Leonard yeah sure so they we've seen these housing type ologies before presented to us and with that square footage cab finishing the basement or not it's protecting the [Music] scale that were seen in the neighborhood there's also kind of there within the PUD the single are the single story homes lining part of the outside perimeter as part of it so there is kind of some tiered scale within this property that I find a good balance and that there is kind of that distribute distribution of different home typology so we've got the two-story the one-story and the connected and so I'm not I want to get clarifying questions about about the basements just to kind of know the circumstance but I'm not concerned about the basement as the condition of this pewdie losing a benefit I think the natural features as the benefit to this and the progress that it's made is the substantial part and I think single you know single story to story and attached it's a great diversity within this development that can you know put a lot different people together too so it's interesting it's coming up for the Sony maybe you know for you know future we talked about these these zoning areas but for this one I feel comfortable you know with how the basement circumstance is gonna play out mr.
Leonard you have a report for us no report this evening Planning Commission officers and committees written communications and petitions we have received quite a bit of written communications so please take a look at that audience participation this is a time for members of the audience to address the Planning Commission and regards to items that are not on our agenda for this evening so if you are here in regards to an item that is not on our agenda this is your time to speak to the Planning Commission you'll have up to three minutes to address the Planning Commission anyone seeing no one will move on to public hearing scheduled for the next business meeting no new public hearings are scheduled for the next business eating meeting we anticipate a couple returning items the anticipate the return of the affordable housing premiums and potentially the sign ordinance both of those have already had previous public hearings thank you unfinished business the first item under unfinished business is two eight five seven Packard Road Planned Unit development site plan for city council approval the petitioner will have up to ten minutes to address the Commission followed by a staff report then we'll have a public hearing and then we'll go into discussion and vote a good evening Commission my name is Tom covert I'm with midwestern Consulting I'm here with Jim Heisler the developer and a couple of members from the design team which includes our traffic engineer Michael cool and our project engineer Tyler Smith as you will recall from previous meetings I'm just going to do a quick contextual overview of where we're located where the projects located it's a short distance to the west of Platt and Packard intersection were across from the new Grace Church in Mary Beth Doyle Park we're on the north side of Packard Road bit east of bird park you'll see there to the left of the image and we're surrounded by the green Lee Kensington Farms neighborhoods you will recall from our last meeting that the project is a proposed PUD with 51 units detached single-family homes around the perimeter attached home units in the center block we maintain the conditions of the r1a zoning classification we preserve additional natural features by proposing this PUD versus the previously denied site plan we have a utility layout that remains the same for the project we have a stormwater solution that still over treats I'll say but it collects stormwater that had historically flowed by past the site and pounded on neighbors yards the home stylings will remain the same since our last meeting we had the opportunity to meet with the natural area of preservation folks review our maintenance plan in a bit further detail and provide some edits to that for some clarity and definition to that maintenance plan so those revisions are before you we also completed some planting plan revisions which will allow thee or the goal would be to reduce deer browse on some of the the plants that are proposed there the proposed home character is what you see here there'll be some single-story ranches and some do two-story homes from the last meeting we understood that the comparison chart on sheet 26 was of particular interest so I'm just gonna summarize a few things here this evening the current plan the PUD that's before you preserves 13 landmark trees the area plan that was previously approved to preserve 14 landmark trees for comparison the denied site plan had preserved seven lam our trees the current PD plan that's before you preserves 0.89 acres of woodlands the area plan was point seven nine acres of woodlands and the denied site plan was point three acres of woodlands the this current PUD plan preserves five hundred and eighty four inches of Woodlands the area plan was that three hundred seventy six inches and the denied site plan was a two hundred sixty six inches so with this what you begin to see is that the PUD was very or is very consistent with what the area plan had called for with preservation and that natural features we see the benefits of the PUD being a diverse housing typology for the in Arbor housing market it puts attached units and mixes those with single-family detached homes we are providing natural features preservation and a maintenance plan to help protect those natural features with the development we have a stormwater management plan that exceeds stormwater management requirements we're addressing the historical flooding concerns in the area and the PUD what that allows us to do is achieve the attaching of the units in the center back of the plan for additional natural features preservation our goal for this evening is to respectfully request action on the project the developer will not be making any further changes to the plans or offering any further revisions we do and how our week I should say we have received County Water Resources Commissioner's Office approval of the plans and we've wrecked we have received staff recommendations for approval as well and we've revised the plans as I noted for the last Planning Commission meeting thank you thank you we'll now head over to mr.
hammerschmidt thank you so clearly I was not here for any of the previous discussions of this project so I'm trying really hard to come up to speed and I just keep thinking about what it would be like to live here especially I have small children and the only insurance point is on Packard Road I guess and also thinking this is proposed to be a PUD and there should be public benefit are there other public benefits that we're not thinking about and I'm also not a landscape architects but I'm wondering if this has come up before about the potential of any of these stormwater retention ponds becoming some sort of useable park space have you guys had those discussions or any sort of I don't know what the park space if there's any sort of park space dedication or if it's a fee yeah I don't have controls I would toggle down but there is some open space on site yeah if mr.
Chang for a staff report I believe the petitioners covered all the topics we did add a couple of items in this staff report regarding floor area including the basements as part of this PUD if you have additional questions regarding the natural features maintenance plan I'm sure the petitioner could answer those questions also thank you alright we are moving on to a public hearing at this time anybody wishing to speak in regards to this project this is your time to speak you'll have up to three minutes to address the Planning Commission please state your name and address for the record sure can you hear me okay with this mic as it is my name is Dan village I live at 27:19 Cranbrook Road it's kind of uncomfortable to be here because I always like to speak well of people and I need to be critical of this but anyhow please forgive me my ignorance about the zoning business and about the developing business I'm just a citizen trying to understand so Mr property owner has a lot with big beautiful trees on it and by the way a little beautiful historically important house to mr.
Colbert could so on the west side of the site the central west side there's also connecting paths but up in the kind of a kind of is it the south southeast corner also there's nothing to this rounding neighborhoods is it possible to make connections in the surrounding neighborhoods is that just I'm just struggling with it insularity of this and having to you know to access Borough Park you have to go out onto I mean if that's the only way to do it this the only way to do it I guess I just I'm thinking about trying like a living here and pushing a stroller down Packard and the sidewalks don't look great yeah I guess I would just general from the staff perspective it's something we I think it came up in a maybe been the area plan I'm not sure but I think the question was raised I think the petitioner had referenced just the barriers because it's surrounded by individual Lots there there are no public engagements or right away easements that are easy to connect to I don't know if you've had any further investigation of that yeah so we have a couple of areas that don't and come encumber the site with detention that are open on the west side and then up by the entranceway we do have walks surrounding or on each side of the private roadways they're not public roadways they're private road waste so I'm not certain that the ordinance states you have to have walks on both sides but we have those we have a walk that bisects the central block of the property it had come up with the previous plans area plan the site plan that was ultimately denied and this plan to work to try to achieve easement on one of the private properties adjacent to the site so though there could be cut through to those neighborhoods and we haven't had anybody come forth and mention that we have talked about it at many meetings when we've had our citizen participation meetings and so on but nobody's come forth with that we did here at citizen participation meetings that there was a concern with school-age children walking through the neighbors yards where we noted that there are existing fences that would prohibit that perceived nuisance as far as using storm water detention for parkland area because this is a drainage district the county has specific requirements and easements that will encumber those areas that will prohibit many things and it also kind of dictates where the landscape plantings have to be and so on - one other thing I'll mention is part of the project we are proposing the parkland contribution as well further discussion mr.
bilder says to the city and I paraphrase here those sure are nice trees that mr. property owner has on that lot I want you to change your zoning rules to facilitate me making a bunch of money building on that lot and by a way by the way it would sure be a shame if something bad happened to Mister property owners trees I'll get you my pretties and the little house too last time I came to one of these meetings a fellow citizen accused the Builder developer of blackmail the dictionary tells me that blackmail is when someone demands money excuse me or another benefit from someone in in return for not revealing compromising or damaging information about them this is not blackmail it's not what we're talking about I think the word that my fellow citizen was looking for was extortion the same dictionary says extortion is quote the practice of obtaining something especially money through force or threats now I don't want to accuse mr.
covert I have a quick question erection maybe it's not so quick can you just because we've talked quite a bit can you go through and just give us bullet points of all the public benefits of this site I don't need full explanations I just want I want to make sure that I am not forgetting any of them yep so the PD benefits the public benefits of this PUD we were identifying as diverse housing typology with the attached units and limited density and the single-family homes we were looking at the natural features preservation woodland landmark trees including the substantial natural features maintenance plan we were looking at the stormwater management as exceeding the requirements and addressing historical flooding issues thank you for their discussion are we ready for a vote all right it looks like we are okay so the motion is as presented in the staff report with the added condition that the house on the historic house and the property remain on site until a grading permit is issued to provide an opportunity for moving the house and or other preservation efforts and it's both of the motions Commissioner Milstein yes Commissioner Mills yeah commissioner give Randall yes Commissioner Evans yes Commissioner Ackerman no Commissioner Briggs yes Commissioner hammerschmidt Commissioner Sauve yes motion carries thank you all right moving on to regular business the first item on our agenda is 10 a Shell station Planned Unit development modifications for city council approval we will start with the petitioner presentation you'll have 10 minutes to present we will then move on to staff report public hearing and then discussion and quattro construction propose proposition is to add on to the addition and I add addition onto the existing station that's it in Havana Harbor Celine Road and Eisenhower right at the very beginning the existing building was built 96 I think is when we originally built and modified again a few years ago where they put Tim Martin's daddy they had the approval of a PUD back then and did some public benefit the area we're going to add on to is to the south of the building and we're going to we proposed to enclose the open D pension pond and put in underground storm water detention along with the treatment facility the proposed additions about four thousand seven hundred and twelve feet and there will be an office situated on the top of the building for a second story with a for the owner just simply for him to sit up there and there's gonna be seven hundred and twenty foot of additional storage added for the gas station he's having a little trouble right there yeah with storage at the moment it's getting a little inside the store as far as that goes we've had a couple citizen participation meetings and we had some suggestions come up from the neighbor Cranbrook to the south I believe they provided a letter stipulating such presently there are 26 spaces 20 are required there's six over the minimum requirement where we're going to construct over over the one area right here where there is eight spaces a eight tire space is there and we're gonna and we're going to create 14 new spaces and that would be by enclosing the detention facility the detention pond over to the corner we're gonna modify the area we're putting in some additional land landscaping we got additional right-of-way trees and street trees to additional street trees bioretention in the area and we're providing some pedestrian walkway up to the area so we are enclosing 8 and where we are excuse me one second and we provide creating 21 new spaces the new development calls out for 14 spaces of which we calculated all retail but there is 800 square feet that is just going to be primarily designated to the owner for his storage in the back of the building that's pretty much it thank you very much ok will now head over to mr.
