Mill's sorry handling the mute is hard this is a follow-up to the question that commissioner Ackerman asked about the sidewalk I am kind of pulling together what Commissioner Briggs was saying as well I similarly have concerns about like whether the continuation of some of these uses on that stretch of road is wise they're narrow like getting out of that driveway has got to be dangerous effectively at the same time I if it is continued I would just want to make sure that we're taking a step towards what we hope that road could be which is accessible to all sort of travelers and so is there any way that we can make sure that that a sidewalk does get built there that if that if this site is redeveloped that a sidewalk does get built there I can respond by saying that planning certainly would like a new sidewalk here and that I'm going to contact our public services folks tomorrow to see what their limits are with regard to our standard specifications otherwise known as the orange book with regard to getting a sidewalk installed here which would basically be on private property but could have an access easement on top of it and access easement requires the willingness of property and so I guess this is a question for the petitioner to like I mean is that how do you feel about having a sidewalk there or like it this is something in my mind that's really important because what what's built there now what we're building today is gonna be there hopefully 50 years hopefully a hundred years from now and so I you know I recognize that that constrains you know you've got constraints to the west clearly there's a hill and I recognize that that would constrain what happens to the east but I feel like this is this is the time because if you you know if the house is effectively right where you would where the only place where aside what could be left then then it's never gonna happen and that's look that's a concern for me so he owns three properties to the south and there's a there's a sidewalk all the way down to those so I'm sure he's gonna want to continue it to our force property you know as it is now because the sidewalk actually goes all the way to the driveway so I'm sure that there will be a sidewalk that will go to the as you property on the sidewalk will continue the existing one that's in front of 1039 can 35 and 10:43 will continue through or 1041 will then continue on this property which is ten forty three got it typically when we're doing rezoning x' because it tends to be for bigger things it comes along at the site plan so is there any way staff like Jeff or Brett that we can again just like make sure that that is that if the if the rezoning is approved that any development that happens there would get the sidewalk my no I don't this the scale of this seems scale this seems inappropriate for the sort of Zoning mechanisms that would align with conditions or the like so but as Jeff indicated and as precedent suggests sidewalks are constructed when development happens along here's it is part of our standards procedures I am of course happy to follow up with our public services just to advocate for the I'm sort of importance of that and furthermore this is a rezoning we could we could emphasize that as part of any recommendation that you choose to make and and that would give the petitioner and property owner the opportunity to probably respond to that more fully before it progresses to City Council and a more definitive manner we might even be able to make some of the steps in advance just to you know if for example a public access easement is required or what have you that give us the time to start putting that into place so I I think that I am comfortable relying on our standard specifications and our goals the city that that there is a release valve in that but again I don't think that tradition along this corridor has demonstrated that there has been a quick willingness to invoke that for these in these developments so that help at all yeah I mean I know I for one and just in terms of like passing this long I don't know that it's worth holding it up now but sending the message that if that public access easement is I would feel a whole lot more comfortable voting for the rezoning if I knew that that that the owner of the property was willing to have that there because in my mind like that ensures that even if it doesn't get built if for whatever reason you know the sidewalk unit decides that it they it doesn't make sense to require the future like that's really I think that that's the really important part but you could you know as a recommendation you could you could simply add that you could say that you know if you choose to recommend this rezoning that then you would also recommend that the owner commit to meeting the city's specifications and ensure a public sidewalk continues along that site I I want to be clear that's not a hundred percent even with that it's not gonna be a hundred percent but based on what the petitioners indicating in the history of the property owners in installing it in other properties I just I just see the risk is relatively low yeah I just I guess there's too many like you never know developments expensive anyway I would feel I would feel more comfortable knowing that all of our t's were crossed didn't eyes were dotted and that that were in place like that the see that that agreement were made so I would welcome others thoughts and other commissioners thoughts and bright if that if is that appropriate as an amendment or is that like a separate thing that we would separate resolution like I'm just not sure how that would look like they're just a amend the motion and basically you're adding a condition to your recommendation right okay I'm leaning towards doing that I got a scramble to find some paper to make that to write it up but um I'll hear what others say meanwhile start writing and Commissioner Briggs yeah but is there anybody else who wants to say anything before I do have more comments but I don't wanna go ahead I don't see any other hands going up so go right ahead I think what I'm struggling with the most I mean obviously I you know I love sidewalks I'd definitely like to see the sidewalk continue there but I do I'm concerned with the logic of building in the location like this and this isn't my area of expertise so I'm certainly willing to take others thoughts on this but it seems I'm not so much concerned about concerned about what the quality of the woods are there in terms of what they were even you know 50 years ago or 70 years ago it's more that this is a really steep slope and we know that we have a natural park you know Bluffs that's right there and it's adjacent and it's it seems appropriate it just seems that if there weren't a house here already we wouldn't possibly be considering housing in this kind of location am I am I wrong about that it just agricultural and it's obviously not an aggregate a space for having agricultural exactly but it is it does seem like we Aereo that we might want to preserve open space if that house was not there or someplace that it might be appropriate for the city to recognize that it's that should be brought into their assets considering what the impact might be to the to the property owner for not being able there so just just more thoughts on that I guess so Jeff I'm sorry Jeff could you just Risa mirai's the master plan recommendation for this property yeah the master plan recommends a single or two family homes for for this property and and related to what Commissioner Bruce was saying this is a site that has really been had human habitation for probably over a century there's been these homes were constructed and this is probably a dirt road sometime in the early part of the 20th century so the the AG zoning district is you know clearly an anomaly it may have been it may have been part of previous agricultural holding but certainly 6,000 square foot AG site doesn't make a whole lot of sense the r4c to the south does allow for different uses and such as maybe townhome uses or some stacked flat uses but that's still a very tough site on which to develop so you know city see staff has only certain limitations with you know how we can proceed with regard to land preservation or getting the exact perfect project that we want we do allow petitioners to you know build single-family homes where we're appropriate and it's it's it's difficult for us to say no in in a situation like this which is why we recommend approval and Christian Riggs I would just so thanks thanks for that Jeff the you know the master plan is obviously our our first place that's where we go to that is the document that the city's adopted to set these policies it's been affirmed by you this commission overtime but you know that's that's why we're asking for your opinion as well you know there occasionally projects come up where the conditions have maybe changed in such a dramatic way where you question the validity of that land use recommendation that's housed in that master plan I you know I I agree with a lot of the points you're saying and I guess I want to be clear that like any rezoning decision we're doing our best to apply those policy decisions and balance so if if for some reason you you felt that that land use policy was not relevant then I would encourage you to make sure you vote in the way that you feel and think about if you do so it might be helpful to articulate you know what are what are the changes or perhaps other aspects of the master plan that you don't think would be further obviously from a staff perspective we've felt that unbalanced this proposed rezoning does does fit that I'm given the long term historic use of the site and potential for new use it's moderate in the context of some of the factors of that particular location so so personally I am in favor of this rezoning part of the reason why I'm in favor of it is because the stretch of North Maine is the gateway into the city for a lot of people and it's not attractive right now it hasn't been for a very long time and know that there's been talk and this is an incremental move but I think it's it's a good move in that direction I do like the idea of a sidewalk so I look forward to Commissioner Mills motion in regards to that I have listed and sold the property commissioner Brandel that you mentioned at 1329 north Maine which just right near the entrance to m14 and that sidewalk obviously is not heavily used because it's not you know there's something connecting there but at some point I do hope that something connects there for now it makes it very difficult to put a for sale sign since it's all concrete in front of that house but I am in favor of this and I I'll be voting in favor of this evening commissioners okay thank you so I have a practical question of if we don't rezone the rezoning application notes to demolish condemned home and build a new single-family so I'm also just curious about could they renovate this home that encroaches on the setbacks and the property lines as a single-family home without rezoning like what - what detriment do we not rezone this and still get a single-family home versus rezone it and get a well sited single-family home I could try to start with that response and then maybe mr.
