Arbor Update

Ann Arbor Area Community News

City Council: Continued From

18. August 2008 • Juliew
Email this article

Monday, August 18 at 7:00 pm.
Ann Arbor City HallAgenda

Highlights:

  • 42 North Site Plan (continued from 7/21)
  • 601 Forest (Village Corner) Site Plan and Development Agreement (continued from 8/7)
  • Resolution to order election and determine ballot question for charter amendment requiring voter approval of the sale of park land (postponed from 8/7)
  • Liquor license transfer from Braun Court to Quickie Burger


  1. What’s this liquor license transfer business? Isn’t Aut Bar a part of Braun Court?


       —Matt Hampel    Aug. 18 '08 - 03:58AM    #
  2. Matt, sorry about the confusion, it looks like it the liquor license from Fuji in Braun Court. The Aut Bar is continuing as usual. (Whew!)


       —Juliew    Aug. 18 '08 - 04:27PM    #
  3. How does everyone expect the 601 Forest vote to go? I’m not impressed with the project. If I wasn’t familiar with some of the players, I would think it was an attempt to sabotage any of the efforts to make downtown more dense by finding the worst, most overbuilt project and throwing it out there for all to see as a justification to turn away from those efforts. In this case, I appears that there’s a group of developers who have found a way to max out the current zoning in a way that if it’s approved, is likely going to leave a very bad impression around town and turn most residents against the idea of allowing taller buildings and more density in any part of town. I think most people in town will look at the end product and say “no thanks!” I’ve always felt that A2 needs to go higher downtown but 25 stories strikes me as the wrong side of the line of “how high do we want to grow?”


       —John Q.    Aug. 18 '08 - 07:15PM    #
  4. John Q, I’m with you on this one. There are many things to like about the project: it is livable for the tenants, there is none of the “bedrooms with no windows” thing that is going on with the Anberay project. The windows open. They have nice stairwells. There are a mix of bedroom configurations. There are local investors who I actually think want to build something nice. It does have some legit LEEDs certification points. It is mixed use in an area that could use mixed use, it does bring more people to live in an area that could use a boost.

    But given all that, I still think it is a bad idea. Make it a fifteen-story building and I will support it whole-heartedly, but I agree that 25 stories will most likely do more harm than good for developments around the city. Village Corner leaving that area is going to be a big blow to the livability and I don’t think they are planning that the retail will include a grocery store. U Towers is for sale and Tower Plaza went condo years ago. There hasn’t been a huge acceptance of these taller buildings in the community and I think that hinders their success and certainly makes people advocate for height limits, which aren’t that great either. It would be better if we could build several seven and eight-story buildings rather than the two-story and twenty-five story configuration that is happening now. I am not sold on the economic hardship excuse from the developers either. I mean, Boulder has a four-story height limit and much higher property values yet developers are building mixed-use residential, LEEDs certified buildings, that rent at the same rates as proposed for this 25-story building. So it seems like you could do that same thing here for a fifteen-story building and make money. Perhaps just not as much money.


       —Juliew    Aug. 18 '08 - 08:23PM    #
  5. I also have mixed feelings about 601 S. Forest. I’m leaning towards supporting it (from the armchair in my living room) but it does feel just a little too high. 20 stories would not be too bad, maybe. I will also miss Village Corner, though mostly just the cigar and wine selection and the punks who operate the place. The rest of it was often helpful during my starving student days, and I would want to see a grocery preserved on that corner, but I don’t know if it’s enough to stand in the way of what I see as a better way to house students than more neighborhood encroachment of group housing. Like I say, I have mixed feelings about it, and am curious what council will have to say. (My preference would be to tear down U. Towers and start over on that site, heh.)

    I’m not buying the “economic hardship” argument either.


       —Young Urban Amateur    Aug. 18 '08 - 08:49PM    #
  6. Based on last night’s caucus, it sounded to me like the project would be approved, but that brownfield money would not be forthcoming for anything except remediation of the contamination from the dry cleaner. That is, the brownfield money won’t be approved that the developer expected to use to pay for many of the ‘green’ elements.


