Ann Arbor Planning Commission Meeting 12/16/25

001Welcome to the Tuesday, December 16th, 2025 regular meeting of the Ann Arbor Planning Commission. My name is Donell White and I will be chairing tonight's meeting. For detailed information on meeting procedures, please review the full printed meeting agenda provided at either end of the dis. Manager Leonard, would you please call the role? >> Commissioner W >> here. Commissioner Abrams, Commissioner Hammershmitt, Commissioner Lee >> here. >> Commissioner Dish >> here. >> Commissioner Mills >> here. >> Commissioner Weatherbe >> here. Commissioner Adams >> here. >> Commissioner Norton >> here. >> We have Corum. >> Thank you, Mr. Leonard. May I have a motion to approve the agenda? Moved by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner Lee. All those in favor of the motion, please say I. >> Any opposed? Same sign. The motion carries. May I have a

002motion to approve the minutes of the December 2nd, 2025 meeting? Moved by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner Weatherbe. Is there any discussion of the minutes? All those in favor say I. >> Any oppose? The motion carries. Next up are reports to the planning commission and written communication. We'll start with council member Dish. >> Thank you very much, Chair W. uh there was nothing of immediate relevance to the planning commission which I don't think means that we're slacking off but uh and but there were two resolutions that will facilitate the development of 350 South 5th just to let you know because that probably makes you happy. [snorts] Okay, >> thank you Commissioner Dish. Manager Leonard, do you have a report for us tonight? >> No report, just a thanks to the commission. uh you have covered

003a lot of ground this year. We've been through a couple drafts of the comprehensive plan. Um to my count 13 meetings that have been dedicated solely or partially to detailed review of the comprehensive plan. Um so thank you. Thank you for all your service uh to the city and to the community and uh let's do it all again next year. >> Thank you Mr. Leonard. We come to agenda item number six. This is public comment. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak up to three minutes on any issue not listed as a public hearing or a dedicated public comment period. I am to note that item 10A 7:15 and 717 east hereon will have a dedicated public hearing. We will first hear from those present then from remote participants. To speak remotely, press star

0049 if on phone or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial 877853-5247 and enter meeting ID 9776341226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone number or by name if using Zoom. You will hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please move to a quiet area and background, excuse me, and mute any background noise. For all participants, whether in chambers or on Zoom, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present in chambers who would like to speak at this time? Come right up. >> I always forget how long that spiel is. Um, Adam Duskevich here. I live on Las Vegas Drive in the Dickin neighborhood of the fourth ward. You've already received my comments supporting

005the comprehensive land use plan. I don't have anything to add beyond that general statement of support at this late stage. As I've stated before, I support this plan and believe it is the right direction for my hometown. I'd like to focus on next steps which start with zoning. I'd like to see planning commission get started as soon as possible with implementing hub and transition zones. Maybe there are some parcels in the city where deciding whether those parcels parcels will be transition or residential is a tougher decision. fine, leave them alone and move forward with transition and hub in the areas where you're already pretty clear, such as downtown, major corridors, current TC-1 areas, and so forth. This seems like lowhanging fruit to me. Let's take an 8020 approach with this and open up potential for

006a lot of new housing to be built in Ann Arbor. I agree with Will Leaf and other community members that you can and should do much of this work inhouse. I think a lot of the ideas from TC1 can be recycled, which would take advantage of our circular economy. The more complicated work of unifying our various residential districts and determining transition versus residential in the fuzzier areas of the map is going to take a long time and involve a lot of feelings. Rightfully so. We are going to see changes in our neighborhoods and we need to ensure that those changes are for the better. Hammering out those details will be a lot more difficult. Another thing I I think we need to focus on beyond the comprehensive land use plan is the issue of streetscapes.

007This came up a bit in the discussions around TC1 and I don't think we ever figured out a good way to address it. A lot of that is outside of the scope of zoning because it takes place in the public right of way outside the purview of private developments. In the hub and transition areas, we're envisioning housing a lot of residents along what are currently busy and dangerous roads. Many of them are ugly, unpleasant places to exist outside of a car. As more housing is built along these corridors, we need to see them transformed into safe, comfortable, and pleasant spaces. Anyway, I have a lot more to say on that topic, but I'll save it for another night. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else? Thank you. >> Hi, Tom Lion, 2417 London

008Dair Road. I was on leave. Hey, Sarah. Hey, Dick. Um, I was on leave last year, so I'm boarding late on a train that is very eager to leave the station. However, I recently attended a listening session with planning manager Brent Leonard. Uh that was organized by my ward 2 city council members. Thank you to all of you for organizing the event. It was very informative. As you folks all well know, the plan proposes to eliminate single family zoning, reduce minimum lot sizes, allow triplexes of up to three stories, which could be up to 40 ft in height, and allow commercial development in residential neighborhoods. I asked Mr. Leonard, "Could a developer buy my next door neighbor's ranch house, tear it down, subdivide it into three lots, cut down the trees, and build three triplexes?"