Fowler can add what he knows about the future or the proposed home on the site the the home as far as we can tell is so far to the east that a portion of it sits within the within the MDOT right away and it's as far as I can tell pretty far down the line of not being in good shape maybe mr. Fowler can shed some light about the potential for a rehabilitation of the home but I don't believe the home has been condemned although Bret may know something that I that I don't but maybe mr. Fowler can shed light on the potential for for re reconstructing the house or renovating the house as well as what the proposed house might might look like well my experience has been pulling permits for a house is non-conforming limits greatly limits how much we can remodel a house so so even to remodel the house and have it zoned agricultural my hands would be tied to do anything significant to the house so I mean I guess what I'm trying to understand is if we do nothing it's not like we're gonna see a house demolished and the land reverted back to natural features what we might see is a lesser quality home with some light renovations versus you know looking at the trade-offs one-pack not to pass this would be a lower quality renovation possibly first was passing this and allowing for a new single-family home on the site as what we're really looking at as options yeah I would I would just add on to that as a non-conforming structure it would to do anything of substance would likely require approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals to alter a non-conforming structure so that that would be an unknown it would provide some that would not provide exception from limitations but it would be a precursor basically to be able to do renovations to the property that said I think that often you know they are considered on property by property basis but I know those Zoning Board of Appeals does issue any such approvals for that kind of renovation but it also still has some limiting effect from overall conformity of the district going forward so so in short I think that the property might be able to be maintained but that would be a decision of a lot of factors such as the interest of the owner the viability of retaining the structure those aspects of the structure for example if it's in the right-of-way that may not that may not support approval or expansion of it so there are avenues by which that structure or a structure could remain absent rezoning to something that would provide for a sort of a different building I mean in that that's kind of it seems like we're looking at the ways forward for a single-family house in a lot of ways and I think rezoning this feels like the appropriate fit to align this with everything else and if we can push forward with first sidewalk it just makes you know a corridor and you know a riverfront district that's been abandoned and for a long time or at least neglected gives it what you know one more property to show that the community is trying to improve it or their discussion commissioner hammerschmidt I just have a point of clarification I noticed in that application you said the description of the proposed project is a 2300 square foot home and then a detached garage did you say that big ROG is actually being built on the adjacent properties this would just be the house yeah I'm sorry I'm this well the garage rollback should be underneath a new home summer to the house down the street that's been mentioned word just because the elevation I our garage you'll drive right into the garage so now this will have the the home word we're still working on plans depending what happens will have its own garage attached garage beyond the basement level so to speak and then we we go up with the living we won't get above Main streets if you look out on the river because that's that's where the view is yeah yeah I'm personally very curious what you come up with because does look like you have a lot of constraints with the slope and I will just also say for the record I'm also in support of this sidewalk recommendation and III don't I think the sidewalk is would help our property values to be honestly I don't see any reason that there that there's gonna be an issue with what's us putting the sidewalk integrate again we want to connect all four properties together because the same owner so I the sidewalk is not gonna be a problem for us all right now it'll be nice to see something other than what exists currently thank you for their discussion Commissioner woods oh you need to unmute yourself okay I too am in favor of the sidewalk so Thank You Commissioner meals for working on that and I'm also you know certainly concerned about the slopes in the back but I think in this case the fact that there's already a home there and getting a single-family home there I think is it's something that hopefully will make that that entry to the city look better as well so I'm in favor commissioner Mills or commissioner Briggs before we yeah commissioner breaks thanks I appreciate all the facts I just need um you help talk me into why you know this was the appropriate zoning and you know I still had some concerns and my ideal world of what would happen there which is unlikely to happen so I'll vote in favor even though I have some reservations about this and could imagine a different future for it but this seems like the most the only one that's really going to happen mr.