       —HD    Aug. 18 '08 - 09:00PM    #
  7. I think the worst part about this project isn’t that it will be the harbinger of more 25 story projects. Instead, it will be a one-off along the lines of U Towers and Tower Plaza. One can argue that it’s proximity to U Towers will help temper the impact of this development. But most residents will simply see this as a really tall buildings that largely ignores the surrounding urban context. They’ll look, shake their head, and wonder how Ann Arbor keeps getting it wrong. How ironic that with all of the debate over how to change the zoning to make downtown a place to live, the city ends up with an overbuilt project that lies on the periphery of what might be considered downtown that uses the “old” (bad, IMHO) zoning ordinances to gain approval.


       —John Q.    Aug. 18 '08 - 10:20PM    #
  8. 42 North public hearing finally closes.

    Now for 601 S. Forest.


       —HD    Aug. 19 '08 - 12:41AM    #
  9. Wow. Please update us on the South Forest Project. What happened to 42 North?


       —Ryan Munson    Aug. 19 '08 - 12:54AM    #
  10. Ryan,

    They run the public hearings on everything, then there’ll be the Council deliberations.

    So they’re still in the middle of public hearing on S. Forest. Deliberations to follow.

    Mayor pro tem Marcia Higgens is running the meeting tonight in Hieftje’s absence and just had to admonish someone in the crowd for being disrespectful to a speaker and finally declared “You are out of order.”


       —HD    Aug. 19 '08 - 01:21AM    #
  11. Tonight’s session of the 601 S. Forest has concluded, but Higgens has advised that the vote might be postponed, but that if a vote is postponed, the public hearing would be continued.


       —HD    Aug. 19 '08 - 01:34AM    #
  12. 42 North: Postponed for an additional traffic study.


       —HD    Aug. 19 '08 - 02:38AM    #
  13. 42 North comes back 8 September.

    601 S. Forest postponed to come back 6 October.

    42 North public hearing is closed. 601 S. Forest public hearing will continue on 6 October.


       —HD    Aug. 19 '08 - 02:48AM    #
  14. John Q., but to anyone who attended the downtown development workshop back in ’05 (I think it was), it was obvious that the city planned on using the South U. area (all the way up to Washtenaw) as a site for massive buildings of this type, in order to increase central city density on a scale of thousands. (Of course, they only defined large projects as something like 15 stories and up IIRC).

    I agree that they are trying to slip it in before the zoning rules change. I am not sure it is ridiculously tall for that area; not only is there U. Towers, but there is also the apartment building behind it, on S. Forest. The neighbors (on the same block and across the street from it) largely consist of businesses, fraternities, and other apartment buildings. Again, it is too tall by a few stories I would say, but I don’t know that it would really look mind-blowingly huge from whatever the closest residential house is on Hill street.


       —Young Urban Amateur    Aug. 19 '08 - 06:08PM    #
  15. I didn’t attend the workshop so I wasn’t aware of that. But I don’t think that changes my opinion of this project. I recognize that its impact is somewhat alleviated by some of the surrounding buildings. But outside of U Towers, does it really fit into the context of the surrounding buildings? The argument that it’s just frats and apartments in the area isn’t going to change the fact that this will be seen from quite a distance across the city and for those who actually go to the South U area, it will have an overwhelming presence.


       —John Q.    Aug. 19 '08 - 07:05PM    #
  16. John Q, that may not be the case. Long ago I participated in a study of ‘tall’ buildings in Ann Arbor. (I use ‘tall’ in quote because I think we looked at anything 4 stories or more, and I don’t think buildings lower than 6 stories are tall.) Anyway, we found that by and large, people did not realize they were walking next to tall buildings if the ground floor was very active, i.e. they had things to look at. For example: everyone knows that Tower Plaza is tall, partially because walking next to it isn’t very pleasant. But the building across the street to the south, with David’s books and a barber shop and a Chinese restaurant and a copy shop and other shops I can’t remember right now, is 7 or 8 stories. But no one thinks that is tall, almost entirely because the ground floor is so varied.

    Another example is the First National Bank building, the white terra cotta building at the SE corner of Washington and Main. It’s 10 stories, but because the architectural detailing is so nice and there is a bank there, hardly anyone notices its height.

    The point I’m trying to make is that pure height doesn’t matter much from a pedestrian point of view; what matters is what is going on at the human scale, from the second floor down. If the building is interesting architecturally, and/or has a variety of uses on the ground floor, most people won’t care or notice how tall the building is.