009I was shocked to find that the answer was yes. Do any of us want three 40ft triplexes towering over our homes? I don't think so. Nor did the crowd that attended. One person asked, "Could a 7-Eleven be built next door to my house?" Answer: Yes. But maybe city council will institute zoning rules that limit the square footage of commercial establishments so that we'd be more likely to get a Jefferson market instead of [snorts] a 7-Eleven, but there's no guarantee. Moreover, Mr. Leonard admitted that the commission has no idea if the plan will really make housing more affordable in Ann Arbor. They hope so, but they have to admit that all the new housing built in recent years has come in at the high end of the market because that's where it's most profitable for developers

010to build. I recently received a large trifold flyer about the plan from the mayor and my city council reps. Mayor Taylor assures us that single family homes will never be outlawed. The mayor doth protests too much. He thinks I would never have even imagined that possibility. So the very fact that he felt the need to address it is deeply disturbing. The goals of the plan are great. Affordability, equity, sustainability, dynamism for all. Who could question those noble goals? But as always, the devil is in the details. The plan opens up a wild west in residential neighborhoods with no nuance or consideration for the impacts on current homeowners and taxpayers. Longtime residents could find themselves surrounded by treeless lots with nine new units on either side towering up to 40 ft in height. With no guarantee

011of affordability for the new residents the plan seems so eager to attract, the citizens of Ann Arbor deserve better. Thank [applause] you. Is there anyone else? [laughter] Good evening. Peter Jackson um at 10 Getty's Heights in Ann Arbor. Um I kind of uh I do uh agree with the prior speaker's comments and including the the the uh the laudable goals of the of the uh uh so-called comprehensive uh land use plan. Um and the cons concern I have is that a lot of things have to go right for the uh plan to result in the laudable objectives. And uh and if if any one of many things doesn't go right, we could uh find ourselves 10 20 years from now uh without any more affordable housing and uh in a less uh attractive city in

012which to live. Um, in effect, we we may end up throwing the uh the baby out with the bathwater and and and and have nothing uh no way to uh to uh to improve the situation because of all this the decisions that we made on based on those assumptions. So, that's uh my uh largest concern. But more specifically, I uh was walking uh in several uh open spaces uh around that part of town and in campus. One's a little park on the corner of Walnut and South U. Uh the the the Forest Hill Cemetery is another open space where people use use that anybody can use, although it's privately owned. Uh and then of course there's the arboritum. All of those places have residential streets bordering some part of their space. And uh it occurred

013to me that uh one of the uh uh nice things about walking there is that the borders are open. uh the fence lines open there and because they're backyards of the houses that are located there. And my reading of the plan is gives me pause or concern that uh what we could end up doing is building uh 40 foot high structures close to the uh [clears throat] the backs of these lots and therefore uh within view of the open space that people are are using to walk or otherwise recreate. So, I don't know if the plan has a uh a provision to try and address that, avoid that, but it but I think that it should. Thanks. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> Good evening. >> My name is Jeff Crockett. On Sunday, my wife

014and I and some friends took the Boston Edison Historic District Christmas Tour. The Boston Edison Historic District is an instantly recognizable area in the heart of Detroit containing over 900 homes. Most homes were constructed between 1905 and 1925. Early residents of this area included Henry Ford, James Cousins, Horus Rackom, Sebastian Kresky, and Joe Lewis. Barry Gordy lives there now. >> [clears throat] >> Uh today, Boston Edison is a multi-racial, multithnic neighborhood with people from diverse occupations and professions who share a common appreciation and love of historic districts. It boasts the historic Boston Edison Association, the oldest continuous neighborhood association in the city. Founded in 1926, one of the stops on that tour was the home of Conrad and Char Goulby, who shared the following fascinating story. My husband and I count it an honor to

015live in the former home of Tuskegee Airman Carl Kerry and his wife Janette. The Carries raised their children here and shared a beautiful life in this home for more than 40 years. Tuskegee Airman Carl Kerry holds a significant place in American history as a pilot with the legendary Tuskegee Airman whose courage and service helped shape our nation and break barriers in aviation and the military. Today you will find displays throughout the home that we toured honoring Carl Kerry and his fellow airmen, ensuring that their legacy continues to be remembered and celebrated. Please understand the value of historic districts consists not just of the historic architecture but also of the histories of the people who live there. In our home after we renovated, we have received visits from descendants of each of the three prior owners,

016including the Schumachers, the Shanklins, and the O'Hara families. We intend to use the information and pictures they shared in creating a book about the history of our house that will stay with our house. The process of creating an historic district includes documenting the histories of not just historic buildings, but also of their residents. The work that was done in developing the 04th Ward Historic District resulted in the book Historic Ann Arbor, a cultural guide by Susan Weinberg and Patrick McCauley, available on Amazon. Unfortunately, the current draft of the club omits the significant advantages that historic districts bestow, which are included in the comprehensive plans of Grand Rapids, Kazoo, Madison, Portland, Boulder, and Minneapolis. Please correct this oversight. Members of the Ann Arbor Preservation Alliance stand ready to help you. [clears throat] However, I'm greatly concerned

017about the historic neighborhoods on North Fourth and North Fifth in the First War that do not have historic district protection. With the transition designation, a number of historically [clears throat] significant homes in this area risk being demolished without capturing the histories. That is simply unacceptable. Thanks for your consideration. >> Thank you. [applause] Is there anyone else in chambers who would like to address the commission at this time? [clears throat] Hello, commissioners. Julie Ritter, old fourth word. Color me distressed by the comprehensive land use plan. There's a wide range of plans, an infinite number you could have come up with that you settled for a copy from another city, Minneapolis, a city not comparable to Ann Arbor is disappointing. Minneapolis has the ability to mandate affordable housing and they use that mandate. Minneapolis offers property tax

018breaks to affordable housing and Ann Arbor cannot. Minneapolis is much larger in population and land area and does not function under the same laws and restrictions. It is far from corresponding. At least we're finally hearing from city planners that the proposed plan will not bring affordable housing. It will perhaps slow the increase in rental and sales prices. It will bring nothing down. It will not reduce traffic. It will only slow the increase in the amount of traffic. Truth at last. It will not make the city any more sustainable, but might slow the increase of unsustainability. No matter how many residents, citizens, voters come before you and city council voicing opposition to this plan based on well-thoughtout concerns, you continue to plow ahead. This plan is based on numbers pulled out of thin air with no