Mill's I'd like to move an amendment before I read the amendment I just I had been Google Streetview Ingush too and there is already a sidewalk that goes half to the property so this is why you'll see I talk about having an easement along the entirety of the north main frontage because I don't think that first half is the southern half is controversial it's already there it's kind of just continuing that on making sure that that is there so the amendment that I would propose is just tacking on to the end of the existing resolution subject to the property owner committing a public-access East easement for a sidewalk along the entirety of the north main frontage you have a commissioner who will second that seconded by Commissioner Briggs I welcome wordsmithing by mr. Leonard if that's not the if I didn't pick up the right words committing the public access easement for a sidewalk commissure Ackerman also just making sure that the language includes preservation of the sidewalk or extension of the sidewalk so it's it's both the public easement as well as the construction should that be Brandel um so I also want to sidewalk however there this is a long MDOT right-of-way and this whole thing really needs to be vetted against that because they're only going to let you do what they're gonna let you do and so I think that that needs to actually go through the city folks first understand what the limitations are with that so maybe that gets added into the language somehow because I know I had a property that I worked on further up Main Street and we had to do a whole special submission to MDOT with anything in the right-of-way in that area so anyway I just you can see if you look at the perhaps it would be helpful to share the screen where we're looking at the the survey that shows the yellow residences and then I think you all will see what I'm talking about it's at the end of one of ya so you can see there so you can see what the edge of the road actually is which is yeah so the road it's really light actually it's a little bit better in the staff report you can see the edge of the road is this really light line yeah there you go and that driveway is just completely in the middle of right-of-way and in fact the the existing sidewalk that goes in front of those houses is also in a mess and I'm not right of way and they basically get to do whatever the heck they want in that 66 foot area so I would just like planning staff to be able to do a little bit more digging to understand what our options really are in terms of what we say we want them to do in this area because we may be saying something that's actually impossible for them to do so if you guys could just do a little vetting on what that actually means so that we're not promising something that then in the end ends up getting overturned because of what MDOT has to say about that I would say I'd say the motion as it exists it is it is it sort of doesn't have a caveat but again it's a recommendation I think that's a great point we're happy to work with Transportation and engineering kinda like to when if this proceeds to City Council we can answer that as definitively as we can that said I don't know that I doubt we'll have em that approval no no we'll have we'll have a sense of what's possible yeah with any this might be just sort of optimistic but the the presence of the sidewalk to those other properties maybe is a good indicator that there is a support by MDOT to do so I know that MDOT has sort of identified improvements along this corridor in the coming years who knows how bad what's happening now might affect that and my understanding was their initial their initial approach was sort of a very much curb to curb kind of approach which would suggest that there might be some opportunity for what happens in this right away extension yeah and then just if if mr.
Fowler could perhaps describe what they're thinking about in terms of the placement of the structure like how much further back clearly you don't want to be in the MDOT right away that wouldn't make sense but where do you see yourself placing the structure within the lot lines just to some sort of approximate idea of what you all are thinking especially given what the MDOT right-of-way is you know if they're gonna let me do averaging like they sometimes do I don't obviously I gotta be out of the count on its way but I don't want to get I don't go any farther back than I have to I'm centering a lot but I'll go far enough back so that we come in and it's a the driver's garage would be underneath the house and and that way again we're raising up to look over the river so uh yeah the less I have to push back the less I have to contend with that hill I mean I I know that because it is it's fairly flat for a waste and then and then the hill goes straight up so I I'd like to make sure that they have some we have some sort of room for a patio or a deck or something behind the house so I I'm gonna keep it it's posted to the front property line as feasible and so right I'm assuming there's some sort of setbacks then you know within this zone for him to be able to have some sense of where that placement would be and then obviously you know there need to be a drive that would be able to live beyond any sort of MDOT improvement in there so I can't the face the house can't be right right at the with the cars whizzing by so um he would have some sort of guidance then I'm presumed from the city in terms of where it would be appropriate to place structure yeah if it's if it's rezone it would have to meet the zoning designations of that district okay already thank you or their discussion on the amendment I ain't seen no one Brett do you want to do a roll call vote on the amendment or can we do a voice vote I think for the amendment voice vote seems fine I would just ask that you asked for those in support and for any bet opposed right all those in favor please say aye any opposed please say nay all right the amendment is approved we're back to the amended motion an amended motion further discussion seeing no one I will call for a roll call vote okay so this is the main motion to recommend the rezoning with the amendment to the property owner committing to any necessary access agreement along the frontage and maintenance and construction of a public site Commissioner woods yes Commissioner Briggs yes Commissioner Mills yes Commissioner Milstein yes commissioner did Randall yes Commissioner Ackerman yes commissioner sorbet yes commissioner Abrams yes Commissioner hammerschmidt yes carries unanimously thank you we are now moving on to the next item on our agenda which is 6d 1950 Green Street revised landscape plan tree mitigation plans site plan for Planning Commission approval we will begin with the petitioner presentation we will then head to a staff report a public hearing and then discussion so we will begin with the petitioner presentation you'll have up to 10 minutes to address the Planning Commission that's great thank you very much good evening everyone my name is Jennifer Roth I represent the owner and developer for the property my address it is one Town Square sweet 1600 Southfield Michigan four eight zero seven six the project and most of you are new faces for me so last year we got approval for our multifamily project the address is 950 green we call it Hoover and green and it incorporates the entire city block of Hoover green brown and Davis so as most of you are familiar it was an assemblage of 13 lots and 12 structures so we started construction last year and in our original site plan we had to landmark trees that were removed and unfortunately during our construction process yes that's great thank you so the yellow highlights the original two trees that we had to remove during the original site plan approval and then unfortunately during our construction last year in October we had to remove the two that are highlighted in green that we note as our amended which is today so and as you can see we are the full city block on this on this property so we incorporate the block the next tab really goes into the table of what we've done so there's a column for the original site plan which were the two trees that were removed and then the next column is the amended site plan which is today but the amended site plan column incorporates everything from as a total which so it includes everything from the original site plan as well so in our original site plan we remove two the total is now four including the two from the original so if you go down the list on the the really the bottom line the total number of replacement trees provided on the original site plan when we removed two trees we had to replace 14 now with the amended of a total of four trees being removed we are replacing the four trees with 33 trees total 14 from the original site plan and original and an additional 19 trees for the amended site plan to give us the 33 trees back when this happened in October we worked with our with Tiffany probably spent the entire month of November going through the correct site plan layout for these trees she helped us with the specific species of the trees obviously the to make sure that between the count the location and the species that are native to the area we came up with this plan which would be the next tab if you could so this is the overall plan color-coded the green are the 14 trees the 14 mitigation trees from the original site plan the purple are the proposed ten trees that are on site and then the blue or the I'm sorry the purple is the off-site trees there ten of them and then the blue are the nine trees so again all in total for the four trees that's for landmark trees that are removed we're planting 33 trees total on the site great thank you we'll head to mr.