       —KGS    Aug. 19 '08 - 07:38PM    #
  17. KGS,

    I agree that a good ground level experience can help minimize the impact of a taller building. But I think there’s a difference when these buildings exist within an environment where the surrounding buildings are at least somewhat similar in size. It’s when you get buildings that are grossly different from the surrounding environment that you can’t help but notice their impact. I also think that for those who don’t go to South U, it’s just going to look like what it is, a really tall building that looms over most of the surrounding landscape.


       —John Q.    Aug. 19 '08 - 08:16PM    #
  18. The University gets to build whatever the heck it wants, tall or squat, with NO public input. They are changing the landscape and skyscape of Ann Arbor a great deal, including in the area of the So. Forest proposal. I don’t understand the big deal and anguish over this particular project, especially with the huge apartment tower across the street. This building would fit right in, in my opinion.


       —fuzzbollah    Aug. 20 '08 - 12:22AM    #
  19. Well A2 certainly will have to start building upwards. There isn’t alot of land to build any other way. Eventually most of A2 will be like walking in downtown Chicago. Goodbye skyline hello skyscrapers. up up and away


       —Sherry    Aug. 20 '08 - 09:43AM    #
  20. fuzzbollah, I’m not sure why the University’s lack of accountability to the local community is an excuse for the city to take the same course. Also, the tallest buildings in town haven’t been built by the University.

    Sherry – I think it’s an exaggeration to say that “most of A2 will be like walking in downtown Chicago.” I’m confident in saying that 50 years from now, most of A2 will be fairly similar in scale and density to what it looks like today. The question is for those areas that are planned for more intense development, how high should the buildings go? If the City continues to allow more S. Forest proposals to go forward, I expect they’ll be a backlash from the public that will ratchet back those future buildings significantly.


       —John Q.    Aug. 20 '08 - 01:10PM    #
  21. FWIW here is Murph on University Village:

    http://blog.commonmonkeyflower.net/node/271

    I kind of share his concerns, but again what I’m hoping is that over the course of 3-4 years, students will begin moving out of residential housing units and into apartments of this type, leaving the houses to be sold to new owners willing to rehab them back into family housing (or else that the landlords will rehab them themsleves and sell them).

    I do think that surely this building would hit the limits of new housing capacity for students. There aren’t even any guarantees that UM enrollment will increase significantly in the next few years. OTOH here is AAIO on the same project:

    http://www.annarborisoverrated.com/2008/04/28/university-village-op-ed/

    Also, let’s not forget that many landlords are effectively small business owners, and that this project could well crowd some of them out.

    But then, let’s also not forget that the South U. merchants are (apparently) supporting the project whole-heartedly.

    Clearly, being pro-development can be complicated ;)

    As for its appearance, it’s not bad for what gets build nowadays, and the sight of University Towers is so ugly both close-up and from afar that anything even somewhat resembling a more traditional architectural style would be a welcome addition next to it. Again, I think Ann Arbor could benefit from a few more tall buildings, so long as they are well-designed—they can make the city more attractive. (Please note this does not mean I am a fan of anything so long as it is new—there are proposed buildings that I oppose.)


       —Young Urban Amateur    Aug. 20 '08 - 03:03PM    #
  22. (I like that I don’t even have to post anymore to make my opinions known – I’ve now got evil urbanist henchmen to do it for me!)


       —Murph.    Aug. 20 '08 - 04:13PM    #
  23. So a question: if a developer claims his/her project meets zoning and is a ‘by right’ development, but there is a reasonable argument by opponents (e.g. neighbors) that the project would likely cause harm to the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood and/or city, should city council ever risk a law suit by rejecting the project?


       —anArboran    Aug. 21 '08 - 12:51AM    #
  24. The frequency of “health, safety and welfare” in public hearing comments on 42 North and 601 S. Forest, and also related to anArboran’s question isn’t accidental:

    Chapter 57 Section 5:22 regarding the standards for site plan approval:

    (6) Standards for site plan approval. A site plan shall be approved by the appropriate body after it determines that:
    (a ) The contemplated development would comply with all applicable state, local and federal law, ordinances, standards and regulations; and
    (b ) The development would limit the disturbance of natural features to the minimum necessary to allow a reasonable use of the land, applying criteria for reviewing a natural features statement of impact set forth in this Chapter; and
    (c ) The development would not cause a public or private nuisance and would not have a detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare.