019surveys, data, or underlying justification other than increased tax revenue. I listened to two city council people earlier this week, and neither one of them had heard of the Annabber Community Foundation study showing the entire county of only needs 15,000 new units by 2050. And that is the very best the very best thing the city of Ann Arbor could do would be to build affordable housing for senior citizens because so many live trapped in their homes by property taxes and moving expenses. There are 40,000 bedrooms locked up in these houses. And if they were freed for the use for new families, that would provide most of what the city claims it needs. The problem is it would not provide for a massive increase in property tax revenue. And we have not heard one word from the

020city about cutting expenses, either current or projected. The plan is being driven by forces no one in the city will publicly admit to. The governor's desire to have Washington County turned into a sacrifice zone for artificial intelligence data centers that will ruin our water supplies, increase utility costs, and cause lots of pollution, or climate refugees being lured by Abram Larten and Missy Staltz. These are the kinds of scenarios this plan is designed for, not the actual needs of the communities in Ann Arbor and County. Gutting the beautiful, lovingly restored homes and apartments in the north central Ann Arbor, the historic African-American part of the city by designating it part of the DDA is just as unacceptable as upzoning resident residential areas to transition zones. You have T1 zoning along major arteries. You have so many

021high-rise buildings already in the pipeline, it's hard to pick out one or two things that can be tweaked. I recommend a completely new plan designed to meet the real needs of the real community. Thank you. [applause] Thank you. And and just a note for everyone that's in the chambers. Uh, I know you think you are whispering and no one can hear you, but we can actually hear you very clearly and it distracts us from hearing the speaker because the acoustics, they actually project your voice right into our ears. So, if you want to have a private conversation, I would invite you just to leave the chambers, but not to go in the hallway. Go all the way down to where the elevators are. Uh, cuz otherwise it just comes back through uh the hallways. Is

022there anyone else in chambers who would like to address the commission at this time? [laughter] Yeah. Okay. My name is Trisha Hackne. I own and have lived at my condo for 25 years at the crossings. According to the PRD, 904 Link in Ann Arbor was sold to MP MPJ2 LLC for $364,184 as a bank-owned foreclosure property. Thus, the low price for pristine Burns Park properties. MPJ2 secured a $1.6 million loan mortgage on the property dated 122123, dismantled the house, and built two buildings with seven apartments, some renting for 5,000 a month. The property taxes increased over 500%. 904 Lincoln is the canary in the coal mine. It is the blueprint for future yimi yes in my backyard properties eliminating existing affordable housing and replacing it with high rent high tax properties. That is precisely what

023the comprehensive plan's reszoning is targeted to do. Essentially sanctioning the investor takeover for starter homes and legitimizing the elimination of the middle class in Ann Arbor. Currently in southern Ann Arbor neighborhoods, the housing is heavily populated with houses ranging in price from 300 to 450,000. While atypical pricing for Burns Park, it is these starter homes for young families and retirees in Ann Arbor that resoning targets. My twin sister has lived for 27 years as a retired U of M pediatric nurse in southern Ann Arbor. The neighborhood is weary of investors going doortodoor to inquire if residents want to sell to the point of harassment. The investor's actions would apply a fade complete regarding the comprehensive plan as they are acting as if it's already in place. Investors have lots of practice and a history well

024document with gentrification strategies. In closing, 904 Lincoln bent the rules of current zoning laws. How can the public trust that the city will abide by the new zoning laws? Who is MP MP2 MPJ2 LLC? And where does the city draw the line, if ever, in supporting middle class neighborhoods in the GOP comprehensive plan? >> Thank you. >> [applause] >> Good evening, Greg Monroe Ward 5. Um, I'd like to thank all of you who to who took time to organize and read public comments. I'd like to draw your attention to my comment submitted about incentives for preserving our m tree can tree mature tree canopy, excuse me, going beyond strategies that currently exist in the plan. We need their benefits to mitigate climate change now. And I'd like to spend the rest of my three minutes

025talking about natural feature protections. The plan states that it will maintain existing natural feature protections, but the plan also significantly expands by zoning. [snorts] Existing natural feature protections, I believe, mean to reference UDC section 5.23, which should be explicitly stated in the plan. The problem I see is that the way the UDC protects natural features is through site review, and byite zoning requires no site review. So if we're expanding by right zoning and reducing site review, we're not maintaining existing natural feature protections. We're bypassing or diminishing them. I think this is a loophole that should be reconciled. We should require site plan review on any parcel within 250 ft of or that contains our natural features inventory. The plan communicates the important of natural feature protection, stating it as a core community value and vital

026resource for climate resilience. The UDC states the importance of natural features protections indicating that protecting them is critical to public health, safety, and general welfare. We know that there is precedents where byite zoning has already contributed to significant loss of natural feature inventory. The acreage of woodland and steep slope on long shore near Argo destroyed by development met the UDC's highest concern priority criteria for both categories of features. This loss not only increases local flooding risk but also degrades water quality as it occurred within 200 feet of the Hiron River, our primary source of drinking water. Some have previously stated that it is hard to legally protect natural features on private property. We have the legal authority to require site review per the statutes referenced in the UDC and to protect our natural features. In

027the long shore example, building a top the excavated hill, which no longer exists, where the original house stood that was demolished, would have not stopped the developer from capitalizing the land. Natural features provide multiple essential services, flood control, carbon sequestration, erosion prevention, and water purification, and no engineered system can replace them at comparable cost or effectiveness. So, I respectfully urge you to include in the plan a requirement for site review on any parcel within 250 ft of or that contains our natural features inventory. We have the inventory mapped. We have the legal authority to require this and to protect our natural features. This really should be a no-brainer. Thank you. >> Thank you. [applause] >> Good evening, Town Stalberg. 1202 Traver Street in the heart of Lowertown. I want to talk about the Dean that