Khan for a staff report commuted thank you just wanted to reiterate what jennifer has said the petitioners required to mitigate for a total of a hundred and twenty six inches of tree diameter that reflects the removal of a total of four landmark trees to which were anticipated to be removed as part of the original site plan and two that were removed during construction so the the two trees that were not anticipated to be removed are required to be replaced at 200% instead of the 50% if they were anticipated so that's the quick summary of of what is being proposed staff does recommend approval of this particular revision which amends natural features mitigation plan and the landscaping plan because it complies with all applicable local state and federal ordinances standards and regulations it will not cause a public or private nuisance and it will not have a detrimental effect on public health safety and welfare I do want to mention that Tiffany Jacob Ozzy was the staff member who worked most extensively with Jennifer Roth on this petition Tiffany offered to be available if we had any specific technical questions for her and I can reach her by by cell phone great thank you at this time I'd like to open up the public hearing this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about this application to comment please state your name and address for the record public comment will be made by phone at the number appearing on the published agenda and displayed on the meetings video feed if you're interested in speaking at this time please call the meeting with the information provided city stamp will select callers that have raised their hand one by one using the last three digits of your phone number in order to electronically raise your hand to speak please press star nine on your phone that's star nine on your phone hi caller seven five zero you might go ahead hello Planning Commission this is Julie Weatherby from South Main Street and I just wanted to comment this isn't so much on this particular what has been decided on this particular site because I think this is as they've done a good job there's a lot going on and they've worked hard on this Jennifer from red ago has been great to work with so I'm really glad she's on this project and that it's as a nearby neighbor you know we definitely definitely appreciate her work on this one of the things that has I noticed though in looking at this site and these trees and this is maybe just something to think about for future sites because again I don't want to derail this one I know a lot of work has gone into it but this block now is very treed and and that's great I don't I don't want to you know discourage that but what's happened is during the construction a lot of the street trees on the adjacent areas like across the street have gotten damaged by construction vehicles and so now this block is very treed and across the street are very kind of damaged street trees with limbs that have had to be hacked off and and so I'm just wondering in future sites if we can kind of look at the the area around these construction sites that maybe are impacted by the big construction trucks and not just plant trees right on the site itself which is now going to be very fully treed and the area around you know across the streets are going to have sort of a half of a street tree every so often so that's all I have to say and it's lovely seeing you all you're doing a great job and seumas working one so have a great night and I'll check in with you later I thank you miss Weatherby it was good to hear your voice is there anybody else who wishes to address the Planning Commission if so please press star 9 on your telephone seeing no one I will close the public hearing and I will read the motion the iner versity Planning Commission hereby approves the 950 green site plan for Planning Commission for Planning Commission updating natural features mitigation plan and the landscaping plan moved by Commissioner Mills seconded by Commissioner woods discussion commissioner mills i know that our ordinance in trying to figure out where where there's mitigation required for landmark trees we ask it's not just like the physical removal but it can also be like damaging the root zones my question is like were these trees like completely taken down or was is this mitigation required because you got too close to their roots there was probably between the two trees the one was probably because of the root damage because we are the full city block and that was the Elm on on Brown the other one was on the corner of Davis and looking at the site map Davis and green and really it's probably they're saying the the you know Tiffany's saying they were both damaged from construction we were doing intense underground utilities and road work in that area in fact between the city of Ann Arbor and us we were building water main in Greene Street and that tree was there but the issue is that they're saying that both trees were damaged from construction so were those trees still standing or did you end up taking them down we took them down and between Bret and Jeff and Tiffany they required us to take them down more of just to make sure from the safety standpoint because they were in the right away that they were removed right away got it okay and then the the second question that I had was like how do we know about this like what is the just for our you know for our own education like the process where you realize like oh there are two trees that are showing on the site plan is you know not being impacted but they were so it look it sounds like that's a comedy it sounded like it was part of a city staff inspection thing is that right I don't know if that's for Jennifer for or for Jeff I will add just quickly and then just jump in obviously you know we when we notice the trees we had sent an email directly to Tiffani to make sure we could come out at the same time mark Howell had come out for his building inspection and noticed the trees and commented so so it was all happening at the same time our recommendation or our hope was but you know the city between their arborist and Tiffani decided it was it was you know the trees were too far damaged we wanted to hire an arborist as well do what we could to take care of these trees and assess them now in the spring but the the decision was that the trees in their opinion were too far gone to be maintained I I will also you know and it's all hindsight but obviously when you're building on a city block it's a little bit tough to try and save trees you'll notice in the tab on the first from the original site plan prior to Tiffani the other person that was there had recommended we had five additional trees because she was worried about the trees in general so there's an additional five trees from the original site plan approval that we added because she asked us to so it is tough when you're building on a on a full site or a full block I should say fortunately I'm sorry sorry Jeff go ahead the only thing I would add is that best of plans sometimes get interrupted by construction activity recognizing that there are multiple contractors out there doing multiple things some of whom are less familiar with the natural features protection requirements of the site plan what we do is we have staff in the field pretty regularly monitoring situations like like this in hopes to prevent it but sometimes we're unable to we do include mitigation standards which are intentionally expensive and painful I think these two trees might cost more than $30,000 to replace maybe maybe more and that's that's with intent we want people to be cognizant of these natural features and we want to do everything we can to protect them and if for some reason they are damaged or removed then we do have a mechanism in place to get replacement trees mr.
Leonard um yeah and I just I want to sort of follow up on that I I don't know in this circumstance but I call that there were a couple of sites that were flagged it's a routine course of city inspections around this time I don't know if that was specifically from our Forester or through the building department or through oftentimes through our grading permit if we see something a question you know we endeavor to communicate across those those folks to make sure that we're we're identifying what we can to to just point though you know there are times where if we identify that site it doesn't result in this for in this case our Forester did determine that these the these trees were compromised to such a point and that we were concerned about their presence in the right-of-way and the applicant of this Rafa's absolutely right we made the decision that they needed to be removed but in other circumstances we have found for example that protection fencing has not been installed correctly certainly when we can identify that we will work with the petitioner to identify that as well and remedy that situation hopefully before it gets to this point but in the case where the actual resource is lost that's when some of these consequences become more substantial for what for what it's worth I feel like I've been on commission for a while and I don't remember having this come that this kind of situation come back so I feel like if there's anybody in out in CTN watching us outside of Miss weather be I learned something new tonight about how the code works which is like that the mitigation in that there's a bigger penalty if you say on the site plan you know these are the trees that we're gonna keep and and because of the course of construction they get taken down like there isn't there's an additional penalty good job whoever thought of doing that before like and and and but also to paint the picture that like I think that the systems that we have in place must be pretty good to help for this because this is this is a pretty rare occurrence actually that we have people come back and have to go through the site planning process again for this particular instance unless there's something there's there's another like administrative process that this happens more often than what we see the site plans for I assume that that's not the case I'm seeing the shaking heads and if mr.