bilder of extortion because I don't like to speak ill of people and I have no expertise in the law here so I will make no such accusation however I do know that as a citizen of Ann Arbor and of my neighborhood sure feels like extortion sure does so I make no accusation but I will ask you members of the Planning Commission and the city's legal staff if this isn't extortion can you please explain the distinction to US citizens and tell us what actually is going on here and if it is extortion what is the proper legal jurisdiction for the city to file a criminal complaint thank you very much thank you good evening my name is su Symington two six four nine carmel i am the one who sent you the attachment with the photo from bur park and this was in March where there was a sanitary sewer overflow at the entrance of BIR park and Easy Street and this this has been a concern of mine from the get-go regarding this particular project and I feel in this city we pay for consultants and surveys all the time and I'm the one who I respectfully request moratorium on building in this particular area because of recent events with the PF us where's our sewage overflows our areas been prone to this in the decades I've lived in that particular area I feel strongly that we should hire a consultant to study our citywide sewage problems or review them so we can make decisions that won't affect people who are already living there in the future because that's going to be a costly endeavor if anything else happens in our city I'm not sure where we're headed with us as far as the city goes I'm going to pay attention at the City Council meetings on the sewage overflows but that's been my concern with this project and I encourage people at the last meeting to walk the property to look at the grading of the property I'm not sure if that's going to be taken care of my neighbor's gonna have that retention pond in his backyard and we're just I'm just fearful for for that I appreciate you listening to me and thank you thank you hi I'm back so Karen white and I live at 27:19 Cranbrook adjacent to this beautiful site okay so what I want to say I have been coming to these meetings for a while now because I want to do the right thing by this site and I needed to educate myself and find out how a citizen is supposed to be involved and I've seen a couple really horrible things and a couple of really good proposals and most recently the Veridian proposal which is also adjacent to our neighborhood it's much more environmentally sensitive or the roxbury group's proposal for Broadway where they know how to communicate with community members and take their feelings into account that hasn't been happening here I would urge you to put this on hold I know that there's gonna be development on this site I know it but we don't have the luxury of any more bad development and this is bad development I have been talking to my neighbors about this quite a bit I understand that staff has recommended approval and I think I understand their reasoning I'm late to this party and the laws are in place I would say that the staff thinks half a loaf is better than none and I I have to use a different metaphor I think the better metaphor is that we all share a single home maybe a multi-unit building I don't know but we're all in this together and the house is on fire it's on fire and we may not through it and the developer would like to build a small fire in a part of the building that's not yet a flame so he can roast s'mores get his profit he doesn't believe in global warming anyway and what could have 300 year old tree do to mitigate the effects of global warming we're just in Arbor I think we deserve enough time to really work this plan over and make it better we all know it could be a lot better and I think we should demand that and that's our responsibility as planning commissioners and the citizens thank you thank you good evening my name is Chris Crockett and I live in a historic neighborhood I'm also a member of the Michigan Historic Preservation Network and I'm secretary at the Ann Arbor Historical Foundation I'm tonight but I've been asked by Ellen Thackeray who is the deputy director for the Michigan Historic Preservation Network to read a letter to you but before I do that I'd like to just say that this project is a PUD and one of the requirements of a PUD is that there be a public benefit in exchange for the suspension of the zoning rules for that particular parcel since before the death of Louisa Piper who is well known for all of her work in Ann Arbor on behalf of Historic Preservation but a number of us have been read a meeting about the preservation of the Greek Revival farmhouse on the property I went to a meeting at Tappin where I asked the owner of the property and developer if they could move that farmhouse to the cobblestone farm parent property they've shown an interest as part of the public benefit and I don't think that this is too much to ask so I'm here tonight advocating for that but this is Ellen Thackery's letter she tried to send it to you but it was too late dear Planning Commission planning commissioners my name is Ellen Thackeray and I live at 1510 Martha in Ann Arbor and I serve as the deputy director at the statewide historic preservation nonprofit the Michigan Historic Preservation Network I'm a member of that also I am writing to you regarding the proposed plan development at 2 857 Packard I would respectfully request that if this project will be recommended to City Council for approval that a condition of the approval be that the existing circa 1850 farmhouse be left on the site for 3 to 6 months so that the house can be viewed and structurally assessed for put for a potential move the current owner has indicated that potential buyers can assess the house in late July and a group of interested residents have been meeting to discuss the possibility of moving the house I would hate to see the house demolished before reasonable alternatives could be explored thank you very much for your consideration thank you thank you is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission regard to this petition seeing no one I'll close the public hearing and I will read the two motions that we have before us motion number one the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approved the Weber rezoning petition from our 1e single-family residential to condition I'm sorry with conditions to PUD plan unit development district and supplemental regulations motion number 2 States the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approved the Weber PUD site plan and development agreement do I have a Commissioner they'll move both of these move by commissioners of a second in by Commissioner Briggs we are in discussion mr.
Chang for staff report yeah just to follow up on that we do also for this for the parking counts we we count the pump station so they've got some pump stations there and that is we've counted 12 additional parking spaces so the pumps count as far as the parking goes it does meet with the previously approved supplemental regulations as far as area height parking regulations so there were no changes to the supplemental regulations they're also requesting a landscape modification to screen the proposed new parking lot fuel stations are a little different they require 15 feet width with a 30 inch wall a typical right-of-way screening would require 10 feet and a 30 inch type of hedge berm or wall and they are meeting that with 10 feet and a hedge berm wall in this case it's going to be a berm that's 30 inches that at least from a landscaping perspective does meet the screening intent from the right away to the proposed parking lot and I'm here to answer any questions you may have thank you at this time I'd like to open up the public hearing if there are any members in the audience who wish to address the Planning Commission please step forward to state your name and address for the record you'll have up to three minutes to address the Planning Commission good my name is Alex DK and I represent Cranbrook village shopping centers which is that property located on the northeast of the Shell station so I'm here today because we have some concerns regarding the application what we see are as some inaccuracies in the traffic study report and some omissions that we think contribute to some safety concerns related to traffic and parking on the site as the applicant said they're adding nearly 5,000 square feet as an addition if you're not familiar this is already a very congested parking area and our main concern is in the traffic study they don't mention first it's inaccurate it says it's only a 1,500 square foot addition and this is much larger we anticipate a lot more use a lot more traffic it also doesn't mention the Tim Hortons drive-through restaurant and so we're concerned that these things weren't properly accounted for and that the parking space is and I know Chris mentioned some of those are the gas pump lanes nothing in the traffic study kind of mentioned how those lanes are going to interact those are going to be moving cars and not you know stationary regular parking spots mark will also add to this but we're missing some dimensional measurements in the parking lot and so it's hard to tell actually what the capacity for parking is here this is something we're just concerned about safety here and I can already congested area you know in a big addition related to that as I've said Cranbrook is located on the east side there's a steep parking or a steep slope leading up to the Shell station I think there's a concern that if there's an adequate parking on this site people are gonna start parking on crammed barque site and walk up this steep slope we think that's just dangerous there's it's not you know provided for pedestrian cross traffic that way at a minimum we would ask that offense goes up that was brought up at the I think was brought up at the citizen participation meeting I think the contractor thought it was also a good idea it's something we would like to see added at a minimum related to the supplemental regulations and kind of this PUD modification approval we just don't think it meets the standards again there's a lot of inaccuracies and missing information in the traffic report the site plan doesn't have certain dimensional requirements and we just we can't get a sense of how the congested parking is going to be fixed on this site and I think that really shifts the burden to neighbors like Cranbrook to have to deal with people parking on their site and potential liability with that pedestrian cross traffic so we don't think it actually meets the pewdie standard of review which requires you know a safe assessment of pedestrian vehicular traffic and the Supplemental regulations from when it was approved in 2013 as well we would ask that you know these things be considered a little bit further maybe a more detailed report provided addressing these issues and again at a minimum at least a fence in between the two sites thank you good evening my name is mark drain I'm an architect with raghav architects my address is three to five zero zero Telegraph Road being in farmers Michigan suite 250 I was asked to review the set of drawings on behalf of Cranbrook I'm opposed to this development because I don't believe that the applicant is provided all the information that's required for both the staff the Planning Commission or the public to understand the application and the proposal usually when I'm usually on the other side of the table I'm always putting these plans together and the first thing I do is I go to the checklist what's on the checklist let's provide that their proposals do not include the Alta survey existing or proposed contours dimensional layout specifically we were talking about the parking spaces at the pump there's 12 space parking spaces that are being counted they're not shown on the plan I'd like to see all those work with dimensions I think that'll be appropriate for everybody to see those there's no photometric plan that was on the list I don't see that vertical sections through the buildings perspective renderings of the buildings dimension floor plans there's I can't even calculate the square footage of the floor plans because I don't believe that they were drafted correctly there's no indication of outdoor sales on this site I know you need parking for that there's no indication and any of the parking calculations about that there was a restaurant on the site and then we should be calculating the parking for restaurant use there's no loading area provided I don't want trucks to go from because they can't go to a 24 hour gas station and they Tim Horton's that's a open from 6:00 o'clock in the morning to 11 o'clock at night there's no place to load they're gonna load a Cranbrook I don't think that's a safe situation we would like to see a decorative fence along the property line because there are doors that open up to our property line and within 5 feet of our property line there's a door and I don't want people to go out that door and fall down that hill and again there's a lot of information on the elevations that that aren't correct you know the scales are wrong the the potion is wrong that the scales are wrong it just needs to be cleaned up and once we see what the real proposal is then we can all see and enjoy you know hopefully a new development but until then I don't think anybody can make that decision thank you thank you is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission regrets this petition seeing no one I will close the public hearing and I will read the motion the in Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approved the Shell gas station Planned Unit development PUD site plan and associated landscape modifications move by Commissioner Mills seconded by mr.
Ackerman Thank You mr. chair we've been discussing this off and on since in that time various plans have come before this body and on to city council the courts have been involved and it has been a saga in that time a lot of questions have been asked and answered a lot of questions have been asked and not answered and a few of those items that we asked for weeks ago or left unanswered it is reassuring to see that there is a natural resource management plan in place it looks to be a five-year plan that's been reviewed and developed with our staff experts in the field and that's reassuring to me but there are a number of open questions left I did I guess three three areas come to mind as we discussed this again I first want to turn to stormwater this spring and summer you know I think has been eye-opening for a lot of people of what are the realities of the changing climate in terms of our day to day lives and the increase in rain water is what the Midwest season feels most immediately and we've been no exception and I was just wondering I understand the the plans and the engineering to help capture stormwater that would otherwise run off into neighbors properties but is there through the county or local folks is there a measure of the amount of water that would otherwise be bypassed that is supposed to be caught on-site if so what is that measure and then in turn what is our enforcement mechanism to ensure that those standards are being met I don't know if that's a staff question or I don't have the specific calculation I think that my understanding is part of the water resource commissioner review they do calculate estimated flows of the site based on the topography of the site what portions of the grade are draining onto that I think they do look at projected volumes to to determine if they are going to be retained on site is that designed to accommodate that or under the code if they're just bypassing the site through a swale that has to also be designed in such a way that can accommodate that proposed flow but I don't know if Project Engineer has more detailed information about what that calculation is for the specific site Thank You mr.
