Ann Arbor Planning Commission Meeting 1/21/26

001evening and welcome to the Wednesday, January 21st, 2026 regular meeting of the Ann Arbor Planning Commission. For detailed information on meeting procedures, please review the full printed meeting agenda which is available at each end of the days. I am uh Daniel White and I will be chairing tonight's meeting. Manager Kelly, would you please call the role? With pleasure. Commissioner W >> here. Commissioner Abrams >> here. >> Commissioner Hammershmid >> here. >> Noting a planned absent by Commissioner Lee. Uh Council Member Dish. >> Yes. >> Here. >> Commissioner Mills >> here. >> Commissioner Weatherbe >> here. Commissioner Adams >> here >> and Commissioner Norton >> here. >> You have a quorum. >> Thank you, Manager Kelly. May I have a motion to approve the agenda? Moved by Commissioner Abrams, second by Commissioner Weatherbe. All those in

002favor of the motion, please say I. >> Any oppose? The motion carries. May I have a motion to approve the minutes of the January 6th, 2026 meeting? Moved by Council Member Dish, seconded by Commissioner Mills. Is there any discussion of the minutes? All those in favor of the motion, please say I. >> Any oppose? The motion carries. Next up are reports to the planning commission, written and written communications. We'll start with council member Dish if she is ready. >> I am ready. >> Excellent. Uh last night council approved as a consent agenda item the 350 South 5th development agreement. And then there were the two UDC amendments that um were moved forward to second reading which are the bike and vehicle changes about which I spoke quite eloquently. I will say no I'm just kidding.

003[laughter] Um I threatened to go through all the details. And the udc community participation with the signs. Everybody was so delighted to see that. They've been waiting for it. And then um also advanced was the 7:15 to 17 Hiron reasonzoning to R4C. And I think that is everything. And then you might care about the fact that the a vote on the Arbor South Brownfield plan was postponed, but it will be back in two weeks. So I hope to bring you good news. >> Thank you. Council member Dish. Manager Kelly, do you have a report for us? >> I do have a brief report. It is about personnel changes and the first is that I'm happy to report that this is the second week of our new hire for site compliance coordinator. Uh we have brought

004on Tracy Regala into this role. Uh and this is a full-time position assisting developers in navigating their path to completion for certificates of occupancy. uh tracking outstanding development agreement items and overall improving our customer service in an area of the development review process that touches many different parts of the city um areas of specialization. And we hope that this uh position which is also funded across multiple service areas but reports to uh planning and development services will be a wonderful gap filler in helping uh to make sure that when we are passing from developers down to the general contractor that they are very clear on what was promised earlier in the de development review period and that they understand how to navigate the various departments that they need to talk to. So, we're excited about

005that. And I would also like to with uh uh thankfulness and a little bit of regret share that our CTN specialist, Mike Kausski, will be uh this is his last planning commission meeting that he'll be supporting after 33 years with the city. So, we thank Mike very much for being such a wonderful person behind the scenes. You've seen him pop out uh before, after, and sometimes during meetings to assist us. He's training um uh Ryan Smith. So uh just want to thank him for his service >> here. Here here. Do other commissioner officers or committee leazison have anything to report? Uh with the permission of the table, I'd like to give you an update on a meeting that uh Michelle Bennett uh principal planner for the comp plan and I had with Dr. uh Matthew

006Countryman uh responding to John Hilton's comments about the comp plan. Is that okay? All right. So, uh Michelle and I met with Dr. Countryman to walk through the concerns raised about the comprehensive plans historical framing, particularly the claim that Ann Arbor should not be described as having participated in racial segregation because there is no evidence of explicit segregation laws. Dr. countrymen acknowledged the argument but was clear that it reflected an incomplete and outdated understanding of how segregation functioned in the mid 20th century especially in American cities like Ann Arbor. He emphasized that segregation was produced through a combination of formal policy choices and informal but widely accepted practices including zoning, infrastructure decisions, house sightings, market steering, and municipal neglect, none of which required explicit segregation ordinances in order to be effective. Dr. Countryman further noted

007that the absence of surviving documentation does not absolve the city of responsibility and in some cases reflects the historical destruction or nonpreservation of records including the Federal Housing Administration redlining maps. And here I'll just make a quick comment which is we discovered in our meeting that um there were well Dr. countrymen uh argues that there was likely a FHA redlinining map for the city of Ann Arbor and it was probably destroyed as a part of the settlement of a lawsuit that was brought against the government because the settlement required that the government destroy the red line maps. And as a historian, he has uh through his research found uh maps of cities of comparable sizes as well as smaller cities uh in the personal records of others. So that gives credibility to the fact that

008there were probably redline maps for the city of Ann Arbor. He affirmed that contemporary historical scholarship also treats lived experience, spatial patterns, and cumulative outcomes as valid and necessary evidence alongside formal records. Based on this discussion that we had, it was about an hour and a half or just under an hour. We're confident that the comp plan's historical language is accurate, it's appropriately scoped, and it aligns with current scholarship. And based on our conversation, planner Bennett has made some small um adjustments to improve the language and you should see that in the next revision of the comp plan. Any questions? >> Go ahead. Council member Dish, >> did he not raise a particular concern about omission on the timeline of Ann Arbor's passing of an open housing ordinance? Not in my memory, but I'll look

009at my notes before we end and I'll come back to it uh during um planning um commissioner proposed business. >> That's fine. And I'm not necessarily s I just I thought that that was in there. I'm not necessarily suggesting that we add that. Um that was an extremely contentious and complicated decision. >> I'm sorry. So you meant um uh Hilton Hilton. Did Hilton raise that? Okay. I'll I'll look at his note and then get back to you. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's not for a material change, but >> yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you for your indulgence. This brings us to agenda item number, excuse me, written communications are also included in today's packet. In order to uh uh retrieve those written communications, you have to go to a2gov.lear.com. um get go to

010the calendar, select the planning commission, and then go to the bottom of the page because it's in reverse chronological order and this is the second meeting of this year. Click on today's agenda and then attached to today's agenda are all of the written communications that have been in our packet. So now this takes us to agenda item number six, public comment. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak for up to 3 minutes on issues not listed as a public hearing or a dedicated public comment period. We'll first hear from those of you who are present with us in chambers. Then we'll turn to remote participants. To speak remotely, press star 9 if on phone or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, please dial 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-66341226.

011City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone number or by name if you're on Zoom. You will hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. We ask that you move to a ple a quiet area and that you mute any background noise. For all speakers, whether here in chambers or on Zoom, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present in chambers who'd like to address us at this time? You can come straight to the microphone. And good evening. >> Good evening. My name is Donna Hinssworth and I live at 1435 South Boulevard. I've lived there since 2001. and before that I lived at 1411 South Boulevard since um from 91 to 2001. I want to begin by thanking the planning commission

012and the city staff for the care that goes into reviewing complex petitions like the Woodberry petition. We appreciate the staff analysis and the work that's already gone in to tonight's materials. I'm here this evening to express general support for the thoughtful concerns many of my neighbors have raised regarding the Woodbury Gardens resoning re 24008 and the associated site plan. People in this area are engaged not only not because they oppose change but because they care deeply about how growth is guided and how long-term planning goals are applied. in written correspondence. >> Sorry to interrupt that this is a dedicated public hearing on the agenda item on the agenda tonight. >> Okay. Sorry. >> Um there is a dedicated public comment uh section. >> So you can just make your comments again. So we'll get to

013hear uh you one more time. >> Should I go ahead and say you uh will have to wait until the public hearing and I was just listening intently. I wasn't paying attention to the fact that you were out of scope. Is there anyone who would like to speak? uh generally and not on the Woodbury or the other um petitions. Is it St. Paul's? >> Okay. >> Mr. Garber [laughter] >> if you want. >> No, I I'm I'm just acknowledging you're here. All right. Great. Well, given that no one wants to share, let's see. Do we have repo uh remote participants who'd like to address us? >> There is one hand raised for phone number ending in 534. You have three minutes to address the planning commission. >> Good evening. This is Tom Stalberg calling from

014122 Traver Street in the heart of Lowertown. Uh, I'd like to talk about some general concepts of uh, PUDS, conditional zoning, and the comprehensive land use plan. Uh, I'm not an attorney. Um, when I did write in previously about conditional zoning regarding a development called Southtown on State near Stimson, um, the couple of council members that I went to the coffee hour wouldn't discuss it because they claimed attorney client privilege uh, based on what was written to them and no discussion was had about conditional zoning there with the public, unfortunately. So, I want to emphasize that I'm not an attorney and I'm not not going to speak in any kind of legal ease so that we uh don't need to revert to attorney client privilege here. So, the city has been getting conditional zoning wrong

015a lot and it did in regards to Southtown. Um and other developments. Uh initially it wanted to get it wrong at the Garnet but council majority [clears throat] in that case uh at the time uh the mayor was in a minority and so council majority was able to get the right thing done there and not imposed uh and not approve a development that had inappropriate zoning conditions. So zoning commissions conditions are supposed to benefit the community not merely the applicant. simple additional market rate housing is not considered uh that kind of community benefit. Other things are um and I want to talk about what again at a lay person. Um the the courts approving resoning with conditions have held that such resonings are invalid when found to primarily benefit an owner rather than a general

016welfare. And so what does that mean? For example, if you're zoned R4C and you're capped at 30 ft tall and [clears throat] you ask for a different zoning that might give you 100, 200 feet, whatever, just making up some numbers and you say, "Well, let me put a condition on that's only say 70 ft." [sighs] Well, that's not right because you're getting as a developer, as the applicant to go from 30 to 70 in that you're getting the benefit. So, it's a me a matter of measuring it against the status quo of the zoning, not measuring against the new zoning. And that's been gotten wrong a couple times, including with Southtown. And the imposition of restrictive conditions [clears throat] usually benefits the surrounding properties and adversely affects the owner uh of the reszone property. And

017so we always have to look at that as a measurement of who's benefiting, who's not benefiting. For example, again, in Southtown, there was R4C, an area that prohibited um short-term rentals, non-owner occupied short-term rentals, by going to a different zoning that allowed unlimited short-term rentals. So, the developer volunteered because conditions have to be voluntary uh to reduce the number of short-term rentals I think on that property. >> Thank you. Do we have other remote participants? >> There are no more hands raised. >> Given that I will close the public hearing. We are moving on to agenda item number seven. Communications from commissioners. Are there any? Seeing none, we'll go to Manager Kelly to hear about our public hearings scheduled for the next regular meeting. After many queries of our staff asking if they had any

018petitions which could possibly be ready, I have found after many rounds of questioning that there are none [laughter] which are ready. So um although we you know hate to see a perfectly good meeting go to waste. Um we do not have items to present for you for the comprehensive plan nor for petitions and uh your planning managers recommend uh that we cancel that meeting which can be done without a vote of the commission. >> Thank you. Manager Kelly is there uh we're on to item number nine unfinished business. There is none which brings us to 10A other business 495 Hart Road St. Paul Lutheran School site plan for city planning commission approval. A proposal to add 2582 ft building addition for a library, reconstruct and reconfigure a the parking lot and update the storm water

019detention. No increase in the number of students is expected as a result of this work. It's currently zoned R1B single family. We'll start with a petition, a a presentation from the petitioner followed by a staff presentation and then a dedicated public hearing and then we will take up the motion and have our discussion. >> Fantastic. >> Good evening. >> Thank you all. U my name is Julie Salah. I am a senior project manager licensed engineer with Anderson Xin and Wester. We are the engineers uh and architects of record for this project. With me we have a whole team both from St. Paul and my co-workers. So, if there's any question that you may have that I may not know the answer to, I'll be happy to defer back there to to uh get you those

020answers. A little bit of background uh for me, I've been doing this uh site planning, engineering, and and laying out uh schools specifically for the better part of 12 years now. Uh 15 years total experience. I do a lot of work for public schools uh in revamping their parking lots, revamping how uh how the the flow of traffic goes through the site to make it as safe as possible. Um and that varies based on the level of school you have, right? Elementary school is treated differently than a high school would be. Um so a lot of experience in that realm. Um my background is like I said civil engineer from uh got my undergraduate undergraduate at Purdue. Uh then a masters at Detroit Mercy uh with a focus on architectural engineering um and then kind

021of just landed into this role and somehow got into something that I'm very passionate about which is education. So, it's great to work on projects that uh deal with this and it makes it a lot easier to come in front of a planning commission with a school project than it does for a gas station or a meer. Trust me, I've been on on that side as well. Um, also as of I want to say now 8 months ago now, uh I was also a planning commission member in Barry County. Uh very different uh types of projects that you would see there, very different submitts. uh sometimes just literally on a piece of napkin uh that says I want to build a barn. [laughter] Uh so I've seen I've seen my fair share of planning commission

022submitts and different types of projects. This one specifically I uh I really hope this is a a no-brainer real easy project for you to to look at, review, and hopefully recommend approval for. Uh the school St. Paul Lutheran School has been uh was started in 1964. So, we're looking at 61 years, 62 years now, uh, of educating kids at this facility. Back, uh, I want to say about 15 years ago, they, uh, expanded from just K through 8 to preK as well. Um, obviously preK in the last decade or so has grown tremendously, as it should. Um, so that's been uh a pretty good focus of of the education community uh just statewide and honestly na nationwide. With that as well with prek uh growing, one of the reasons or one of the prompts for

023for uh initiating even this project was the old library is a uh just outdated and just needs to be essentially revamped. So, the in the design of the project, we uh looked at to build a new library. That's the 2,500 ft² addition uh to the building. It's on the back side of the building on the north side. Um and repurpose the old library into another prek classroom. Um for preK, they have currently 87 students enrolled in it and 25 on the weight list. So that's practically 30% uh weight list which is which is really high. Um and that's that's what also drove the project. We're looking at there's definitely a community need for expanded prek services in this facility. What that then did is it opened up the okay well our parking lot is not

024really in great shape either. So we need to start addressing that. Uh so we looked at redoing the parking lot and the layout to the parking lot. I'm going to switch on the screen here. I'm going to go to the general site plan uh for this. So, when we looked at redoing the parking lot, um two things came to mind. The first one, just put it back exactly as is, same shape, most economical solution and the easiest solution uh for for us obviously, but not necessarily the right solution. When we look at uh elementary school especially or even younger like prek drop off uh exchange is critical. When a parent comes in, they need to do a handoff. Um so they can't just stop at the side of uh the driveway, let off a, you