Khan where you say like it's $30,000 for two trees like I'm guessing that doesn't people are trying to avoid that usually you make this mistake once got it all right well thank you Commissioner Abrams and many Commissioner breaks well yeah I was I mean I believe it on the commissioners for overtime this is the first time that I've seen a situation like this and I guess I wondered like because if the project that's already been approved and it's under construction if if we didn't approve it what would be the consequence of that like what is there any alternative plan in other words I'm wondering maybe why it feels more administrative I'm wondering is there something I'm missing about you know what what I should be considering when I'm thinking about this petition the ordinance is set up in a way when you so once the cyclin is approved we have incorporated into that as the natural features protection and mitigation plan and that by ordinance is very intended very specifically to be a very specific itemized detailed component of the site plan so the consequence if this happened and this step wasn't taken ultimately Jeff would go out to the site do his final inspection on the eve of a certificate of occupancy request and would not be able to issue a certificate of occupancy because the site was not compliant in this case with natural features protection and mitigation that obviously has a pretty significant impact to the petitioner who on that point is hopefully on the cusp of probably transitioning for money going out to at least some semblance of money coming in and I think that it was also you know to their credit as soon as this was identified jumped on it right away because making these decisions now as it relates to their site going forward as opposed to getting to that final stage to identify this problem that would be much more challenging to figure out how to then address and accommodate that higher level of mitigation but the way in which they're mitigating the loss of the church fees is is there is their discretion and that mitigation or is it pretty clear according to the ordinance what you have to do in order to compensate for that loss the ordinance is clear in the amount you have to mitigate but there is some flexibility provided to provide a certain amount on site and potentially provide a financial contribution to the cities to contribute to the city's forestry assets elsewhere or impressa made to the site so there is some flexibility but it's not a hundred percent there's a net the goal of that ordinance is to retain as many of the resources on the same site where they were lost as possible so maybe somebody could speak to the the decision that was made in regards to that like what percentage was mitigated on site versus the donation so required is a hundred and twenty six inches we've provided 99 inches and then the remainder because you have to you have to exceed the 50% and that's the goal is trying to get over the 50% so that's why we spent so much time with Tiffany to make sure we were laying this out strategically and then the remainder 27 inches becomes then in the in the agenda it's it's $5,400 that goes to a stormwater fund so that's how they that's how they do the math on that okay thank you mm-hmm mr.
Briggs so I guess part of my question got answered there in terms of what happens if you can't mitigate entirely on-site and then the other part of that is it sounds like maybe the due diligence obviously wasn't taking care on the site but it sounds like they're from julie's called it may be the same there wasn't also a level of care for the for the adjacent neighborhood as well and so is there any should neighbors be informing the city in any certain way and is there any sort of recourse for other street trees potentially in the right-of-way that have been damaged as a part of this project either for this project or for other projects as well but specifically for this one um that is sort of a new concern that I have not heard to date so the tribe is I don't know what the best sort of reporting mechanism is for that but I know that as the city we do spend a fair amount of time coordinating with project developers on sort of their logistics I'm planning for how they're gonna access the site trying to limit sidewalk closures for example to the greatest extent possible I'm happy to follow up with the price start with the team that sort of helps with some of those aspects of the project and just see what mechanisms are in place for that it obviously you know we care deep our street trees and all of our natural resources so I'll see if I can follow up with you about what the proper channels for that would be going in the future Commissioner Gabe Randall so I have some concerns about the mitigation plan and that some of the species that were chosen are listed as a size that I think is gonna be really difficult to procure in the marketplace you have quite a few small understory trees a red bud and service berry and you list them as three-inch caliper and to my knowledge it's pretty difficult to be able to track those down in the real world you may be able to come up with them but I think it's unlikely especially given after 2008 with the recession a whole lot of trees weren't planted and so it's very difficult at this point to find increase take time to grow it's very difficult to to find big caliper trees right now because they just haven't been growing for long enough once people start planting them again what I would like to know and I'm wondering if there's some sort of synergistic thing going on with our former planning Commissioner Weatherbys comments that if you can't find these if you can for instance only find a two-inch red bud or a two inch service berry and you have three inches you know that are that are listed on your mitigation plan perhaps some of those gaps that are across the street some of the places that are more gap-toothed or things that have been damaged across the street that perhaps the the make up could be along some of the other city streets in this neighborhood where some of the construction equipment may have damaged other trees so I mean good luck if you can find it awesome that's great you've got sources that I don't know about but if you can't that there's some sort of mechanism in place to be able to make up the difference and it could just be more money and to the stormwater fund but given that it sounds like there was some damage done to the some of the neighboring trees across the street maybe there's a way to be able to fill in some of the gaps in other in other areas where some of the construction equipment may have had some impact and I would just add that you know the three inches I think you're right we're hearing that if this gets approved we've got to jump on this right away we were it was recommended we go to three inch just for the durability especially during football games in the sidewalk and the right-of-way threes in there right away so it's recommended we go to a three inch caliper again you know if you if you can find them great I just haven't I usually never spec over two inch for those particular species because they're hard to find and because they're small trees so they just don't get that huge and that way it's it's a lot easier I mean you're probably going to be able to find your tulip tree and and maybe your Nyssa maybe because they're a bigger tree the service berry and the Red Bud are just they're just smaller trees and people sell them that way so again if you can find them awesome that's great but if you can't I just would like to know that there's some sort of back-up plan and then perhaps that we might be able to make something work with some of the other trees that were damaged during the construction process as a way to be able to handle that further mr.