Ackerman discussion mr. Ackerman here I thought we were gonna have an easy one mr. Chang er mr. Leonard Keene please speak to the objections we just heard specifically about the completeness of the application continue that while we have discussion you could put a fence up that is entirely up to the petitioner they want to put one up or the actual residents owners would like to put a requirement I believe there's a couple of slides that would show I don't know if he's got a PowerPoint show 12 spaces it's also broken down again may not again this one with this hyperlink that you could look to see in fact you can just barely catch it how they came up with their particle calculations breaking it down I think my restaurant off this wait yeah I can probably help out a little bit gee the the initial PUD was all approved we're adding on to just to the south side of the area so we just took that particular side so the topographic and all the dimensional and everything else with the with the existing pumps and all the parking we're all in the previous application already reviewed through engineering already reviewed for planning and already approved so we took this as just the addition and with the addition on the other side and after receiving through the citizen participation meeting some of the concerns we came back and we did as Chris just mentioned we went back through we calculated with the restaurant and because previously it wasn't put on as a restaurant it just had right through and it just had the the filling station at retail is how they did it previously so we went back we put the restaurant in at 680 feet you calculated the square that's that required for spaces and we still in excess of three spaces or porous basic of what the total required if we use both so there wasn't really lack of information the information was just targeted towards the area and concerned where where we're working okay and then that thank you and then the dimensions of your drawing within the parking lot I do want to respond to that yeah all the dimensions are correct and they've all been reviewed through engineering and through staff we're all of your staff everybody has been through it several times and everybody's very did you submit a photometric plan the photometric plan no because it was an existing photometric and we're not we're not doing any additional I shouldn't say that yes we are going to we are going to have some lighting on the additional building but it was being negligible so we didn't provide a new photometric okay just so you know new light poles being there anything that's major that's really great to know just so you know we're working as a city to separate commissions this commission being one of them towards revising all of our lighting ordinances and we're trying to work towards the dark sky policy right can you speak to whether or not your lights would be compliant with that it would be great if we I can't speak to the existing canopy as it sits now because that was constructed like I said 97 or so and I'm not sure if it was upgraded to LED the owner is here they did conform to that where they went through and just renovated the canopy recently and installed LED lighting soon that time they would add been in compliance with the city on the proposed 4,700 square feet the lighting the the where our concerns be is like a lot of most of it revolves around shielding and orientation of the light would you be willing to work with staff to make sure that you're shielding it appropriately and I know what we're hoping to achieve as a city just a beauty presents the a download-only yeah I'd be appreciated and I saw I'd looked at staff to help with that Oh defense defense is in the back there and right now there is a I went out to shot it there's about oh one on four gradient going off the back of the property into their their their thing it came up in our citizens participation meeting would we be willing to do the fence as I put to the to the neighbor is the applicant or the owner is very amenable to any reasonable request so I thought you know it's as far as a three foot high fence or something small was you know it was something that he would probably consider I brought it back to him then they sent us offense that they want at six foot high and all and we didn't want it to be like a trash collector in between the building and the fence in an area where just people are because we get a lot of cross traffic and the utility beloved fence just to keep people from walking is that the utility of the three-foot fence it's not blocking anything I thought it would be there just over state DSU and to keep later days by cutting through the owner of the property there's a lot of cross foot traffic between the two properties yeah where they come over to use the Tim Hortons and the and bites first that people are there parking and going into Whole Foods and grabbing their food and doing things like that so there's the owner would rather not install a fence because he likes to encourage that type of traffic going back and forth especially on on big events at this stadium and stuff like that there's as as you know a lot of a lot of people oh yeah backed into one area okay so I'm hearing may be amenable to the three football - yeah I'll leave it there for now Danny Thank You mr.
covert with regard to stormwater management for the site we are meeting the water resources Commissioner's Office standard including stormwater and filtration so we have we're not only treating the quality but the quantity of flow at the site you'll recall when you first saw this plan back in I believe 2016 with the with the area plan was about the same time they were changing their standards and part of that change in standards included calculations which accounted for some of the increases in rainfall that the county had been observing through data on rainfall for the area so we are treating the 100-year storm event at our site well let me back up we are treating all storm events but the maximum storm event is the hundred year storm event so we're treating the smaller storm events with greater frequency we're treating those by treating the quality mainly we're providing for quality treatment within our basins with the proposed natural vegetative areas and the infiltration that will happen at the site we're fortunate our site has the opportunity to infiltrate at rates greater than what would be allowed by the calculations however to have some level of protection that if something were to happen like they got silted up or something like that we do have the opportunity for these basins to outlet to underground pipes that connect to the Packard Road system so there's a protection and the fact that the calculations have been updated there's a protection and the fact that they don't allow us to use to the full extent of what we can what we can infiltrate in the site so we have those protections and then from a maintenance protection standpoint the site will have a drainage district set up through the county which will be a separate second set of documents that will also be included in the master deed and bylaws and the exhibit me drawings which so I appreciate them that gives me reassurance that the properties on the site won't flood and I guess to be a little more transparent what I'm trying to grapple with is what is the public benefit that a PUD allows or I guess provides and and the biggest one that I can put my thumb on is the stormwater right that under these plans hopefully neighbors flooding is reduced right and and that that's that's the one I can even start to put my thumb on and so if you could help me understand the degree to which that stormwater will be reduced from neighboring properties and then what the enforcement mechanism would be for us to hold so essentially what happens at our site the surrounding neighborhoods were developed at a time when the stormwater rules were different than what they are today so with regard to the rules we have to collect and detain for the stormwater that basically a drop of water on our site has to go through our stormwater system before it leaves the existing conditions at the site have an area that flow from off site from the subdivisions I'm looking at sheet 14 if you look at those gray areas 1.62 Acres 0.29 acres 0.39 acres with the current rules and standards that's that's not necessarily the stormwater of the site that stormwater that we could build a swale or a pipe system and bypass our site what we're doing is we're taking those areas if you look at sheet 14 the proposed site drainage plan those areas that are on the top of the page shaded in gray those areas at the bottom of the page which are cross-hatched we're taking those areas and we're collecting them on our site and instead of bypassing the site we're putting it through our stormwater system let us catch up with you sure so if I'm reading this is the bottom figure on 14 bottom left yeah and then it's the houses off Carmel and Cranbrook and then the arrow points in the direction of your Basin is that so what is that demonstrating that even in a hundred year storm event the water on those properties moves towards that basin is captured and treated yep so so let me back up so those polygons that are outlined by the thick line with a small dot in it those are drainage areas so the drainage areas of the site as existing are on the top of the page graphic and at the bottom of the page they're the proposed graphic so what happens is we are collecting the area in the gray on the top graphic sorry in the ground the top graphic that stormwater flows through our site on the bottom graphic that same area with the cross hatching we're collecting that on site we're showing that the drainage areas the drainage areas the thick line with the dots all correspond with one of our stormwater elements for example along Carmel Street you see the crosshatch with the arrow going to the pond that's at the northeast corner that drainage area is now going to that detention pond instead of bypassing or flowing across our site into the neighbor's backyard okay so it's more about the water coming down grade from easy through the site conventional design today would have the Lots on Easy Street in Carmel have similar to what we're proposing by having pipes or ditches in their backyard to take that water from those yards and then go to their detention basin okay so it's that since I don't have detention basins which we by current standards we could bypass that flow and let it back out in the neighbor's yard which wouldn't be a good solution obviously they're experiencing flooding now okay thank you I want to move now Thank You mr.
brings so on the fence topic definitely not like I understand the concerns of Cranbrook don't share them people are a trip going across those so you know across they want to trek down the hill lovely um Howard to them I think that's what we want to encourage I'd love to see a little sidewalk there if we're gonna encourage anything else right but I understand the 88 issues around that however my bigger issue on this is understanding why this I still don't understand besides people as a parent love for Tim Horton what the public benefit was around a PUD back in 2014 and how this increased proposal is provided but if this had been if this all had been put together at that time and and the Commission was considering this proposal as it is exists today I can you help me better understand what that public benefit was seen then and and how that might complement it or not so this was approved approximately five years ago as a PUD it was mostly a service station and it is an entry point into the city can't I don't have a pointer but if you look at a couple of areas on the site right at the corner thank you you can see that there's a public meeting area for pedestrians there's also another little public meeting area right around where the drive-thru goes in there are also required to actually use certain types of building material for this fuel station as part of the public benefit that's off the top of my head I'd have to go back and pull the supplemental rags pedestrian connections but those were the off top my head what the public benefits were for the for the Shell station so with this existing sort of expansion and development would that have been I don't know what those zoning was previously would this have been something that would have been permissible with well it was the underlying zoning is the c3 which is a fringe type commercial zoning that would allow obviously a service station drive through a special exception use which it did come back in for and it does follow it actually allows for up to 150 percent of the of the floor area by right there at 15% so but there's just - it's unlikely I think they're going to be coming back for any type of expansion because they're limited by parking I can't see how they could do any more additions because of the park so this site is just about is built out as it's going to get commissioned Gabe Randall I'm having a hard time with the layout plan as well okay and there are some things that I'm seeing here that I'm actually kind of surprised to got through staff review was some of this because when I look at the proposed parking and I'm zooming in on sort of each racket so I can read what's going on and it's it's hard to it's hard to follow some of this it's not it's not the cleanest graphics I've ever seen in terms of sort of clarity of how these things are put together the aisle that you're supposed to drive down you know when I lay out a parking lot there's a you know 18 to 20 foot I or 20 to 22 foot aisle that goes down the middle of your parking lot you have a bunch of parking spaces across from what looks like an elevator it is I looked in your grading plan there's a curb across there's like there's a if you look at the layout plan there looks like there's like a pavement sidewalk zone on the corner of the building that has like the overflow drain in it and things like that that's that's a step up okay that's fine but that I'm referring to that kind of polygon there that is a curved structure there it looks like a sidewalk with it had a top occurred bottom curve elevation on the grading plan that is protruding into your drive aisle by like several feet so in other words if I park in some of those spots opposite of that and then other cars come in and park beside me there's no way for me to be able to back out and not go up over the curb because you need at least 20 feet behind those spaces in order to be able to let those spaces Sheetz III indicates the dimension between it it actually exceeds the plain width of the city requirement well but look at what you've got on your layout plan what I see is that you've got your minimum dimension there is 15 feet okay no it's 22 feet 20 feet what Seidenberg what what sheet should I be looking at I'm