025know, four-year-old out of the car to have them walk to the classroom, right? So they have to park, get out, get their kid, facilitate the handoff with the teacher. Um, so that creates a need for some dedicated area, a space where prek specifically can get better and safer drop off and pick environment. So on this site plan at the north end, the very top, you see those uh parking spaces. I can see if I can point to those here. Specifically, this area right here, this portion of the driveway is intended for that prek service. And you can see it's separate. So when people come in drive in uh if it's for prek, they'll come up into this protected space. If it's general K through 8, they will go through the rest of the driveway. Uh

026the driveway is one directional, two lanes. One is the drop off lane, the other is a bypass. So like once you drop off, you get to the other lane and exit the site. Uh the parking lot needed to be reconfigured as well, both in orientation. the size of uh the number of parking spaces was important for schools. What in the 15 years I've been doing this, what I'm finding out is more and more parking is needed than what even state requirements are. Um it's just a a a shift in how parents drop off their kids. Um this school doesn't have buses, so that doesn't even come into play. Uh but more and more parents will actively drive their kid to school, park, walk with them to the classroom, have that good morning uh goodbye handoff

027and then leave. Then in this facility, obviously when you get into more of the extracurricular activities, the evenings, yeah, there's a gym on the southwest portion of it. And then further south, it's not shown in this image, is uh soccer fields. So, what we've been seeing currently with the parking lot that is currently there, uh, which has spaces for 112 parking spaces, we've been seeing that the parking lot one gets completely full during events, uh, during soccer events especially, but even in the indoor events. And the hazard that we've been noticing during, especially during soccer events, is parents once it's full, they will just start driving essentially trying to park in the grass. And of course, parents inevitably will want to drive and park as close to the activity as possible. Uh, and that is

028the highest risk where we've got kids obviously traversing. General rule of thumb is don't fight human nature. Design for it, which is why we have needed to add some parking spaces down here on the south end to accommodate for some additional parking for those for those needs. The driveway that you see heading all the way back here, that is a requirement for fire apparatus access. Uh by adding this building addition right here, that triggers a requirement to make sure that we have a driveway that a fire apparatus can come all the way to essentially near the back of the school in case of emergency. Uh so from a site plan logistics, those are really the major items. There's another part down here not shown on this sheet. Uh there's an existing uh storm water management

029area, a small detention pond. It's kind of a natural space. What we're looking to do obviously as required by redoing the parking lot is to work with that system and expand it as much as we can so we're not completely destroying obviously the the natural environment around it. Uh we would just have to widen it a little bit to make it accommodate this uh this needs. The parking lot for for here has landscaped islands on it. we meet all of uh the requirements for development for this project. That's why I was saying I'm hoping this is a really easy uh project for you all because all the requirements are met uh for it. We did reach out to community. The outreach as required was done as well. We had a couple uh neighbors respond back

030uh with some concerns. We've responded to those as well. Um, I I think we're in a pretty, like I said, straightforward, easy uh project here that for the community to make sure that we create a safe space for the kids first and foremost, but obviously the parents as they're dropping off their kids to to school. So, if you have any questions, like I said, we're here. We'll open it up. And if you have any discussions, if there's an item that I've missed uh in your discussions you have, I'd be happy to come back and either elaborate on that or answer any questions you may have. So >> great. We're going to move to the uh staff presentation and then we'll have a public hearing and then we'll have our discussion and if we have questions,

031we'll call you up at that time. >> Planner Thatcher, >> I have very little to add here. Okay. I just want to point out that there are no staff comments that haven't been addressed. Um, everything's taken care of and staff recommends the site plan be approved. >> Thank you for your staff presentation. We will now have our dedicated public comment. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak up for three minutes on one item on this item. Haha. We will first hear from those of you who are present in chambers, then remote participants. To speak remotely, press star 9 if on phone or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-66341226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone number

032or by name if on Zoom. You'll hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please move to a quiet area and mute any background sound. For all participants, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present in chambers who'd like to address us on this matter? Oh, here comes Mr. Garber. Thank you, Chair Wes, for your encouragement. Ken Garber, 28, Havville Court. Yeah, this is a no objection to any of this. Um, except that I never never like to see more parking added when there's basically no more usage. Um yeah, I guess you I question whether you can't fight human nature and I wonder if St. Paul has looked into um ways to um encourage ride sharing um car pooling, uh a bus school bus service at

033least for older students, uh private um is any of that a possibility? So these just occurred to me at this moment and I maybe that's also a concern of the table. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Garber. Is there anyone else in chambers who'd like to address us at this time? >> Seeing none. Manager Kelly, do we have remote participants who'd like to address this? We do not. So we shall close the dedicated public comment. I'll read the motion. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission approves 495 Earl Hart Road site plan version 5 dated November 26, 2025 as it complies with all applicable requirements of the Unified Development Code and other applicable laws, ordinances, and standards and regulations. Moved by Commissioner Hammershmid and seconded by Commissioner Mills. We are in discussion. Who'd like to kick

034us off? [snorts] All right, Commissioner Norton. >> I [clears throat] just have a question for staff. I'm looking at the one written comment that we got from Terry O. I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing that correctly. raises a number of concerns about glare and um I'm trying to go through the code and see if there's anything here, but I wonder did you all review the the concerns that were raised and are the is the proposal in compliance with the sections that he's citing? >> Yes, we did go through those um and compared them to code and it is in compliance. Um, I think that the confusion is that uh we ordinarily don't want like building lights, structure lights, parking lot lights [clears throat] to shine into neighboring buildings as you know, we want that as

035little as possible, but we don't regulate um vehicular lights, car headlights that are pulling on and off of the site. Um so unfortunately uh for this individual um that is not regulated as part of our code and really the the way the driveway is laid out it's it's it's not in our opinion causing a nuisance to the neighbors. There's enough distance and buffering in between the school parking lot and the neighboring houses. Um yeah >> staff believes it's adequate. >> Okay. Thank you >> Commissioner Mills. Thanks. I'm curious um if the It sounds like the petitioner wanted to have more parking. If they did not necessarily desire that and just wanted to build the new library, does that require then updating kind of the site plan overall? I don't know how standards have changed since

036then. or is is the Yeah. would any of the site plan the parking I know we don't have parking requirements obviously >> but it's more like the landscaping islands and that kind of thing that's a relatively new innovation in our code. Um would that have been triggered just by the addition of of the um of the library or is it because they want new parking that then everything gets brought up to code? I would have to to answer the first question, I would have to go back and look at the floor area of the building and figure out what percentage of is um and I don't know that off the top of my head, but because the parking lot was being completely removed and rebuilt, >> that's what triggered all of the parking standards, the

037requirement for um EV parking spaces um and everything else that's going on there. >> Okay. >> So, we looked at it as a package. >> Yeah. I was I was just curious if they if there was a lighter touch that they could have done, but they wanted to dig it up anyway. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Any other commissioners? Yes. Commissioner Hammer Schmidt? >> I will just chime in to say my kids actually went to St. Paul for preschool, so I am intimately familiar with this. Um, and I live close by and drive by every day. The parking lot does get full. So, while I'm also not an advocate for like let's add more parking, I think the location of this site, um, and then the use, um, you know, sports events, the fact that there

038is a church also that takes place here, um, it sort of has to happen. Um, I would encourage you to maybe look into, you know, pvious pavement options potentially. Um but the the addition of the um angled parking for the the preschool drop off having done lots of preschool drop off like that you know having you would have to cross like cars coming before. So this I think for the little kids is like amazing for safety. So thank you. >> Thank you. Any other comments? I just wanted to share that it would at a minimum have been a site plan for planning manager review because uh the size of the addition was between 300 and 10,000 square ft. >> Thank you, man. Kelly, are we ready to vote? >> Can we do a roll call

039vote, please? >> Yes. On the motion as presented, Commissioner W. >> Yes. Abins, >> yes. >> Hammershmid, >> yes. >> Dish, >> yes. >> Mills, >> yes. >> Weatherbe, >> yes. >> Adams, >> yes. >> Norton, >> yes. >> That carries. >> Thank you and good luck with your project. That brings us to item 10B, regular business. Uh, 1310 Wisteria. This is the Wood Gu uh excuse me, the Woodberry Gardens Reszoning RE Z24-00008 and 1310 Wisteria site plan SP240013 for city council approval. Uh Woodbury Gardens proposes to reszone the existing 41.29 29 acre development that includes Asher Drive, Wisteria Drive, and Woodbury Drive from R3 multi-family, R4 multiple family, and PL public land districts to TC1 transit corridor with conditions capping the building height. The site plan project would partially redevelop one parcel to construct

040two sevenstory buildings containing 342 dwelling units and a fivelevel parking garage. An administrative land transfer is required and will be considered separately. We'll start with a petitioner presentation followed by a staff presentation followed by a public hearing and then our discussion on the motion. Uh good evening commissioner. I'm Brad Moore, local architect uh representing uh the petitioner and I have with me here as well um the lead architect uh who will run through the parameters and the design of the project. Our civil engineer is in route, so I hope that he gets here before the end of the uh public hearing. But Ray will walk you through um how we've crafted this u integration of modern housing u with a more efficient land use behind it to make uh a overall density increase in this

041project of around 57%. We're finding a way of integrating new units with existing units, making much more efficient use of land, helping to address the housing shortage in the city. >> Uh good evening, Ray Phillips with CregerClad Architects. Um put together a brief presentation uh for you tonight. I want to thank you for your time here tonight. Um first couple slides are more uh uh talk more about the civil uh which as Brad mentioned, civil engineers in route here. So, I'm going to slide by a couple of these first slides here and kind of get into some of the um slides that we put together from an architectural standpoint. All right. So, project is located um south stadium boulevard between Industrial Highway and Packard. It's an existing apartment townhouse complex uh which is outlined in

042blue here. Uh the portion that we are uh proposing this product on is just the uh yellow highlighted area. Um product synopsis as mentioned we're looking to reszone to TC1. Uh this is a two-phase uh project. Phase one contains 127 uh dwelling units. Uh then phase two is an additional 215 units with the parking structure. Uh no demolition of existing buildings are required for phase one. Um we have a good mix of studios, one bed, two beds and town houses uh which gives a wide variety of options for future uh residents. Um we have uh ample amenity space both interior and exterior. Uh phase 1 has a modest clubhouse of 2700 square ft. Uh handles all the day uh day-to-day uh mail package uh small lobby. still needs to be fully programmed, but that's kind

043of the accessory clubhouse for the phase one, which you'll see is just a rectangular building. Phase two uh requires demolition of the existing clubhouse. So, there's a much larger uh 9,000 ft interior clubhouse and then also an exterior amenity space. Um we are proposing 456 parking spaces in the garage, including ADA spaces. There are eight new surface spaces. We're re reworking some of the existing site uh for an overall gain of 464 parking spaces and we are meeting the um bike parking requirements. This is a there you go. Uh oh, it's freezing on me. Uh this is a uh aerial rendering kind of the overall site plan. So, as you can see here in orange is the phase one building, rectangle building that's going with the existing I believe there there's some green space and

044outdoor dog uh dog park in this area. No demolition of existing buildings. Uh phase two consists of the purple which is the apartment building and the blue which is the parking garage. Uh both of these apartment buildings are double loaded corridors which uh uh uh means you have a corridor running down the middle and you have units on each side. The only uh place that doesn't happen is on the left or west side of the parking garage. Um, two things I wanted to point out here. Um, there is a blue arrow on the right hand side here. Uh, that connects phase one to phase 2. This will obviously happen as phase 2 is completed. This happens on floor 3 only to provide connection from the parking garage to the phase one units as well. And

045then the second one is this orange line here just kind of indicates on the first floor uh right in this area which I'll get to later. We are splitting the building. There's a 10t wide by twotory tall pedestrian breezeway. So uh one of the items that I'm sure we'll get into discussion here is the overall length of the building on Aster Avenue. We're trying to uh meet the intent of the TC1 uh uh enhancing pedestrian walkability through the site. We thought that this uh helped with that and um think it's a good play for the overall development. Here we have the first floor plan. Big picture here as I mentioned double loaded corridor building. Uh we have uh the clubhouse which is shown in orange. Uh, in phase one, we have the small clubhouse located

046here at the south. And then phase two, we have two club houses. This one that's over here is two stories tall. It's going to overlook the pool, the outdoor uh amenity space. So, this is really the main feature in the phase 2. Highlighted in yellow here is that pedestrian breezeway that I mentioned that literally splits the building in half on floors one and two. Um the curb cut that's along the north here is existing and will remain. Uh there is a curb cut on this right hand side roughly in this location that'll be demolished and moved down here. This is where the vehicular uh circulation will happen around this phase one building and then also allows access into the parking garage. This is floor two. Um very similar to uh the first floor plan that

047I was just talking about. Um just want to talk about again the the yellow highlighted areas that pedestrian breezeway and um we have this as I mentioned the twotory clubhouse. Most of these units here um are townhouse units. So on the first floor we have uh uh patio space on the first floor. You can walk into these units right off the street and then they're townhouse units. So they have interior staircases going up. So, as I mentioned, there's a lot of different opportunities for studios, one beds, uh, town houses. This is, uh, very close to the typical floor plan. The thing that I want to point out here on the third floor plan is we do have this pedestrian bridge running across here connecting phase one and phase 2. And then, as you can see

048in here, this is where this uh, phase 2 connects on the upper floor. That that pedestrian breezeway is on uh, floor uh, floor one and two. Here's our typical floor plan with a parking garage in the middle. Um, this stacks up from floors four through six. And then on floor seven, this is where on this uh west side, we have an interior uh top floor amenity space uh for all residents. And then there's an outdoor deck as well uh overlooking the pool, outdoor amenity space. There's giving a lot of opportunities for people to uh enjoy Um next we have uh four isometric renderings kind of shows the building context uh with the surrounding area. So these are from all four major corners. And then next uh we have some uh perspective renderings. And this one

049I think is kind of key. This shows uh where the pool, clubhouse, everything meets. Um this is the two-story clubhouse here. This is that upper floor uh sorry, 7th floor clubhouse area with the outdoor uh patio overlooking the amenity space. One thing I want to point out here, as I mentioned, we'll probably have more discussion about this is this building face that's back here is set back uh over 100 ft from this face on Aster Avenue. And here's a perspective down at uh the ground level. The things I want to point out here is uh the building materials. We're looking for lowmaintenance uh durable materials, a mix of multiple colors of brick, cast stone, metal panels, and fiber cement panels. This is the view from uh the south. This is that pedestrian breezeway here. Uh,

050I wish I could have lightened this up so it doesn't look as as dark as it is in here, but this is to provide access for pedestrians to get through. Um, and this is that that portion of the building that is over 100 ft uh uh step back. This is a view from the uh southeast corner. Uh so this is the phase one building on the right side here. And then this is the portion of the of the second phase building. And here's a perspective from the uh vehicular access uh on the east side. This is that third floor uh bridge connecting phase one and phase two. And that's all I have for our presentation. Scott, I don't know if you want to jump in here. >> We have 40 seconds remaining. >> 40 seconds.