Connor I was just gonna respond to commissioner Randle that I'll certainly talk to Tiffany Jacob Ozzy about this tomorrow about your concern and see what kind of flexibility she has with regard to sizes and replanting on adjacent right-of-way lawn extensions or possibly supplement the contribution to the city's stormwater fund so I'll follow up with that tomorrow oh just one other Avedon that it's still an administrative plan adjustment but just changing plan material in a in a mitigation plan can be approved administrative Lee if there's a species if there's a need to adjust species or something like that so again it's not it's an it's an administrative site plan it would not come to Planning Commission it would be something that would just occur at our department and in working with with Tiffany but that's another sort of relief valve if for some reason they can't find that they could come and say hey we haven't been able to find these species we'd like to propose something different you would have that ability to consider that and it may be that you all chose the the smaller species because of site khun's you know size constraints or overhead lines or you know whatever - so that's all part of you know how you would make that decision but yeah again like I think I'm glad that you all that that this is all happening and that the reckoning is happening but I just want to make sure that there's kind of plans in place for alternates if if things just don't work out in terms of the marketplace mr.
woods I just wanted to say that in terms of the possibility of other street trees being damaged in that area or any other area of the city I would probably feel more comfortable if citizens would take pictures and certainly call the city to to let us know when things like that are happening because since we're talking about possibly you know mitigation and things like that I just think it's important probably even legally for the city to be able to actually document you know which trucks did it and it sounds like there's more than just the development work going on over there in that area but I just think it's always probably good to sort of document you know where damages is occurring in and who did it further discussion looks like where you are ready for a vote mr. Leonard if you can do the roll call please Commissioner Briggs yes Commissioner Mills yes Commissioner Milstein yes commissioner Gabe Randall yes commissioner Ackerman yes commissioner Soleil yes commissioner Abrams yes mr.
hammerschmidt yes commissioner woods yes thank you right thank you everyone thank you all right moving on to audience participation this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about any matter if you are interested in speaking at this time please call the meeting with the information provided and press star 9 to raise your hand to indicate your desire to speak city staff will select callers using the last three digits of your phone number you'll hear an automated announcement though that the host is allowing you to speak so please call the number and press star nine to raise your hand hi caller 339 you're on the air caller three three nine would you like to speak to the Commission I don't see another hand raised all right seeing no other hand let's just give it one quick second all right we will move on to Commission proposed business are there any is there any Commission proposed business at this time commissioner Briggs and followed by Commissioner Ackerman I don't need Commission proposed business I just I did have a question before adjournment I was just wondering where we're at in terms of master plan consultant selection process I know that there is a survey that was being considered but the proposed contract consultant it's sort of the same status as I think the last update the proposed consultant was in contract was presented to City Council late last year council the City Council had some additional questions and suggested potentially a working session particularly with some of the resident volunteers that had participated with the city and selecting and recommending that consultant um those some of those citizen representatives are have expressed that they're know not participating in that any further so we have shared that information I think that we have that they raise a lot of great comments that were I think either in a more refined way added into the proposed scope of the contract that was that was previously presented some additional questions that do remain I have forwarded that sort of a couple of options to the community services administrator and the interim city administrator I just and I would just have to presume given everything else that's going on it hasn't elevated to making the determination about what the next steps are with that but with any luck that question will be answered in the coming months mr.
Ackerman Thank You mr. chair two topics one I failed to comment on in council update justice I'd forgotten that are our last Planning Commission meeting had been cancelled but I wanted to give you an update on transit supported development have been my intention to bring forward a resolution to City Council giving us some clear direction demonstrating buying from City Council on the topic of the team one that we have been discussing was the subject of a public hearing of ours in the fall council with very limited debate put in to table it until the stay at home order was lifted but it's kind of unclear what those next steps may look like so I would leave it to kind of the the body maybe the chair vice chair or the ORAC to decide whether or not they want to keep taking that on we don't have any clear direction either way right now it's a no limbo and it is still on our Quinn so I would leave it to the body to decide if you want to continue to work on it I don't think that there there are any parliamentary issues with that but totally totally up to the body give you the space to make that decision and happy to to talk about fun as well the other one was with respect to accessory dwelling units mr.
Leonard brought to my attention the when we updated the unified development code there was a scriveners error omitted a zoning districts 480 used to be permitted with them meaning there's a zoning district left off the mouse and so unfortunately it wasn't caught in time or actually mr. Vieau when I walk through the process and maybe explain what my attempts to rectify that yeah sure um when the accessory dwelling in ordinance was originally amended in 2016 it was put in place at that time at the time of adoption in all the r-1 districts and also in the art to a district on the intention at the are to a inclusion I think generally was that we do have some lots in the city that don't meet the minimum lot size in the RTA districts to actually fully allow a duplex this would be an opportunity for those to provide a ad you if you were a single-family properties still exceeding the minimum lot size requirements still meeting all the other requirements so they'd use so that was enacted when the UDC was adopted that our 2a district was left off inadvertently subsequent after that adoption of UDC the city council did direct staff from the Planning Commission to look at a wide variety of potential ways to modify the accessory dwelling unit ordinance to potentially consider more realization of it so you as the Commission worked on a series of amendments at that time that zoning district was actually included in a wider recommendation of actually expanding it to potentially other zoning districts as well the City Council ultimately rejected those proposed amendments and so my my position on this is that while perhaps lost in some of the crossfire of some of that back and forth of amendments the council is now taken sort of a very specific action not to expand the zoning districts by which accessory dwelling units were approved and so it loses a bit of that scriveners error in my lens as mr.
Ackerman has indicated so is that the background helpful at all yeah and what I would hope that the body would consider would be simply queuing up a simple ordinance amendment to riad that some district was the original intent of the ordinance in 2016 it would go through our normal process but hopefully be pretty straightforward and serving some peas into our UDC table and moving on with our lives so I just wanted to insert that as well it relates just to add to that in um mr. Ackerman you probably definitely speak to this better but it seems like what I remember from that council discussion was not an outright rejection of the ad use but rather a suggestion that more community input was required before we could move forward with that those recommendations and so I wonder if there's been any consideration put into place to gathering more community input on this matter at least perhaps you know if not separately at least explicitly let me get started on the master plan update so that perhaps those recommendations could go forward at some point when when and if that community input is received yeah absolutely I think that's a great idea obviously community engagement comes with cost associated and staff time and it for to the degree that I think some colleagues will be satisfied that can we you know if I put your son doesn't get thrown around like least I liked your idea everyone into the master plan on budget the timing of that I can't promise you I'm on council retiring in November perhaps someone else at this table mr.