028you approved um last week. It's a R4C currently zoned area Madison Street and Fourth and Fifth Avenues. The area is surrounded by a lot of D2 type of housing, newer new dorm's going to come in. That'll be around D2 height as well. Um, this one's asking for D1 reszoning. A big part of the justification is that it's going to be part of the hub land use category as designated in the current draft of the plan. So, it's coming. Let's do it now instead of waiting until the comprehensive land use plan is complete. The problem with that is if the comprehensive land use plan is supposed to be the vision of the community for the future of our city and we still have the comment period open for us to tell you what our vision is

029and some people haven't even commented yet. Maybe you haven't heard them. We're presupposing the outcome of the comprehensive land use plan. You haven't even voted on the the final draft of the plan that's going to come to you and that's going to happen in February. Council's going to vote to adopt it in March at the soonest. Yet, we're making decisions based on this property being designated hub on the future land use map that's in your current draft. As a developer of subdivisions, I had a reasonzoning request in a community in Oakland County where the community wanted what I proposed. The neighbors were even happy with it, but we had to wait till the end of a comprehensive land use plan revision before we could get our resoning approved. We waited. We did. The land owner

030sold and made some money. I the developer made some money and it was pretty good development and people were happy. We waited. You are presupposing the outcome. That's an insult to every citizen who's participating in this process who is being told please look at the the banners get your comment in before January 5th. But you've presupposed this. The other thing I don't like about that project D1 in that area, you could do a PUD instead. That'd be a way. You've done that on forest and on Church where the comprehensive plan didn't support it currently, but you gave them more upzoning and they did a PUD and there was contributions to the affordable housing fund. In this case, it'd be over 30 units or whatever the cash equivalent is. Zoning it to D1, you get rid

031of that affordable housing. So, we have this comprehensive land use plan. It's supposed to be about affordability. And right here, we're watching this body vote down affordability right there. The other thing that can happen there is those those R4C cannot have short-term rentals, nonoccupied short-term rentals. Now, this project will be able to have it after it's D1 by right. They don't have to build the building they showed you. They could do whatever they want to do. They could use existing housing as long-term, take it away from long-term and make it shortterm. That was a really bad decision and an insult to the people of this city. Thank you. Thank you. [applause] >> Hi. Hello. >> Can you hear me? Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh my name is Gabrielle Boer. I live at 1721 Newport

032Road. Um, I was made aware of this plan a few months ago and I'm really disturbed by how little it seems that our city government is thinking about the middle class and what people are actually contending with in this city. This plan does not, you know, this plan talks about affordability and then cites a bunch of stuff that other cities did and never provides any real data on whether those cities have reached those aims at all. And there have been a lot of comments made around confusion how A leads to B. I moved here 10 years ago to go to social work school. I stayed. I'm from New York City and I stayed because I could afford a one-bedroom apartment comfortably and I could walk to downtown. There was a place to park my car.

033Um, you know, I had access to natural spaces that weren't overly crowded. As I'm sure you can imagine, working as a social worker, I need that kind of space to decompress. and I would have loved to buy my house. Little did I know that um my landlord actually sold it to a developer and I lived in the upstairs floor for under $1,100 a month. There were two graduate students who lived below me who lived in a twobedroom for under $2,000 a month. That house was raised. Every tree in the lot was cut down. And I believe that there are four houses going up there. And that same developer on Spring Street did the same thing with a property, destroyed it, replaced it with two properties, doubled each in value. So when you guys call this

034like an A2 for all, like what you're really saying is like A2 for rich people because, you know, all of the people who serve this city are trying to buy houses. Go to an open house on a Sunday and you'll see. But when you upzone all this land and you make it so so enticing for developers and speculators without putting in any protections, for people who've been trying to buy a house for 2 years, for, you know, elderly people who want to downsize, for families with young kids who are getting bigger and they need some space, like this, you know, this is not helpful to the middle class. And I don't see how this is representative of what Ann Arbor, like people who live here want. I don't see anywhere where there were surveys done

035asking people what they need. This is a time of like economic crisis for people who live here, for people who live anywhere. And this is really disrespectful. Thank you. [applause] Sorry. Thank you. Sorry. >> Is there anyone else in chambers who'd like to address the commission at this time? >> Thank you, Chair We Ken Garber, 28 Habill Court. First of all, I'd like to thank all of you for the enormous amount of personal time that you've committed over the past year to this process. um your your stamina and dedication are really impressive and and I really appreciate it. Um so I hate to add a note of dissonance but um you know besides the economic crisis we're undergoing a climate crisis as well and that's my main concern here tonight. Um, two weeks ago I

036spoke to the failure of this plan to address the sustainable growth problem and why invoking the terms resilience and circular economy over and over in the plan don't solve the problem. Um, rather invoking them doesn't solve the problem. So what does um first of all uh obviously no new fossil fuel infrastructure. Um second explicit mention of passive house building principles. Those as you know are airtightness, continuous insulation, thermal bridge-f free construction, high performance doors and windows and energy recovery ventilation. They can apply to multif family construction including highrises and commercial buildings. Third, mass timber construction. Fourth, net zerocarbon buildings. A system for this now exists in the state building code as appendix CC. Here's how it works. First build the 2021 IECC energy efficiency standards, then calculate the renewable energy needs from energy simulation or