051>> All right, then. [laughter] >> Trying to go. So, uh, this is a very unique opportunity that I would consider a win-win for everybody. Um, it's a win for the the property owners because they can >> I'm sorry, Scott, can you uh pause for a second? Plane manager, can we extend some time cuz it'll chime in the middle of your presentation. >> I'll disrupt you, but not the try. Go ahead. >> Thanks. Um, it's it's a win for the property owner in that they can replace some of their existing uh uh facilities with new, modern, and efficient facilities. And it's a win for the city in that uh there we're going to be removing a total of 33 units from this development and replacing them with 4, excuse me, with 242 342 342, excuse me.

052So, it's a factor of 10. and it's a it's an existing site. We're not taking a green site out of circulation. Um so this is really it's it's really is a kind of a boon. It's a factor of 10 and the density in this area. And in addition to that, we're going to be providing um underground storm water retention, which doesn't exist on the site currently. We're going to be contributing $220,000 to the um rehabilitation and redesign of one of the adjacent parkways. We're contributing $25,000 to a midblock crossing and stadium for pedestrians. Um, and so I think that the this is really a very very unique opportunity um that doesn't come along very often and we're very supportive of it. So, thank you. >> Great. Thank you. We will now turn to planner factor

053for the staff report. >> Thank you. You're welcome. All right. Um, first off, in Legistar, there is um in the packet attachments, there's an additional memo that was just added today. I didn't print it out for all of you, but it was um the most common questions that we've received via email uh put together in one memo with with answers and I sent those out to people who asked questions via email today so that they would have hopefully their answers uh their questions answered and more. Um and uh first I want to talk about the zoning the resoning part of this. Uh yesterday Commissioner Adams raised a question about whether the zoning change could be advanced separately from the site plan. So if if um the site plan were uh not recommended um by the

054planning commission for approval, the zoning could the zoning still move forward with a recommendation of approval? And the answer is yes. and the staff report was framed that completely differently because we learned this yesterday. Um, so to clear that up, it turns out um that if the site plan is not recommended for approval, the requested TC1 zoning could still be advanced with a recommendation of approval now. >> Yeah. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Can Can you um >> Okay. >> Is that okay? >> I would appreciate it. >> All right. Go ahead. Two points on this topic that are specific to this. Um, staff still recommends that the applicant provide a site plan or an area plan that conforms to the zoning that they're requesting. Um, because you want to make sure that they're able to

055do that. And [clears throat] if the if you change the zoning and it's not really what they want out of the whole project, um then they have a zoning district and it may be more difficult or expensive for them to put together a new site plan. But um so we still do recommend that that that go along with it. Um, however, should you all decide that you would like to split these two up, the zoning gets a recommendation of approval, the site plan gets a recommendation of denial, staff strongly recommends that you leave all of the conditions proposed in place. Please, please, it's very important and here's why. Um, one of the, um, let's see, what are they called? the there there are purpose statements for TC1 zoning and one of them says that the

056site should be surrounded by OC3 M1 or a couple other districts. The site's about half surrounded and not surprisingly it's the half on the western side closest to South Industrial Boulevard. Um the other half of the site is surrounded by R1 and R2 single family zoning um and duplex zoning. So, the reason that the TC-1 conditions are important is it would lock in for 300 ft. All of the zoning on the north side and the east side of the site um and have a maximum height of 35 ft. Right now, those buildings are mostly 30 feet. So, this is an incremental difference. It's a difference, but it's um it's it's not the 75 ft that TC1 would normally allow. um pretty close to those districts. So I think that the conditions are really important to

057mitigating these effects. Um and now let me talk about the site plan. Um it doesn't meet the maximum building width requirement. We've been This is sort of unusual that a site pled would come to you guys at this point with a dimensional um um problem like this, but um the building the the code says the building width parallel to the street may not exceed 300 ft. That's it. To measure the width of a building, we look at what's parallel to the street, draw a box around the whole site, and see how wide it is. It doesn't matter if there's a 100 foot setback from the street or a thousand foot setback from the street. We still have to measure the building at the widest part of that box. It's how we've been doing it for

058decades. Um uh and that's why staff has recommended disapproval of the site plan and the zoning with it because of what I said earlier. Um because it does not meet this dimensional requirement. plain and simple. Um I'm not going to dwell on that, but uh there is an illustration in the staff report um that shows what I'm talking about. I'm at 354 ft approximately. It's not dimensions. So that's me, you know, measuring it with a ruler and trying to figure it out. Um but you can see that the that they have a couple of dimensions on here and it you can see that that's roughly accurate. Um, uh, the applicant has chosen to use the 283 ft that is closest to the street, but staff measures it everything that's parallel to the street all the

059way to the other side of the building. So, we're at 354. Thank you. Thank you, planner. All right. We now have an opportunity for a public hearing on this matter. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak up to three minutes on this item. We'll first hear from those of you who are present in chambers. Then we will turn to remote participants. To speak remotely, press star 9 if on phone or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-66341226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone number or by name if on Zoom. You'll hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please move to a quiet area and mute any background noise. For all participants, please state your

060name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present in chambers who'd like to address us at this time? >> Uh hello, my name is Sam Hman. I live right by Woodberry Gardens at 1451 Coler Road. Uh I walk through the site every day and I have some opinions about this proposal. Um I want to start off by saying Woodberry Gardens has been a very good neighbor to have and they maintain the site exceptionally well. I support the redevelopment of the R4 sections of this site and I think it needs some targeted modifications. Uh first the area currently the first the buffer area that's currently zoned R3 needs to stay residential and not converted to mixed use. Converting it to TC1 doesn't just change the height, it changes the uses allowed and

061these are very large parcels. So, I would ask the petitioner to uh modify the conditional zoning that the R3 sections be only used for or the current R3 sections only be used for residential. Uh second, I would ask that you uphold the 300T building standard. TC1 is designed to create walkable grid cell blocks, not mega blocks. Um third, uh address rooftop noise. Uh I would ask that the petitioner make a binding commitment not to place a clubhouse above the second floor or to fully enclose any clubhouse or many space above a second floor. Uh sound from the seventh story clubhouse has the potential to carry far and wide and cause nuisances in this area. Uh we see this already with electronic announcements from the university's uh lacrosse stadium on State Street. Those echo all through

062the neighborhood when they're playing games. Uh fourth, I would ask the petitioner to commit to four pedestrian improvements as part of the plan. A new pedestrian path to South Boulevard like what they've done with color which has been wildly successful. a new pedestrian path to Iracoy Park and a uh pedestrian size cut in the fence there, the Chandler fence. They have uh ped a pedestrian cross pedestrian path across the parcel zone PL to venue. And finally, to clean up the sidewalk on the south side of Woodbury Park, which is currently overflowing with uh dirt and completely impassible. Uh, fifth, I would ask the petitioner to consider purchasing the vacant lot at 197 1972 South Industrial, which uh, we don't have the map up there anymore, but it's directly across from Woodbury Gardens. It's vacant, and

063I ideally they would place their parking garage there. That would solve a lot of problems. It's next to the Army Reserve Center and a strip mall and back to the railroad tracks. Uh, it's the perfect place to put a parking garage. Um, and then finally, I just wanted to comment to the planning commission. This proposal really illustrates the problem with these very large setbacks you've designed. Uh if you have a 300 foot setback, it necess TC1 was never supposed to cover our zones. So this is pretty abusive of the zoning as it is. U I understand why they're doing it, but you've created this weird situation with setbacks. If you're going to do a setback of probably more than 65 ft, you need to probably create different zones like you did with D1 and D2.

064Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Do you want to come up now? >> And I'm sorry for not uh stopping you soon. I My apologies. >> Um Donna Aworth. I live at 1435 South Boulevard. I've been there since um 2001. Before that, I live next door at 1411 South Boulevard since uh 1991. So, I want to thank the planning commission and the city staff for their careful analysis because these are complex plans. Um, I'm here to express general support for the thoughtful concerns many of our neighbors have regard have raised regarding the Woodberry Gardens resoning and the associated site plan. We are engaged um not because we oppose change, but because we care deeply about how growth is guided and how long-term planning goals are applied. In written correspondence, the city staff noted that an

065important equity goal is to encourage a greater variety of unit types such as duplexes, triplexes, and different forms of multifamily housing in in order to support residents at different stages of life. Many of of us appreciate that goal and share it. As the commissioner as the commission reviews this proposal, we hope that lens is applied carefully, particularly as the plan would remove existing lowercale residential buildings in favor of a very different housing form. I want to emphasize that the neighbors are informed, respectful, and engaged. Many have read the staff report, submitted written comments, and are participating in good faith. We appreciate the opportunity to be part of a constructive public process, and thank you for listening to us. >> Absolutely. Thank you. Is there anyone else in chambers? >> Hello, my name is Jeff Terrell.

066I live at 1310 Place, which is just north of of this uh project. My wife and I, Linda and I have been living there for 32 years now. And we've enjoyed this re very unique street if you're familiar with it. Very friendly neighborhood and and the great feel about our our block which is widely recognized for those in the South Park area as being quite special not just for our speed bumps but for many other many other reasons. Woodbury Gardens, as you know, started off as a University of Michigan botanical gardens, and in its current style and configuration, it blends nicely with the neighborhood, our neighborhood just just north of it. But, um, in aesthetically, the townhouse structures are not a large jump in size from our residential street just just north of it. But

067I'm concerned that reszoning would allow in the future uh five to seventory buildings like this that would but right up against um or for the most part single family homes. And I'm also concerned about infrastructure fatigue. We've had a lot of uh water and sewage and uh foot footing disconnect projects uh and uh in in the neighborhood in the past several years and as well as a sewer lift station work apparently. Um but nevertheless, our street routinely floods um uh far enough that you know call cars are stalling out and being damaged, especially on the west side of of our of our street. So in general, we're just not in favor of uh the site plan proposal or particularly the change in in zoning. But if by chance this should pass, the zoning request in

068particular should pass and the site should be approved, I'd like to respectfully ask the city uh to require more median field edge protection for the homes along place with a buffering [snorts] described in section 5 uh 20 uh with a continuous line perhaps of evergreen trees um along the um along that area, the north area um that were of be of substantial height and planted on the Woodbury side of um the site um and [snorts] away from the DTE lines which you know they they're trimming all the time trees there. So we wouldn't want evergreens to go up and then have to be trimmed as soon as they reach a substantial height. But and finally we like to thank the planning staff Jill and others for the hard work on this and for identifying pertinent

069tactical constraints. Thank you for your time and we really appreciate it. >> Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Hi, my name is D. Lampir. I live at 1307y Place. Thank you for allowing uh me and my neighbors to come and talk to you about this project. I sent an email. I'm not going to go back over that cuz I know it's easier to read than for me to talk about, but um my husband and I and our two daughters have lived on Ericoy for almost 20 years. So, we've been there for quite a while. We were there before the stadium bridge construction happened. And um since that construction, uh my side of the street, which is the west side, has flooded several times each summer. Um my across the street neighbor, I think, flooded

070two of her cars trying to just get into her driveway. Um and I am the closest to the storm drains, so I'm always the person out there with my rake and like digging out the storm drains and trying. But really, it's kind of futile because the water level is above the drains. So, [snorts] you really have to just kind of wait for the water to drop below before the real pull um can start happening. And this flooding has happened way more since the stadium bridge has been built and that water is all flowing down to our street. So, it makes me anxious about hearing about um impervious structures like multi-story parking garages that are going to um you know not going to absorb the same amount of rainwater that's coming. And so I would encourage

071that if this is um a plan that you're going to approve that you do a very um like governed by code storm water review and um a study of the impervious structures that are being proposed and how that's going to contribute to what we know is already a known flooding issue in that area. And um my other concerns were some of the ones that um Jill was mentioning earlier uh related to um the planning commission staff cautions [clears throat] against exceeding your design maximum building width under the TC1. But also, I question if um reszoning this lot to TC1 uh really makes sense based on the fact that it's R3 and R4 designed um or zoned areas currently. And from my reading of how TC1 evolved, it was for uh areas where there isn't a

072lot of development or residential, like there aren't people living there. There's families that live there obviously right now and walk their dogs through our neighborhood every day and we have, you know, like I know many people who just walk down our street with their dogs and I've gotten to meet them and we have a community that we've built between the Woodberry Garden residents and the residents on Irakcoy Place and the surrounding uh neighborhoods that abut it. I walk through I mean I walk through Woodbury Gardens all the time with my uh family just to get my steps. So, thank you for listening. That's my time. >> Thank you. Good evening. >> Good evening. >> I'm James Ashton Miller. I live at 1314 Augory Place where I've lived for 45 years. And on the one time

073that D didn't rake the storm drain uh clear, I ra it clear and I found a $20 bill. What good luck. [laughter] >> So, um I I um I'm here to respectfully ask you for a traffic and congestion reality check. How many additional cars with a 10 t 10-fold increase in capac in the unit capacity that's being proposed given the Woodbris proximity to stadia to schools and major surface parking facilities. Our local streets operate near uh capacity. I'd like to emphasize the need for neighborhood access and emergency response. density should reduce congestion, not concentrate it into nearby congestion corridors. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hello. Is this going okay? >> Uh hello. My name is Ken Thompson. I live at 1208 Aster Avenue which is uh in the designated planning zone. I got my

074little public hearing notice and I have decided to come. Um and I think in general I am on board for upgrading the zoning although I am wondering why it was not upgrade. The proposal was not to upgrade it along uh the existing industrial highway as that is where uh the bus routes are. That's where access to like all the businesses are. That's where a lot of that's where I walk along uh the quarter to industrial highway and I think if transit c if we're going to upgrade to a transit corridor that would probably be the place where it would make the most sense to. I am broadly in favor of uh upgrading upgrading zoning to include different dimensions of housing um and different and allowing for businesses. Um but uh so I the build of

