or public affairs, actually directly affects you and your business and your bottom line. The good news is that you have an opportunity to participate in shaping public policy, and in turn you can look to policymakers to help you grow your business.

Just ask Michelle Crumm, chief business officer and co-founder of Adaptive Materials. Her business receives federal contracts which encouraged her to “learn how to work with our legislators to get them the information they need to impact policy to make small business more competitive.”

Dr. Dawn White, president of Accio Energy has also benefited from her public policy activities.

“Part of my job is to help policy makers understand that start-up technology businesses with high growth potential have unique needs associated with the technology development cycle. Communicating this to individuals at the federal and state levels has helped my business grow; we employ twice as many people now as we did less than a year ago.”

If you are interested in getting more involved with public policy there are many local, regional and national resources within reach. Here are just a few to get you started:
•    The Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber of Commerce has a standing public policy committee made up of chamber members. This group is dedicated to addressing
      local, regional, and state issues on behalf of member businesses. This includes taking positions on proposed taxes, ordinances, millages, and budgets. The staff at the
      chamber also provides contact information for legislators on a local, state, and federal level and can assist you with the protocols for reaching out to them.
•    Every year, the federal government spends $400 billion on goods and services. The Equity in Contracting for Women Act (2000) stipulates that federal agencies award 5%
      of all contracts to women-owned business. To get a piece of that very big pie, start by registering your business with the Central Contractor Registry. Then, learn more
      about how to work with federal agencies by connecting with the local PTAC (Procurement Technical Assistance Center) or WIPP (Women Impacting Public Policy).
•    Contact your legislators and make your opinion known. As a local business your voice counts. Your legislators can also be advocates when you apply for a grant or
      compete for a federal contract. Ask them for a letter of support to include in your application or proposal.
•    Volunteer for a local governmental board, committee, or commission, not only to make a difference, but also to establish important ties with elected officials and staff.

Debra Power is president of Power Marketing and Research and the co-founder of the Women's Exchange of Washtenaw. She writes regular columns for Business Review with WXW co-founder Carrie Hensel.

Heritage Row Moves to City Council - Planning commission also approves parkland rezoning
Wednesday, March 17
By Mary Morgan, Ann Arbor Chronicle

Ann Arbor Planning Commission meeting (March 16, 2010): A proposed residential project that’s been in the works for more than two years got approval on Tuesday night from a majority of planning commissioners, by a 6-2 vote.

Alex de Parry, the developer of Heritage Row – a project on the east side of Fifth Avenue, south of William – will now seek approval from city council, though he still faces opposition from neighbors and others in the community.

Also at Tuesday’s meeting, the commission continued a broad effort to rezone parcels of city-owned parkland as “public land” – including one known as the “squarest “park in Ann Arbor. Commissioners also addressed concerns raised by residents living near two of the properties being rezoned: Arbor Hills Nature Area and Kilburn Park. Action on those two parcels was postponed.

Also postponed was a proposed site plan for expansion at Glacier Hills retirement community, which plans to construct a new skilled nursing care building within its complex on the city’s east side. Planning staff had some unresolved issue with the proposal, including the need to increase the amount of required bicycle parking. It was noted that residents there might not have a high demand for bike spaces.

Heritage Row
Alex de Parry has been seeking planned unit development (PUD) zoning for his residential project on South Fifth Avenue, now called Heritage Row, for more than two years. It’s the third time this project has been brought forward, in various iterations – including as the former City Place development.

The current project calls for renovating seven historic homes, repositioning them on the site, and building three new 3.5-story apartment buildings behind those houses, with an underground parking garage. In total, there will be a maximum 82 apartments with no more than 163 bedrooms. [For a more detailed description of the project, see Chronicle coverage: "Heritage Row Gets Postponed" and "Fifth Ave. Project to Meet Historic Standards"]

At their Feb. 18, 2010 meeting, planning commissioners voted to postpone action, asking the developer to work with city staff to clarify several issues raised during that meeting. On Tuesday, the group got an updated staff report, heard from several people during a public hearing on Heritage Row – the majority opposed to the project – and ultimately approved the site plan and PUD rezoning.

Staff Report on Heritage Row
Matt Kowalski of the city’s planning staff reviewed the developer’s responses to issues that commissioners had raised last month. He said all questions had been answered to the satisfaction of the planning staff, which was recommending approval of the project.

Specifically, a light tan brick had been chosen for the new buildings, with the goal of helping the buildings blend into the background. Windows will now be a more traditional double-hung style on all four sides of the new buildings.

To address privacy concerns that commissioners had raised on behalf of the residents on Hamilton Place, located to the east of Heritage Row, the back lot line will be planted with 30 evergreen Arborvitae shrubs. Those will grow to be about 20 feet high, Kowalski said.

Another change: the development agreement and PUD supplemental regulations for the project include a commitment to restore all materials on the historical houses according to standards of rehabilitation set by the Secretary of the Interior. This had been a request made by Kirk Westphal. [The full staff report is available to download from the city's website.]

Finally, Kowalski reported that he’d had a last-minute conversation with de Parry that wasn’t reflected in the staff report. De Parry has offered to use wood siding on the new buildings, instead of brick. Kowalski asked commissioners for feedback on that possibility.

Public Hearing on Heritage Row
Eleven people spoke during the public hearing on Heritage Row, most of them opposed to the project. Many had spoken at previous planning commission meetings as well. Here’s a sampling from Tuesday’s hearing:

Tom Luczak said that regardless of the color of the brick, the three new buildings behind the historic homes really stand out, in a way that’s incompatible with the neighborhood. He said he appreciated the offer to adhere to Secretary of the Interior standards for historic preservation for the existing homes, but that it was important for the new buildings to adhere to those standards as well.

Further, Luczak asked who would determine whether those standards had been met. The city’s historic district commission could do that, he noted – but only if that area was designated as an historic district. That’s not a sure thing, he said. [A study committee has been looking at whether to create a new historic district along Fourth and Fifth avenues, and has issued a preliminary report recommending that such a district be created. City council will ultimately decide the issue.]

Jack Eaton urged the commission to hold off on a vote until a decision had been made about the proposed historic district – a vote now would be premature, he said. The city is in the process of discussing urban density. There are other areas that have been designated for dense developments, but that section of the Fifth Avenue corridor isn’t one of them. A PUD would be an extraordinary departure from the area’s current zoning, he said, and should only be approved if the project is compelling. Heritage Row isn’t a compelling project, and doesn’t meet PUD standards, he contended.

Eaton said that commissioners shouldn’t compare the current project with de Parry’s previous proposal – it’s the PUD standards that should be considered, not whether Heritage Row is better than City Place. He asked commissioners to reject the proposal.

Eppie Potts listed several aspects of the project that she said deviated from current zoning in an unacceptable way. Issues included much greater density, greatly reduced setbacks, and deviations from the city’s central area plan. Nor would the proposal meet Secretary of the Interior standards, she said. The plan calls for moving four houses on the site, so that all seven historic homes would be aligned. “It would be like a pseudo-historic theme park, looking very plastic,” Potts said. She questioned why the project was being rushed through, before a decision had been made on designating that area as an historic district.

Ellen Ramsburgh, who is a member of the city’s historic district commission, said she agreed with the comments made by previous speakers opposing the project. As a resident of a near-downtown neighborhood, she said zoning needed to be kept in scale. She reported that she’d recently been to the top floor of the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research building, with a view looking down onto the Fifth Avenue neighborhood – it’s amazingly intact, she said, with no out-of-scale buildings.