    So for these two projects, nobody disagrees that (a ) is satisfied. For 42 North, there might be some objections based on (b ), but not for S. Forest.

    So (c ), with its health-safety-welfare language, is where the action is.


       —HD    Aug. 21 '08 - 01:36AM    #
  25. HD, a good synopsis. But it still begs the question: if there is a reasonable argument that© isn’t met (i.e., the project might very well harm public health, safety or welfare), are there cases when city council should deny the project based on© and risk a lawsuit?


       —anArboran    Aug. 21 '08 - 01:42AM    #
  26. A hypothetically “reasonable argument by opponents (e.g. neighbors) that the project would likely cause harm to the health, safety or welfares” does not yet have legs. Health, safety and welfare are purposely broad, so I think to address your question you should be purposely specific.


       —abc    Aug. 21 '08 - 02:48AM    #
  27. If a project put at risk the public health, safety or welfare, the City Council would be remiss if it did not deny the project. The likelihood of a lawsuit shouldn’t factor into the Council’s decision. Almost anyone can file a lawsuit and some developers do so on a regular basis.

    The real question for Council is the legitimacy of such a lawsuit. If the denial of the project will lead to a lawsuit that the city will likely lose on legal grounds, the Council has to think long and hard about going down that path. Not only does the Council expose the city to the legal fees and damages that can go along with such a lawsuit. But in some cases, the city can lose control over the details of the development itself. I’ve seen numerous cases in Washtenaw Co. and elsewhere where judges have effectively stripped the local government of any say-so in the development of a project that has gone into litigation.

    While I agree with those who are opposed to this project, the obstacles to stopping this are:

    1) The project appears to meet all of the city’s zoning ordinance standards.

    2) The project was approved by the Planning Commission and city staff. While the Council has final say, down the road, a judge may look at those positions when coming to a decision.

    3) Lawsuits that rely on “public health, safety and welfare” considerations are rarely successful unless they are backed up by evidence of such harm and can point to specific standards which are being violated.

    If I was someone opposed to this development making my case to the City Council why this development should be rejected, I would be documenting the specific harms that will occur from this development and tying those harms to specific standards in the city’s zoning ordinance and other ordinances. It’s not enough to say “this will harm our neighborhood”. You have to show how and more importantly, how that would violate the city’s ordinances. At the least, this would give the project opponents on Council specific harms and specific standards to craft a motion against this project. It would also give the city a fighting chance in court. Absent those kinds of findings, I can’t see either the city or the residents succeeding in litigation, if it gets to that point.


       —John Q.    Aug. 21 '08 - 02:51AM    #
  28. I’m not sure what Council hopes to gain by commissioning additional traffic studies and putting additional time into reviewing the wind study—which are the specific reasons cited for the postponements.

    Is there any possibility that traffic studies or the wind study will yield the kind of evidence Council would need to turn down either project in a way that’s impervious to successful litigation on the developer’s side? I don’t think so. I don’t think anybody on Council thinks so either.

    One interesting policy issue that emerged during deliberations came from Kunselman w.r.t. parking space minimums. Noting that the minimums required by ordinance were around 150 (roughly) and the developer was providing 400-odd spaces, Kunselman raised the question of whether in the future we ought to contemplate parking maximums.


       —HD    Aug. 21 '08 - 11:25AM    #
  29. As I understand it, the developer’s traffic study for 42 North is based on the assumption the 90% of the trips from that site will use mass transit. That’s a pretty bold estimate and seems highly unlikely to be accurate. It doesn’t seem like a reliable traffic study to me, it sounds more like cooking the books. Perhaps an independent study will show a different impact on the transportation infrastructure. On its own it may not carry the day in court, but perhaps as one item in a set of justifications it could help tip the balance? Or not, but it still seems worthwhile taking the time to do it right. At any rate, the extraordinary parking lot should require extra careful analysis.

    And Kunselman, if I recall correctly, went even further by asking Mark Lloyd if Council had the right to restrict parking on 42 North, even if the project meets zoning. Again, if I recall, Lloyd said he believed Council did have that right.


       —anArboran    Aug. 22 '08 - 01:37AM    #
  30. One thing I wanted to add re: University Village is that the plus-20-story height was added due to neighborhood protest—it was originally a 15- and 20-story building (U. Towers is apparently 18). So they seem to have been at least somewhat responsive to residents’ requests, though it did end up increasing the height of the proposed building.