looking at a site layout it's on c3 what I see 20-foot between parking and that's 20 feet that's further down okay so those people are fine okay I see what you're saying there's 15 feet excuse me yeah I know believe me I I need mine too I get it and and they printed on a small thing so right that was that was maintaining 20 feet I think probably what is going on and why it did get through staff and stuff is there's an easement running right along the property line there that is 12 feet or 13 feet wide we've been playing a little havoc with because of the underground detention it's a storm it's sanitary sewer so we can't really construct over the easement area so that area in front of there was going from 15 to 10 and I assure you that is 20 feet there for the read for the bioretention it's just I kept moving from 10 to 15 so what I'm this polygon of the sidewalk right how far is that from the back of 20 feet 20 feet from from yes so this is wrong in the way that dimension on there must have been but but it's not lining up you have 20-foot dimension further down and this thing is protruding into that dimension so it's like something screwy here something's screwy here because either that sidewalk should line up with the aisle it's required to have 20 feet right and the bioretention worked out to it so in other words this sidewalk is shown in correct that I think what is it's what month what must have happened is just what was it two days ago Christmas when you recommended switching to a small car again you went to a small car over there you sent it over to Caitlin when we were trying to get that to go to that small car and move that for a walkway through there for pedestrian access we'd have to look at that to see if yeah small on e85 16 it was so we might be able to reduce some of the spaces to small car parking which would widen the aisle but I don't know if it's going to meet the 20 that probably happened in our office when she moved it for the small cars from moved over but there was required 20 feet and that bioretention was approved I'm not I'm not I'm not even thinking about the bio engine right now I'm just thinking about the site layout on the top and that right now if I park in one of those spots you're absolutely I wouldn't be able to back up and get out it had to be 20 feet and it it was 20 feet this change was just made two days ago and I think it just came up because of the small car and I think it was an error in my office okay that is definitely required to be 20 feet because right now it seems like it would also be hard for there's like an when you first pull in there's a there's a landscape Island the one that has a radius of five feet that protrudes out further so what I'm trying to imagine is the dumpster truck being able to get down the middle of that thing given if this thing is filled with cars because that thing protrudes further out like I don't know there just feel like it needs to be yes I've had a hard time reading these drawings and I just feel like there's some things that need to be cleaned up so I feel like it's hard to evaluate it if it's not like the way it's really supposed to be that's how I feel about it I actually respect fully disagree in the fence thing because if that is a steep slope on the other side then if they owned that steep slope then it's their liability and they're willing to take the risk to be able to let people go back and forth to Whole Foods and do their full shopping experience with whatever that is but it's not on their property it's Cranbrook s-- liability if somebody falls down that thing so I feel like there needs to be a fence there as much as I want to encourage people to be able to move back and forth I don't feel like we should if it's their risk to take then that's one thing and they're willing to do that but it's not their risk it's somebody else's the actual slope in this particular area and I see what you did when she adjusted to the small park car parking for the thing she actually moved the curb which he shouldn't have so it went from 16 to 20 and that's why that's not 20 feet because the in the original proposal in the approved document that we had put forth before staff the the dumpster is in the center of the 20 foot lane and the 20 foot lane lines up with that curb I think all she did was is in my office I was out the field quite a bit today she was moving things around to make the small car park so we had it there and she moved that curb in 4 feet instead of okay the opposite so I guess I feel like I need to have this thing cleaned up but in the answer to your question as far as the liability the slope over to the south side of the property is down to probably the one on six at the southern end and right at the station end it's like a one on four one on five if you go further to the north it's like a 1 on 2 when Fred Brooks and that's how it was / that's how it was constructed no I get it so they should be concerned about the present condition all the way down right but the the issue is that they're not inviting people to come to their site your site may be inviting people to go to there like you're saying we want to be able to encourage people to go back and forth and that means the risk is on well you just see he says people do go back and forth now it happens it's entirely reasonable for Cranbrook to wanna fence there so that they don't get sued because somebody slips down the slope and says you didn't stop me from doing it I mean and and I would I would concur if that is the truth and we did talk about that in the citizens participation but if they're that concern then they should run it down the entire site too because it's far more dangerous at the North End and that's where most of the walking traffic is coming that the north end of the property not at the south end they don't usually walk over here they walk over on the north end because they're coming into the I guess all I would say is I support a fence being there actually because I don't think we should be encouraging people to use something that's a steeper slope and that I think it protects cran Brookes you know very reasonable liability concerns that people would be encouraging people to go down a steeper area and to park on their property and use the Tim Hortons or whatever so and I guess it would be the owners position that if they feel like it is a liability to them they should build a fence and I mean we we don't have anything to say about whether we do it or not that's entirely up to them if they want one or not you know what I mean I am with commissioner brakes fence being like I don't think it ought to be there in part because I think this new addition is not necessarily adding a new entrance to any retail on that side people do use it and honestly if I were Cranbrook I would be adding more access to the sidewalk throughout your site this that's the big problem I most often move around that site on bicycle and it's you have to go out of your way and on a bicycle it's faster than if you're a pedestrian and we want to encourage walkability and if you're in the Whole Foods parking lot I mean if you think of the clientele to of that shopping center Whole Foods REI those are people who are more often than not going to show they're more often than the average Joe to show up on a bicycle or show up on foot and want to get to the corner and honestly that that corner right there is the one where there's crossings so I don't support putting a fence up there because I've cut through there personally like and there are sleep slopes that are too steep and I think similar to Meijer on the other side of the highway like we should be taking down some of those berms rather than encouraging them so that's not the petition before us the only thing is I didn't put that I would not support putting a fence there because I would hope that someday that what fence wouldn't be needed because we would have more connectivity with Cranbrook and the road I don't think that there's tons of parking I haven't actually seen this this corner as congested and so and the people that I write on cars aren't actually gonna go all the way around and then walk up that slope it's the weird pedestrians like me right that are willing to do that so I think in terms of the fence I'm not in support of that I I do have questions about that traffic study mr.
burrows my last question for you in the staff report there was reference to an application to move the the 1840s farmhouse I was wondering what I've been trying to educate myself a little bit about the house and the process to move a historic home what is that application in the process by which it begins who is the applicant what party is the applicant where is that application so regardless of the historic significance of the structure is not in a protected and regulated local historic district so that means that there are no additional city regulations that would prohibit moving it or alterations to that structure that said anybody could apply to move the structure to any location that would obviously it has done been done before in the city and it is it can happen structures can be moved it's a it can be a pretty significant obviously logistical challenge to physically accommodate that through everything from the right-of-way to utility lines and the like nonetheless any property owner could initiate that as a building permit and the corresponding permits that would be necessary to traverse the public right-of-way to do so I think in the context of this discussion both reference and the staff report more generally there's been discussion about placing the structure on a city-owned facility specifically referenced a cobblestone farm to be clear the city has not received any sort of formal proposal saying we would like to move this structure to cobblestone farm and located at this specific location for the following purposes generally speaking from a staff perspective that would might be challenging to move it onto the cobblestone farm homestead because that is a city regulated prop of historical significance that we currently control it might be challenging to add a structure to that that would compromise the integrity of that district however Paulo stone farm is surrounded by a large expanse of City parkland that could potentially potentially be utilized similarly though no formal presentation has been made to the city particularly to the parks Advisory Committee and ultimately the City Council who would have to make a determination to say yes we want that structure on that site we have an identified plan as to how that's going to be financially accommodated how it's going to be maintained and any long term maintenance or programming associate suit if any house and it's actually sounds like it there may be more opportunity considering it's not historically protected there issues with that if it was going from currently private property to a different private property that would be dealt with through an application process yeah largely building permits and right-of-way permits okay where the city and council would get involved is if that second location was city-owned correct got it okay thank you - with respect to the sanitary sewer I just want to give a little bit of background and then I do have a question but we hear you the sanitary sewers are leaking and they're getting into the river and that's not how it's supposed to work that is not how how local government is supposed to take care of its natural assets and it's it's physical assets the pipes themselves there's been a lot of work in the last two decades to fix that problem the biggest and most expensive was a hundred and forty million dollars invested into the sanitary sewer plant the processing plant which is brand-new state-of-the-art the the issue that that now remains is how do you get sewage from people's private property public property to that state-of-the-art plant and that's an aging piece of infrastructure it's 365 miles of underground piping an infrastructure that's you know as much as a hundred years old and it's it's failing in a lot of ways there was a question specifically about why can't we hire a consultant to get a better plan of how to handle this and actually fortunately we have hired a consultant to do that they're putting together an asset management plan which will be a ten step process by which we plan the long-term capital needs of our different infrastructure systems we've already done this for our roads so you may have heard some buzz about a new roads plan that came out in 2016 and this is one of our our final infrastructure systems that desperately needs this and we're finally doing it which I'm glad glad that we are another piece is you've probably heard some drama in like around 2014 about footing drain disconnects and and some pumps a lot of controversy that surrounded that debate before my time in public office but essentially stormwater would flush through people's houses get into the sanitary sewers and then flood the sewers flood sewage out into people's properties into the streets and that program is disconnecting homeowners footing drains from the sanitary sewer to avoid that type of problem so there's kind of three different areas there's the treatment plan itself which is state of the art now fortunately there's the infrastructure that sits below our streets which is 365 miles that needs serious work and we're finally putting together a plan to attack it and then there's the the issue at the source at people's homes which was you know was dealt with about a half decade ago so progress is being made but not as fast as it needs to be thank you for bringing that up question for staff we talked about sanitary sewer a long time ago I remember the conversation I don't remember the details of it can you share the process by which staff reviews developments impact on sanitary sewage and the system and what the course of action would be if this property is is permitted yeah we do have an engineer on staff that does look at the sanitary sewer mitigation to see sized correctly I'd have to go back and look but if it's gotten to this stage we know that there's so many if they're adding sanitary to the system there you can either they could probably either pay their way out or mitigate for it to get out of the sanitary sewer mitigation issues I could go back in and look at this that is the staff report see if the pipes are indeed sized correctly but they will be providing some type of monetary mitigation for the sanitary or the flow that's being added to the system but I don't recall that there was any issues with it but I can look while we're discussing it further the petitioner may even know off the top of his head what you know what those comments were yeah either way it's fine and that was the the last question for now from me so happy to hear other colleagues thoughts and questions as well as mr.