Tom Whitaker reported that he had attended a recent meeting that the R4C study committee had held with local landlords. He said that the landlords had spoken out against oversized development. This type of development hurts them. Whitaker distributed a handout he’d made of residential projects in or around the downtown that had been approved, but not built – almost 1,200 units. There’s a pent-up supply, he said, but not a pent-up demand. The only people who want to build in neighborhoods are developers looking for cheap land. He also cited a range of detriments to the community caused by Heritage Row, including the project’s height and setbacks.

Aside from the project’s developer, Alex de Parry, the only speaker during the public hearing who supported Heritage Row was Kyle V. Mazurek, vice president of government affairs for the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce. The project incorporates several goals supported by the chamber, he said, including greater density in the downtown area and the addition of workforce affordable housing, especially for young professionals. The project’s community benefits include more efficient land and energy use, preservation of the historic streetscape and the generation of property tax revenues. He urged the commission to approve the project.

Commission Deliberations on Heritage Row
Bonnie Bona first asked staff to clarify some issues that had been raised during the public hearing. One question was whether the developer could later add large mechanicals – for heating and air conditioning, for example – to the top of the new buildings, going higher than the currently proposed maximum height of 39.8 feet. Kowalski clarified that nothing can go above that maximum height of 39.8 feet.

Several people during the public hearing had asked the planning commission hold off on a vote until a decision about creating an historic district in that area is made. Bona explained that the Heritage Row project had been submitted to the planning commission, and they were required to act on it. She asked the staff what would happen to the project if the historic district were formed.

Diane Giannola, a planning commissioner who also serves on the city’s historic district commission, clarified for Bona that if an historic district is established, the developer would need to get a certificate of appropriateness from the HDC before he could proceed. Without that, the city wouldn’t issue building permits.

There was some discussion about whether the development would include a geothermal system. From the supplemental regulations:

A renewable energy source shall be utilized as the primary energy source for the building. The renewable energy source may be located on-site, such as geothermal energy for heating and cooling systems, or off-site such as purchasing renewably produced energy for electricity, or a combination thereof.

De Parry told commissioners that because of the size of the site, there wasn’t sufficient room to install a geothermal system. The buildings will be constructed to comply with the federal Energy Star program, he said. Jean Carlberg asked about the level of insulation in the historic homes. De Parry said the goal was to achieve R-30 levels in the sides and R-48 in the ceilings. Carlberg asked that those specifics be written into the supplemental regulations.

Erica Briggs asked who would determine whether the project complied with Secretary of the Interior standards. Kowalski said that if the historic district gets created, then the historic district commission would handle that. If not, then the city’s staff would review it.

After some additional issues were clarified, commissioners began stating their positions on the project.

Eric Mahler said he saw several benefits of the project, including affordable housing – the project has committed to construct 18% of its units as affordable housing, somewhat higher than the city-required 15%. Other benefits were energy efficiency, underground parking and preservation of the historical houses. Mahler said he was concerned about the historic district issue, but that it would be an arbitrary act on their part to hold up the project because of that.

Wendy Woods had a different view. Things that are cited as community benefits are things that the developer should be doing anyway, she said. She wasn’t convinced that the project met PUD standards, and she was concerned about the size and massing of the new buildings. “To me it’s just out of scale with the neighborhood.” She planned to vote against it, she said.

Erica Briggs said it shouldn’t be a surprise that she too would not be supporting Heritage Row, noting that the project doesn’t conform with the city’s central area plan. She read from the relevant section:

In various locations, houses are overshadowed by larger commercial, residential or institutional buildings that are out of scale with existing surrounding development. In addition to being aesthetically displeasing, out-of-scale construction alters the quality of living conditions in adjacent structures. Often it is not so much the use that impacts negatively on the neighborhoods, but the massing of the new buildings.

She also cited a letter written by Jill Thacher, the city’s historic district coordinator. Among other things, Briggs agreed with Thacher’s comments regarding the importance of relationships among historic houses. Heritage Row isn’t context-sensitive, Briggs said. [.pdf copy of Thacher's letter]

Finally, she said it was important to note that there was a study committee reviewing the city’s R4C zoning – the project is not consistent with that zoning.

Kirk Westphal weighed in next, first by stating his preference for a darker brick on the exterior of the new buildings. He noted that it wasn’t in the commission’s purview to examine whether there was a market for these apartments, as some neighbors had suggested – that wasn’t among the criteria for determining a PUD, he said.

Westphal said that some PUD standards stood out more than others for him. By preserving the historic houses, the project is extending the life of those structures – that held a lot of weight with him, and was a major benefit to the street. Putting the parking underground was another benefit in terms of land use, he said.

Westphal said he was disappointed that the geothermal system didn’t work out, but Energy Star buildings would be a major upgrade. He concluded by saying he gave high deference to the city’s planning staff, who had been looking at these issues longer than most of the commissioners – and the staff didn’t always recommend approval.

Tony Derezinski, who also represents Ward 2 on city council, said the project had improved and that it was about as fine-tuned as it could get. He also cited deference for the staff’s opinion, saying that they’d gone over “every jot and tittle” of the development agreement. As for the R4C study committee – mentioned by Tom Whitaker during the public hearing – he noted that both he and Jean Carlberg serve on it, and that it’s not clear when that work will be finished. Heritage Row deserves the planning commission’s support, he said.

Jean Carlberg said she’s thought long and hard about how the new buildings might dominate the streetscape, and concluded that they won’t be noticed. She gave the example of driving down Division past the McKinley building – you barely notice the taller apartment building behind it, she said. She acknowledged that Tom Whitaker will be able to see the buildings out of his bedroom window, but “the rest of us won’t.”

Carlberg added that Heritage Row makes better use of the land that’s now used for parking behind the historic homes. She also cited the benefits of affordable housing, underground parking, energy efficiency and fire suppression systems – if there were a fire, the existing historical buildings would be gone instantly, she said.

The existing homes are part of Ann Arbor’s history, Carlberg said, and preserving the streetscape was important for her, though she noted that there’s nothing magic about the current setbacks. Another factor in favor of Heritage Row is that they’ve not heard any complaints from residents of Hamilton Place, she said. Calling the project a “great win” for the community, Carlberg said they’d been talking about it for a long time, and now they should move it forward.

Diane Giannola agreed with the benefits mentioned by other commissioners, and found it to be a good project for the area.

Bonnie Bona asked de Parry about the number of units in the complex – she was concerned that with a maximum number of 163 bedrooms, it would be possible to build 27 units with six bedrooms each. She acknowledged that his proposal called for no six-bedroom or four-bedroom apartments, and only one five-bedroom apartment. Would he be willing to make that a part of the supplemental regulations? De Parry agreed, noting that the five-bedroom apartment is in one of the historical homes, as it’s currently configured.

Bona also asked why he was now considering wood siding, as opposed to brick. She asked which he preferred. De Parry said it was an attempt to address Erica Briggs’ concerns about the aesthetics of the new buildings, as well as some of Jill Thacher’s comments. They were trying to make it more like Braun Court, he said, but he’d be willing to do whatever pleased the commissioners. Bona asked the project’s architect, Brad Moore, to weigh in. Moore said his primary aim was to please his client, but that the original design had been brick.

In giving her opinion of the project, Bona said she agreed with what other commissioners had said about the benefits of the project. There’s nothing in the central area plan that argues against density, she said, and preserving the streetscape is a huge benefit. The project will create smaller apartments, which the commission has been asking for. It’s come a long way from when it was first proposed, she said.

Outcome: The project was approved on a 6-2 vote, with Erica Briggs and Wendy Woods dissenting. Commissioner Evan Pratt left the meeting before the vote was taken.