    Personally I think a building taller than U. Towers in that location would be just fine. But, you know, I like 20 stories as a limit there—but the original plan seems to have included just that. It was the breadth of it that launched the protest, IIRC.


       —Young Urban Amateur    Aug. 22 '08 - 02:06AM    #
  31. anArboran wrote: “As I understand it, the developer’s traffic study for 42 North is based on the assumption the 90% of the trips from that site will use mass transit. That’s a pretty bold estimate and seems highly unlikely to be accurate. It doesn’t seem like a reliable traffic study to me, it sounds more like cooking the books.”

    That 90% assumption is based on the expectation that the residents will be predominantly students, whose regular commute is to campus—where parking is notoriously difficult—thus will be by some means other than a car.

    That expectation, opponents of the project say, is inconsistent with the amount of parking provided (1 space per bed, right?). Opponents say that if the developer really believed that students would not drive to campus, then they wouldn’t want to build all that parking.

    I think the scenario developers imagine that the parking lot will be used as ‘storage parking’. People want a car available for a weekend shopping trip, or a trip up to Lansing to watch the legislature in session, or to go to Tigers game, or whatever. I don’t think this is pure flight of fancy. I know plenty of people who do their regular commute without cars, but still own a car and would fight you hard if you suggested they should get rid of it. For those people, the fact of a car in the garage shouldn’t be automatically included as a motor vehicle on the street every weekday in a traffic study.


       —HD    Aug. 22 '08 - 02:58AM    #
  32. HD makes a fair argument. Still, it sounds like there is no agreement between either UM transportation or AATA to provide the necessary level of service that could handle 90% of the trips from that site. Without such an agreement it seems prudent to have a traffic study that at least looks at other scenarios. What if there never is an agreement? The developers have made a point of how long and hard they’ve been working on that project. I wonder why there is no bus service contract yet?


       —anArboran    Aug. 22 '08 - 11:09AM    #
  33. The traffic study measured 0 use of AATA in additional to use of existing AATA routes, 2 of which go right by the proposed project. Even with 0 bus use, the intersections remain at an acceptable level. Any agreement with AATA would only be about frequency of bus service — the routes already serve that street. HD’s assumption about storage parking is the most likely scenario. The traffic engineers based some of their assumptions on circumstances at MSU where remote apartment dwellers have a 90% rate of bus use.


       —Joan Lowenstein    Aug. 22 '08 - 05:03PM    #
  34. The developer’s scenario is one based on car storage. There is a 0% chance that a national developer would spend money in pursuit of a deal this far from a campus with such parking difficulty but without direct access to public transit.

    As to auto traffic, the existing study was conducted assuming the first plan’s unit count of 640. The development is now only 480 units.

    In terms of bus ridership, and to supplement the veracity of data from East Lansing’s transportation department officials, the UM Urban Planning Department conducted an extensive study of student ridership on AATA bus lines in 2006. It found that of the ~18,000 trips per day, 50% (~9000) were taken by students. In 2006, of the ~24,500 students enrolled at UM, approximately 10,500 were living at a distance of more than a half-mile from campus. That estimation yields a ridership percentage of 86%. The study also revealed that students gave high marks to the service and attached no stigma sometimes associated with public transit.

    Also worth noting is that most of the parking on and around campus is much further from classroom doors than the bus drops. Makes a difference come winter.

    Oposition’s resistance to the number of parking spaces is curiously misaligned with their interests. Reducing the parking spaces below the 1:1 ratio is simply asking for car storage in the surrounding neighborhoods.

    As Joan Lowenstein correctly states, there is no contract for bus service being sought, nor has it ever been sought. The site in question is already served (frequently, in fact: six times per hour during the week, two times per hour on the weekend) by a number of lines, including AATA’s most productive line. Students also have access to shared-ride taxi services provided by the City and University. The developer has also stated that the project will be providing its own shuttle to supplement AATA’s service, the increase of which the developer also stated he will help fund.


       —Leo    Aug. 22 '08 - 09:03PM    #
  35. Leo, do you have a link to that study for our reference?


       —Matt Hampel    Aug. 22 '08 - 09:48PM    #
  36. Leo wrote: “As Joan Lowenstein correctly states, there is no contract for bus service being sought, nor has it ever been sought.”