Chang you had asked about and some of the assumptions in terms of the square footage so do we know what was using if not I think I would believe I can answer that yeah the actual traffic study said three 1500 square foot units and it was done by Spalding to Decker and reviewed by your traffic engineer and considered to be accurate gun then so did it include the restaurant uses the drive-thru uses that because ya know I think they took the impact as is what the new addition was gonna how it was gonna impact the existing so that's that's how that was the premise that she started on and that's how she rolled up her traffic study is how is this going to impact this any further any more trips to the site and what what uses are gonna be used possibly and and went down that road so I don't know that she specifically I know she didn't specifically address just the restaurant she took the restaurant as an existing use and looked at this as we did through the whole project as a proposed impact on the existing structure that was already approved in and operating so your your decision to do the parking calculations based on revival parking calculation now calculations were different calculations were all I took the old calculations and put them as used we took off we generated by infilling the the pond per se which is sitting like 10 foot away from the sidewalk right now and it's a six foot deep hole there so we're proposing and closing that and then putting landscape on top along with parking in the area and we created 21 spaces there which was adequate for the for the new proposed addition but we took away eight they had six extras so we're still in excess of the minimum and yeah I am I understand I'm curious for staff if it's customary because of this site right like when you're opening a backup bringing parking into compliance is something and so making the parking according to what's actually there seems reasonable what do we do about the traffic is it do we just require the traffic study for the addition or for the whole site I'm just observing the the traffic study now or it's it's got as far as the convenience market it's saying that it's got existing forty they used four thousand and eighty and proposed four thousand a so it's around eight thousand square feet which I believe is fairly close to what's being proposed if I'm reading the chart correctly and I'll as far as the conclusion then goes it says the impact of the proposed expansion on adjacent roadways is not significant the addition and realignment of parking stalls will improve on-site on-site circulation allow for easier access to all buildings on the site I'm just going by what's in the staff report I don't know without probably double-checking though with the traffic engineer to make sure that those numbers are actually aligning with what's being proposed to the exact number I'm just giving you a brief summary of what I'm reading off from the the traffic report Chris I think it's a different question could you summarize how you measured the adequacy of parking on site oh yes we broke it down by the types of uses on there I think in the chart we broke it down by its it's ten spaces for the restaurant use it was X amount of spaces for the fueling station then X amount of spaces for the proposed retail slash office added them up and it's they're proposing 39 I believe off the top my head required is 31 but those are off the top of my head calculations so that clearly and we consider the site in total all the existing uses and the proposed uses and then if you look on the bottom right corner the title sheet that's where you'll get the summary of the traffic traffic generation separate calculation in the parking that's where you'll note that the petitioner provided trip generation analysis that compares what is there now versus how those peak hour trips change based on the addition and that's the summary for the traffic there so ensure we do look at the totality of the site to make sure it's meeting the parking requirements and from a traffic perspective the traffic engineer is looking at how this is going to incremental II change as part of their evaluation and is so one of the things that came up sorry I'm keep on mixing traffic and parking but it's because one we said we're just gonna treat existing as it is and the other one and just add to it for traffic right and the other one says we're gonna look at we're gonna redo the calculation for the whole site on parking but for traffic it looks at what's already there as existing and then says okay what's this addition going to be on top of that right yes and also it also takes into account current trip trip volumes on the adjacent network so and the traffic criteria have not changed substantially since this was reviewed so in looking at that incremental change they're still basing it on a very similar analysis protocol as was done before that's why the incremental edition of current data and additional trips generated from the edition are appropriate got it and then if I may even and we did calculate it differently too so we did put in the restaurant into it and there was still more than adequate parking it didn't change things so we did it both ways the one of the things that stuck out is that the our multiplier for restaurant space is very quite a whole lot more parking for restaurants square footage so I'm not gonna be the person to ask for more parking by any means right but the question is is is it reasonable to assume as the the this addition isn't going to become a restaurant like that is going to be retail there's it seems to me that that shifted since 2013 that it wasn't initially anticipated as a restaurant and now there is restaurant space that they have to account for in their parking so I just want to make sure that we're we're clear on that yeah so you you're required for a restaurant use once per thousand square feet and I believe on the chart they've got a thousand square foot Tim Hortons if they were to convert the four thousand square feet this probably is not going to you know that's gonna that's gonna require 40 parking spaces they're out of compliance so when it comes in for review for the building permits it would be out of compliance we would not approve a restaurant type use but what the petitioner has I think indicated it's gonna be maybe like a cell phone type store possibly some type of massage therapy or those types of uses that would fall more in line with a regular type of retail use not an intense restaurant use so the parking calculations so those would be run effectively again when they do building permits for even if there's an internal configuration and it's going going from from let's say it starts out as a cellphone store and then it turns into a restaurant in the future when they go to pull those building permits you're gonna check the parking calculations again the Zoning coordinator should they should be looking at the Supplemental regs and referring to what's allowed in the Supplemental regs but it may be a little murky because it allows for c1 type uses which may be like a mom-and-pop type restaurant without any type of drive-through but we would have to then state they're gonna be well well under what the parking requirement is and it would not be allowed so hopefully they're listening tonight that the restaurant use is not going to be approved as part of your building application more than likely they're not gonna want a competing restaurant in the same area you know I would just take on this your conversation is something that the code I think wrestles with we have provisions for retail we have provisions for restaurants and we have provisions for retail centers which are intended to accommodate some blend of those things I can tell you have also experienced a lot of development in the city that is evolving from a true what I would say is more of a blend of retail and restaurant to primarily restaurant when that happens it tends to have more of a parking demand so in this circumstance calculating the parking based on the actual projected uses is probably a step in the right direction but in short we do attempt to provide that that measure went up when an occupancy is proposed in this case we're not approving it as a generalized retail center with that flexibility so we have more of ability to consider the parking requirements for the intended uses based on it calculations and just to close that loop I'm okay with the number of parking spots but I share Commissioner Kimber Angela's concern about the I saw the same food so that needs to be clearly dealt with but I'm not encouraging more parking here I just want to understand how it all works commissioner survey so you took the words but retail center in my mouth because if it was a retail center it all complies with 310 square feet per parking spot which would only require 28 and could allow for a quick surf sandwich shop another coffee shop and you know three more restaurants as retail so actually if it fell under that it would be 28 spots and could be three more restaurants where this actually requires more parking and not restaurants so we're actually reinforcing lots of parking in this scenario and as a fueling station I guess it makes sense so how many cars are kind of moving through here so I guess that would that was kind of the second part of that conversation when we tie in parking with traffic was this evaluated at all as a retail center as load it was done it states a strip generation rate per thought super convenience market gas station electronics so may have looked at different types of scenarios yeah that's where I see on the current one rupee medical dental office building for everything and then 1,500 square feet it's not noted what that third use is actually actually that was storage for the gas station 1513 or 790 square feet or the stairway come I'm looking at the traffic analysis super convenience market gas station proposed four thousand eighty square feet medical dental office 1,550 square feet and then blank use 1,550 square feet right which looks like it's evaluated at a higher trip generation at four point three instead of three point five so I'm guessing that's business medical office no not knowing what's in there so yeah that those were kind of the conditions I was looking at and just to kind of speak from like I feel comfortable this is more parking than other ways you could calculate it so in terms of those concerns right we could we could count this a few different ways actually based on use and this gets you the most parking in an intersection that yeah is car-centric I know that there could be walkable areas but it's not geared towards that so yeah that makes sense to me um the other question I actually had rear you have rear service entries to all of the retail but it doesn't show sidewalker grading yeah we just made that modification as well earlier we moved the building 1.5 feet so it's six feet off reducing the square footage actually and where the rear entries show down the building we change the front door on the southern unit to open towards interpersonal or Eisenhower Road so it opens towards the parking okay King that that'll that'll keep that parking with that unit down there on that side because it at the present moment they're feeling they're gonna lease the first two spaces to Petey I think it's physical you can't so in the rear there will be a sidewalk that's gonna need to go in for them to come out enter in the rear of the building if necessary but that that's something that comes up during building because of the access points we got no more than 75 foot travel distance depending on occupy and that's kind of thing it's a pinch point in that back putting up a fence those door swings with a sidewalk and if you're exiting out of that and that door swings open and you're pinched between an open door and a fence you can't maneuver around to get past that blockage as this moment we do have six feet their clearance you have six feet clearance and six feet door swing again okay that's something that they want to make sure is in this set of updated plans yep it's a good point I did speak with the building department the other day regarding that comment it does have enough space what may also be because of the grade in the back they may have to put a railing up so there's first safety issue why they didn't want to go to further a fire into actually putting something a layout that's exact as the building Department stated well how do you know what's going in there until we know they're gonna use the whole space half the space divided up into thirds that will determine how much egress is going to be required at that point will be caught at the building department but there is enough space between the property line and the building and there's probably gonna need to be a railing to be able to have a secondary means of egress those are my two main ones Thanks so to talk a little bit more about parking so there are 39 spots proposed 12 are use for the gas pumps 10 are for the drive-through it's not correct to my under snow no there's there's actually stacking on top of that so they're stacking but that's not counted in the parking so the drive-thru has its own stacking there's nine spaces for the drive-thru I believe that was approved back in three years ago got it okay so part of the reason why I'm talking about parking is because I use this gas station on a fairly regular basis and it is a giant mess there most days with parking and such so I'm a little concerned so outside of the so if we can go back or if you can take us to the proposed plan sure and just if you can walk me through exactly where all of the parking is on the site all the parking right now is not where it is right now we're at Walden okay these spaces are staying as if the five spaces over here for the Tim Hortons there's presently one space here that's handicapped and if you frequent the station you'll notice there was there's a state there's another space right there that's being removed and just because we didn't deal I think it was actually put in wrong you know at the very beginning when they constructed before the stacking is over here as far as Tim Hortons goes 90% of their 90 percent of their customers are going through the drive-thru and then they have people that just walk in pick up and leave they don't have too many people sitting around or and again if you frequent the station you probably witness that the owner uses that area for the thing for the most and the parking at the pumps the cars that are sitting there getting their fuel they go in and get their their retail items or their convenience store items whatever you know whatever it might be and then so the proposed addition over here this has been primarily when you go in there and you see the people parking that that parking is pretty far away from the actual entrance to the station and to the existing if you see this you go past this area there's an air pump in there and they presently have they have ice and they got propane out there at the moment and the parkings over here this parking is about 50% full most of the time and and most of that's probably employees of the gas station as far as that goes so what we did was we in filled the pond area over here and we created actually 21 new spaces and these are primarily to to take care of the new retail whatever it might be right now it looks like it might be 4,000 feet over 3,000 feet of just PT but in the event that there's a 1200 square foot user retailer you know I don't know cell phone store or something along that line we wanted to have the parking adequate just for them in the back over on that side so we we attempted to keep the parking separate from the gas station use and that's why we just kind of looked at it as the impact on the on the southern part of the site so most of the area that is being impacted right now is not really in use with the exception of them for five spaces or the eight spaces that were taking up at about four or five of them are used so I tend to agree with Commissioner Gabe Randle in regards to the fence if there's no agreement between the two owners about having some sort of a shared sidewalk installed which due to the grade chances are that that's probably not gonna happen I think there are aesthetically pleasing fences that can be put up I'm not asking for a six-foot fence but even a three-foot fence and off because that grade is pretty substantial so I think that has to be part of this plan the other question is in regards to loading and unloading where does that happen so loading and unloading of delivery so merchandise the loading zone technically is not a requirement under the PUD document but what they usually do is if you notice in there the the loading usually is done off hours so like the the gasoline when it's filled filling the tanks they come off hours because they don't want to block anybody and they don't want their customers blocked so the same thing happens with the loading unloading so the more than likely they'll use the retail space where the parking is right there and just park in front and unload even now if you're there quite a bit you'll see the the trucks parked right out front unload and going through the front door bringing in the pop or whatever else and just as a as a convenience for the station as an operational standard they don't want to they're not going to want to block their pumps and block off everybody and and create more turmoil than they already have in their busy hours so they usually have everything coming off hours so that's usually how it did we did look at actually plowing in over here we there's adequate space because we're way in excess of the landscaping but as you know since the station has been built it's been a pillar I mean it's it's gorgeous coming into the city it's very well kept well maintained for the last 16 years and the thought of plowing in and destroying some landscaping to put a loading zone out here that probably won't ever be used it was kind of like a trade off so that's how we took it mr.