075the structure itself uh I am not to that the structure itself I think as far as uh access for me I think it would be good to have more unit options and I think it would be nice for there to be in general more renting options available uh cuz I end up having to scoot around different places when rent gets too high. Uh I think it would be uh my main concern with uh whenever redevelopments like this happen is they get priced as like luxury uh for having like granite countertops and things and that adds like an extra $500 on top of it. So it doesn't like so it's a functionally a basic apartment but it doesn't have it's more expensive and brand new apartments tend to be even more expensive. So, I I think

076that would be my main concern as far as like affordability and being able to uh and the different types of units available. Uh because currently I live in a I live on Aster and I am at uh $860 ft for $1,600 a month. It's uh it's a little brutal and I don't see that. And uh I think more units would help bring prices down for older units, but I worry about the cost for newer units. And those were my main points. [snorts] >> Thank you. >> Hello. >> My name's Ruby Summers. My husband and I live at 1411 South Boulevard, which directly abuts Woodberry Gardens. We've lived there since 2020. Um but this house is also very special to me because I grew up on the street. spent 0 to8 in this house. Moved next

077door. That's my mom. Um and then we bought the house uh a few years back. Um so I love Ann Arbor. I've loved this neighborhood. Um as you heard, I've lived here my whole life. And um I but many of my friends can't find housing in Ann Arbor, can't afford housing in Ann Arbor. Um they all go to Ipsy. Um which then, you know, moves other people out of Ipsy, which is also a problem. Um but we won't get into that. Um, so all of this to say, I'm really in support of more housing in Ann Arbor. Um, but I do feel that when you're creating more density, it's really essential that the new residents are integrated into the community and the neighborhood. Um, and I really concerned that having two interior towers will create

078enclaves. Um, and that those residents will be isolated from the rest of the neighborhood. Um, as you hear, we all like I know all these people by their dogs. I don't know their names. Um, but you know, my dog's really obsessed with Humphrey, his dog. Um, and I'm I just I'm concerned that um all of these folks will feel isolated. Um, additionally, the sevenstory podium buildings are expensive to build and often require luxury tier rents to remain viable, and Arbor already has a lot of luxury apartment buildings, but what I feel we really need is the missing middle housing. Um, and I think a three to fourtory building on the site would have much more reasonable rents. um and uh better um scale into the existing uh neighborhoods and um I think that would also

079help create more social mobility for Ann Arbor's work for force, many of whom can't live here. Um finally, the transit quarter district was intended to transform gray fields. Um and I think using it in this case on a a site that's an established residential community is not in alignment with the TC-1 intent. Um, I urge the commission to recommend a scaledback three to four story alternative that aligns with the missing middle principles we need to for a truly inclusive Ann Arbor. This allows us to welcome new neighbors without setting a sevenstory precedent for the remaining 41 acres. Thanks so much to the staff and for all of you for your work uh and your time and your consideration. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. My name is John Fingerley and I live at 1316 Heroic

080Place. Laura Fingerley, my wife, and I submitted written comments. They're included in tonight's agenda under item 5D. And tonight, I want to briefly address the findings of my foyer request that was recently completed. The Foyer was filed to better understand the process followed ahead of a requested permanent reszoning decision of this scale. And I want to stress that resoning is permanent. It's not just a trial run. What the foyer response shows most clearly is not what was found, but rather how the project was structured during the pre-application phase. The internal planning emails released by the city show extensive coordination focused on how to advance a reasonzoning of multiple parcels while submitting a detailed site plan for only one parcel. Those emailed, excuse me, those emailed documents discussed waving an area plan requirement for most parcels,

081streamlining filings, and sequencing reszoning ahead of a sight specific review. What they do not show is early resolution of the substantive questions regarding, excuse me, substantive questions residents have raised tonight. building scale across the full the full site, visual and contextual impacts, infrastructure capacity assumptions, or traffic effects. That matters because zoning is legislative and permanent. When the internal record emphasizes procedural efficiency over sitewide analysis, it increases the risk that the commission is being asked to approve a zoning framework before the impacts it enables are fully documented. The FOYA also confirmed that there is no design review board record, no historical land use agreement on file, and no documentation linking infrastructure infrastructure upgrades to specific density assumptions, which further concentrates responsibility for completeness at this stage. None of this reflects bad faith, but it does indicate

082that critical critical context is still missing from the public from the public record. When residents need to use FOYA to piece together background information for resoning, it's often a sign that the decision is moving faster than the supporting documentation. I appreciate staff's careful technical review and the clarity of the recommendation, and I respectfully ask the planning commission not to advance this resoning until the outstanding information is fully documented and available for public review. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Hello everyone. >> Hello. >> My name is Katie Dodto and I'm a newer resident of Ann Arbor. So I live at 1408 Iraquay and I've been there for a year and a half. Um and I want to first begin by thanking all of you. I saw the number of emails and things that

083have come through. I saw your analysis, Jill, the FAQ. Very much appreciate it. And also, it was as somebody new to Ann Arbor, I wasn't sure if all of our emails were going to make it into the committee packet. So, that gives us confidence um that this is a collaborative process. Um so, tonight there's been many people who have spoken. Um, I think that there's a common theme that people support that we do have a housing crisis that we do want to improve ways to form density to make sure that it's equitable. Um, I did do some research into the developer. This is a developer known for high-end luxury housing. It's beautiful. The site plan is beautiful. I moved from Chicago. Um, I know luxury housing. It looks great. This is not affordable. um that

084was in the FAQ. That is not something that's been submitted. Looking at the stats, 71% are studio or onebedroom. I'm curious as to who our target audience is for this complex and how that fits into what we are solving for for Ann Arbor. Um I heard a resident that I have not met um that they're looking for housing. This would not meet the price limit I fear for them. Um, and when we talk about reszoning, this is 41 acres made up of two different zones. All 41 acres being proposed to be a transit. There are houses there. There are homes there. They will be demolished. There is an email from the residents of Woodbury. These are owners. They are not in favor of this. This does not benefit them. This likely will bring revenue and

085profit to the city. um but I don't think that it is at the core and the heart of what we are trying to solve. So I please please encourage us to look at it. Um there are one consistent theme is that there's a lot of outstanding questions. There's a lot of data that has not been provided. So to put you in a seat to have such a meaningful lasting permanent decision, you're likely being asked to make a decision without all the complete data. um that you have an incredible responsibility, something that lasts not just today, not just weeks, not just years, but decades. Um I moved from Chicago. I have a second grader and kindergartener. We chose Ann Arbor because of the community, because of our values. Encourage you all to make a decision to

086keep that everlasting. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else in chambers who'd like to address us at this time? Come right up. Scott Batzel, Midwestern Consulting. I just heard a couple of things that I wanted to offer some responses to before you went to the to the uh people that are waiting uh offline. U storm water storm water and flooding. Um as I mentioned before, we will be providing storm water detention for this uh new redevelopment with groundwater infiltration. So the storm water situation will be improved. Um and in addition to the storm water from this entire site leads to the south and is discharged into a county drain that runs along the south property line. But if the irkcoy storm sewer happens to run through this, it will undoubtedly improve it because

087we'll be holding back water and all won't get into the pipe at the same time. So traffic, I heard some concerns about traffic. Um the site currently um is a lot of people using the public transportation system. It's ideally situated along two major routes with has uh bus stops and they have in the uh recent years they've [snorts] adopted a 30 passenger van that constantly runs all day long taking their residents to and from different areas of the city. Um infrastructure adequacy I heard you know a concern about that. Um, our client did pay $28,000 to the city of Ann Arbor's consultant to do a sanitary sewer analysis and they approved to be adequate to handle this new development as well as the water capacity has been determined to be adequate as well. So, just

088want to offer those up right now. >> Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if it is appropriate for the developer to be speaking during this time since they have a dedicated uh >> and the last time I brought this up, manager Leonard said that they are members of the public and they are entitled to the three minutes. So, I'm happy to defer to you because you are the manager that is here tonight. So, if you want me to ask me, I would prefer that. >> Right. All right, Mr. We'll have you come back when we uh ask the questions. That was the only reason why I permitted it cuz I tried it the last time and I was told no. Is there anyone else other than the developers uh in the room who would like to

089address uh the commission at this time? >> Uh hello, my name is Andrea Blazer and I live at 1335 Aster Avenue. So we are talking directly about my home. Um, mine is one of the buildings that will be demolished for this project. And I'm trying to not let that um overly color and bias the way I think about this project because I generally love living at Woodbury Gardens. I chose this community for a reason. I have lived there for over six years now. And I'm going to apologize right now because I had lovely notes written down and they were lost into a snowdrift on my walk into the building. [laughter] So, I apologize. I had all the zoning codes and everything written down specifically and I'm going to have to go off memory. Um, but

090I just want to echo what a lot of my neighbors are asking and talking about and say, "Who is this project for?" Um, my neighbors and I have been discussing this at length and we're talking to our leasing complex and we're talking to the owners of this building going, "Where are we going to go when you tear down this building?" Because we will not be able to afford to move into the new building. We can barely afford to live there as it is. And I also want to ask this committee, how many of you would want to have uh 342 neighbors in your building? Um, this is a very specific type of building. We're seeing a lot of them go up in Ann Arbor, and I'm really hoping it does address some of the housing

091crisis that the students of the University of Michigan are facing. I do not want to downplay that. Nor the housing crisis that people who are beyond their college years are facing. Uh, because this type of housing, let me be very blunt, I'm going to speak very directly, this is for students. This is the type of housing we are talking about, not people who are in their 30s and 40s who are trying to just make their way through life in Ann Arbor. Um, I chose this community very specifically because it felt very residential. I'm not in a position to buy a house and I wanted something that gave me as much of a residential life as I could. It's why I love walking down Irakcoy and meeting the neighbors there. I love walking through our neighborhood.

092If I wanted to live in a building like being described, I would have moved downtown, right? And we have a lot of options to do that. We have a lot of those buildings coming up. Um, so I apologize that I don't have my more concise notes here, but I want to thank everybody for the very careful uh and critical consideration this is being given. And again ask what problem are we trying to solve and does this building actually solve it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else in chambers who'd like to address us at this time? >> Thanks Chair Wang Garber again. Um start with a question about parking. [snorts] Um there's a discrepancy. Um we just heard from the petitioner that there will be 456 spaces in the parking garage plus

093eight surface spaces. But the site plan that I read refers to 456 plus 72 surface spaces uh assigned to um this building um for a total of 528. So I'm not sure if we're talking about 464 spaces or 528 spaces for this building. Um either way they're going to serve 342 units. So it's either 1.3 spaces per unit or 1.5. Either way, in my opinion, this is too much parking for a transit oriented development, uh which is the zoning that's requested. Um look instead at the Brierwood Mall apartments that replace the Sears store. similar design with apartments uh in a donut configuration around a parking structure. Um there they have 354 units, a little bit more than Woodbury. Um with a 301 space parking deck, so 0.8 spaces per unit. Um so uh I think

094this is way overparked for a transit oriented development. Why should we care? um because it adds embedded carbon, it increases building and maintenance costs which translates to higher rents and it encourages vehicle use uh contrary to the intent of TC1. Um I read in the staff report that the petitioner is committed to building electrification. Uh which is great. Curious what kind we're talking about. VRF most efficient. VEX less so. Um hot waterbased or resistance even less efficient. Curious what they're thinking. Um hopefully VRF. Um [clears throat] and a question about the timing of this petition. This is the same ownership group that owns the Owl Creek Apartments on Nixon Road. Um, which you'll remember came before you two years ago for reszoning from R48 to R4D along with a site plan for 131 unit apartment

095building. Um, it's just a short jog from my apartment. Nothing has happened since that approval. Um, I stopped by the leasing office today. They said they had no knowledge of any construction plans um imminent. Um so why this proposal tonight when they haven't moved forward with the Owl Creek project? Um so that's just a question about building strategy. Uh and by the way on Owl Creek they made a verbal commitment commitment to achieving >> [snorts] >> uh energy star multif family new construction certification um in addition to building electrification. We didn't hear anything like that tonight about this project. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Garber. Is there anyone else in chambers? Manager Kelly, do we have remote participants? We do. Phone number ending in 534. You have three minutes to address the planning commission.

096>> Hello again. This is Tom Stalberg. Uh I want to set a baseline. If this was done as a planned unit development, a PUD, my understanding is there would be a 15% contribution to of affordable housing, which would be a little over 50 units, but I'm not sure on the calculation if you subtract out the units that are being demolished. Uh, but let's assume about 50 or maybe a little less. Um, and then all the conditions could be in there. The site plan not meeting PC1 could be in there. You can do a lot with uh POD there. Now let's set another baseline. R3 has a maximum of 35 ft and R4 has a maximum of 30 ft. So setting conditions in and zoning conditions of 35 ft where it's R3 uh is appropriate. That's

097one way to do it. But where the R4 is if you have any height in your conditions over 30 ft uh again that I mentioned earlier at the beginning that would be wrong. That's not how you do zoning conditions. You don't get more than the status quo. You don't get a reasoning to a higher height and then reduce that to something above the status quo. The courts are very clear on that. And so why do the courts say that? Well, somebody else could come in and ask for a TC1 zoning in a very similar situation, very approximate to this. And because zoning conditions are voluntary, they don't have to volunteer these same limits. So they could get the maximum. And the problem is the city would be hardressed to turn them down even though each

098zoning application is evaluated on its own merits individually. The courts have again been very clear that no, you kind of surrender your police power. You would have no chance at defending that lawsuit. So that's why the conditions are inappropriate. The simple fact is the courts say they're not. Why is an explanation in lay person's terms here of how you put your put us the city in a quantity. You know, we're the citizens who are going to have to pay for the attorney out of our tax dollars in a losing lawsuit if somebody else files based on you doing the wrong thing here. That's what the courts mean when they say surrender police power. So, I urge you to reject this and you have some choices. The applicant could resubmit as a plan unit development with

099the exact same plan they have now and we get the affordable housing or there's other things mentioned in the staff report as alternatives. But you simply cannot approve this as is submitted because the conditions are inappropriate and the courts have clearly ruled on this and some of you have received documentation that confirms that thoroughly. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Stalberg. >> Our final hand raised is Rich Fine. You have three minutes to address the planning commission. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. >> Okay. Uh Rich Fine, uh 618 Dwayne Court, uh here representing the Ann Arbor chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby. Uh just um echoing Mr. Garber's uh comments uh about the heating uh of the units. Uh we're requesting that the developer provide more details regarding the HVAC system.