Rezoning to Public Land
Earlier in Tuesday’s meeting, in what planning staff describes as an effort to “clean up” zoning of city-owned property that’s used as parkland, the planning commission approved the rezoning of six parcels of parks and nature areas. The new zoning will be “public land” or PL. Previously, these parcels had different types of zoning, ranging from office to residential to agricultural.

The action at Tuesday’s meeting was to be the final part of a broader effort to rezone or annex about 50 parks or portions of parks. Other parcels have been rezoned or annexed at previous meetings. However, because of concerns raised by residents of the Arbor Hills neighborhood, where two of the parcels are located, the commission postponed actions on those two items.

In response to some of the concerns, Bonnie Bona, the commission’s chair, asked planning staff to clarify how the land would remain protected as parkland.

Alexis DiLeo of the city’s planning staff explained that there are three ways that parkland is protected. The primary way is its inclusion in the city’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, known as the PROS plan. All parkland is listed in this state-mandated plan, which is updated every five years – an update is currently in progress, led by parks planner Amy Kuras.

In addition, city-owned property is designated as parkland by city council resolution, DiLeo said. And in some cases, deed restrictions placed on the property will limit its use to parkland. DiLeo also noted that parkland is under the stewardship of the park advisory commission, an appointed body that makes recommendations to the city council.

DiLeo said the current mix of zoning doesn’t reflect the land’s actual use as parkland. Rezoning parkland to “public land” better reflects that use, she said.

Land that’s designated as parkland – either by council resolution or by being listed in the PROS plan – also means that it is protected by city charter, which requires voter approval for the sale of parkland, DiLeo said. When asked by Bona whether parkland might be removed from the PROS plan, both DiLeo and planning manager Wendy Rampson said they couldn’t recall that ever happening.

Six Parcels Rezoned
Planning commissioners voted to rezone the following six parcels. The changes require final approval by city council.

Arbor Oaks Park: A three-acre park in the Arbor Oaks neighborhood, east of Stone School Road and north of Ellsworth Road on the city’s south side. Currently zoned R1C (single-family dwelling).

Berkshire Creek Nature Area: A five-acre nature area next to the Berkshire Creek development, on the east side of South Huron Parkway, north of Washtenaw Avenue. Currently zoned R4A (multi-family dwelling).

Bluffs Nature Area: The 41-acre parcel – located on the east side of North Main Street, between Huron View Boulevard and West Summit Street – is currently zoned for several different uses, including agriculture, office, C1 (local business) and R4A (multi-family dwelling). Though most of the land for this nature area was acquired in the 1990s, a one-acre section on the north edge was recently donated by the nursing home on Huron View Boulevard.

Glacier Highlands Park: A 1.6-acre park – known as the “squarest in Ann Arbor,” DiLeo said – is located in the Glacier Highlands neighborhood, east of Green Road and north of Glazier Way. Currently zoned R1B (single-family dwelling).

Mallets Creek Nature Area: A three-acre nature area next to the Brentwood Square development, on the west side of South Huron Parkway and north of Washtenaw Avenue. Currently zoned R4B (multi-family dwelling).

Scheffler Park: A small 0.3-acre piece of land was recently acquired as an addition to the 5.5-acre park north of the Darlington subdivision, at the northeast corner of Edgewood Drive and South Huron Parkway. The 0.3-acre parcel is currently zoned as office district.

City Parkland within Arbor Hills
Two parcels – Arbor Hills Nature Area and Kilburn Park – were considered separately, in response to concerns from residents. Located in the Arbor Hills neighborhood in northeast Ann Arbor, north of Green Road, both parcels are currently zoned as planned unit development (PUD). Arbor Hills Nature Area is a six-acre area; Kilburn Park is two acres.

Seven people spoke during a public hearing on the rezoning. Though the hearing was for commentary on rezoning of any of the parcels, five of the speakers were from the Arbor Hills neighborhood. Several other people from that neighborhood attended Tuesday’s meeting, but did not formally address the commission.

Edward J. Zelmanski, an attorney from Plymouth representing the Arbor Hills Condominium Association, said it was inappropriate to rezone the parcels to public land – he asked that the action be tabled, or denied. Rezoning the property to public land would open it up to other possible uses, he said.

The Arbor Hills development was established as a PUD, Zelmanski noted, and the two parks shouldn’t be separated from that. Zelmanski also raised the issue of whether there had been proper notice given. Some residents didn’t receive notice of the proposed zoning change, even though they were entitled to be notified – as members of the condo association, they were part owners of property adjacent to the parkland, he said.

Jane Klingsten, co-president of the Arbor Hills Condominium Association, asked for postponement. She said they’d received some documents related to this issue that they hadn’t yet had time to review. Residents needed to be assured that their access and easement rights were protected, she said. In addition, Klingsten wondered about the distinction between “park” and “nature area.” Though the parcel was now being referred to by city staff as a nature area, Klingsten said there’s a sign at the end of Ashburnam Road that calls it “Arbor Hills Park.” She wanted to make sure the designation remained as a park.

Two other residents spoke about concerns that the parks, if zoned as “public land,” could be sold or developed. Another Arbor Hills resident, Marty Smith, said he hadn’t planned to speak, but that he thought Zelmanski was incorrect – publicly owned land shouldn’t be zoned as a PUD. Smith said he’d looked at the zoning ordinances, and that the proposed change seemed in line with the land’s actual use. He supported the rezoning.

Commission and Staff Discussion on Public Land Rezoning
City planner Alexis DiLeo again outlined the ways in which parkland is protected. She said that the “public land” zoning is also used for land owned by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor District Library, Ann Arbor Public Schools and Washtenaw County.

Several commissioners voiced support for postponing action on the two Arbor Hills parcels, and had follow-up questions for staff.

Kirk Westphal, picking up on a concern raised by a resident during the public hearing, asked whether the neighborhood’s stormwater detention pond is located within the city-owned area, and whether there are utility easements running through the park. DiLeo said she’d check on those issues.

Jean Carlberg asked about whether proper notice had been given. Wendy Rampson, the city’s planning manager, said that city staff would look into that issue. They typically send notice to property owners within 300 feet of the parcel. The condo association was also sent notice, she said, but it’s possible that there are homes in the perimeter of the neighborhood that weren’t contacted.

Saying it was great to see people come out to make sure that parkland is protected, Erica Briggs asked for clarification about whether there was greater or less protection under the designation of “public land,” as compared to previous zoning. DiLeo said there was better protection as public land. Previously, when the land was zoned as residential or office, for example, there might have been the impression that it could be developed, she said. The best protection, though, is being listed in the PROS plan, and being under the stewardship of the park advisory commission.

Outcome: Commissioners voted to recommend rezoning of six parcels to “public land.” They voted to postpone action on the Kilburn Park and Arbor Hills Nature Area.

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

Moravian Housing Project a Step Closer
Monday, March 8
By Lisa Allmendinger, A2 Journal

A plan for a five-story housing project called the Moravian was given approval on first reading recently by the Ann Arbor City Council.

The plan includes about 62 housing units and a level of parking underneath on less than an acre at 201 E. Madison St. between Fourth and Fifth avenues.

The project has repeatedly drawn opposition from a neighborhood group, but has also garnered support from individuals and business people in the area who think it will rejuvenate the area that's close to the University of Michigan campus and near downtown.

The project got a nod of approval from the city's planning staff and, by a 7-1 vote, the planning commission, which approved the 75,000-square-foot project on about 0.85 acres.

Beverly Strassman, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, told the council that there are already a large number of housing projects that have not been built and there is a high vacancy rate of new student housing on campus.

She said the project does not fit "any immediate housing needs."

Kyle Mazurek spoke in favor of the project, saying it will offer new affordable housing, as well as housing for young professionals.

The plan, he said, includes flood plan mitigation and will provide energy to the area.