covert if you have an answer happy to take it now and while he's coming up I would just tack on as it relates to you the source challenge that you referenced the policy of the city now is is that those are financial contributions that the city uses towards capital improvement programming to help this is the system in a larger basis so while that source reduction is still occurring it is now occurring through a more sort of centralized and prioritize process than in the past where it was more more scattered throughout and implemented by on a property owner of a property owner method thank you so with with regard to this project the city engineering staff had the opportunity to take basically the number of homes that were adding to the site or adding to this property and putting that into the model for both water and wastewater sanitary sewer and through that model what they have shown is that there isn't areas that would need to be upgraded off-site that would allow the site and the whole infrastructure as it sits today to work better it works properly the addition of this would not cause issue we have determined through the calculations that Brett refers to with regard to sanitary sewer mitigation that we have to mitigate about fifty-four gallons per minute and we would be participating in that program Thank You further discussion I'm sure Commissioner sobei I think two small questions one is for the developer timeline if this is proved foresight work to go on because I know there's a request you know to hold off so that there could be maybe work done in the background to sort out this historic home so what's your projected timeline for work on the site well given the constraints of just the general time I would assume if it would go through the normal process whatever your recommendation would be tonight it would be sent on to Council it's two readings there there's a couple months and then it goes once it would be you know assuming it would be approved there and you probably have three to four months of design before we could be ready to pull any permits so you're probably six to eight months so you haven't started building permit preparation for drawings no no and if you know again just so everyone's clear I do not control that house that's not part of this whole my purchase agreement not part of what's going on here but the owner of current owner the property which I have an agreement with has talked to some of the people and is willing to work with them to a point on it and I just so I don't see why something like that if the someone that wanted to do that move it was serious they'd have to get moving but I don't see where that would cause a problem at this time but I'd also like the nomenclature this is not an historic house there's no designation may no one's inspected it no one's done anything it is an old house been modified many many times over the years so it is very disingenuous to say it is historic house and compared to anything that is controlled by a historic Commission thank you one more question for you so looking at kind of the proposed vernacular of the homes on site yes at their previous correspondence that asked about solar ready and one of those things that's just roof orientation to the south so that if homeowners in the future wanted to put solar panels on it there there was at least a higher use area to use you know solar gain and so I guess my question is in the housing typology proposed a lot of those roofs are kind of pitching east-west instead of north-south so limited southern gains so I'm wondering in terms of that typology are those what specifically we're expecting or do you maybe have other housing typology within your kind of design wheelhouse that you could look at more southern exposed roof structures at this point what is you know showing on there is what to build yes now there's several different ways you can get exposure to the south with that but there's also things that you can't just you have a lot of other regulations in the city of how I have to orientate lot sizes setbacks roads distance between roads I didn't write those rules city did I'm trying to follow and that's we've got you know the connected units in the middle that and that's where we actually have the least amount of shade and so understanding that roof structure and solar game and so I'm just trying to get an understanding of where where you might have flexibility where we have kind of a longer narrative about timeline to know if there's opportunity beyond tonight you know where those conversations go well we are looking at anything that makes sense that is for the general public to purchase the house yep a good market and someone that wants to live and in there is good and good for everybody including us I sure can't make any guarantees of how they're going to be orientated or that I'm asked to live by the rules that were put before me which is what I did if they want to look after something is approved and moving forward I'm sure willing to talk because it makes sense but at this time I'm sure not going to commit to something that I don't know if we put solar you know soul orientation like do you see any conflict with any other rules on this PUD adjusting roof lines substantial deviations no I don't think I don't see barriers the only barriers I would see was any any sort of potential conflict with the preserved woodlands or landmark trees those are also often in conflict but there's nothing inherent and from my lens that you know the petitioners right we we specify a lot about how the physical development happens nonetheless I think that I presume that there's probably a lot of flexibility and how the actual roofline is realized on those structures some certainly may be more costly and thinking about the attached units you know a shared Ridge that spans over multiple units versus something that has the southern exposure might be more challenging but no I don't in short I don't see inherent conflict other than potentially where those roofs might have a limited solar exposure because of the natural resources we're trying to preserve that's right so I just have a follow-up question in regard that you don't own the house and presently you don't own the property that's correct I have an agreement i meant to purchase the prowlers tell you i have enough money in it i will be buying it all right so the question is in regards to does your contract state that the house must be removed I D seller prior to closing is that something that's stated and I don't remember the glass is not prior to closing no okay I think the agreement is he can do with the house whatever he chooses as long as it is gone before I break I think the wording was cannot hold up site development so not closing it's not a closing so when you closed on the property you know if all goes well and you get city council approval you close on the property technically you own the house at this point other than you may have a rental agreement or some sort of an agreement it's correct put in place okay thank you further discussion Commissioner Gabe Randall I would like to move on to the to the natural features portion of this so first for staff so when I went through the the drawing set and all the notes it's talked about a three-year plan but in your staff report is set a five-year plan and I'm just wondering if you can clarify if there's things you know in terms of how they're defining construction period and then when maintenance starts is that the discrepancy or if you could clarify how that's working features maintenance plans and a couple of other projects and they refer to three years that we have done I did talk with the Forester who did the review she was comfortable with a five-year maintenance plan so I think we could be a little flexible on that and we could I've got some language that we could add to the development agreement so they've stated three which was approved by Knapp and Forrester said five but I think we have some flexibility in there okay go ahead if you have a comment I was president or president all those meetings and basically it went from two to five years we're happy with any of it because we're gonna write it in there but what what they're trying to come up with something dynamic to review it and they have wanted to look at it and say oh it's working it isn't working or this is work now we're on to stage two because what you do in the first two years is not what you if you're one and two of the plant were three and fourteen should change right or hopefully change if one and two didn't quite work you might be another year or two until you get into a little more mat or plan so we're open and we kicked it back and forth to how to memorialize that in writing and part of it is a condominium you know they'll be documents and it'll be very clearly written in there and we've done that in other developments but we think it should be dynamic too because again just what's good and year one and two might not be good in year ten yeah I'm really glad to hear that because I totally agree with what you're saying is that we don't really know until you get going on it to see how things respond and it looked like when I read all the notes and the plans that there is quite a bit of flexibility in there and that the city was being informed in a consistent way at the end of every year to be able to review and to be able to check things out so that and I'm also glad that you sat down with nap because they do this all day long so they have a lot of expertise with that so that makes me feel a lot better about the ability for this to be able to keep evolving in the way that it needs to to be able to have those Oaks and walnuts and things like that regenerate so I'm glad you sat down with them I wanted to kind of understand the discrepancy piece but in your notes it still gave a lot of flexibility for how it might evolve even further into the future it didn't kind of shut the door on that so I was glad to see that as well and all of the notes within what would happen with the homeowners association in terms of what they would be responsible for their reports hiring a qualified contractor things like that defining more kind of targeted herbicide regimes things you know could because again you don't really know until you get in there to see how things how things would be working so I feel comfortable right now with where their natural features portion is in terms of your ongoing management and stewardship of those areas if this plan goes forward according to way that the notes are there because I think there's a lot of flexibility and still city kind of oversight to a certain extent not a lot of you know management week-to-week or something like that but you know that they have to they check are checking in once a year to see what's going on so I think some real work was done between the last iteration that we have and the iteration that we have now so for me this is a big part of this PUD in terms of what we are getting out of this and for me the it's attached units allow these areas to be saved and not just saved but restored and that's the piece that means I think the most to me as somebody who does this for a living is that it takes management basically we have to be involved in order to be able to have these things evolve in healthy ways because there's just so many invasives out there and the plan as I see it accommodates that in terms of the human involvement over time the checking that is going to be required by the city and the involvement of Knapp who really is an expert in all of this and has done this a whole lot in this area so I'm comfortable with that portion of it in terms of the PUD benefit I'm also comfortable at the stormwater portion of the benefit cuz ordinarily they week they could just bypass you know everything that's that's flowing on to them and instead they're taking some of the problem areas of the neighborhood and taking it on to their site which is highly unusual you know that's just not what's required at all so those two pieces for me push it into the public benefit piece for me the historic house I think it would be fabulous if Oh do we need to head to the basement just a flash flood warning just a flash flood okay we're up in the second floor we're gonna be just fine in terms of the historic structure I think it would be wonderful if some private person wanted to take this on to be able to move it to private land I think it's would be a lot for the city to be able to take this on and put this into it into a park and pay for all of that and manage the house and you know restore it it's a lot of budget to do something like this I would love it if somebody wanted to take this on as their project and make it into their home and to be able to restore in that way that would be wonderful I I mean obviously the city process would have to play itself out if there is will and you know city council sees its benefit and there's enough citizens that are willing to be able to kind of say it's worth my taxes to be able to do this kind of thing then then that's great but I also see that these historic structures take a lot of time and money and effort to be able to maintain - it's not just getting them there it's fixing them and maintaining them and having them interpreted and all those things there it's you know it takes it's a chunk further for the city to be able to take that on if people feel like that's how their tax dollars want to be spent I'm fine with that but I also think that it would be easier and cleaner perhaps for a private person who wanted to be able to take it on themselves because I just think it would go a lot faster and probably be a lot cleaner process so those are my that's my read on the on the three big chunks for me of what is kind of left to discuss on this project commissioner Mills Thank You commissioner get Brandel because I had lots of questions I'm like is this particularly on the natural features because I do think that that's the primary benefit or one of the key benefits and so I appreciate that I think for everyone else and I don't want to put you on the spot but I'll put staff on the spot instead to talk through what would be required what's the basis that's required as part of our code and so how does this exactly go above and beyond what we require of any new development well the natural features mitigation plan isn't required on other other projects per se but for the pewdie they needed a public benefit so as part of that which was already previously mentioned with both the open space at 54% along with the mitigation plan and the storm water detention this was trying to beef it up as much as possible to get into greater detail other than trying to preserve the existing natural features maintaining them and getting rid of invasives I would have to defer to the to the petitioner as far as getting into the specifics of the of the natural features mitigation plan yeah that would be helpful I mean I'm assuming like when if you say you're not chopping down the tree right you're not chopping down the tree but in terms of removing the invasives like is that what's added yeah so our current code basically manages the trees but it doesn't manage the kind of ecosystem of the woodland so much so if he were to he could just have lawn around all those trees like if he were just saving some landscape you know some some landmark trees he wouldn't be required to have any kind of ecosystem piece of it no small trees are ever going to grow and along that's being mowed every week you know in the summertime so our our current system is set up just to save trees not to save a system and so that's part of what is different about this plan is that they're trying to save a system and to manage it and steward it going forward there's