100Um is it resistive heat uh heat pumps, VRFs? Um we just like to know what level of efficiency uh they're they're planning for this. Uh we do applaud uh that they are planning to make it um all electric uh in compliance uh with our carbon neutrality goals. Uh we're also uh wondering there's me mentioned in the staff report of electric appliances and HVAC, but there's nothing stated about uh domestic hot water. Uh so we were uh wondering uh what type of heat source and technology they're going to be using for that too. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Fine. >> There are no more hands raised virtually. >> Thank you. I will close the public hearing and advise my colleagues that I have a updated script which uh splits the motion uh into two um

101proposals and I'd like to uh take those and present them uh separately uh for our discussion. Without objection. Okay. Um, so the first motion is the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission recommends that the mayor and the city council approve 1310 Wisteria site plan version 5 dated November 19th, 2025 and the development agreement contingent upon an approved administrative land transfer moved by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner Dish. And then um that would be the site plan. So we can take that one up first and then uh we'll follow that discussion with the zoning recognizing that they're still sort of interconnected. Is that okay with everyone or do you want me to read the motion for the second one and we can work through them together. Any advice, Manager Kelly? Commissioner just says put them together. I'm

102I'm okay with that, too. But >> Oh, I don't see any reason why you can't do that as long as you have a mover second or for each. Yeah, we shall do that then. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission recommends that the mayor and city council approve 1310 Wisteria resoning petition to TC1 Transit Corridor District and accept the conditions to limit the maximum height as stated in the statement of conditions letter and shown on the 1310 Wisteria Woodbury zoning boundaries map subject to executing a conditional zoning statement of conditions. Moved by council member Dish. Seconded by Commissioner Mills. We are now in discussion. Who would like to kick us off? Okay, we'll start with Commissioner Dish. >> Okay, so first of all, welcome. Thank you. You are the nicest bunch of not happy people we've

103ever had in this [laughter] room. >> I I really would like to echo Commissioner Dish's comments. You have been the most polite, unhappy people we have had at [laughter] the table. So, thank you for that. You're you're making this conversation easier. Back to you, uh, Commissioner Dish. >> Absolutely. Um, there are a lot of things that need to be addressed and I will not try to address them all because other people are going to want to pitch in and they'll but I but I I have a couple of questions for staff to follow up on concerns that you all raised from the floor. But I think what I'm hearing from you is or the the dominant theme oops of what I'm hearing from you is why TC1 and is it appropriate here? And this I

104think is a really important question to ask of this project because it is and it isn't. And so um the purpose of TC1 TC1 is meant for infill. And yeah, we usually imagine I think at one presentation um planner DO talked about putting housing on parking lots. And so that's how we usually imagine it. But that's not the only way that infill happens. infill happens where there is existing housing and there is existing um infrastructure to support that housing and that that is a an easier way to do infill. But when you're putting infill in places like that, you have to look at the context. And so this is where the staff report flags that um TC1 may replace the O R E O R LC2 BC3P R5 and M1 districts and that it should

105only replace other zoning designations in unique and rare instances where another zoning district is entirely surrounded by the specifically mentioned districts. And this case is not that. And so the question is what is in this proposal to recognize that and does it go far enough? I'm going to set aside the 300 ft thing. I know we will discuss that. I suspect one reason we've split these motions is because we're interested in entertaining the zoning change. But I think none of us is really interested in asking staff to deviate from the way they normally measure things [laughter] because implications will follow from that. So um but that I really want to set that one aside. I really want to address what I think is um the less technical and more challenging question that I really want

106to hear from everybody on this body about. So the cont the conditions that have been attached to this zoning this TC1 reszoning, excuse me, um recognize the problem with the context. And so what those conditions do is they limit buildings that are between 30 and 300 ft from residential properties to a 35 ft height limit. So that's a considerable reduction of the height that would normally be allowed in TC1. TC1 allows um 55 or 75 within 55 and 80 ft of residential. So that's a considerable reduction of the height. And this cons this condition includes um nearly all of the part of the site that is currently zoned R3. So, but what a couple of you mentioned is that height isn't the only thing that defines a residential neighborhood. And so a question has been

107raised as to whether if these conditions are meaning to address, which the staff report acknowledges that they are, they're meaning to mitigate the the the fact that this infill is happening where our our description of TC1 says it wouldn't normally. It could rarely do. So if the height is intended to mitigate that then do we need more than height. So do we need to consider and I I do not address this to the petitioner to the developer because that is not my role but I raise it so that staff can hear and take this into negotiations with the developer because it is not appropriate for us to negotiate at this table with a developer. Um but do do we need to consider um a restriction of mixed you on mixed use? And do we also

108need to consider the parking? And I raise that point because um one of the reasons why TC1 has the parking max that it has is because it anticipates mixed use for a lot of the acreage of a of a development. But if if this project is limited, it's height limited so that it can be more compatible with a residential area. Is it really not appropriate for it to get anywhere near the parking maximum of TC1? Because um then it it it would be facilitating auto dependency and TC-1 is a zoning designation that is supposed to reduce auto dependency, car dependency, I should probably say because that sounded weird like autoimmunity. Anyway, um so I want to raise those two things because um that is what I felt I was hearing about your concern. So I'm

109not I'm not saying to you yes or no. I think TC1 is appropriate here. I'm saying to you I heard you and I think the report raises a couple of ways in which it might not be. And you pointed out some ways in which it might not be. I mean ways beyond height, ways that height doesn't go far enough to address. So, I really appreciate that. Um, okay. I'm going to just ask two questions of staff and then stop talking because there are other people who will raise all of the incredible things that they heard and that I missed. So, but my questions for staff are um Oh, and I really hope somebody addresses affordability. I'm not going to take the time to do that. I'm going to leave that to somebody else. But um

110we heard a lot of concern about storm water management and my response would have been the same response as Mr. Monunzel gave that typically when you are developing in an area that was developed initially in the 70s or 80s or whenever this was um additional development improves storm water because it brings detention and other retention sometimes but this one is detention um where there's really not efficient management but I do I I did take the point that a parking garage may do different things with water and may be more of a storm water challenge and I don't I'm just asking that on behalf and all I mean like I don't know so um >> so the what was the question about >> I would like to know if it if in if this is if

111um are we confident that the storm water management in this area for this project which does plan to have a parking structure in it um will help to mitigate and not exacerbate the flooding that residents are reporting and are concerned that the bridge thing made worse. So, and then I thought there was another thing I had for staff, but it might have all been You know what? Oh, yeah. And then [laughter] um I'm assuming that the city attorney's office has reviewed this conditional resoning. Is that a correct assumption? I've talked to um one of our city attorneys several times about different aspects. Uh that office will not do a holistic review though until this moves on to city council. >> Okay. So um we're not going to try to interpret but we might have someone

112who can speak to it um how conditional zoning works and if it is inappropriate to use conditions to limit based on what the new zoning is so that you end up with more than used to be allowed. I mean it the point was made that conditional zoning is not supposed to allow you to get over the minimum of a zoning but but I think the person was referring to R4 which is the current zoning. These conditions are being applied to TC1 and they significantly reduce the height allowed of TC1. So to me it is consistent with my understanding of zoning conditions but I am not a lawyer and so I would want to know that the city attorney had seen that and didn't feel that the city would be sued and lose. The cities get

113sued all the time. So when you ask the city attorney could we get sued they'll say yes. And the question to ask them is could we get sued and lose? So that's the question. So, and you don't I don't think we need to, but the storm water one I would like to hear. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Dish. So, on the storm water question, um are we confident that the storm water management um especially around the parking structure will help rather than um harm uh mitigation and neighboring neighborhoods. Um so, our storm water reviewer, Peter Stevens, reviews all of these sightlines for storm water. I have 100% confidence in him. he would not advance a site plan if it did not meet every code requirement for storm water and that includes not making things worse.

114Um that's about my extent of talking about storm water. [laughter] So if you wanted details I would suggest that you ask the applicants but it has been it has been vetted thoroughly um in multiple review rounds. >> Thank you planner Thatcher. >> Um I don't know off the top of my head. I'm sure he did though. >> Yeah, he must add comments. >> Okay, thank you. >> Other commissioners, Commissioner Adams, >> this is a question for maybe let me start with staff. I I wasn't following how the phase one and phase 2 building heights are mapping on to the height restrictions that are created by the voluntary conditions. So you've got a a nice map inside the staff report that shows with colors where the heights where you can go up to with the voluntary

115conditions tacked on to the TC1. What I couldn't figure out is when I was looking at the site plan and the renderings, it looked like buildings that might exceed those height limits are going to be plopped down into zones where they shouldn't be. I It's I must be misreading something, but I'm wondering if you could explain. Um, I'm not exactly sure what your question is. If you're looking >> buildings are too tall, proposed zoning conditions. >> I was I I couldn't quite follow how the buildings are below the height limits that would be created with the voluntary conditions. >> I see. I see. >> Does that make sense? >> Yes, that makes sense. So, um, let me flip to a different table for that. Um, right now TC1 zoning without conditions um allows I actually

116have a helpful graphic that our chair sent to me just a moment ago. Would you like me to pull that up, Mr. Weiss? >> Yes, please. >> Okay, just give me one moment. >> And I was looking at the chart on page six of the staff report. So >> you're looking at the picture with the colors and you're asking where is this development? >> Where's the buildings going? >> Where is it? There are bands of purple and green and yellow. >> Right. And I've got a sevenstory building that when I was looking at it seemed to go into 35 ft maximum height zones. >> It's in the purple. >> It's all in the purple. You see how wisteria and aster makes sort of a square? >> I got it now. >> It's in the right

117or east half of that square. >> Yep. I'm Okay. following. Um, let me stop talking and let other people ask questions. >> Commissioner Mills, are you ready? >> Uh, well, I had the questions mostly about the storm water and I think that that has been someone else if you're not ready. >> Well, I I'll just say [clears throat] the the followup that I did have or my two cents worth on the reszoning portion in particular. I don't think that the intent of this district is right. I actually think that the form if it complied with the standards is and and the way that things are set back. I think the int the the conditions along with it match but this was TC1 was not just from its overall purpose it was not intended for that

118and we don't have a zone I think really intended for this right now. I we will have a zone um I think in the future because this is something that at least in the draft plan that is now in ver will get revisions for up calls for transition calls for an ability to have infill like this but also thinking about setbacks like what are appropriate setbacks and thinking about what are the uses and thinking about what are the parking standards We I think we will develop that. I don't think that TC1 was built for this and it feels like putting the conditions on it just seem it's the intent is not right. So honestly it this may be like I know that this is maybe backwards from a lot of the way that people are

119um the intention of separating these out. If I I agree with this idea that let us that we should not be breaking precedent about how we are measuring buildings and again that should be another discussion that if we think that we need to change our how we measure buildings frontage then let's do that. I don't think that we should break that rule just for one site plan. Um, if it weren't for that, I think that the site plan I could approve. Like I don't think it's a bad plan necessarily, but I don't think that this is the zoning. Um, and so that actually I can't vote for either of the things because I I don't think that this is the right zoning. Um I don't and I and I agree that we don't have a

120zone right now that contemplates this super well unless again our one of the R4s I think could be supported here but if that it's already R4 so um so I say that and I'm wanting to be really transparent particularly again I really appreciate the thought that you put into this in in in your comments and thinking about like what we ask petitioners to do. It's like we have standards that we apply towards everything and like figuring out whether you think that what is being asked for meets those standards. Super useful. Like again, thank you. And I would say in the future if a building like this came and we had a zoning district, I don't I don't know that I would be opposed to it. Even though it once we have a zoning district where

121we've had a conversation about what do we do when we are thinking about infill along places where there are buses right but where it is not in the definition of the zone that hey um this is this is these are the only districts that it's applied or in rare or unique circumstances and I don't know that this to me fits the rare or unique circumstance. So, I just want to be super transparent with you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Mills. We'll go back to Commissioner Adams. >> Um, so maybe on my pass my questions. Um, I agree with staff and its interpretation of the width requirement. So, it has to be measured outer to outer or else it's easily gamed, right? you could just change the amount of frontage you have along the street and you

122can get around you can gain width pretty easily that way. So it has to be with the width. >> Um so I think the the site plan has to be denied. I agree with staff on that. Um on the resoning um you know as background I and I'm saying this only because um a number of the public commenters um you know have concerns about the project. My my discretion on a resoning is a little more limited than that. And what I mean by that is one of the public commenters pointed out that resoning is law. It lives forever. So necessarily my decision is agnostic on project. I'm not focused on the project. I'm focused on whether the resoning application satisfies the legal standard and whether the district is appropriate for the site regardless of what

123gets built there because the project can fail, something else can get built in 30 years. something might that the even if this project goes forward, it could be bulldozed and something else could get built. So, I'm I'm not focused on whether the project is a good project or whether um I'm just focused on the application. I'm focused on the district. Um I can't impose new conditions on the application. And so, Council Member Dish, I interpreted your question earlier about whether TC1's parking requirements are appropriate here as a potential basis to deny the application, not as a basis to impose new conditions. Um the which we can't do um the so I have an up and up or down vote. I can reject the conditions offered and then pass that I only get to do I

124get to say yes or I get to say no. Um the suggestion that we are creating precedent I mean all real estate is unique. Every pro every every application we get is unique. Um I'm not aware and I am a lawyer. I'm not aware of any basis to take the position that what we do tonight has any bearing on any future TC1 applications we might receive. Everything is unique in this space um on the legal standards. So the reasoning um the UDC requires me to consider whether there has been an error that I need to correct, whether there's a change in municipal policy or whether there are changing conditions in this area that justify a resoning. I think the second criteria is met here. Um, there has been a change to municipal policy that justifies

125a reszoning to a higher housing density district. And those are the economic development resolutions that council passed in April of 2024 that direct us to prioritize the construction of housing at all income levels. Um, and to use to to flexibly interpret the legal tools we have to do that. I agree with staff that there are problems with applying TC1 to this site and that is the purpose statement in 5129B which states that using this district to um replace districts other than OER C2B C3P R5 or M1 should be a rare event requiring special facts and even in that case the site should be surrounded by these districts and those criteria are not met here. Um a little less than half of the site is surrounded by those districts. Um, I still support the reasoning in