037a standard table, then achieve that with on-site or off-site renewable energy. Um, and obviously this incentivizes uh buildings that are more energy efficient than code. Um, so the comp plan does me does mention energy efficiency, but only in passing. I think we should bring in these specifics. Um the plan also falls short in terms of climate ambition. Carbon neutrality does not mean zero emissions. It also allows carbon offsets, renewable energy credits, and other gimmicks to get to net zero. Carbon neutrality may be acceptable for 2030. Even that's debatable. But this is a plan for 2050. Long before then, rich companies, excuse me, countries need to zero out real emissions for any chance of avoiding fatal tipping points in preserving a livable planet. The plan should call for eliminating emissions as soon as possible through the

038um procedures, methods, standards that I mentioned earlier. [gasps] Finally, the plan should challenge consumerism. circular economy does the opposite by justifying purchases and promising green growth which is a fallacy. Um the wealthy especially um and they've been mentioned already tonight um they can't continue to fly, drive huge vehicles, own second homes and buy useless goods like there's no tomorrow. The plan by itself won't cure our sick culture but it should call it out. I know this is just a land use plan. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Grover. [applause] Is there anyone else in chambers who'd like to address the commission at this time? >> Manager Leonard, do we have any remote participants who would wish to address the commission? >> We do. >> Thank you. >> Kirk Westfall, you can unmute and address the

039planning commission for up to three minutes. >> Hi, commission. Good evening. Uh Kirk Westfall 3505 Charter Place um live in a a 50-year-old house built by a developer. Uh and I welcome more neighbors just for the record. Um so I just first I I just wanted to quickly respond to some of the assertions about new housing not helping affordability if it helps. Um uh for example, I've never bought a new car because used cars are much more affordable. And as an example, like during the pandemic with the chips shortage, new car production um pretty much stopped. And we know what happened to the price prices of used cars. They went up, I don't know, 20 30%. Um this is what we've been doing with housing uh for the past 50 years or so up until

040recently is stifling new supply. And this is creating the affordability crisis that we see. We're definitely making some progress, which is great. You know, if the market goes cycles down again, um, you know, who knows, it could it could slow down. Um, but new homes are never affordable unless they're subsidized directly. And that's something that Ann Arbor is proud to do, you know, more so than the vast majority of cities. you have a a dedicated affordable housing tax and that's leveraged by the city to build dedicated permanent affordable units which is fantastic. Um so they when when new housing is produced it provides housing for people who can afford it. It provides for higher inome people, students from higher inome families, and when they move into those buildings, they're no longer competing for the existing

041housing stock. And this is just this has been well documented. Um, multiple peer-reviewed research papers. Please just, you know, I I I I hope that people will will take a minute to to look into that. Um, on the topic of the of the the comprehensive land use plan, I I want to echo the sentiments of Mr. Duskevich and others. Um, I I really appreciated the perspectives by professors Levian and K this last week. You know, advocating for simplicity, urgency, and maybe iteration. You know, doing some things, getting some things in place um and then iterating later due to the due to the urgency of the problem. Um, I would advocate for setting up some sessions, you know, as soon as possible in January to start working on, you know, doing some thought experiments about different

042zones. We know we're going to need zones. Um, regardless of what types or where the map finally comes out. Um, I would advocate for creating a a zone. Um, whether it's a brand new one or expanding D1 and TC1 to cover hub and transition. Um, but please just uh I I urge you to do this in-house and do it uh with all due speed. Thanks. >> Thank you, >> Dennis Burke. You can unmute and address the planning commission for up to three minutes. >> Yes. Hello. My name is Dennis Burke. I live on South Worth Avenue in Ann Arbor. Appreciate the time. I wanted to comment briefly on the 414 South Main Street Ashley Muse uh request to alter their PUD. >> Mr. I think >> No, we will. >> Is that off the agenda?

043>> No, no, no. Uh I'm being corrected. You are free to speak about it right now. Please um forgive my uh interruption and Mr. Leonard, can you restore his time? >> Done. [laughter] >> Go ahead, Mr. Bur. >> Okay. Yep. In regards to the 414 South Main Street, Ashley Muse uh PUD request, I think to primarily uh remodel what is now an office building and transition it into housing. I know that the planning commission, the city is trying to improve the supply of housing primarily in the city center. I can appreciate that. I'm not against higher density housing, but I would caution two things. Uh number one uh an allout pursuit of housing for housing's sake is basically attempting to do supply side economics. Uh many administrations in this country have sold the public on

044supply side economics and it doesn't really work. I would uh like to know how much rents have declined in the city of Ann Arbor since all the highrises have gone up and how much the uh commercial real estate space has been occupied and what those rents are going for now on Main Street and other business areas of town uh given the new uh storefronts that were added with some of these highrises. Uh I think also you need to consider that if we convert everything in the downtown area to housing uh where will people work? Uh all of a sudden they're living here but they won't be working here. They'll be commuting out to go to work and commuting back in in the evening. So uh you need to look at a balanced approach here. Uh

045how much housing, how much business and office space, how much retail space and so on and so forth. So again, thank you for letting me talk. I'm opposed to converting what is now currently office space into housing space because we already have multiple highrises that are getting ready to go up and I don't think we need to let a little bit of office space that we have in the downtown area be converted to housing. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. James Deore, you can unmute and address the planning commission for up to three minutes. Uh thank you Brett and uh thank you uh commissioners. Um and our parkland and natural features are not secondary considerations. They are fundamental to our community's environmental health, safety, and quality of life. Any long-term land use plan that