nothing in our code that talks about that we want people to save Woodlands but when it comes down to it in terms of our code they could put lawn all around all those trees that they're allowed to do that there's nothing in our code that says you'd have to leave it as a forest floor and you have to manage invasives and there's nothing that that that asks people to do that specifically okay and the lat so that one of the things that as I was reading through it with the laypersons I write that mentioning I know one of the things I've mentioned a lot is the little burr Oaks that are growing there that's only mentioned a couple times and and what I'm hearing you say is that the flexibility to deal with that like and all of these other things about dealing with the invasives are what is going to keep those little burr Oaks coming up like have a chance of becoming big burrows is that right right perhaps I could be correct if I'm wrong but through all that discussion it was pretty enlightening I learned about it too but that's that was one of the big topics where I don't know if it was brought up here they rather I bought I believe it was and they go well that's great to have them and say you're gonna do this but you have to manage them as they get big you don't want 8 2 inch ones 2 feet apart you want to be able to be dynamic and eventually unfortunately the big one will go some point in times natural disaster you know like something's gonna happen and they want it do not dynamic enough at something far enough away is growing it has a potential to grow big enough to 200 years down the road replace a type thing that's kind of grandiose but it's that management style of you have to look at the woodlot as a whole basic like you're managing a woods but you're looking at we talked about yeah it's not gonna be a lawn you're gonna have to keep you can't just sit there and spray it we round up every day you know every three months to manage the weeds right you might do an act of the first couple of years to get the new stuff started then you get the native species and and I'm sure not an expert on it but I get the just of it and this is far more detailed in that but management than it is in a I want to say beauty management or landscape and something you're looking at from the road this is more of the actual ecosystem that necessarily what looks pretty and hopefully they're wanting the same but what I saw in the plans is that in the very beginning there's quite a thorough assessment with Knapp to understand where the little babies are you'll be able to manage around those to be targeted about the invasives that you are removing some of which you may spray some of which you may cut some of which you may pull and that the first couple of years are pretty intensive in terms of trying to get those invasives out of there and managed and then going forward little one still may come up and that's what some of that kind of flexibility piece comes in and where they're reporting to the city every year to be able to see what's happening and the city has the ability to come out and check to see overtime I think your biggest challenge is going to be you don't know who's gonna move in here who's gonna be your your president of your homeowners association and I think it just has to be very clear from the start you know that that is their responsibility they are a steward of these things and the only reason those houses are there or because of that and that has to be like because you get the wrong the person with the kind of wrong aesthetic that really wants to mold the whole thing down you know that's this is why this development can happen the way that it is and so that has to be made really clear because we don't know who that personality is and that personality is going to change over time people are gonna move you know so somehow the kind of mantle of responsibility and stewardship for maintaining this somehow delivering that message which I saw in your text but still like the emotional piece like really huge you understand what you're taking on here you know that that's I think going to be the the biggest possibility for slippage in terms of that but the city is still observing as it goes along and so if some Yahoo goes in there who really wants to be all lon that would get caught in the process you know if that were to happen so I think you said in on the discussion because that that was definitely part of it because I actually was talking about that because I've got through 30 plus years of working with associations and presidents after we leave and former homeowners and that is a concern is you have to have whoever your president is takes on the most forceful personality of that Association so Knapp and actually us because we're trying to if we say we're going to do what we're trying to put it in there right and that was how to get the expert and you know we figured a year was about right you know however you set it up if it's in the spring and when stuff starts so whoever that president look here's your report for the year here's what's going to happen so they have and they have to hire a consultant it's not just their homeowners association president that's out there figuring out what are seedlings you know so there's a consultant that's built into this too as like a restoration consultant which of which there are several and the Ann Arbor area so there's plenty of people to be able to do that so there's another way to kind of build in security with that as part of that discussion was nap didn't want to get involved in dictating the plan they want to react to a plan that is current and dynamic and with whatever the best practices of the day are and they didn't want to be the developer and the police they want to hopefully it gets developed they approve it and it gets done and they're you know actually then they're addressed the police they didn't want to be both sides right thank you because I read it and I you know didn't know exactly how it was so that's really helpful from your perspective mr.
Chang can you talk about signage with now adding potentially three additional businesses on there you know there's a signage at the there's lots of signage on the site how is that with new businesses how is this signage and change what more signage will be allowed on the site especially with the large you know pray sign that's at the corner and then additional signage that's on the building each new businesses is allowed to square feet of signage for each foot building foot of building frontage so we do the calculation on then so each new business is going to get its own amount of signage so let's say each storefronts 20 feet wide you're gonna 40 square feet of signage I know we've kind of gone back and forth I'm sure the petitioner we've gone out there and done enforcement on taking down a lot of the signs that are out there they there's a little bit of creep it does come back and we'll just have to continue enforcing on temporary signage that may be out there letting them know it's not allowed it's kind of a give and take in in regards to the monument sign at the front you are permitted to have a monument sign separate from your overall amount of signage so you can have I think up to 200 square feet of a monument sign okay can you track I mean a fence issue I might suggest we take a vote since there are differences opinion where would based on conversation well we do recommendations for dimensions or locations of that fence be I guess I would I probably wouldn't jump into that I think your initial thought is probably helpful I am hearing the same I it sounds if if I had to predict at this point I'm thinking we're heading towards a postponement for some additional information and some clarifications on the drawings I guess I would leave some of that design to the petitioner as it relates to the entryway doors leading to the back of their facility where the slopes are more severe and maybe less but I think at a minimum it would be helpful for the petitioner to have a sense from this Planning Commission if there should be a fence on there or not how about this how about this I'm gonna move a postponement with the direction the the dimensions be cleaned up that and that also staff explore with the petitioner a fence if you don't want a fence you can vote down this motion to postpone and then we can introduce a different motion to postpone that there's not including exploring offense how does that sound so it's been moved and can we get it second it really quickly second debate no not quite a second yet I just want to clarify one thing and I'm the business and the walkway and that is those grades are really steep there is no way they could ever put in a sidewalk and have it be compliant ever so if this were flat I would be saying something different but it's not it would have to be steps or it have to be super steep and so that's just the reality that's out there folks so I just want to make sure that that's part of how people make their decision right so post so move postponement with direction of offense to be installed it's been moved seconded by Commissioner gear and all discussion on that postpone of motion been straight with the funds Commissioner Briggs anything but I will say it anyway I I just don't think that we should be we've got I'm not this addition isn't gonna actually necessarily probably significantly impact the the change in pedestrian flow along there what we already have is the ability for some people to cut through there and some people are doing it and I just don't know why we would possibly I understand there's some liability issues and things like that that's not my concern my concern is connectivity through our community and I think that's important so I understand where you're coming from but okay any discussion any further discussion on postponement with Athens a direction for Athens let's do a quick roll call vote mr.
Chang was there anything else that nap wishes this would include because yeah I'm not aware of any of the additional information but I did look up some language that I can add into the development agreement that would address some of these issues also thank you very much I think that including that making sure that the development agreement is clear on that and enforcement of this going forward is really important I had two more short questions one is of regarding the solar orientation we've talked a lot about the detached structures on the outskirts I didn't see I mean I do have the elevations for the attached structures I just maybe you went over them in the presentation I didn't see it there wasn't elevations of the attached structures but they anticipate the units being similar to these just attached together okay got it is that typical for us to not see elevations for the attached structures at this site plan level we typically do have elevations and it's something that we could add before it goes down to City Council if we want to get you know something more concrete yeah I mean we always see elevations and so yeah in particular the thing that was in my mind was I if they were you know duplexes or something that are attached if they have a flat roof they should be solar ready I would not that's like non-negotiable my that is it should be Sol already and so that we don't know I can't imagine that flat roof would fit in this vernacular but even so we do see some cash that have flat roofs so yeah the other thing that got brought up that you went over very briefly in your remarks and I just wanted to address was the square footage and whether or not basements count if that is how we interpret r1e that basements count for that I think that the the plan is to continue enforcing that that basements count towards your square footage it's in all zoning districts that it would be counted I would I speaking for myself I couldn't not imagine changing that in this yeah go ahead so I just want to make sure so the squirt is above great so there's a difference between and below great square footage I believe the are wanting the square footage that we have is only above great square footage is that correct that's right no we measure all floor area we in the UDC we have we rely on a definition that is more specific now that we have specific things we exclude but it includes floor area both above and below grade so a these structures under the r1 II would have to meet the two thousand square foot threshold the prayer definitions inclusive of square footage in the basement my understanding is that they are proposing to specifically exclude the basement square footage from calculation of that 2,000 square feet it is that written somewhere or yes but since this is being rezone or being proposed for reasonable for PUD it's in the Supplemental regulations that would that would not count the basements towards that square footage that's correct I was also highlighted in the updated the staff report as a notable yes exactly which I don't I think that that one I didn't realize that before and since that would change how square footage is calculated here versus everywhere else I appreciate you bringing that to our attention the reason for the are 1e to be clear cap on square footage is so that we try to diversify our housing stock and get some small ish units 2,000 square feet is not small but smallish units and to potentially allow the square footage this could then you could finish your basement and it could become 3,000 square feet that is counter to the intention of the existing zoning district and would run counter to the one of the public benefits of diversifying housing types so thank you I I'm happy for other comments but I will be making a motion to amend to strike that from the development agreement yeah well I just want to make sure that I just want to make sure they were the planning commissioners clear the four area under the code requires measurement of all floor area be it above or below grade so under the normal a normal floor area calculation specific to the r1e we would count the basement in this case they are specifically proposing to exclude that from the calculation that could result in a thirty thousand square foot house but I will but I also would note that this would still have that two thousand square foot area limit on the house even if it were only applying to above grade which is not a restriction in any other district I agree I mean I think what you're wrestling with and I think it's valid is that I think the intent of the r1e was to try and incent very modest size structures that if only by their sheer size might be potentially more affordable and provide some more flexibility so I want to be clear that this is probably not meeting that original r1e intent however it's still including a square footage cap unlike every other residential zoning district in the city that is if it were zoned to anything else there would be no cap you could put a 5,000 square foot home it is provided and met the setback requirements but the current zoning just to be clear that we're going from right now where it is currently zoned r1 II correct which does have a square footage cap correct and and this is rezoning so this is the chance to if if somebody wanted to make this R 1 D or r1 a they would have to which would lift that cap correct they would have to come before us in the same process and we would have to assess whether it meets the standards that we've set forth to warrant a rezoning so yeah so just to be clear on that topic so the Builder can put up a 2,000 square foot house and not finish the basement month afterwards after closing the home new homeowner can finish the basement and had another thousand square feet and that would not be there'd be no restrictions against that and that's exactly the issue that we wanted to make sure that everybody was clear on going forward because we will get requests to finish those basements that is one reason why we clarified our definition in the past we had we had had a much more complicated definition that you recall referred to areas that could be made habitable we have clarified that too it includes all square footage except for vertical chases fire