126spite of that. Um, and let me explain why. Purpose statements are legislative expressions of intention. They guide the interpretation and the application of the law, but they are not the law. Um, our consideration of the application should be guided by but not controlled by those purpose statements. In addition, we have more recent legislative direction that should impact our interpretation of TC-1, which again are the April 2024 economic development resolutions that direct us to be more flexible in how we constru the UDC in a manner that maximizes the construction of new housing in Ann Arbor to meet the needs of the city in a housing crisis. That expression of legislative intent to me is not only more recent, but it reflects an implicit judgment by the city council that the text of the UDC may not

127match in every case the policy needs of the moment and it should be liberally construed where reasonable to permit more housing. This resoning by permitting additional density on the site satisfies that criteria. This is also I think as as Commissioner Mills noted, we're not really resoning to TC1 as written. Um the the staff report notes that the voluntary height restrictions offered by the petitioner mitigate a lot of the adverse impacts that would happen if TC1 were were put on this site as written. Um next to the residential districts that border the site to the north and the east height will be capped at 35 ft which is identical to existing R3 and only 5 ft taller than R4 height caps on the existing zoning. Um, this site is appropriate, I think, for higher density mixeduse

128housing that TC1 contemplates. It has been zoned for multifamily housing since at least 1969. Um, and it's border to the south and the west by light industrial and commercial zones. The final thing I would note is that we have very recently looked at TC1 and been flexible to the point of actually doing text amendments in TC1 to support the Arbor South projects. And what the what the applicant is asking for here, I think, is le it's less. I mean, all I have to do I have I have to look at that purpose statement. I have to figure out whether I I have a basis to say that that isn't controlling. And I think I have again by virtue of the more recent legislative intention in the economic development resolutions and then also by the modifications

129made to to the fully leded version of TC1. I will stop talking. >> Thank you, Commissioner Adams. We can all take a break before you have to follow Commissioner Adams if you want. [laughter] Not an actual break, but just like a breather break. >> Okay, great. Commissioner Abrams and then uh Commissioner Dish. >> I might follow Commissioner Adams with some questions for Commissioner Adams. But um I have a I have questions for everyone. So bear with me, please. The first question I have is a procedural question perhaps for staff, which is that um because a zoning a resoning petition requires an area plan. If we split the two and we say there's not support at the table for the site plan because it doesn't meet the code, how are we how do we understand procedurally

130approving the reszoning request with a insufficient site plan or no area plan? Um the advice that we got uh yesterday was was and I'm sorry that I wasn't part of that conversation directly. I heard it after the fact. Um but that it's okay for the two to be separated. Um we would obviously have to explain what happened to city council and why they would not match up and be presented together. Um that probably doesn't answer your question, [laughter] but um Yeah, it doesn't like in I don't know really how to frame it. I don't know whether it's a legal question or just a process question, but like >> hypothetically if the reasonzoning gets approved, you know, for the record it gets paired with this >> wrong site plan. I like it doesn't we haven't done

131that before as far as I understand. >> Right. I understand what you're saying. It wouldn't be that they're paired. >> [snorts] >> It's it was it was decided that you just have to have one or the other go with the resoning. Um and that the resoning can stand on its own without the approval of the area plan or the site plan. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. I guess if I'm looking at the EDC, it just says that the application has to contain it. It doesn't say that we have to like it. >> It's a little wonky, >> but we aren't approving it as a plan. We are simply looking at it as part of our Okay, got it. Thank you. [snorts] >> My next question would be for Commissioner Adams. Can you just help

132what you said about the the specific purpose statement was illuminating for me, but could you help me understand why it is not the law or like what things in the UDC are the law and which things are not the law? >> Well, I recognizing that uh Commissioner Adams is not the city attorney, nor is he the planning commission attorney and is not giving us legal advice. speaking as yourself recovering litigator. Uh I um so the the so I'm interp I'm interpreting it as of course everything in the UDC is the law. Um but it's it's an it's an expression of leg of purpose by virtue of how it's by how it's described in the UDC as a purpose statement. And it doesn't it doesn't prohibit me from doing it. it says you shouldn't probably do

133this and this is what we intended and that's kind of how it's labeled and that's why I'm interpreting it that way. Um, I'd feel differently if other words were used later on in, you know, tables and other areas of the UDC that said, "Thou shalt not or that type of thing." But I went back and pulled the staff reports associated with the ordinance and feel relatively sound in the conclusion that TC1 is not unlawful to use here, that we have discretion to make a judgment on that. the purpose statement and their council's against it, but then I've got stuff that comes after that that says be creative and flexible in how you interpret this document because it's not meeting our policy needs. So, I don't know how to I think the more recent thing should

134control and council came along after the fact and said we've got a big problem on our hands and we need to be more aggressive in how we we approve resonings. So, that's why I'm taking the position that I'm taking. >> Okay, that helps. Thank you. And again, just for the record, uh, Commissioner Adams is not legal counsel to this commission, nor to the city, and, uh, his legal advice is his own. >> Take it at your own risk? No, I'm kidding. Um, and then my next question maybe starts with staff and then moves to the petitioner, uh, which is, um, was there a conversation or consideration of PUD as opposed to reszoning to TC1? Um the application was for TC1 with conditions. Certainly that was brought up. Um but there wasn't a lengthy discussion of

135it or anything because it was not what the applicant desired. >> Okay. Is there any guidance or or practice that you you follow as city staff when thinking about weighing the pros and cons of a reasonzoning with conditions versus a PUD? >> Um I wouldn't compare them directly. Uh, I mean, if if you or someone asked us to do that, we could certainly do that. I hate to say it, but generally people avoid PUDS because you it costs a lot more because you have to pay into affordable housing or provide units. Um, I don't know that that was the case here and I'm not trying to imply that it was, but um, [laughter] >> we've seen some more creative applications that >> Okay, great. And then maybe to the petitioner I could pose the same

136question whether or not you considered a PUD and if not why not and and a secondary question would be um could you say something about the reasonzoning petition for the ent for all of the parcels as opposed to just the R4C portion which you plan to redevelop and if there are plans for other portions of the site. >> So there were multiple questions there. PUD question mark and reszoning everything versus just reszoning the R4C area that is slated for redevelopment. >> Okay, thank you. Um yes. Um so uh PUD there's a there's a section in the in the language of what when a POD is permitted or allowed and that um you'll have to uh I'm I'm not going to I'm not going to quote uh verbatim, but it basically uh it says it you

137you can't do a PUD if you could do what you want to do another way. >> And so we and so this was the this was the other way was with the TC1. Um and um then the other question you asked about was the selective reszoning of a of a smaller parcel. The problem is the way that TC1 is written. It would if you didn't reszone the whole property then the piece that you're actually developing today would be right next to an R and therefore you'd be limited to the 30 ft. So you have to do the whole property in order to get the advantages of the uh increased height for more efficient uh uh use of the land. >> Does that make sense? >> It does. And no, I just wanted everybody to hear.

138And then is there are there any plans currently to redevelop >> the other portions of the site? >> No, there are no current plans. Um, I'm going to say it's going to depend on how the uh phase one and phase 2 A and 2B are received. Um, if if they're wellreceived and they and they lease up, that may encourage the developer um the owners to proceed with future uh migration towards the uh west towards the south industrial. Um there there are questions of like why did we pick this part of the site to start with and part of that goes to uh Commissioner Dish's uh question about infill and and part of it goes to the question of uh someone during the public comment. Um we are starting with the parking lot. Basically we're starting

139with an area of the site that is currently mostly undeveloped. Phase one has to be built on a part of the site that doesn't take away current leased units out of the leasing pool. And [snorts] so, uh, most of what we are redeveloping is, uh, open space between the parking lot and the street and an existing parking lot. Um the second phase also includes a new clubhouse type facilities, community gathering spaces for the for the entire complex so that both new and existing residents can socialize in in a new facility modern expanded to accommodate the greater number of people. So we are infilling and we have to do it in a way that doesn't take units offline when we start the project. Um so those are other considerations. Great. >> Thank you. Thank you Mr.

140Moore. I'm I can wrap up. I I'll just say um thank you to all of you who came and and made public comment. I really appreciated hearing from you uh and reading the emails that came through. I'll just say I'm struggling with this decision. Uh I really understand the rationale on both sides. I think that um I am very very much in favor of increasing housing supply uh and increased density in Ann Arbor. I think I'm I've gone on the record a lot saying that. Um, and my votes usually back that up. In this case, I think I I'm a little bit part of my struggle is um what [clears throat] Commissioner Mills pointed out, which is that I think I think it's revealing that we actually have a hole or like a a gap

141in our zoning and I wish that we had a district that seemed like a better fit to me, but to zone to so part of my struggle is that it feels inappropriate to go to TC1 and then restrict its height. Um and and it feels like a funny fit to me. Um and yet I am reluctant to vote against it because I do think that the increased density is something that we really really really really need. Um I was hung up on the specific purpose statement and and kind of voting to do something that seems to just so clearly violate what we've written in the in the UDC. Uh but I am convinced actually by Commissioner Adams rationale. And so that was very helpful for me. Um, and to be reminded also of the economic

142development resolution and the bearing that that should have on our decision-m, I was reassured by staff on the area plan question. So for me, the really the outstanding one is um yeah, and I think there are changing conditions in the municipality. So I agree that there is uh standing for the resoning petition. I think I just TC1 still feels a little bit tough. So, I I'm I'm leaning yes, but just to be transparent about my deliberation, that's that's my struggle. Thanks. >> Thank you, Commissioner Abrams. Uh, Commissioner Weatherbe. >> Okay. Uh, first of all, thank you to all the neighbors. Um, and uh, as someone who lives in a neighborhood that has changed a lot in the last 20 years, 30 years since we've lived there, um, change will most likely happen here regardless of

143what of this vote. Um, the owners obviously are prepared to do something different with their property and this is not city property. It's nothing that we can um we we can determine yes or no on these plans based on what our current rules and regulations are, but we don't get to say, "Oh, we want three stories here. We want five stories here. We want a golf course or a this or a that or um that's just not in our purview." And it feels weird. The reason I'm sitting here is because I was objecting to uh uh development in my neighborhood 30 years ago. Um so I understand and I very much sympathize because it is um if we all could play Sim City and design our cities the way we want them that from our

144lived experience it they would look different. Um, but you know, we are working with someone who owns 45 acres and uh they have say in what they own just like you have say in what you own on your property. So, um, just to sort of say regardless of what what what we vote here, um, it is likely that changes are going to happen in your area. And um I hope you maintain your friendliness and your neighborliness and your fun dog interactions um even through changes because that that is what makes Ann Arbor good. It's what makes these neighborhoods great. Um and uh one advantage to having more neighbors is more dogs. So my neighborhood has a lot more dogs now and it's actually kind of great. But um but just regardless of how we vote

145or what the um just be aware that this is not our property and it's not the city's property and you know changes will most likely happen. Um it's not 100% uh you know sometimes projects don't go through but um that's just to say and thank you all for coming and being uh sort of shining lights of neighborhoods even when you disagree with a project. um that's not what we always hear, so it is appreciated definitely. Um for me, uh I find TC1 a very awkward fit here. Um it just if if these buildings were multi-use and up on the corridor and I could I could be more convinced, but that's not what the that that's not what we're looking at. And so for me, TC1 and I get that yes, we're supposed to be flexible

146and we're supposed to be um creative, but also this project has been I think the first uh uh meeting with the neighbors was in 2023. Um so it's it's you know been in the process since before those letters came through from council. And I don't I don't it just feels like a really awkward fit. It's like TC1 with all these conditions that make it not TC1. And I don't see it as um and and that feels weird to me. It it feels uncomfortable. And like if we all got to just pick what parts of each zoning code we liked, that would make things maybe easier or harder. I don't know. But it it just seems to me it's a very uncomfortable fit. And I don't I don't think it it is appropriate here. Um, and

147I could say more about that, but I think that's the gist of it is I I just I don't see how TC1 this area and what is being recommended conforms to TC1. I I don't I don't see it. >> Thank you, Commissioner Weatherbe. Commissioner just I overlooked you when you had your hand up. Are you okay? Okay, great. Okay, Commissioner Hammer Schmidt. Okay, thank you. Um, and I'm just going to echo you guys like this. It's very refreshing to have meetings where like we can have this dialogue and nobody comes and just yells at us. So, thank you. Thank you for being engaged and thank you for being respectful. Um, and I can tell you guys love your community, which is amazing. Um, I agree with Commissioner Weatherbe that change will most likely happen here.

148um whether with this project or with something else, you know, 5 years after this is potentially reszoned as an outcome of our new comprehensive plan. Um we know TC1 is not perfect and we don't have a zoning district currently that works for what this seems to be trying to do. Um but I I agree again with Commissioner Weatherbe and I feel like composing these conditions on TC1 doesn't really make it TC1. It seems like we're trying to skirt around a PUD. Um TC1 also the original intent um was mixeduse development along transit corridors which industrial is but what I'm seeing here is a 40ome acres site that will remain largely residential maybe. I mean we don't we don't know because we're only seeing a little bit of the redevelopment and we heard that there are

149no current plans to redevelop the rest of the site. So again to agree with the commissioner whether I mean if we saw something that was a long industrial that that had the height that had the mixed use like maybe I would feel differently but also I don't know because these conditions again do not make it TC1. Um, we also heard and read from um, the public concerns about it was height. I think the the luxuriness of the development, potential cost of the rents. And I just want to sort of throw out there, my guess is that a smaller scale three to four story building that might feel like it fits a little bit better, might be a little feel like the rents should be lower would not pencil um, in this current climate with development

150costs the way that they are. Um, the last thing because I whispered this to Commissioner Dish. She wanted me to say it out loud. I think with the storm water um I fully trust Peter Stevens and his analysis um and that everything that with this particular plan would not create more um concerns in the neighborhoods to the to the north. But with park I I don't think a parking garage itself because it's a parking garage does something worse than a residential building. It's just impervious surface and how that's all calculated. Um, so I guess I'll wrap up this. I think I'm leaning no just so everyone knows my transparency, but I fully respect the opinions of my colleagues. >> Great. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Norton. We haven't heard from you. Would you like to

151chime in? [clears throat] >> I'm I'm having trouble with this one as well. Um, this area is going to change. It's in an area that is designated under the KLP if the KLP gets adopted as it's currently configured to be a transition zone which would envision something more dynamic and different and dense and intense than what's there now. Um, but we haven't worked through what that will mean yet or how that will fit in different places. And I don't think that it's an automatic jump that TC1 is an approximation of what might happen in a transition zone. Um, I don't see this as fitting the TC zone. I will respectfully disagree with my colleague. I think this purpose statement of what a TC1 district is to be for is pretty clear. The and it's pretty