Mill's so on the on the ad you like scriveners error this I can't remember if we called it like Zorro 2.0 or UDC I can't remember exactly what number we gave it 4p we're not counsel or on Planning Commission than the process that we went through to get us the UDC was called Zorro the zoning ordinance reorganization and we knew that there would be things that fell through the cracks like that we're just not translated appropriately and we went through one batch of those already are there do you know Brett if there's anything else besides this or have have we do we think we've taken care of all of the other kind of translation errors or omissions of that that were inadvertent we so just for everybody's like sake who wasn't this was something that was like started well before I got on Planning Commission five years ago and like to cook for a while the hope was doing Zorro to give get us a unified development code that was easier to read we knew that there could be some translation issues and then it would be easier to amend like to see where we actually wanted to make substantive changes not just like reorganizations changes with substantive changes so this in my mind is still in the first set of like we've translated it and if the translation was not perfect and so is there anything else that's kind of missed in that translation um I probably I don't know at the top of my head I probably want to go back to my team and specifically city planner Tulio who I sort of tasked with being a bit of the manager of all those amendments so we can make sure we're keeping track of them I we've we've made a lot of those sort of 2.0 Corrections we've done a fair amount of amending to the UDC since it was adopted and I don't know that we have been I'm necessarily always waiting to package those sort of you know Scrivener kind of changes sometimes they've they've they've been packaged with other changes to similar sections for example I'm just some of the examples that we have addressed since that time for example you recall we made a clarification to parks donation that if you doneita perfectly honest particle development you can still calculate that in any sort of density calculations I think we had an area height and placement adjustment to one of our excuse tables so we've we have made a series of those Corrections I guess what I'm taking from what you're suggesting is if we're gonna do that let's let's maybe package together everything that we have in our list in that regard and so I'm you know I'm happy I'm happy to do that I don't I don't think that was just significant but if there are other things that were present from that original kind of first UDC adoption we could we could link those well it's just to keep up to date because you know we the intention of Zohreh was not to change the intent like we were actually really there were pages and pages of things that we had to go through to say like hmm this looks really funky like should we actually translate it into the new version and and we were pretty brutal like very diligent about saying like no we want this is not about changing the ordinance now it is about making it easier to understand easier for people to read and so um I want to make sure that like if we do that we don't keep those things too long I think it makes tons of sense commissioner Ackerman so like bring that up again to just be clear that this was this was not intentional and and and so whether it's packaged together or just an opportunity to again say like let's let's make sure that we were true to what the goals of zorro were all about and and then and I think that that then helps us differentiate between like this just transcription versus policy change right like ordinance changing and recognizing just like just like people in this body like we have don't all have that history council doesn't all have that history either and so I think that that's also helpful for like so that there is just some collective knowledge like it helps potentially demonstrate like kind of what what that was all about and how how that undertaking was so massive that the idea that a cup like an X being left off the table while it's unfortunate was like it was crazy people like you should have seen the number of footnotes that were involved and that in that translation it was it was quite an undertaking obviously Commissioner Mills was still scarred I am slightly scarred I still have the like a couple of the drafts it was impressive I don't like alexis is definitely a hero there so yeah I think them memo to council will be laser-focused and crystal clear yeah but yeah very clearly not a policy change fixing anonymous and it's easy to make here alright I am in favor of continuing to push t1 I think it's it's important and I think whether it's now or later I think it's something that we should continue working on since we've already spent it's like a member we've spent two working sessions on it I think we have a decent framework around it so I would like to continue working on that as much as our work plan will allow for it to be worked on I'd like to keep pushing that forward as much as we possibly can so if it requires you know obviously I'll require additional working sessions but I do want to keep that moving forward personally I don't know if anyone's strongly opposed to it but I think we should continue that conversation with t1 zoning all right I'm seeing a lot of thumbs up Brett so appreciated that leadership all right any further proposed business or anything else you guys would like to talk about seeing no one I will take a motion to adjourn move by Commissioner hammerschmidt seconded by Commissioner woods all those in favor in German please say aye aye aye all right we are a turn thank you have a great night you
okay like to call this meeting of the HU Township Board of Education to order pursuant to the open public meetings Act adequate public notice has been given by the Secretary of the Eastern County Board of Education in the following manner posting with notice on the official bulletin board of the Board of Education office emailing written notices the Burlington County Times and The Courier Post and filing written notice with the municipal clerk of eëtion Township can I have a roll call please mrs. barber giovanni and my mute or not no your go you're good this is Everhart here mr. Fisk our oh you're miss Fleming here mr. Canton this is null here mr. Wynne Salada yeah mr. Meighan err mrs. Ryan here we have a quorum thank you okay at this point we will be going into executive session I need a motion to whereas in NJ s 8n 4-12 allows for a public body to go into closed session during a public meeting and whereas the Board of Education of Evesham Township has deemed it necessary to go into closed session to discuss certain matters which are exempted from the public and whereas the regular meeting of the Board of Education will reconvene following the end of the closed session at approximately 7 p.m.