mole Steen yes commissioner Mills commissioner get Randall Commissioner Abrams no chemistry Eckerman yes commissioner Briggs Commissioner hammerschmidt commissioner so they are mine that was a yes I would just remind folks to vote with your microphone on for CTN I hate you also the motion fails it does not receive a majority of the board four two four four two four great commissioner Ackerman I hate you I think either way is not workplace appropriate I would make a motion to postpone to fix dimensions without conversation of offense do we have a second second by Commissioner Mills all those in favor please say aye Commissioner breaks sure discussion I just want to say when this comes back I appreciate there's a lot of discussions although in favor of coming back with when it comes back I don't plan on voting in favor of this I don't think if I saw this existing proposal with with this I don't think it meets my thought of what what kind of our requirements for PUD and looking back at what was the justification for the PUD I just think this is adding unnecessary sort of intensity at that corner where we're already have so challenges so I I'm not particularly in favor of this proposal but I I won't object to more information clarify maybe I need more information maybe I need to be reconsidering what I will be voting for the no rezoning is being proposed at this time to consider a Planned Unit development there is a public benefit discussion the city has rezone this property to plan you know development it has now established a zoning district on which they are submitting a site plan for consideration under that zoning district so your review of this would be is this site plan compliant with those zoning regulations I don't believe it is it's not questioning the zoning that zoning has been enacted okay and I guess between now and the next time we discuss this for staff to confirm that the inaccuracies and omissions which were brought up during the public comment have been resolved yep and I'd also had just work with them on dark skies for additional lighting without the fence I would say bringing more information in conversation with your neighbor about the fence so that we can have that dialogue again if 19 the plans I think would still be welcome to this commission so at least the Mayan like I would be interested in seeing I mean really understand we have conversations I'm all about working with neighbors and as as Chris knows we spent six years on the circle-k down the road and so we we we take people's concerns very seriously but in this case there was just a lot of reviewing going on in questioning and trying to block the ex projects so it's it's getting a little different it's not like people are trying to work together it's like they're it's a little more difficult you know it's my understanding to include the fence in the plans the next time we review it as part of the postponement but as part of the discussion the next time around I would be interested in still seeing conditions to be able to evaluate it further further discussion on Commission gab Randall one other thing just for putting it in the hopper for next time is some of the landscape material is not gonna hold up well in terms of the just how difficult it is to live along Eisenhower and so your taxus baccata in particular is gonna die in a year it just needs a small courtyard it's zone 5 it's really more like a zone 6 plant it's never gonna handle the exposure and the salt and all that sort of things so look more carefully at your landscape buffer that you're squeezing in ten feet so we'd really like to live so I would like you to work with whoever does your planting design to come up with some more robust species so that enforcement's hard you know for the city to be able to go out there and say this many died it's just hard and so we'd like you to use species that are really going to make it the first time around so there are some questionable things in there I just think those that the site itself is not is more conducive to a wider Greenbelt because typically your sidewalks and foot off your property line in this case it's 10 feet so it's really 20 foot from the back of the curb to that so we intend and we got the approval to kind of blend out that into the right away and guide and guide that all that it wasn't like we were squeezing and right put a wall there and there was there happened to be a easement from years and years ago going through there so you can't have a foundation inside an easement under it well I get all that that's that's fine I understand you know if I'm reading the staff report I just thinks of the species need to be more robust in terms of location that you have so absolutely further discussion on postponement all those in favor postpone please say aye aye opposed it's postponed those members of the audience who wish to be notified when this comes back for a hearing again please make sure to fill out a card and place it in the and Lowell box right there and we are going to take a seven minute recess you we are back alright the next item on our agenda is 10 B which is the glandt the Glenn Planned Unit development PUD modifications for city council approval will begin with a ten-minute petitioner presentation we'll move on to a staff report then audience participation and manned discussion thank you good evening I'm Craig singer the developer of the Glen hotel my I'm here tonight with my partners Larry died Jim Brett Goldberg we've got our engineer Rob magner from Mid Western in our architects a mold Cedillo and Patrick Barry with Newman Smith we are here tonight to present our request for modifications to the Glen mix use PUD we made this request a little over a year after receiving our PUD approval after commencing with our architectural construction plans and reviewing all of our schematic plans with our branding partner we have decided to and have been accepted by myriad into their autograph collection of hotels Marriott describes autograph as follows they say we handpick and celebrate the world's most unique boutique hotels each one is chosen for its founders passion the thoughtfulness of its design its inherent craft and its connection with locale our aim is to showcase some of the most beautifully orchestrated hotel experiences in the world the world has to offer we are very excited to have been accepted into this hotel collection it affords us with the use of the myriad reservation system while maintaining the independence of a individual boutique hotel which we think should be unique and special for an harbour some of our proposed modifications are the result of proposed improvements by the developer and Marriott and some are the result of engineering limitations in the construction plan process a brief description of our proposed changes are as follows the first is to revise the pedestrian entrance and Lenny Avenue we aren't adjusting or changing at all the funicular entrance to the building but we are making some slight modifications to the pedestrian access off of the sidewalk in front of the building by limiting we're actually eliminating one of the entrances to the hotel and tucking it into the Porticus air to eliminate some of the pedestrian traffic concerns and makes we think improvements into the lobby in traffic experience we are reducing the number of lower-level valet double-park spaces were and as a result we're going to be reducing the number of parking total parking spaces in the building from 252 to 241 but we're still we still maintain or exceed the 235 required minimum under the city ordinance the the building after its engineered shrunk in with a little bit or our spare available space shrunken with because the walls got wider so we lose a few parking spaces we're making a revision to the rear elevation of the building to accommodate the relocation of northern stairwell and window configuration to accommodate some slight floorplan changes we aren't increasing or reducing the number of rooms or number of windows but you'll see or you've seen in the presentation some minor elevation changes on the back of the building we're removing the p-tech units in the hotel rooms which are the through wall AC units that were approved on the building and our just deemed not appropriate for high quality hotel rooms such as the Glen we will be changing that to a centralized HVAC system which I think from an exterior standpoint it just eliminates all of the vents in the rooms and it replaces them with glass so I think it's a big improvement and lastly the building height we are modifying the building elevations to provide the building remaining nine stories plus plus of screening wall we are requesting the sword this increase in order to accommodate the added ductwork needed when eliminating the through wall HVAC as well as needed additional ceiling height in the banquet and restaurant and lobby spaces we've accommodated these changes by bringing down some of the elements at the top of the building to make the height modifications we hope look like that they're not really noticeable and I can point those out of the plans as well would you like me to go through gel or do you want to go through so this is a the new front elevation of the building and there on top of the roof there's two main changes to the top of the building here where you see the round window and the front elevation that now has been brought down it used to exceed that that was the tallest part of the structure we sort of flattened that out and we eliminated the penthouse on the roof of the building so in terms of the appearance of the building when you compare it to the old front elevation which is that's the old front elevation you can see how that center portion extends up as well as there's above the glass on them and the tallest portion of the building there's a penthouse which no longer exists that's the revised this is the this is the old back of the building and you can see that the round window on top in the middle of the back of the building is in that penthouse and then this we reduce the size of that brought it down into the into the height so we are able to essentially get more height on the first two floors without the building appealing appearing taller because we raised or we lowered the roof elevation and then it's here you can see that if you look at the first two floors the difference in terms of the elevation and the height and and those are really the major exterior changes in terms of the street view it was simply eliminating the podiatry pedestrian entrance that was right under the entrance to the building the signage to the building on Glenny Avenue and tucking it under to the portico share with a card drop-off area would be you can actually on the rear elevation you can also it's easier to see the p-tech units which are on the bottom of the glass on every single room and the oh here they aren't there and here they are there if you'd have to look carefully at the glass configuration but it's it's pretty noticeable in person it would be much more noticeable so that is our proposal we are here to answer any questions and appreciate your consideration thank you very much just a few things to add on this petition the overall height of the building increased by 6 feet but it's still below 109 feet 4 inch maximum allowed by the PD that's in place right now so that overall height limit doesn't have to change in the Supplemental regulations for this to be approved the mix of bike parking spaces has changed from 18 Class A and 16 Class B to 14 a and 20 B for spaces that were in the parking structure were shifted up along east and Street I think that this is actually a positive because they'll probably be better utilized there and 14 is still a considerable number of Class A spaces that are inside really that's about all that I have to add staff does believe that these are minor and appropriate modifications and that it meets the spirit and intent of the existing PUD and the city's ordinance thank you thank you at this time I'd like to open up a public hearing anybody in the audience may address the Planning Commission for up to 3 minutes please step up to the podium state your name and address for the record hi I'm Chris Craig and I just want to say that Craig and Larry and their team have kept us informed they had a meeting when was it and this was in the spring the night that there was a big tornado warning and the meeting was broken up because we all had to take shelter in the the cellar of the leak but we think that these are good improvements they've kept us in the loop and our concern has always been about pedestrian safety it's one of our concerns and about any kind of dangers that might be posed by increased automobile automobile traffic we feel these things have been addressed and we can see this project going forward although I warn them that at the same time that this project is about to be built the university is planning just a block away to build the School of Pharmacy and also do changes and improvements in enlargement on the powerplant all near Glennon here on so good luck thank you is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission seeing no one I'll close the public hearing and I will read the motion the nervous City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approved modifications to the Glen mix use Planned Unit development PUD zoning district supplemental regulations and PUD site plan with the condition that the five Lots are combined before issuance of any permits to have a commissioner and they'll move move by Commissioner Mills seconded by Commissioner so they assure ackerman Thank You mr.
chair excited to talk about this one again I think it's one of those projects that they gets Planning Commission City Council excited about you know positive development development and with developers who engage neighbors and plan something to put in something truly of need to the surrounding area I think this is an area of town that still needs hotel still needs event space and I'd rather the hospital be served by a hotel next door then up the Plymouth corridor I think these changes are modest in their nature all well within or very close to the bounds that we set now almost a year ago maybe more now even Wow times fine and then just as a reminder in addition to the the benefits of the mixed-use project itself accompanying it also comes half a million dollar contribution to affordable housing fifteen thousand dollars to our parks fund as well as cleaning up four stories worth of contamination below the site with no tax abatements so I I think these are small and modest changes to allow something that'll be a community asset Fisher Mills I agree that the benefits of this one we saw at first were fantastic and that the changes are modest and I would say the one sticking point that I had the first time was that door I'm Glenn and so I think that's fantastic great I'm glad that you're you know if it's with the hotel that's taking over there anyway because I think it's gonna be safer for pedestrians and it's not gonna put out the ants like listen it's not gonna put out the people who might arrive on foot so just to come around the corner thank you and I also slowly support the idea of moving the Class B parking up I think you're absolutely right that it will be utilized much more if it's at the street level so thanks I'm excited to see this go forward mr.