152clear that you shouldn't divert from this kind of industrial infill context along an active corridor unless there are ex exceptional reasons to do that. We have gotten direction subsequent to that that there's a housing crisis in the city. We should be acting on that, but we are through the club and through the resoning changes that we will make in light of the club. That's coming. I know it's not going to happen tomorrow, but um that's the direction we're heading. I think that's the appropriate place to deal with these kinds of issues rather than force-fitting a zoning district we have now that doesn't really work and doesn't really fit on the site. So, um, I'm I'm sympathetic with the folks who are concerned that their neighborhood is going to change. It's going to change. This is

153a place that is ripe to be developed at a more dense location. And I and I know that a sevenstory structure sounds horrific. My guess is once it was up, people would adjust to it and it would be fine. I live in the old west side. I heard screams of terror when the new structures on Main Street were going up. This is going to destroy the neighborhood. Now, I ask my neighbors, "Has it destroyed the neighborhood?" And they look at me like, "What are you talking about? It it's fine. What's the problem?" So, I know when we're at the front end of change, it's really scary. At the back end of change, it's often not um as bad as what it turned out to be. Maybe some folks wouldn't don't really like those structures, but

154I don't think they've been as devastating as the concerns. So, I hear you. I'm sympathetic with you, but I also think it's going to change and we we can't just because it's going to change, we should get rid of it. Having said that, I'm really this TC1 thing is just is it doesn't seem to me that this is what TC1 intended. And I get the logic that the proponent is saying that we have to do the whole thing to make it work, but that just speaks to the fact that it doesn't work here unless you do the whole district. And is it really necessary on its face, all things stepping back to reszone this whole area is TC1 to fulfill the purpose of TC1? I don't see that. Um I think it's asking to reszone

155too much area for what this project would be. And yeah, you would separate the project from the resoning. But if you se take out the project that's proposed, then you really ask, well, is this resoning necessary? Um why would it be necessary if we don't have a project here that could credibly work with that new resoning that would fit? So I'm kind of thinking through this on my own. I I think I'm as much as I want to take up the spirit of what we're trying to do through the club and make it work, I don't I think this is premature and it doesn't fit for what the zoning currently calls for. So, I'm inclined to vote against it. >> Thank you, Commissioner Nordon. Commissioner Dish, are you ready? Otherwise, I will give my comments.

156>> Uh, no. I I can wait. >> Does he like to have the last chair? >> No, no, no. I I I don't I don't I don't have to have the last word. I'm happy to >> I'm happy to let you go and then if if you have >> I'm actually going to work through some of the comments that we haven't talked about. >> That was what I was going to do too. So, I'm going to let you go first. >> Okay. Um so, the first thing if um planner Kelly could uh put back up the TC1. I heard that uh the TC1 would permit a sevenstory building abuing my neighborhood. I don't think that is true. I think the height would be 55 ft and currently our UDC permits up to 40 if you

157meet certain standards uh like our sustainability. So, um about 15 ft uh higher than that. And I think there would be uh still some buffering that would occur between um I know we got rid of the conflicting land use from residential to residential, but I think it wouldn't be certainly directly abuing, you know, without any setbacks. So, I wanted uh to address that one. Uh I think the petitioner addressed the storm water. Um we have robust storm water mitigation. Any new development that comes into the city must update uh the storm water. Even uh St. Paul's when they were talking they are going to have to do some things to address storm water. That is a huge concern of the city. It's both for infrastructure. It's also uh to help in your neighborhoods. Um and

158so the I don't think there is storm water management on the site right now in these acres. So whatever they put in is going to be an improvement from what's on the site today. So I wanted to address that concern uh that I heard. I agree. Um this is a comment not from the well no actually it is a comment from the audience. It's from Mr. Garber. Um I agree with Mr. Garber. This is too much parking. Uh it's entirely entirely entirely too much parking. Um if you are parked in the way that um Mr. Garber has calculated at 1.3 per unit or 1.5 per unit. It's twice what we uh saw from Beakman. Beakman told us it was 7. And I would say however this comes, whenever it comes, uh if you could get

159to 7, I think that would be um an improvement. That's a 50% reduction from what I believe uh you have today. Um, our neighbor in the back uh talked about the fact that uh she would be directly I don't know your pronouns uh that they would be uh directly uh impacted uh by this development. It sounded like uh from uh the architect, Mr. Moore, that the first phase uh doesn't take any units off and I imagine that if you're displacing someone in the second phase, you're going to offer them space in the newly constructed phase. Is that true? That's a question for the petitioner. please answer it. >> Um, so my client is the uh also the management company um and they have said they're going to work to relocate uh people in the units

160that are going to be demolished in phase two either to similar units uh in the buildings that are not being developed because they become they turn over they become available. So you might get exactly the same unit configuration in a different building or per perhaps in the new structure. But there definitely going to work to help people >> and that would be a lot of goodwill for your uh client to uh reassure their current tenants that there would be space made for them. I think that would help uh everybody uh as you think about this and this is this is the hard part of redevelopment is when redevelopment occurs someone gets displaced and um I'm sitting very comfortably. I'm very housed. I'm not at the subject of redevelopment. And so I I'm just asking this

161question to make sure uh that some reassuring communication can be um uh given so that the tenants that are there, the residents that are there have some confidence that they won't be displaced permanently. Okay. Um let's see. Oh, traffic. Oh, Planner Thatcher has left. Oh, Planner Thatcher is back. Uh this did not trigger a traffic study because the increase in units would not have tripped uh that trigger. Is that correct? >> I would have to look that up. >> Okay. There is one. >> I looked it up because I saw that it was required as a area plan a traffic transportation impact analysis. So it's on stream. >> Okay. All right. >> Yeah. >> But there wasn't any demonstrative impact to traffic. Um, do you want me to tell you it's >> Yes, you can

162look that up. >> Overwhelming conclusion. Yeah. >> Yes. Um, our neighbor here in the front asked um uh quoting um section 5.20 about screening. So, if this does move forward, I guess the question would be to the petitioner, would the petitioner be agreeable to um add any additional screening uh as uh they uh interface with the neighbors to the north? Um, as a matter of fact, I just got a text from the ownership group and they are willing um to investigate additional screening um as has been requested and also adding a condition about residential use only on the east and the north side and removing potentially one story with the parking deck. >> If if it's tabled tonight, we'll have the opportunity to and do the analysis and and decide yes, we can add, you

163know, 15 more trees, 20 more trees. Yes, maybe we can add that condition about residential uses only on the north and east side of Asterwisteria. Um and perhaps remove one level of parking. We'd like the opportunity to be able to do that analysis if you you feel you could table it. >> Okay. Um Mr. Garber asked about heating units. Sorry, Mr. Moore, if you can stay. Um have you uh do you have any response to him of the kind of heating that you plan to use in the development? I will defer to the uh lead architect on that because they've been doing the analysis of uh the systems engineering. >> Sure. Thank you. >> Uh well, not uh fully decided. It'll likely be air airtoair heat pump uh all electric air to air heat pump.

164Um I've worked on thousands of apartment uh uh uh buildings and and units and VRF almost never come to the table and the ones that I've worked on um usually meant for very high-rise buildings uh in my opinion. >> Okay. Did you find it? >> Yes. So, um it's a 40-page report, but there is luckily an executive summary on page four. Um and the takeaway is that the maximum increase in overall intersection delay is less than 1 second. >> Okay. Um another neighbor brought up uh that uh it was between either the Chicago person or the person who cleans the drains. uh that [laughter] the I'm sorry there's so many people and I try to write down your names and then yeah I've lost track of you I apologize but we are listening and as

165you can see we're just systematically going through the things that you've asked us uh to consider um that the the zoning that TC1 is allowed to replace would not have had residential in it and I just wanted to clarify and ask staff to correct me. I know office uh some of the commercial districts um permit um residential. So when I was looking in the table, I'm looking at the let's see August 10th, 2025 uh UDC edition, the 11th edition. I'm on page 35. I see uh office C1, D1, D2, C2B, C3, and TC1 all have um permitted residential households in it. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, u a lot of the districts that it is intended to replace would and could have residential. They might not have it uh to the same

166height and uh the density, but it is permitted. And you can look this up yourself. It's under uh section five in our UDC uh subsection 15 0.1. It's our primary uses table which uh go by zone and tell you what is permitted in each of the zones. Okay, Commissioner D, I'm going to make my comments and then I'll I'll turn it to you and then see where we are. Is that okay? Um, I agree with the table uh that well the table is split I should say from my whipping of the votes [laughter] and um I I think I agree that TC1 uh for all intents and purposes is not the right zone but it is the closest zone in our UDC uh to achieve what the um petitioner wants to achieve. And one of

167the things that I have learned sitting at the table for the last six years is um petitioners can request resonings for anything and at any time. It's just really a request that they can make. Um and they are paying attention to the direction of the city. So they are listening to the legislative body. They're listening to what that body is saying uh as candidates run uh to represent us in the city. And as everyone in this room recognizes and understands and have echoed and all agree and let me just be the next person to say thank you so much for um just your joyful opposition. Like I I I I want to like have you all come back and teach folks how to like joyfully oppose things because it was just delightful listening to you

168as you were just like no no no. But it was happy and you were delighted um to be here and to talk with us and it didn't feel like it's adversarial and um everyone at the table has acknowledged it because uh we sit at this table and we hear from a lot of people um and over the the length of time that we've been working on the comprehensive land use, we've heard from thousands of people and a lot of people um make assumptions about us that are not true. We are your neighbors. I am your neighbor. I I understand what it means to have your neighborhood changed. One of you asked, "Would you like to have 342 new neighbors?" And unfortunately for you, my answer is an enthusiastic yes. I would love to have 342

169new neighbors, but my city council members said no. In my neighborhood, they blocked us from increasing uh the residential density in the neighborhood that I live in, which is a R1C. I wanted it to have as much density as possible and I'm still a little angry about that. But I'm glad to be uh in this conversation with you because I think you all see uh what the challenges are. The challenges are uh we're living in a changing environment. We live in a great place. People want to live here and uh because they want to live here, they put demands on us uh which means we have to either make space for them or we have to resist them. and you are in that thin space of this change and uh we're here and we're trying

170to listen. We're trying to hear what you're saying, what our UDC says, what our staff says, and we're trying to make the best decision. Let me just inform you of what's going to happen and then I'll I'll make my comments. Um whether this passes at this table or not, we are only making a recommendation. So short of us tableabling it and allowing the petitioner to come back, you heard that from Mr. Moore. He's subtly put that into his comments that we could table this and someone at the table would have to take that up as a motion. Um this will proceed to city council and city council uh and uh Commissioner Dish can correct me will have two readings. They'll have a a first reading uh which generally passes um and then they will have

171a second reading and at each reading they'll have a public hearing. So your opportunities to talk joyfully about your opposition continue and you would have two more chances uh to do that as well as your own advocacy with your direct uh council members. Does that all make sense? Okay. I have the privilege of the table to talk to you and you can talk back in this way. Um, so I agree TC1 is not the best uh zoning district, but it is the only one right now because we're updating our 25 year 204 year old plan. Um, which didn't imagine that uh the University of Michigan would be the largest uh state university in Michigan. It didn't imagine that the university would um hire uh 26,000 new employees. It did not imagine that the University of

172Michigan would uh absorb an entire hospital system. It did not imagine that the university would grow um almost unabated um by 5,000 new students year-over-year. It did not imagine that the university would not build more housing for those students. You all know that it's been since 1964 that the university has built residential um housing in the downtown uh area on this side of town. Um it's been a long long time since they've built housing. Our uh comprehensive land use plan that we are operating under did not imagine that environment at all and this is where we find ourselves in this thin space, this in between. So, I'm inclined to uh vote in favor of the resoning uh to deny the site plan because I agree with staff. It does not meet uh the standard and

173staff has discretion there. And um if the table votes the way that I have counted it, this will fail here at the table, but it will advance uh to city council and you'll have an additional conversation with them. With that, Commissioner Dish. Thank you, Commissioner W. So, um I do want to address a couple of times affordability came up and I do want to talk about that because this is tough. Um and also, um Mr. Moore has given us an opening to talk about that with him which I will come to in a moment, Mr. Moore. So, you don't have to stand up yet. But um so there are a couple of pathways to affordability and one is to increase supply and the other is to publicly subsidize housing. Ann Arbor is taking both of

174those pathways. We are increasing supply. the comprehensive land use plan which is what commissioner Norton is referring to when he speaks of the club. We live with it so we call it by its nickname. Um it uh we are doing that. It is we the the comprehensive land use plan envisions greater density in the near campus areas and in downtown just as we're seeing now. It envisions some kind of increase in areas like yours, which that is the least clear, least well articulated part of the plan. And so I think everyone here is right that your neighborhood is going to change. My neighborhood will change. Um the thanks to you all who voted for the affordable housing mill, we are producing we have a thousand units in the pipeline right now. um some of them

175rising into the air in Kerry Town of income eligible affordable housing that's open to people that average at 60% of the area median income. Now neither of this addresses what you are talking about which is housing for you or housing for people who were in their 30s um because you are not in the income eligible piece and you are not interested in the form of housing if you could pay for it and many of you wouldn't be able to pay for the high tower housing that is coming in in the So, um, as Commissioner Hammershmmit said, it is true that a three or four story building on this site would feel like it fit the surroundings better, but it definitely wouldn't be cheaper. The only way for it to be affordable would be if it

176were subsidized. I hope that we will be able to move forward using the state's new brownfield housing law to subsidize some housing to achieve missing middle housing. But that is the only way we can do it. What we do not have is what Chicago has um which is the ability to mandate that in or if you build here you have to include um some percentage of affordable housing in your building. That is it's a wonderful law. It is referred to as inclusionary zoning, which is an odd word, but um it we don't have that legal ability. It's not legal in Michigan. So, um so for the missing middle, what do we do? Well, we really have to think about displacement. And I feel as though this is really one of the first times I've heard

177um a petitioner talk about having a plan for displacement. So, Mr. Mr. Moore, I wondered if I could ask you a a few more questions about the possibility the possibilities for residents who will need to be relocated during construction of phase 2. Do you have any idea of how many people you might be talking about? And do you have any idea of the rate of turnover in your units? And so would it be, you know, if you're within 6 months of completing phase 2, would you hold empty units for pe people or starting phase 2? Would you be holding units for folks who are going to be displaced by it? I I'd love to hear some details on that. >> Yeah, I would have to get more information um from the ownership group and again,