Shirley Zempel spoke against the project, saying that the building is huge and right up next to the sidewalk.

Kim Kachadoorian and Claudius Vincenz also spoke in opposition to the project.

City Council members gave it mixed reviews.

It's expected that there will be a public hearing and a second reading for the planned unit development project March 15.

Lisa Allmendinger can be reached at 1-877-995-NEWS (6397) or at lallmendinger@heritage.com. Check out her daily blog at www.A2Journal.com.


City Council’s Directive: 3% Cut for Workers
Wednesday, March 3
By Dave Askins, Ann Arbor Chronicle

Ann Arbor City Council meeting (March 1, 2010) Part 1: Having postponed a resolution at its last meeting – which directed the city administrator to reduce wages of non-union workers by 3% – on Monday the council passed a revised version of it.

But it was approved without the support of the measure’s two sponsors, Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2). The version adopted by council specified a 3% minimum cut in compensation packages, taken over the aggregate of non-union workers. By the time the resolution was passed, it had also shed a “whereas” clause that Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) called “self-laudatory.”

In development news, The Moravian – a planned unit development (PUD) proposed on East Madison Street – received unanimous council support at its first reading. Approval at two readings is required for final approval. But Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) responded to a resident request made at the previous night’s caucus to give some clue at the first reading as to how councilmembers were thinking about the project: “I’ll be voting against it at second reading – so there’s no question in the community’s mind.”

Based on the Sunday caucus, The Moravian will face a protest petition, which raises the bar for approval from six to eight votes.

The council also wrangled through a proposed ban on cell phone use while driving and bicycling – at a level of detail unusual for a first reading. The measure had undergone enough revisions since it was approved at the council’s previous meeting that its status Monday was reset to a first reading. Dissent on the ban came from Sandi Smith (Ward 1), who questioned whether it should be undertaken at the local level – as opposed to the state. Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) also dissented, pointing to the fact that the ban did not include hands-free phones.

The council also transacted a variety of other business, including a repeal of the city’s bicycle registration program, which is to be replaced with a new system after further consultation with stakeholders. The bicycle registration program, as well as other business and announcements, will be wrapped up in Part 2 of this report.

The 3% Budget Directive
Before the council on Monday was a resolution that gave the city administrator, Roger Fraser, direction on preparing the city’s budget. Fraser must, per the city charter, submit a budget to the council by its second meeting in April – this year, that’s on April 19. By May 17, their second meeting in May, the council must vote to adopt the budget with any amendments they choose to make. If the council does not adopt a budget, then the budget proposed by the city administrator is adopted by default.

The resolution before the council on Monday night requires Fraser to report back on the directives by April 1, which is before the budget proposal is due.

The resolution before the council differed from an earlier version, which had called for a 3% reduction in the “base salary” of non-union workers. The version before the council on Monday called for a minimum of a 3% reduction in their “compensation packages.”

Budget Directive: Amendment on Travel Allowance

The resolution before the council eliminated a $1,000/year travel allowance for the mayor and a $560/year travel allowance for councilmembers.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) proposed an amendment to keep the mayor’s travel allowance, saying that it’s important for the mayor to go forward throughout the state to represent the city. Mike Anglin (Ward 5) agreed, saying that he’d been unaware that councilmembers had a travel allowance, and that he didn’t need one. However, said Anglin, the mayor is the symbol of the city.

Outcome: The amendment to keep the mayor’s travel allowance was approved, with dissent from Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2).

Budget Directive: Amendment on Self-Laudatory Language

The resolution included a “whereas” clause that listed off councilmembers who had voluntarily committed to giving back 3% of their council salaries as having demonstrated leadership. [Chronicle coverage: "Ann Arbor Council Delays Vote on Pay Cuts"]

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), whose name was listed, said that for his part he felt the clause was “self-laudatory” and did not see the need for it. An accompanying “resolved” clause called on all councilmembers to commit to the 3% give-back. Independently of whether it was possible for the council to compel the action of individual councilmembers, said Taylor, he felt it was not proper as a body to mandate something that is voluntary by nature.

Outcome: The clauses involving city councilmembers’ 3% salary give-back’s were deleted, with dissent from Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) and Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2).

Budget Directive: Amendment on Percentage for Administrator and Attorney

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) proposed an amendment to a “resolved” clause that singled out the city attorney and the city administrator among the non-union workers targeted by the resolution for a minimum 3% reduction in compensation.  The attorney and the administrator are positions that report directly to the council, and the council sets their salaries.

Calling the 3% artificial, Briere said she felt the top of the pay scale could take a bigger hit: 5%.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1), however, said that she was encouraged by the word “minimum” and thought that it allowed enough flexibility, so she didn’t support specifying 5%.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wanted to know what the implications were numerically – the compensation packages covered salary, benefits, and vacation days. As much as he wanted the top administrators to show leadership, said Kunselman, he hesitated to use a broad brush.

Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2) and Marcia Higgins (Ward 4), who had sponsored the resolution, said that the April deadline provided an opportunity to give additional direction before the final budget is proposed by the administrator.

Mayor Hieftje noted that council sets the pay of the city administrator and the city attorney, and could do so at their next performance review.

Higgins also noted that the resolution was a way to give public notice of the expectation and to give the two top administrators the “platform” to make changes.

Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) noted that the 3% reduction was what they’d asked staff in general to accept and that the language specified a minimum, so he was not supportive of the amendment. He allowed, however, that if the amendment passed, he would be contributing an additional 2% of his council salary back to the city to bring his total up to 5%.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), however, said he felt that 5% was the proper place for the bar to be set.

Outcome: Briere’s amendment that reduced the city attorney and the city administrator’s compensation by 5% – instead of a minimum of 3% – failed, with support only from Briere and Taylor.

Budget Directive: Amendment on Collective versus Distributive

For linguists who specialize in the sub-field of semantics focusing on the the interpretation of English plurals, Monday’s council meeting would have been a welcome respite from their usual fodder, which tends to focus on pianos and the men who lift them.

Consider, for example, the following sentences about some men, say, Smith, Jones and Green:

The men ate cake.
The men gathered in the kitchen.
The men lifted a piano.
Sentence (1) is true just when Smith, Jones, and Green each ate cake. That is, the meaning of sentence (1) requires the eating of cake to distribute over each of them: Smith ate cake, Jones ate cake and Green ate cake. For sentence (2), Smith, Jones and Green each have to be in the kitchen together in some event of gathering, but the sentence is not about the men as individuals – it’s about the men collectively. That is, the meaning of the sentence does not require that Smith gathered, Jones gathered and Green gathered.

Sentence (3) is the one that applies to the discussion at the city council meeting. It’s a sentence that has a distributive meaning – it could be about Smith lifting a piano, Jones lifting a piano and Green lifting a piano. Or it could have a collective meaning – it could be about Smith, Jones and Green, who worked together to lift a piano. On the collective meaning, it’s not the case that Smith lifted a piano, and Jones lifted a piano and Green lifted a piano.

At issue was the following “resolved” clause in the budget resolution:

RESOLVED, That beginning July 1, 2010 the compensation packages for all non-union employees will be reduced by a minimum of 3%;

Replace “the compensation packages for all non-union employees” with “the men” and replace “be reduced by a minimum of 3%” with “lift a piano” and you get something like sentence (3).

Councilmembers debated whether the resolution meant that the total of compensation packages summed over all employees had to be reduced by 3% – maybe Smith got a 1% cut but Jones got a 4% cut – or rather that it meant each employee had to get at least a 3% cut.