what we have is a short bulleted list of some things that we believe are salient concerns most of which are related to the Ovid 19 experience that we're all having to deal with essentially we're going to be covering the timeframe of these concerns the on board comparison with regarding to re-enrollment and health and drug coverage and some other finer points that we're gonna read off back and forth dr. stewart and hi okay [Music] and and Doug are you okay with that we just proceed even though we had some formal things part of the meeting but just get on with the business yes okay sure are you okay with that I'm fine with that thank you okay thank you so essentially we're concerned specifically about a lot of the information that has to be provided to the Arizona State Retirement System by May 15th and the two eCos an enrollment that's required by law the timetable on this is very tight Alan and I have spoken a little bit about the logistics and the open enrollment requirements and the bringing of all of the employees to handle this I think I'm jumping ahead a little bit but I just wanted you guys to be aware of the fact that we are extremely concerned about this very tight timeline and the deadlines to the retirement system and for the open enrollment period that's required by law and we're also concerned relative to that timeframe that under that two-week open enrollment thing in between now may 15 there really would not be time for our employees who want to shop for work for family insurance in case they would not want to purchase the insurance from our provider that they wouldn't be able to have the time to do that simply because they can't get out and about and do this so that's a concern a relative to what Todd was just talking about and this is this is not a blot or a blemish on Kairos at all so please don't take it this way but the coab in situation is just throwing a month should everything that we're doing instead when you're not just doing a roll up we're doing an onboarding it's pretty important that there be peace conversations or very small group conversation and Kairos was going to come do that with our folks I understanding I was a team of people you know we could get have either individuals or small group and we understand why cut we understand why nobody wants to do we really know that then that boil having that would take days and that would run us way in too close to that timeline of May 15th so we're really concerned not being asked for our TV option for the other 400 some of whom if we were on board to a new program would literally the entire thing step by step and I'm not John know our folks and know the ones who even need their hands never mark in addition to that we were some concerns from our employees regarding the inability to actually see doctors during this timeframe calling a open enrollment shopping around family members looking for specialists and doctors are in heat on now except for in addition you know we carriers at this point in time the concern has to do with prior authorization for meds if I want to get something when I have to go out and and and get and we've had some concerns I'm meeting with new doctor difficult situation right now to go in and all the paperwork I just went to the deck still suffering from some pain but the trained it took me two months to do this I'm shifting over now may be difficult for me to agree must be the same thing stood back mr flora can everybody mute her mic because I'm only wearing like every other word you guys are saying ladies and gentlemen can you all mute your microphones getting some feedback oh no we don't want to meet us sorry can you hear us better now okay so repeating we're talking about some of the challenges and interruptions to the processes that we know have to take place within the next week next week is May first two weeks later is May 15th and with doctors and open enrollment periods being challenged by our ability to move through these processes along with processing 450 employees with two of our benefits managers it's it just it you know we're summarizing essentially the concerns that we believe would impede a smooth transition and again you know Sarah we want to thank you for the work you've done but our recommendation here today is that due to the coronavirus and the challenges that it's presenting to us at this point in time both dr.
and we will go ahead and start with the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag United States of America and to the reason we're all thank you everybody all right we'll go ahead and go to the one the approval of the agenda form all motion to approve the agenda form consistent with the governing law policy and temporary suspend any policy with which the agenda may be inconsistent mr. president if I could ask for one variation and two agenda with the exception that item e6e removed from the agenda I'd approve them dr. Kelly Oubre excuse me dr. kaylis we can actually motion to move the agenda item during d1 motion to approve the consent agenda item with the exception of moving item E and then the number two action discussion it's correct yeah I was wanting to remove it from the agenda completely Oh move remove it from the agenda okay I'll second the motion all right 100 so I can advise do you think let's go ahead and vote and then we're removing yes that is correct we are reliving it and it's a gentle item eo6 one two three four five six motion be made by J Leonard's second and by Tracey story or sink though right go ahead thank you sorry there's something not working here hold on just a second see if it works right now there we go perfect all right motion carries thanks everyone all right we'll go ahead and move on to Section C one super antenna updates dr.
[Music] [Laughter] [Music] okay gonna do roll call now Joseph bridge Rachel cholesky here get caneta here lab scooper yeah Lauren Daly yeah okay Joseph Silva here Katherine Hodgson Richard Richard Ginelli Katherine is here for Mike sorry here yeah I'm here am i here now now we see you thank you okay thanks sorry okay Richard Gianelli yeah okay uh Kathy Molinaro here al Russo yeah and Amy's ballina yeah all right everybody's here thank you got the sack yes well we're gonna bring in Frank and the Westside excelled at the virtual Connecticut History Day competition I think Frank we're gonna fight you two talk about that a little bit sure no that's okay oh yeah and uh Jennifer blew the system principal is joining us today as well the the global studies Academy at seven eighth grade level at Westside middle school have a chance to participate in history day it's project work on in our global size Academy we do it at the school first and then we select our regional finalists and we sent a number of regional finalists and the following students were recognized at the regional and have advanced to the state level so we're really excited to recognize Zachary right for his 8th grader for his projects faced and moving back and then the seventh grade students Dennis all's been for her documentary viewing Barbara Walters they come Dugan Colin Gordon and Xavier going for their exhibit the Chicago freedom movement second place and Emily Lovelace Gibbons Chloe do Jelani and you can candidate this project more unfortunate sleep third place so they're all advancing to the state level competition that competition will continue online as the regional did and if we're lucky we'll get some kids to the national competition which is also scheduled to be online later this year so congratulations to these students the project-based learning that they do at our school really gives me an opportunity to shine and they certainly did at the state level I don't know if Dan's on we had a number of high school kids too as well didn't we Frank yeah there are a number of high school students that got involved as well this year I think you know we're creating somewhat of a pipeline kids do things in middle school they want to continue that work in high school and high school offers that opportunity which i think is really fantastic and so congratulations to the high school students I don't have a list of those students as well but I know they did very well as well at the at the regional levels yeah ekam dear gun and Colin Gordon Xavier going did get a project one put you to sleep with that was a Westside group Chicago freedom movement school from West Side did that in the high school we had seen you grew up on a documentary to breaking barriers neighbor high school valentina Ramos Amira dov'è Megan Pahadi inhibit purse per se and then we had a first place breaking barriers from the dam direction mall Melissa oh okay we had a first place breaking barriers then very fair high school students lissa him as Allison Becca Spooner Caitlin van Trump and Sarah barter the students at the high school congratulations thank you for coming Frank and Jenn appreciate it thank you public participation cake you went to a reader public participation and then after cake we will have the comments from Sammy in their order okay sounds good due to the unique nature of the kovat 19 crisis and the limitations of technology members of the public who are Danbury residents are invited to send brief comments and questions via email in advance to dps underscore public comment underscore BOE at Danbury k12 dot CT us okay the first person for public participation is Kathy snow she did stay before she began item three on the agenda for this evening did not mention the high school students for history day but doctors house took care of that so we are all set she continued on with congratulations to dr.
now therefore be it resolved the Board of Education will go into closed session for the following reasons as outlined in nsj a 10-4 - 12 items 2.2 through 2.4 do I have a motion motion from Janice motion by mr. Knowles seconded by mr. Eberhardt I have a roll call please mr. Ashanti mrs. barber Giovanni yes this is Everhart yes mr. physic ro yes miss Fleming yes mr. Canton yes mrs. nul yes mr. Lanz Alana yes mr. Meighan yes this is Ryan yes motion carries okay we'll be closing off the recording and public session as soon as mr. summers in mr.