178if we were able to do a tableing tonight, I could collect that data from them. I don't have that here with me tonight. I know that in our uh public um CP assistance participation meeting, they indicated that they would relocate people from similar units. Maybe the unit is oriented east >> and the new one is oriented north, but it would be the same floor plan, the same layout, um and the same level of, you know, interior finishes. So if the units they're living in had, you know, upgraded appliances, they would get the same thing because they would just take the appliances that were in the units that were going to be demolished and wheel them across the complex. Um, but I don't know the numbers or the uh hold time. So I do know that

179in terms of developing the project, it would be a minimum of three years before phase one, any new units came on board >> and then another two years before phase 2 A or 2B, if they were done at the same time, could come on board. So it's a it's not a quick thing to happen. It's a long process >> and I would have to get the data from my clients as to how many units turn over in any given year. >> Well, I really appreciate that. Um, I appreciate you're bringing that up. That long lead time really does make it possible that no one would have to leave because they weren't able to buy into the new units because I think it is clear that many people will not be able to do that. So,

180if that's information that you could gather, I would appreciate it and I would love it if we started to have models for people to think about displacement because it's a real thing. Yes. >> And I really appreciate you bringing it up. Um so I am in support of this resoning. I am very happy that commission that chair w put words to what I couldn't articulate which is that TC1 is not the right zone but it is the closest zone to achieve what the petitioner wants to achieve. I don't think I don't have a problem with TC1 with conditions that kind of make it not really look like TC1 anymore because we don't have transition and we have never at this table said that we were going to um stop development and stop approving things because

181the club hadn't been implemented yet and we didn't get the toys that we're going to get or I should say tools. >> Yeah, I was going to say tools. >> Yeah, tools. Although like I think zoning is fun. Um I so I just don't have a problem with that. I agree with Commissioner Adams and I believe I've heard this in conversations with staff that um the um I'm I'm losing my notes a minute. Yep. That the purpose statement does not have the status of a rule. But I also agree with Commissioner Norton that it is not something to be simply disregarded. So it is something that flags the need for us to exercise judgment about context and a judgment about context is made in the staff staff report which is that conditions are being used

182to recognize the context which is that there's a residential context here. We heard some really thoughtful comments from the floor about, well, here are some other things you should think about if you want to adapt this to a residential context. I'm completely comfortable with that unless there's we hear legal advice between now and the city council meeting that it's an inappropriate way of moving forward. And I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to second guessess or overthink this. Um, this is a project that is consistent with things that I have been unequivocal unequivocal in my support for. And there has been, I believe, an extraordinary amount of care taken to think about how to how this project can um meet city goals without trampling on people's current neighborhood and and lives. And the reality

183is is that this city is changing because of all the reasons that Chair W said. So, I'm cool with it. Um, I think one last thing would be the concerns raised about a sevenfloor open seventh floor open um >> clubhouse. Yeah, thank you. Um, I was thinking that you never hear any noise from the Verve, but then I remembered that it's like a 100 stories tall. So, it might be that something needs to be done. I know the Verve does have uh uh fencing and some >> stuff. Yeah. What's that called? the plastic stuff. Um >> yeah, it that doesn't do anything for the sale. >> Okay, that doesn't do anything. So anyway, please think about that as well. Um I have a question for staff which is um the developer has indicated the petitioner

184has indicated a willingness to consider some of the things that have come up and incorporate them into conditions. And would it be appropriate to do a motion to table and bring it back to planning commission or would it be simpler to let the commissioners we can just vote and these changes could if they are made that would be great if it comes to council with with changes that reflect concerns that were raised at planning commission that may affect council's evaluation. And so even though it would probably be a negative vote from CBC, council would be able to see something that evolved. So I'm just asking if I would like to see some changes, but I'm very much in support of this project. Should I make a motion to table or should we just vote? >>

185I would say just vote. Uh it would be my opinion that uh if the developer wishes to offer additional voluntary conditions that they could submit a letter of that intention and it could accompany the materials that proceed to council. I don't think there's of value in holding additional meeting time just for that item if if that's the specific uh item in question. I don't think it's necessary. I think a vote would be perfectly appropriate right now. >> And having said that, uh, someone can make a motion to table if they choose and then we would, uh, consider it at the table. Correct. You are advising against it, but it can still happen. >> That is correct. You do have an open agenda. Uh, [laughter] >> yes, that we have not yet cancelled because the chair

186>> has not yet been cancelled >> and the planning manager have not met to cancel it. Hold [laughter] hold on. Um, Mr. Moore. So, >> what do you want to do, Commissioner Dish? Because you really have the con right now. >> I don't know if I want a table and I'm happy to hear from Mr. Moore. I just wanted to mention about the PUB thing. >> What would you like to hear from him? >> I would just like to hear I don't know does two weeks matter whatever. But I did want to say um there are many reasons why we don't do PUDs and the biggest reason is because a PUD is a it is a zoning code that is utterly unique to a single project. And the entire point of doing a comprehensive land

187use plan is that we get away from project by project zoning. And so I wanted to uh just reflect that one may opt not to go for a PUD not because they're trying to skirt something that would be expensive. I think the conditions that are being imposed on this zoning are expensive. Um they may be skirting it for perfectly appropriate reasons which is it's better to reszone this whole site because that will facilitate future change which is what we're looking for. So that's all I wanted to say. So Mr. Moore, what is your preference? >> Um, so I just wanted to point out that the other things we were talking about re-evaluating would be a potential modification to the landscape plan and to the site plan to remove one layer of parking. So it's more

188than just the conditional use change to residential only. And I don't know if that colors your answer. Um if there's interest in um updating the site plan, I don't think we would table to a date certain. >> Right. >> Um I'm interested in what um Miss Thatcher uh if if she has any reflections on this >> the the items that Mr. Mr. Moore is talking about adding or changing aren't things that would require a lot of staff review or anything. So, it would really be for your benefit. Um, you know, reducing parking and adding landscaping, >> great. But I think that you could accomplish the same thing by just sending it on to council. But if you want to see it, >> I mean, also we would request a compliance like >> Yeah. >> Okay.

189[laughter] Um, Commissioner Mills, I was going to uh come back to you anyway, so here we are. I was after Commissioner Dish. [laughter] >> Oh, I didn't even know that I signaled a hand raise. Okay. Um, actually that the idea again that what we still haven't talked about and I I haven't heard disagreement about this, the site plan doesn't comply. >> Even with a different parking garage, the site plan still wouldn't comply. And so and I don't feel comfortable actually this this life plane could not be built [snorts] and so I don't know what could be built and that is one of the reasons why I'm not I mean and I'm not personally comfortable I actually there were lots of things that happened along the way that I'm I appreciate our conversation also ju just

190like we've been loving on the audience today I want to love on us [laughter] like we can respectfully disagree agree like and also like not be said in her ways. So like I think this is hard, right? [gasps] And I also want to say the argu I would just say and sorry that I'm picking on you a little bit, Commissioner Dish, but I don't see personally the difference between a PUD and a reasonzoning with conditions. That is a make your own thing. And so I don't in my mind it's not that different. I know and in particular like where a PUD is is because we don't have the thing. [laughter] We don't have a zoning district. And so I again I'm not pushing this to a PUD. But I do see those things having I

191don't think it's a good practice to have zoning districts with a whole bunch of conditions spread throughout the city because then when we go to reszone it looks like it's the same thing but it's not because it's it actually should have a little asterisk next to it because it's TC1 plus. [gasps] And so I think I actually I really you know that I'm not super fond of PUDS generally, but I like I actually think conditions make it make it even more difficult to understand what is allowed on the property next door because it looks on the map like it is TC1. Just for what it's worth, that's my two cents. So, um I I for those reasons, I actually don't know even if we tabled this that my vote's going to change. I'm just going

192to be real clear, but I and so I'm not going to propose tableabling, but I'm Yeah, that's my two cents. >> Commissioner Nord, >> I I appreciate the observations and the analysis that's going on here and I am honestly really struggling with this. I can see both sides. Well, but I'm I keep coming back to there's a project that's being proposed that staff is telling us doesn't comply with the site design requirements. We should not approve it. I don't know what would what would work that would pencil in for the developer that would also survive um would pass site plan review. And if we can't be sure that there's a a project that could be built here that would be financially feasible that would satisfy site plan, then where's the necessity to do the resoning

193to TC1? So, you're not supposed to think about a resoning in the context of a specific project. But if there's no project here that doesn't work, where's the necessity to reszone this to CC1? And if it's necessary to do it here, then why isn't it necessary to do it everywhere in the city that's along a corridor? So, I'm having a really hard time disconnecting the feasibility of this project as design with the need to do the resoning. And if it's not possible to do the project as design, we can't get it through the site plan, then where's the necessity for the reasoning? So, I still am kind of falling down on the side. I this is a problem enough shoehorning to try and get TC1 to work here um for a project that isn't going

194to that we're being told and I agree with doesn't pass the site design requirements. I don't see the logic. And maybe if it were tabled and they could do a quick redesign, that would solve that problem. But it sounds like that would take longer than that would be a long and involved process. >> Yeah, that would be another staff review. >> Yeah. So at a minimum, >> so I'm kind of back I understand that the tremendous need to approve projects. I understand that we're not supposed to stop new development and that while we're trying to update the comprehensive land use plan, but that doesn't mean um that we should disregard what the whole purpose of the how the system is supposed to work and the fact that we are proceeding with making the changes that

195are needing to facilitate the kind of growth and development we want to see. I think I just convinced myself I'm still falling down on the sounds like um this is a problematic proposal. >> All right, I think we're ready to vote. Let's do a a roll call vote, please. >> Um, if I could just add that our uh our current comprehensive plan is only 16 years old. I meant to say that earlier. >> Oh, I did I say 24? >> I can't vote. [snorts] >> Or did I say 19? >> I [laughter] thought I said 19. >> It's not quite that bad. >> Uh, okay. I was off by three years. >> So, on the first motion as presented, >> oh, I'm sorry. you will have to um the first motion everyone is for the

196site plan uh dated November 19th. Okay. >> And uh the development agreement contingent upon administrative land transfer. >> I also wanted to just mention that uh since you are in even number this evening that if it is split evenly that is a denial recommendation and would be forwarded with the vote count to city council as such. Uh, Commissioner Norton, >> this is for the site plan >> for the site plan and development agree >> development. Um, no. >> Commissioner Adams, >> no. >> Commissioner Weatherbe, >> no. >> Commissioner Mills, >> no. >> Council member Dish, >> no. >> Uh, Commissioner Hammershmid, >> no. >> Commissioner Abrams, >> no. >> And Commissioner W, >> no. >> That fails. and will be uh recommended uh for denial to city council. On your second motion as presented to

197approve the petition to transit corridor district and accept conditions um fully stated earlier in the evening. Commissioner Norton, >> no. >> Commissioner Adams, >> this is resoning, correct? >> Yes. The reasonzoning petition. >> Yes. Commissioner Weatherbe, >> no. >> Commissioner Mills, >> no. >> Uh, Council Member Dish, >> yes. >> Uh, Commissioner Hammernet, >> no. >> Uh, Commissioner Abrams, >> yes. >> And Commissioner W, >> yes. >> Okay. So since that is a split vote that uh fails and will be uh recommended to city council as a denial. >> Thank you everyone and thank you all uh so much for coming and sharing your thoughts with us and um being joyful uh objectors. Really appreciated it. That takes us to agenda item 11A. Other business there is none. And now we are at agenda item

198number 12. This is a second opportunity for individuals to speak up to three minutes on any issue. We'll first hear from those of you present. Some of you are leaving. Then remote participants to [snorts] speak remotely uh press star 9 if on phone or raise or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial and enter meeting ID 977-66341226. Uh, city staff will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone number. Uh, and by their name if on Zoom, you'll hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please, uh, let's see. Uh, please ensure that you're in a quiet area and mute any background noise. For all participants, whether remote or in person, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present

199who would like to address us at this time? Hi, Sam. >> Hi. Yes, Sam 1451 color. Again, um to Commissioner Bell's point, uh you need an R4 zone that's dedic that's designed to accommodate 502s, which is what this is proposing. So, 85 limit, and I recommend keeping 300 foot rule for building with. Um there is another board of matter of business that I've been meaning to bring to the planning commission. Since I happen to be here tonight, I thought I would do it now. Um this is going to sound like the most pedantic thing in the world. Architectural standards for fences. I have a very small overlap behind my garage with a commercial property on Packard and they have built uh it's a chainling fence and apparently in the 60s there used to be a

200little gate there so you could get to it. Um and they took a bunch of just junk and it's um you know the gates that fold open for chain link fences. They just stapled them to a utility pole to fill in that gap at weird angles. Um, and I had the zoning coordinator come out to my house to look at it. Um, I can show you some pictures. Um, and there are no architectural standards for Texas in the city. So, there I would ask that you consider um updating the architectural standards just to say that fences can't be made out of junk and they need to be orderly or something like that. That's all. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else present who'd like to address us at this time? Manager Kelly, do we have

201remote participants who'd like to address us? Seeing none, I'll close the last public comment of this meeting. Is there Oh, Commissioner Dish, I went to look for, but can you tell me again what your comment about uh Mr. Hilton was at the beginning? I have his comments up now. >> I thought that he asked us to have the timeline reflect that Ann Arbor had passed an open housing ordinance. >> Okay. Yes. I will um look again at the edits that uh Planner Bennett uh proposed and see if those are included. >> I'm not sure. >> Sure. Okay. Thank you. Any uh Yes. Commissioner Norton, I was going to ask any other commission proposed business. Commissioner Norton, >> not proposed business, but I forgot something that I might have conveyed during the reports back from subcommittees.

202>> Oh, sure. >> I'm on the um storm the swag storm water advisory group. >> Yes, >> we had a meeting. It turns out the city of Van Arbor has the ability to do more fine-tuned modeling and um flood control, flood plane mapping what the FEMA guidelines promote. Planner Bennett and I were both at this meeting and at the end of the meeting we were urging them strongly to start moving expeditiously toward developing that data in a way that we could update our zoning code provision so that we would have better information to act on. So there is some movement in that direction. So hopefully they'll be proceeding with that. I thought I would just convey that to you. That group is actively meeting and they're working to update the the storm water management plan

203and and do some better analysis for us. >> Great. Thank you. Any other commissioners? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. Moved by Commissioner [laughter] Dish, seconded by Commissioner Mills. All those in favor say I. >> Any oppose? We are adjourned. >> Thank you. before.