The Chronicle asked Peter Lasersohn, a professor of linguistics and specialist in the semantics of plurals at the University of Illinois, to weigh in on that question. His response was unambiguous:

Sentences with plural definite subjects are systematically ambiguous between collective and distributive readings, so I think the “RESOLVED” clause can be interpreted either way. I feel bad for Jones …

At the city council meeting, it was Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5), who brought up the question of the distributive versus the collective understanding of the sentence. He’d begun his questioning by asking if the city administrator was “compelled” by the resolution to deliver a budget as described by the resolution. City attorney Stephen Postema allowed that this was the intent of the resolution, but that it was the budget process itself [see section introduction] that compelled the kind of budget the council wanted.

Hohnke wanted to know if the 3% reduction applied to each person. Turning to Fraser, he asked: “How do you understand this?” Fraser replied that the resolution did not specify how to do it and that his staff’s job was to come back with their suggestion as to how to do it.

About the idea that it was each employee who had to have at least a 3% cut, concluded Hohnke: “That’s not what I’m understanding you to understand.” Otherwise put, Hohnke was on the same page with Fraser that it did not require a minimum 3% reduction of each employee’s compensation.

Christopher Taylor (Ward 3) weighed in, saying that it was fine if the intent was to allow for an aggregation that amounted to a 3% reduction, but contended that was not what the resolution said. “If Jones is not reduced, then it’s not consistent,” he said. Taylor then proposed an amendment that added the phrase “in the aggregate.”

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) objected, saying that what Taylor was doing was changing the words to something that Fraser already understood the resolution to mean, and that they would have an opportunity to make any adjustments in April.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) characterized the change as a grammarian’s correction, which she appreciated. City attorney Stephen Postema weighed in, saying that Higgins was correct about the opportunity in April, but allowed that Taylor’s suggestion of “in the aggregate” was useful.

When Sandi Smith (Ward 1) attempted to end the deliberation on Taylor’s proposed amendment by “calling the question,” the motion to end deliberations narrowly failed with only five votes – those of Smith, Briere, Rapundalo, Higgins, and Hohnke.

So Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), who sponsored the original resolution, weighed in. The intent, he said, actually was to set a baseline, with the idea that Fraser could adjust that.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) observed that Fraser and Taylor had a different interpretation of what the resolution said – so it was worth addressing – and wondered if deleting the word “all” would help. Taylor didn’t think so, saying that it was useful for highlighting the aggregate.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) took the “grammatical quibbling” to illustrate the futility of the process. By “process” he meant the idea that the council would express a budget directive in the form of a resolution. He’d weighed in earlier during the deliberations against the idea of doing that, and asked Higgins, who was one of the most senior members of the council, if that had been done in the past. Higgins affirmed it had been done.

Also on the subject of process, earlier in the deliberations Rapundalo had said that in the past the budget committee had given budget directives that had “never seen the light of day.” Passing a resolution of the council was a way to make it public and transparent, he said.

Mayor John Hieftje gave a nudge to wrap up the discussion by saying that if they were spending that much time on this amendment, then the budget decisions themselves were going to be “fun.”

Before they voted on Taylor’s amendment, Hohnke picked up on the topic of process, and noted that Fraser had asked the council for direction, and that the resolution provided that explicit direction.

Outcome: The amendment inserting “in the aggregate” succeeded, with Anglin, Briere, Derezinski, Taylor, Kunselman, Teall and Hohnke voting for it.

Overall final outcome: The council passed the 3% budget directive resolution as amended, with dissent from Derezinski, Rapundalo and Higgins.

Ban on Cell Phone Use While Driving
Before the council was an ordinance that prohibits use of cell phones while driving or bicycling.

Cell Phones: Public Commentary

At the conclusion of their meeting during public commentary general time, two speakers addressed the council about cell phone use. One speaker was concerned about allowing exceptions for certain people involved in emergency preparedness exercises – that set a bad precedent, he said. He encouraged the city to allow the issue to be addressed at the state level.

A second speaker asked the council to at least consider the cost of informing the public that such an ordinance would be enforced in the city, noting that there were numerous access points into the city, where signage might be required.

Cell Phones: Council Deliberations

The ordinance had already won the support of the council at its previous meeting. But it had undergone changes that were numerous enough that an additional first reading was warranted, said one of the measure’s sponsors, Stephen Rapundalo (Ward 2), on Monday. The changes were not really substantive, he contended, but their sheer number created enough red lines that it gave “the appearance thereof.”

The changes, he said, were the result of various communication with other councilmembers and community members. Rapundalo called to the podium Paul Green, a research professor at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, whose research focuses on driver distraction and driver workload.

One of the key research findings that Green explained to councilmembers was the idea that the problem with cell phones is not the object held in the hand, but rather the distraction of the conversation. The proposed ordinance would also make it illegal to do “destination entry” for GPS devices – Green explained that the distraction of a GPS device use was in the attention required to do that data entry, not in reading the map or listening to directions.

Why, asked Christopher Taylor (Ward 3), was talking on the phone different from talking to a passenger? Green explained that the key difference was that the passenger is also aware of the driving situation: you come to a stop, then look left and right – your passenger also looks left and right. The person on the other end of a cell phone conversation with a driver, Green said, will continue to “blab on until they hear a crash.” Listening to the radio, Green said, is completely discretionary, whereas the demands of a phone conversation are not – it’s rude not to take one’s regular conversational turn.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) wanted to know whether the ordinance made cell phone use while driving a primary or secondary offense. It’s proposed to be a primary offense, which means that police officers would be able to pull over a driver just for cell phone use. Secondary traffic offenses are only enforced if there is some other reason to pull a driver over.

Responding to a question from Rapundalo, chief of police Barnett Jones said it was important that it be a primary offense, because it would allow them to begin to “harden the community” against the behavior. Jones cited a 2003-04 statistic that attributed 24,000 traffic deaths nationwide to cell phone use while driving. He characterized it as a major safety hazard.

Chief Jones allowed that he himself has switched to hands-free Bluetooth technology for use while driving. Taylor picked up later on the hands-free versus hand-held distinction, and pointed to Green’s research conclusion that the distraction arises not because the hands are occupied, but because the mind is occupied. So Taylor wanted to know how the ordinance might be enforced, if the exception for hands-free use were not made in the ordinance. [The ordinance language provides for a number of exceptions, hands-free devices among them.]

Jones said that without the exception, it would put officers in a very prohibitive position. In that case, he said, they should consider going the whole way, and address people applying lipstick and eating cheeseburgers as well.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) said that if it was about safety, then “let’s go all the way.” She took a shot at the overall clarity of the language, asking, “Was this written up by the attorney’s office?” When city attorney Stephen Postema acknowledged that it had been written up by his office, she told him that she had to break down the paragraphs to understand what it meant.

Higgins asked Jones if other non-driving tasks were prohibited under other aspects of the vehicle code. Jones allowed that something like applying lipstick while driving could be enforced as “careless driving.” Higgins wanted to know why use of a cell phone while driving could not be handled the same way. Jones said that having an ordinance with specific language addressing cell phones made it “cleaner in a court of law.”

Higgins also asked about the burden of proof. In the case that a driver offers a defense that they were using a device in a hands-free manner, the burden of proof falls to the driver.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) wondered what the difference was between holding an iPhone with a map displayed on it – which seemed to be prohibited – versus holding a paper map. Green clarified that the ordinance as written allowed someone to look at an iPhone map, but not to enter the destination.

Taylor came back to the data entry question by focusing on the “or otherwise operate” phrase in the ordinance. If the concern was typing, he said, they should talk about typing. Green clarified that the “or otherwise operate” phrase was meant to prevent the pressing of the various buttons to select “points of interest” from the map, which entailed reading through detailed menus of options.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she had trouble with the ordinance – she’d prefer to see it done at the state level. She said she appreciated the efforts and the work of those who’d put time into the ordinance, but she felt it should happen in the context of the Michigan State Vehicle Code. Rapundalo had mentioned earlier that violations of the local ordinance would not result in points added to a driver’s license – because there’s no analogous state statute.