046weakens these protections is moving in the wrong direction. Eliminating the 2006 natural features land plan in the new comprehensive land use plan is just not concerning. In my view, it is reckless. For nearly 20 years has been one of the city's better environmental safeguards. I think us residents deserve answers. Why is this being eliminated? What replaces it? Who stands to gain from it? The draft plan also presents an incomplete and misleading account of our history. The 2003 Greenbuilt Mill is described as farmland and open space preservation outside the city. That's true. Yet it missed a a crucial fact that onethird of that millillage was also dedicated to acquiring parkland and natural areas within Ann Arbor. Leaving this out distorts the public record and underpass the values voters affirmed. The engagement methods you and the land

047use plan uh on club online surveys, sticker boards, digital voting tools are highly vulnerable to manipulation and in no way respect a cross-section of Ann Arbor. A small highly organized group can dominate those tools and often does that not public input is manufactured consensus. For years, many residents have seen the planning process dominated by a narrow circle of insiders aligned with specific development interests. The result is a draft p plan that reflects predetermined priorities and minimizes environmental safeguards. This is not Canadian planning. This is agenda-driven planning. The current draft repeatedly invokes A20, but that language cannot disguise the fact that several proposed policies weaken natural features protections and accelerate development without corresponding ecological accountability. We're already witnessing the consequences through large-scale projects that burden infrastructure, threaten a systems, and shift long-term risk out to taxpayers.

048For these reasons, I urge the planning commission uh to pause the plan. We deserve a transparent, bottom-up planning effort that includes all neighborhoods, long-term residents, and those who have been excluded from past decisions. We need a process driven by the community, not by a predetermined narrative. You have created a good solid uh foundation to build from and I'll let the people of Ann Arbor do the work of shaping their future. Now, thank you for considering my remarks. Thank you and have a good evening. >> Thank you, >> Curtis Davis. You can unmute and address the planning commission for up to three minutes. Curtis Davis, you can unmute and address the planning commission. Go ahead, Curtis Davis. Mr. Davis, you can address the planning commission. >> He's unmuted, but it does not appear to be able

049to hear audio. >> Can you come back? >> Uh, that is the last hand. >> If Mr. Davis Mr. Davis, if you are able to either rejoin or get your audio working, could you just re raise your hand? But for now, I will close the public comment and move us to agenda item number seven, which is commission uh communications from commissioners. Are there any? We'll start with Commissioner Adams. [clears throat] So, a couple things. Um, just to clarify the record on the dean, um, [clears throat] we heard from one public commenter tonight who characterized our resoning decision in connection with that project as, um, premised on or materially grounded in the plan that we are still very much considering and revising. Um, that's not true. Um, and I would encourage anyone troubled by those comments

050to go back and watch the discussion on that on that project. Um, the standard for resoning under the UDC, we're looking for facts that indicate we need to correct an error, there's been a change to municipal policy or a change or changing conditions in a particular area or in the municipality generally. We took notice of a lot of facts during that discussion. um among them the fact that that whole neighborhood that that whole area has been changing pretty dramatically um since the last land use p plan was approved in 2009. Um you know for me um it it was also the economic development resolutions which are final and approved city policy changes which were passed last year. So the there were grounds for approving that project that had nothing to do with a draft plan.

051Nothing was presupposed. Um, I also want to, as I have on a couple of occasions, talk about and respond to comments, um, respond to members of the public who are concerned about the pace and scale of change that will be caused by the or, um, recommended by the plan that we're considering. The plan doesn't cause anything to occur. It just it recommends changes. Um we um all available evidence that we have and I'm going all the way back to when this body began deliberations back in it would have been January of last year of this year rather feels like last year. Um all available evidence that we have supports the conclusion that any change that this plan is recommending for residential neighborhoods will be gradual. Um it will be constrained by market forces. Um it

052will also be constrained by legal mechanisms that this plan um either doesn't propose to alter or cannot legally modify. Cannot propose to legally modify. Um on April 1st, and I've I've mentioned his comments a couple of times, but I know there are new voices in the room. On April 1st, we heard from Professor Noah Cases from the Michigan Law School who talked about the experience of the city of Houston following a much more sweeping and radical series of land use changes. And the impact of those changes on the actual built environment were extraordinarily gradual. um the number and I'm going off memory here. I think he quoted something like 1300 new multifamily units over a 10 to 15year period in the fourth largest municipality in the country. That's really gradual change bordering on hard to

053notice I have to imagine if you're living there. Um so that's the affirmative case. What evidence do we have? and we have a whole housing appendix that we were very careful to attach to the plan that has citations to a lot of this work. On the other hand, we have no evidence from this city or elsewhere that legalizing triplexes up to three stories will lead to rap to rapid or even moderately paced change in our residential neighborhoods. We've been holding meetings for again almost a full year on this and I don't think we've been presented with a single example of any city that's conducted a comparable or even not comparable change to its land use policy that has experienced destructive problematic radical change in its neighborhoods. If there is such an example I would love

054to be presented with it but we have not seen it. The other example that I would provide, my neighborhood permits duplexes today up to 30 feet tall by right. We have enormous housing pressure in this community and there has been enough turnover in my neighborhood that if once we make triplexes, if we make if we recommend triplexes to be permitted by Wright, my neighborhood would theoretically be an example of this radical destructive change today because we permit duplexes in my neighborhood to be built by right. They are vanishingly rare. They are built from time to time, but what I see more often than that are houses being knocked down and the largest possible single family home built in its place. So that's not we're not seeing evidence of this in the test cases we have