    It’s worth clarifying that what Leo means (I think) is that the developer has not sought a contract with AATA to create new routes.

    Because as Leo also notes later: “The developer has also stated that the project will be providing its own shuttle to supplement AATA’s service, the increase of which the developer also stated he will help fund.”

    When 42 North came before Council the first time, this arrangement for increased service was something that Kunselman commented on specifically in voting against the project. He said (1) there was no contract in place for increased frequency, and that it was therefore too speculative in include in contemplating the merits of the project (2) the idea of private parties paying to have increased service by AATA in particular areas carried with it a possible concern that other areas might be deprived of transportation resources they needed.

    Increased frequency of service along existing routes ranks high on my personal list of improvements I’d like to see implemented by AATA. Whether that’s more important than adding some ‘wheels’ (i.e., new routes) to the predominantly hub-and-spoke system, I don’t know.


       —HD    Aug. 22 '08 - 11:14PM    #
  37. In my view having no agreement with AATA – whether for new routes or for more frequent service (presumably one or the other may be necessary to handle the new load of students if indeed 90% use AATA) means the current traffic study should be handled with caution.

    In addition, from what I’ve heard the developer has made reference to providing a shuttle service, but I have not seen where they have guaranteed such a service, as Leo seems to suggest. If there is no guarantee than in my view that is not much more than an empty promise at this point. Perhaps they will follow through. Perhaps not.

    In any case, the amount of parking planned is so massive for that location I see no problem with asking more questions regarding transportation. What residential neighborhood in Ann Arbor would accept a new ~500 car parking lot without demanding scrutiny?

    For instance, if the bus service is not provided by UM but only by AATA, where would AATA drop off students? Would the drop off point be by campus, or at the downtown transfer station? If the latter, my guess is students might have a shorter walk to class by parking on the streets surrounding campus.

    And, if the 42 North site is already served by AATA’s most productive line, is there space on the buses for the mass of students who presumably would leave in bunches in the morning? And if the students fill up the bus, what about the other current patrons who make it the most productive line right now? I would want to hear from AATA directly about these issues before buying the assumption that 90% of trips from the site will use the bus.

    I would also want more details about the MSU example before using it as justification that the same experience will occur here. For instance, is that an MSU bus that takes the students right to campus, or an East Lansing City bus that might drop them off at a location somewhat distant from campus? How frequent is the service? How many bus lines are used and to how many campus locations? Also, do all those students have their own parking spaces at their off-site housing?

    Also, I don’t agree with Leo’s mathematical assertions. Leo seems to be saying 9000 UM students use the AATA buses each day.
    But if the 9,000 UM student “trips per day” are one-way trips, then that might reasonably mean there were only 4,500 students taking the bus, each student taking the bus twice per day, once to campus, once from campus. Or perhaps there were only 2,250 individual students, each taking 4 one-way trips during the course of the day since the trips were free based on the UM subsidy to AATA.

    I doubt UM would be interested in subsidizing the 42 North private dorm.


       —anArboran    Aug. 23 '08 - 12:19AM    #
  38. “For instance, if the bus service is not provided by UM but only by AATA, where would AATA drop off students?”

    You can check existing routes here. I believe all the relevant routes leave and arrive the transit center from the West, so don’t pass through central campus. They all have good connections to several routes which do go directly through campus. (“Good” means the scheduled wait is only 3 minutes, and they’ll hold the outgoing bus if the incoming bus is late.)

    “is there space on the buses for the mass of students who presumably would leave in bunches in the morning?”

    I regularly ride the 2, which saw a big increase in use when students started riding free—rush-hour buses are now standing-room only during the school year. The AATA did add additional buses (and a new express route). On balance I’ll take crowding as an acceptable price to pay for the better service. Others are more bothered by the crowding. In terms of just calculating traffic impact, I’m not sure that any of this matters much; once the buses are filled to capacity it’s the bus capacity that determines ridership.

    “Also, I don’t agree with Leo’s mathematical assertions.”

    I agree that 1 ride = 1 student thing sounds bogus. The idea that the factor might be 4 is also far-fetched, though—students do have other things to do than ride the bus all day. I’d have suspected a round trip most weekdays plus an occasional shopping trip would be more normal.

    Googling around a bit: is this the study in question? Those slides are all I can find, unfortunately.


       —Bruce Fields    Aug. 23 '08 - 12:47PM    #