Hiefte said he thought that the work on the ordinance, with the changes that had been made to the ordinance since its first introduction, was a good example of the process working to produce a better piece of legislation.

Outcome: The ordinance banning cell phone use while driving or cycling was approved on first reading with dissent from Higgins and Smith. Enactment will be contingent on approval at a second reading.

Planned Unit Development (PUD): The Moravian
Planned unit developments are requests for rezoning of a parcel to accommodate projects that offer a public benefit in exchange for the rezoning. They are, stressed Stephen Kunselman on Monday night, discretionary on the part of the city council. They contrast with “by right” proposals that meet all aspects of city code. Kunselman also offered a tweak of the interpretation of the letters PUD – “promises until developed” – an allusion to the fact that a number of PUDs have been granted, but never built.

The Moravian is an almost 75,000-square-foot, four-story building over one level of parking containing 62 dwelling units, with a combined total of 150 bedrooms, and 90 off-street parking spaces. Twelve of the 62 proposed dwelling units are to be for affordable- to lower-income households. The project is located on East Madison Street, between Fourth and Fifth avenues.

Moravian: Public Comment

Several people signed up to comment during reserved time at the start of the meeting, but not all of them appeared. Speculation called out from the audience suggested some might have had problems finding parking or that they thought their speaking time was at the end of the meeting.

Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, touched on a number of points speaking in opposition to the project. She contended that since the year 2000, 41 projects had been approved by the city that had not begun construction – for example, 601 S. Forest, Ann Arbor City Apartments, Broadway Village, and Kingsley Lane. She noted that there was a high percentage of vacancy in developments targeting student renters – 411 Lofts and The Courtyards, for example.

Strassmann also emphasized that South Fifth Avenue is a major commuter artery and that it needs to flow smoothly. The addition of 150 more bedrooms and 90 parking spaces, she feared, would cause ingress/egress problems. She was also concerned about the net effect on affordable housing, saying that while The Moravian offered 12 units of affordable housing, 19 units would be lost.

Shirley Zempel characterized The Moravian as “huge.” The building goes right up to the sidewalk on three sides, she said – Fifth Avenue, East Madison Street, and Fourth Avenue. She echoed the point Strassmann had made about the impact on traffic along Fifth, saying she’d have difficulty pulling out of her own driveway.

Kim Kachadoorian stressed the idea that The Moravian was not in downtown, but rather near downtown. She cautioned the council that some of the renderings provided by the developer showed surrounding houses with 5-6 stairs leading up to their front porches, when in fact they had 3-4 stairs. This left the impression that the houses were taller than they are, she said. Kachadoorian also contended that one rendering of The Moravian depicted the 5-story building as the same height as a 3-story University of Michigan building across Fourth Avenue from The Moravian. She cautioned against giveaways for developers.

Claudius Vincenz also stressed that The Moravian was not in downtown, but rather near downtown. He characterized the city staff report as deficient and biased. He said that when reading through the staff report, he thought it was the developer’s application. He objected to the fact that the planning commission had referred to some houses in the the neighborhood with the word “dumps.” He allowed that they are not mansion-type houses, but that they are affordable.

Richard Jacobson spoke during public commentary general time at the conclusion of the meeting. He stressed that based on the PUD review standards, a request should not be granted if the request is made in order to circumvent existing zoning. Jacobson contended that the project, in fact, was an attempt to circumvent existing zoning standards. He characterized the housing offered as “private dorms.”

Anne Eisen also spoke at the conclusion of the meeting. She asked the council to read carefully the planning commission minutes. What the developer characterizes as support from neighbors is, in fact, not support, she said.

Kyle Mazurek, vice president of government affairs for the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce, spoke on behalf of that organization as well as himself, a young professional living in Ward 5. He ticked through a number of benefits provided by the project: higher density development of the downtown area, expansion of workforce affordable housing opportunities in the downtown area, removal of blighted structures and obsolete industrial buildings, floodplain mitigation, property tax revenue to the city, enhanced housing options for young professionals, encouragement of alternative modes of transportation, enhancement of downtown area businesses and energy efficiency.

At the conclusion of the council meeting, speaking during public commentary general time, the developer of the project, Jeff Helminski, addressed the council saying that he recognized the challenge they faced in analyzing such a complex project, which had taken two years to bring to this point. He encouraged the council to rely on the city’s professional planning staff as well as the PUD standards of review. Responding to Strassmann’s concerns about approved projects that had not yet been built, he said he was confident that he could bring the project to fruition.

Responding to a report Mike Anglin (Ward 5) had given during his communications that he’d found studio apartments in the neighborhood that rented for $760 including utilities, Helminski stated that the affordable units in The Moravian would rent for no more than $690, and that their affordable status was assured in perpetuity through the supplemental regulations of the PUD. Addressing concerns about the FEMA flood maps that had not been finalized, he contended that the data was final and that The Moravian had been planned based on that data. What they were waiting for, he said, was the final publication of the maps based on the data.

Moravian: Council Deliberations

At the caucus held the previous evening, on Sunday, Beverly Strassmann, president of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, indicated that a protest petition would be submitted against The Moravian. That would raise the bar for council approval from six to eight votes out of 11.

On Monday, Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) responded to a resident request made at the previous night’s caucus to give some clue at the first reading as to how councilmembers were thinking about the project: “I’ll be voting against it at second reading – so there’s no question in the community’s mind,” he said.

At the council table on Monday, Carsten Hohnke (Ward 5) and Mike Anglin (Ward 5) made remarks that could fairly be interpreted to mean their support at second reading is uncertain. Sabra Briere (Ward 1) read from two contrasting passages in the city’s central area plan to illustrate the conflicting concerns that surround council’s evaluation of the project.

Council deliberations began with Hohnke alluding to another project in roughly the same neighborhood, Heritage Row – which began life as City Place. The council had voted down the City Place PUD a little over a year ago. Hohnke said he imagined that residents were getting a bit weary. He characterized the conversation about what kind of development is appropriate for the neighborhood as a “long slog.”

On the question “What is downtown?” Hohnke said it was clear for him: The downtown boundary is William Street. That meant, said Honhke, that the neighborhood under discussion – which lies south of William – is not downtown. So Hohnke said that many of the considerations for added public benefit offered by The Moravian – based on what’s called for in the downtown (e.g., added density) – did not carry a lot of weight with him. Hohnke concluded that the benefits required of a PUD were a significant threshold that had to be met, given that the city would be setting aside the existing zoning on the site.

Mike Anglin (Ward 5) reported that there had been an extended discussion at the previous night’s caucus and that he had a whole series of questions that he would be circulating by email. Among his concerns: statements by neighbors that had been misrepresented by the developer; the number of projects in the city that had been approved, but not started; flood maps that had not yet been issued.

During his communications time earlier in the meeting, Anglin said he’d walked the neighborhood and found a house with three studio units for rent: $760 including utilities. He questioned whether it was possible to build new construction that was equally affordable.

Marcia Higgins (Ward 4) picked up on the issue of flood maps, and Wendy Rampson, head of planning for the city, confirmed that no permits could be pulled until the FEMA flood maps were finalized, which would potentially be within the next year.

Sandi Smith (Ward 1) said she’d vote yes at first reading so that the dialog could continue. She allowed that the Downtown Development Authority’s taxing district is one way to define downtown. But she noted that the neighborhood in question was near downtown. She noted that there’d been a lot of time spent discussing what is appropriate in a near downtown neighborhood. One of those issues, she said, involved whether parking meters were appropriate there. [Smith has worked since last year to forestall installation of parking meters in neighborhoods near downtown, which were seen as a potential revenue source.]