055locally. So I'm I'm not persuaded by it and I don't think there's any evidence uh for it. And I think that ought to give a lot of comfort to the to the individuals in this room and who have commented about concerns about, you know, fears that they have that we just don't we don't have any evidence of that. >> Thank you, Commissioner Adams. Do we have other commissioners? Commissioner Mills and then followed by Commissioner Dish. >> I want to again thank folks for coming out and participating tonight. Um whether you've been here before and are patient with us and repeating your comments, appreciate it. Um or this is your first time commenting, thank you for coming out and participating. One of the specific comments that um caught my attention and is one of my one

056of the things in the plan that I think is really really interesting is on page 20 of draft 3. And this is a map uh pulled from census information showing commuting patterns. Um it was in reference to a comment about you know jobs and what this means just for everyone's awareness um in case you don't have it in front of you right now. Um 17,000 people live and work in the city of Ann Arbor. Their homes are here and that's where they work every day. Right now we have almost 19,000 that commute out to jobs elsewhere which seems like a lot but not in comparison to the number that commute in. It's 76 and a half thousand. So right now we are definitely a place that has more jobs more commuting in than we have

057residences. So I I this actually this information you can pull up for any municipality um township too and I find it really interesting um to help ground you know just because people live here doesn't mean they will necessarily work here and we are a place that does have a whole lot more jobs already than we have housing and so um and that's not necessarily the case in in all of our neighboring municipalities. Um but again, thank you all for participating tonight. Commissioner Dish, >> I also want to thank you all for coming tonight and participating. It was obvious that you had spent a lot of time preparing your comments and they were very thoughtful. I wanted to uh I had a couple question or just I think one question for staff. Um reference was made

058to 904 Lincoln bending the zoning laws. Uh my understanding was that that was a double parcel. That was two parcels or >> it's a it's a single parcel that had the lot area to accommodate two duplexes and four units does not require site plan review under our code. >> Thank you. So it wasn't a lot split either. It just was big enough to accommodate to to >> we Yeah, we have a lot of inquiries for that. We have lots split inquiries happening all over. But in that case, um my recollection was that the lot size permitted it exceeded twice the minimum structure area requirements. >> Any other commissioners? Commissioner Norton, >> I want to um one of the commenters tonight made a comment about we're engaging in supply side economics and a and a and

059making that statement in a very pjorative way and we've heard that comment a number of times and I want to push back on that a little bit. Supplyside economics was an economic theory promoted by the Reagan administration that basically argued we should reduce taxes and regulations for the wealthiest of the wealthy because then they'll get wealthier and they will pass down that wealth and it'll crank up the economy and we'll all be better off. And it's true that that I think pretty arguably doesn't work. It hasn't worked very well. What folks are doing is arguing that because developers building homes in Ann Arbor make a profit, they're greedy. We've been hearing that a lot, too. And they're taking advantage of us to to generate profits and and move on. Everybody who lives in this city

060in a home that was not built by Avalon Housing or the city's public publicly subsidized housing funds was built by a developer who made money making the home. You can't do private development without making a profit. It's not the case that every developer who can find a way to make money on building homes is greedy or taking advantage of the city or abusing us because of that. And it's not supply side economics to recognize that private developers are going to need to make a profit on building to be able to make that happen. So, I I just I want to push back on the idea that just because developers make money building homes, they're necessarily greeting and we're all going to crash and burn. And I think um plan commissioner Weatherbe pointed out people have

061been making that same claim since Ann Arbor started as a city. It's always the de evil developers who are destroying the city. When you combine that concern about greedy developers with supply side economics, you're left with a conclusion that we're just trying to help the developers make money on supply side economics and that we'll all be better off. But that's not what's going on here. Um, as people have been pointing out, one of the drivers, not the only driver, there's so many things going on, but one of the drivers leading to our lack of affordable and market force housing is that we have constrained the ability to build new market force housing. It's a supply constraint problem. It's not a supply side economic theory that we're trying to promote here. It's just recognizing when you

062have a limited supply of housing, the price of housing goes up and and that makes it more unaffordable or less affordable. So, I recognize pe people's concerns. I'm personally myself worried about private equity firms coming in looking for a way to make money. That to my mind, that's a real concern that we ought to be worried about. But the fact that developers need to make money to build homes is not in itself evil and it's not a problem. And the fact that we are relying on the private market to produce homes doesn't mean that we're in favor of supply side economics and that we're driving that um that political ideology. So I want to separate some of that dialogue out and and get folks to recognize and I've said this before too. We don't live

063in a communist planned society where the public builds all of the housing for everybody. We rely on the private market to provide housing. and we're only going to get housing relying on the private market if private developers can make money building homes. So, that's the that's the process that we're living in. There's a whole lot of other stuff going on here too with demographics and and other things that we need to worry about and we can only do what we can work on. And it is the case that Ann Arbor has a millage. We are providing affordable housing in a way that a lot of other cities aren't. We're taking so many other steps to try and deal with affordable housing. It's not just low-income affordable housing that we're worried about. It's the whole market

064force, the whole array of housing types and market force housing that we're really struggling with. So, the plan is trying to tackle a whole lot of problems simultaneously and work together. So, I recognize folks concerns. I get the concern about neighborhoods. I live in a neighborhood. I live in a home. I understand where folks are coming from. But I think it's also the case that it doesn't help when there's a whole lot of pjorative thrown at us that you're just helping greed developers take over the city of Ann Arbor and you're promoting a supply side economics ideology. That's not what's going on here. Please. So kind of step back a little bit and think and the other point I'll just make is everybody who comes in here and says you're not listening to the citizens

065of Ann Arbor because you're not listening to me. I don't think are listening to the other folks who are coming up and saying you're not listening to the city citizen Van Arbor because you're not listening to me because everybody's hitting us with opposite comments and we're in the position of having to reconcile them. So just because we can't do everything that everybody wants us to do doesn't mean we're not listening to anybody. We're trying to do our best to reconcile the competing needs that are coming down on top of this city. So, I'll say again, it it's it's I will repeat the thank you for folks to come out and come to spend your evening coming out and talk to us. It's really important for that dialogue, but I want folks to recognize the difficulty.