Smith noted that they were getting pushback from people who also objected to development in the center city – they wanted the top of the Library Lot to be established as a park.

Tony Derezinski (Ward 2) noted that the role of the first reading was to introduce a topic to the public, but that in this case, “it’s like introducing Methuselah.” Derezinski, who serves as the city council’s representative to the planning commission, had already seen the project in a fair amount of detail when it was reviewed by that body. Derezinski stressed that the city’s professional planning staff had put a lot of time into the project. He said that you have to pay serious attention to staff recommendations – city staff had recommended approval, and the planning commission vote was 7-1 in favor. He urged his council colleagues to really read the staff report so that the project got a fair hearing.

Margie Teall (Ward 4) echoed Derezinski’s sentiments, saying that the DDA boundary was artificial – the site in question was an urban neighborhood in an urban setting, she said.

Stephen Kunselman (Ward 3) suggested that for a project to take two years to come forward, it meant that there was likely something wrong with the project. He said he thought the project was out of context and character for the neighborhood and did not do much for “more doors on the street.” He felt that it was geared towards students. It was like taking The Courtyards housing development on the north end of Broadway, he said, and “plopping” it near downtown. He said he’d vote for it at first reading, but would oppose it at the second reading.

Sabra Briere (Ward 1) said she was not quite as definitive – she said she’d hate to cut off debate this early. She said she’d not looked at the project in detail, yet. Instead, she said, she’d oriented herself to the city’s central area plan and the PUD regulations [.txt file of PUD review standards].  She’d done that, she said, as a response to the challenge that had been made at the previous night’s caucus by Eppie Potts to give some clue what the council was thinking. Briere said it had caused her to reflect on what one should say at a first reading, when the council is just moving the process forward.

The standards for PUD review referenced by Briere, contained in the city code and presented here in severely abbreviated form, are as follows:

(6) Standards for PUD zoning district review. The commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial, and City Council shall approve or deny the proposed PUD zoning district based on the following standards:

(a) The use or uses, physical characteristics, design features, or amenities proposed shall have a beneficial effect for the City, in terms of public health, safety, welfare, aesthetics, or convenience, or any combination thereof, on present and potential surrounding land uses. …

(b) This beneficial effect for the City shall be one which could not be achieved under any other zoning classification and shall be one which is not required to be provided under any existing standard, regulation or ordinance of any local, state or federal agency.

(c) The use or uses proposed shall not have a detrimental effect on public utilities or surrounding properties.

(d) The use or uses proposed shall be consistent with the master plan and policies adopted by the City or the petitioner shall provide adequate justification for departures from the approved plans and policies.

(e) If the proposed district allows residential uses, the residential density proposed shall be consistent with the residential density recommendation of the master plan, or the underlying zoning when the master plan does not contain a residential density recommendation, unless additional density has been proposed in order to provide affordable housing for lower income households …

(f) The supplemental regulations shall include analysis and justification sufficient to determine what the purported benefit is, how the special benefit will be provided, and performance standards by which the special benefit will be evaluated.

(g) Safe, convenient, uncongested, and well-defined vehicular and pedestrian circulation within and to the district shall be provided and, where feasible, the proposal shall encourage and support the use of alternative methods of transportation.

(h) Disturbance of existing natural features, historical features and historically significant architectural features of the district shall be limited to the minimum necessary to allow a reasonable use of the land and the benefit to the community shall be substantially greater than any negative impacts.

The passages from the city’s central area plan, which Briere read aloud, were these:

[page 21] Finally, the current zoning does not provide guidelines for what is appropriate density in relationship to the area, and it does not reflect density differences between the various neighborhoods.  The ordinance allows more bulk and density than many neighborhoods want or consider appropriate.  Conversely, the City Council and Planning Commission have steadily decreased allowable density since the 1960s, making it difficult for residential infill development to occur, resulting in nonconformities.

[page 41 ] In various locations around Ann Arbor, houses are overshadowed by larger commercial, residential or institutional buildings that are out of scale with existing surrounding development. In addition to being aesthetically displeasing, out-of-scale construction alters the quality of living conditions in adjacent structures by blocking air and light and by covering open green space with excessive building mass.

Outcome: The Moravian was given approval on first reading. Final approval would need to be given at a second reading.

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

Next council meeting: Monday, March 15, 2009 at 7 p.m. in council chambers, 2nd floor of the Guy C. Larcom, Jr. Municipal Building, 100 N. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

 
Business Leaders say Granholm's Plan Offers Limited Help for Small Businesses in Ann Arbor
Wednesday, March 3
BY: Christopher Photiades, The Michigan Daily

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm unveiled new plans last month to stimulate Michigan’s economy by providing financial assistance to small business owners — and local business owners and experts say they think her plans will be beneficial, but more assistance is still needed.

One of Granholm’s new programs is the Michigan Small Business Financing Alliance, a consortium of 30 credit unions that have agreed to make $43 million in capital available to small businesses. In addition to the Financing Alliance, Granholm also announced that the state would provide funding for the FastTrac program, which offers aspiring entrepreneurs the opportunity to learn how to start their own businesses.

According to Ann Arbor business owners and experts, the Financing Alliance and FastTrac programs will ease the financial strain local businesses are feeling from the economy, in addition to encouraging new startups.

The Financing Alliance intends to help current small business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs by giving out loans that average about $20,000.

State Sen. Liz Brater (D–Ann Arbor) said in an interview last month that she thinks the Financing Alliance will bring some much-needed help to small businesses in Washtenaw County during a tough economic time.

“I think at this point in time it is a very important proposal,” Brater said.

Tom Porter, adjunct lecturer of Entrepreneurial Studies in the Ross School of Business, also said he believes the program will be beneficial for businesses because many small businesses are having trouble obtaining credit in the current financial crisis.

“Throughout the country in the last couple of years, all businesses have found it difficult to obtain credit,” Porter said. “(This program) seems like a program designed to help smaller businesses get the kind of credit that they probably used to get from their banks.”

Brater said she has heard from many small business owners in her district who are having problems obtaining loans.

“(Small business owners) have cash flow issues, and this program is designed to help give relief to small businesses that are having trouble getting their loans that they used to get quite routinely (and) are now drying up,” Brater said. “I think this a good proposal and will be effective.”

Amer Bathish, owner of Amer's Deli, said he likes the concept of the Financing Alliance, but $20,000 is not enough money to help an established business like his.

“I would need more for float money, like $50,000 to $100,000,” Bathish said. “$20,000 will not take you far.”

Bathish said if he received a loan from the Financing Alliance, he would use the money to make improvements in his restaurants instead of hiring more employees.

Bathish said government assistance to Ann Arbor businesses should help with sky-high rent costs because he and other local business owners are paying large sums on rent.

Bathish said he is paying $15,000 a month for his State Street restaurant location and compared the price to rent in downtown New York City.

“The rent in this town is absolutely ridiculous,” he said. “Why are we paying Manhattan rent for little Ann Arbor?”

He added that unlike New York, Ann Arbor businesses only make revenue when students are in town, which is only seven months out of the year.

Village Apothecary owner Garry Turner said the Financing Alliance program is a “step in the right direction” and that he would consider taking a loan from the program for his drug store. But he said the program is not enough, adding that he thinks public policies should focus on relieving the tax burden on small businesses.

“I think there are a lot of businesses, small and large, in the state that are holding back hiring right now because there are a lot of costs involved,” Turner said.

Turner suggested that the state should provide a tax credit for each newly hired employee to help offset the cost of training and new payroll taxes — an idea he thinks would help both current businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs.

, vice president of government affairs for the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce, which recently merged with the Ypsilanti Area Chamber of Commerce, said he also thinks that reforming taxes is a necessary step to help small businesses, but that lawmakers should take a different approach.

“The goal of many state-wide, small business associations is to develop a more competitive tax structure,” Mazurek said.

Mazurek said he knows many small business owners are concerned about taxes — citing the 22-percent surcharge on the Michigan Business Tax as a primary concern.

But Porter, the lecturer, said he thinks reducing the tax burdens on small businesses is unrealistic given the state’s current economic situation.

“Reducing the tax burden (on business) is always a good idea, but given the realities of our governments ... we have to be honest about their financial condition and where they're going to get the capital to meet all the needs of the citizens," he said. "I don't think it's realistic to think about reducing taxes."

Porter added that the lack of access to credit — which is what Granholm’s program is aiming to address — hampers small businesses from expanding more than the burden of taxes.

Mazurek, the official from the Ann Arbor Chamber of Commerce, said he also thinks unobtainable credit is specifically preventing small businesses from expanding, but that the Financing Alliance program will “significantly improve small business access to capital.”

“One of the barriers is access to capital, and (businesses) are finding that traditional institutions just don't have capital available to them or aren't willing to lend it,” Mazurek said.

Mazurek added that he hopes Financing Alliance “will be a win-win for small businesses” and that Ann Arbor area businesses will take advantage of the program.

In addition to the Financing Alliance, Granholm announced state funding for FastTrac, which will be run by The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation in partnership with Wayne State University’s TechTown program. It’s expected that the program will be offered at 12 small business assistance centers throughout the state.

Michigan Economic Development Corporation — an organization created through a partnership between state and local governments — is expected to provide $200,000 for 1,000 entrepreneurs to attend FastTrac.

Brater said FastTrac will help to expand start-up companies in Washtenaw County, adding that the program will also benefit the area’s universities.

Mazurek said he thinks FastTrac is the type of program that is necessary to help rebound Michigan’s economy.

“The conventional wisdom at the Chamber (is that) the key to Michigan's economic recovery is going to be jump-starting our entrepreneurial spirit and encouraging small businesses' growth," Maurek said. "My understanding of this program is that it is designed to do exactly that by giving would-be entrepreneurs the training they need to be successful."

But some, like Porter, still believe Granholm’s initiatives to help small businesses don’t go far enough to create new jobs and transform Michigan’s economy.

“Public policy must aim to replace (the lost jobs) and creating a new economy in Michigan," Porter said. "I think if we're trying to replace the automotive companies that have pulled out of the state, and if we're to be competitive as a state.

Moravian Project Passes First Reading at Ann Arbor City Council
Tuesday, March 2
By Ryan J. Stanton, AnnArbor.com

The developer of the proposed Moravian apartment project appeared before the Ann Arbor City Council Monday night and said it's been a long two years trying to get his project approved.

Council members gave the project a ceremonial passing at first reading Monday but acknowledged they look forward to hearing more from both sides of the debate at second reading.

The city's Planning Commission, after much debate, gave the project its blessing in a 7-1 vote last month. The project also has a letter of recommendation from the city's planning staff and support from more than 100 residents, businesses and community leaders who say it'll boost the local economy and increase the vitality of downtown.

The site plan calls for for construction of a 74,370-square foot, four-story building over one level of parking - for a total of five stories containing 62 apartment units, with 150 bedrooms and 90 off-street parking spaces. Twelve of the 62 units - or 19 percent - would be affordable to lower-income households.

"I recognize the challenge that all of you face on digesting a tremendous amount of information in a relatively short period of time for what's a very complex project," developer Jeff Helminski told council members.

"I would encourage you to look to the city's staff, its professional hired experts in areas of planning and zoning," he said. "And in particular, look to their report. That report contains a tremendous amount of accurate information that I think will dispel some inaccurate information that's been floated around."

Council Member Tony Derezinski, D-2nd Ward, said first readings usually are reserved for introducing a project. Having a first reading for the Moravian, he said, was "kind of like introducing Methuselah."

"It's been around for a long time," he said. "This process has gone on a substantial length of time, and the staff has put in a lot of time on it."

Helminski said city staff reports confirm the Moravian - though it is a Planned Unit Development that deviates from the city's existing zoning - is consistent with the city's master plan.

An approved PUD zoning district and site plan would allow the developer to move forward with a five-story apartment complex on 0.85 acres at 201 E. Madison St., just south of downtown Ann Arbor.

Helminski is asking the city to allow him to rezone the property from R4C (multiple-family residential) and M1 (limited industrial) and combine eight existing parcels into one PUD zoning district that calls for multiple-family residential use and so-called "live/work spaces."

Helminski said Monday night he and the city's staff are confident the project meets the city's standards for granting a PUD, which requires a developer to demonstrate a certain level of public benefit from a project.

"We're also very confident in our ability to bring this project to fruition from a financial standpoint, even in these economic times, in this current lending environment," Helminski said. "We look forward to doing that as soon as we're permitted to do so."

As he has done for the last two years, Helminski continued to fend off criticisms from Germantown neighborhood residents who don't want the Moravian project developed near their houses, some of them century-old.

Beverly Strassmann, a member of the Germantown Neighborhood Association, spoke against the project. She reminded council members several apartment complex projects have been approved by the City Council in the last decade that aren't yet built.

She also said reports of a high percentage of vacancies in student-oriented apartment complexes around the downtown suggests there is no need for the kind of project being proposed.

Kyle Mazurek, vice president of government affairs for the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the project - both as a young professional and on behalf of the chamber.

Mazurek said the project increases density near downtown, remediates a contaminated brownfield site, allows for removal of blighted buildings, contributes critical property tax revenue, enhances housing opportunities for young professionals and benefits downtown area businesses.

Ann Arbor resident Kim Kachadoorian, a long-time critic of the project, said the revised plan still is out of scale with the neighborhood.

"This project is huge," she said. "Walk by the outside of the city hall and imagine this in your neighborhood, right up to the sidewalk."

Council Member Mike Anglin, D-5th Ward, said he walked through the neighborhood prior to Monday's meeting to get a sense of some of the concerns residents have, including those about affordability.

Anglin said he found existing studio apartments in some parts of the neighborhood going for $760 a month, including utilities. He concluded the existing housing stock already was affordable, and building a new structure could end up changing that.

Helminski countered by pointing out the project offers a significant affordable housing component.

"We have efficiency units in ours that will be restricted as affordable," he said. "The maximum possible rent that could be charged for those would be $690 a month, inclusive of utilities. So the comment that Council Member Anglin brought up highlights the additional affordability that our project would present for a new product, much more energy efficient than the one that might be on the market today. And our project will have those units guaranteed in perpetuity - they can never be lost."

Council Member Carsten Hohnke, D-5th Ward, said arguments that the project fits the city's vision for downtown don't carry much weight with him because it's not downtown.

"From my point of view, it's a pretty clear line for me," he said. "I think we have a downtown boundary that runs along William Street and therefore does not include the neighborhood that's under discussion."

Hohnke also questioned whether the public benefits being proposed by the project meet the city's standards for a PUD. He said he had "very significant concerns" about the project moving forward.

Council Member Stephen Kunselman, D-3rd Ward, said the city already is littered with approved site plans for projects not yet constructed. He said the Moravian won't be getting his support at second reading.

"For a project to take this long, there has to be something wrong with it," he said, adding it's out of character with the neighborhood and makes him fearful of what could be "built up the hill" in the years ahead.