066If this stuff were easy, it wouldn't be hard. That was a really kind of dumb statement to make. This is a really hard process to work through. Um, it's not an easy solution. We really are trying to reconcile competing positions. So I I'll say again to a little bit of grace please. We're trying to figure out how to reconcile all these competing demands and kind of think through carefully the assertions that are being made and what the real connections are. That was a little bit professorial. Thank you for letting me be a professor a little bit. Thank you. >> Absolutely. Any other commissioners? >> [clears throat] >> So, just a couple notes for me. Uh, and I'm going to uh take the privilege of the chair to talk to the audience directly for a moment.

067Mr. Garber, are you staying until we get to the comprehensive land use? Okay. Uh, Mr. Monroe, are you staying until we get to the comprehensive land use? All right. I'll reserve my comments based on things you said to that time so that we can keep going. All right. Um, that was one and two. Oh, Mr. Leonard, is it uh is it true that today uh my neighbor could tear down their house and build up to the permitted house and the permitted setbacks on their property? >> Yes. Is it true that the city has a citywide I correct me if the phrasing is incorrect whether it's citywide or zoningwide um height bonus for sustainable or all electric uh developments where over 60% of the site has renewable energy on it. Did I get all of that

068right? Currently across the city 100% we have a height bonus of up to 30%. That for sustainability 60% of the roof area or an equivalent amount of solar renewable energy is provided and the the building is fully electric unless there is documentation that it is impossible to provide that level of electricity. So, putting those two things together, if R1C has a height limit of 30 ft and they are able to obtain a 30% height bonus. >> Oh, don't make me do this math. >> It's only 9 ft. So, they could they can't go to 40, but they could go to 39. And that could happen next door in R1C today. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. The other uh piece that I wanted uh to highlight was about the comments. So because um the second

069uh draft or excuse me this third draft of the comprehensive land use we are using our engage website to receive it. we've been able to chronicle the comments uh a little bit easier uh because they come to us in a spreadsheet and by my count uh we've received 648 uh comments. Uh the first round we received 125 before the deadline in November and before tonight's deadline we received 523. I'm probably plus or minus five. So, if you're holding me, uh, give me a little bit of grace there. [snorts] Which means, uh, we've received a little over 640, uh, comments. Many of us at this table have read every single one of those comments or have scanned through them to try to understand uh, what we are hearing. Uh, by my count, there are a significant

070number of people who support the plan uh, that have commented. I ran some numbers against it in in November. the support was over 40%. There were only 15% that had comments directly against the plan. And by my count in December, it was 30% in favor and only 19% against the plan with 51%, you know, sort of sitting in somewhere in between uh those numbers in December and about 45% sitting somewhere between uh in November. So I say that and give you those statistics which are helpful for me uh to understand that we are receiving a lot of comment and we are synthesizing a lot of comment and often that comment results in changes at the last conversation that we had in November. Uh we made changes to the plan. Tonight, once we move through the

071next two items of the agenda, this table will likely make changes to the plan. And it is directly as a result of the comments that we have heard because we do listen. We do synthesize them. We do try to figure out what we can put in. I don't think there are any foregone conclusions. And I will say that as someone who wanted things in the plan that are not in the plan. Uh I sit at the table but yet I am one vote and I have been voted down like my colleague Commissioner Adams he is also one vote. He has been voted down uh by the table because we do not have a hive mind. We are all coming to this conversation from our social location and uh we bring with us the stories uh

072of our families and where we live and the people that we hear from and we are trying as best we can with the information that is in front of us to present a plan that we think will work for the city of Ann Arbor. So I just wanted to offer that um as those have come up and said that um we're not listening. Um I would I find that to be hard to reconcile with the uh information that we have. And then uh just to give you one more data point I think in this packet Mr. Leonard there's a tracked changes um document. Is that correct? I think part of uh this evening is to reflect back the some of the changes that you talked about as to make sure that we are hearing taking

073those um accurately um in addition to any other discussion that come comes up tonight. So yes, >> so you can uh take a look at that. It's in Legisar so you have to uh access it via the web. It's uh a2ggov.legistar.com. you go to planning commission uh to the calendar and then to the city planning commission and then you find today's agenda and then on the agenda you can see all of the attachments. They're often PDFs. Sometimes they're Excel spreadsheets and you can download that and you can see that we've heard your changes, we've incorporated your changes and staff are tracking the changes that we have. And then finally, I will add that I personally asked staff to prepare a memo which is in today's packet to talk about how we're receiving the feedback, where

074we are in the process and how we plan to move forward so that there is less ambiguity around where we are and what we're doing. Uh so I I hope those things are they they serve as evidence in a sense that uh this is a communitydriven plan. Obviously those of us at the table are the ones who are driving uh this plan but we are not doing that um with complete disregard to what we're hearing from the public. And with that, I will uh give us a fivem minute uh recess and then we'll come back and continue our agenda. All right. If I could have our our fellow commissioners return to the table. One, two, three, four, and five. All right. So, we can start. All right. Commissioner Norton. Nope. That's all right. So, we

075are now at agenda item number eight, public hearing scheduled for the next business meeting. It says there are none. Is that correct, Manager Leonard? >> 100%. >> Thank you, Manager Leonard. Uh, that takes us to agenda item number nine, new business. There is none. On to 10A, regular business. This is 715717 East Hiron Reszoning with area plan waiver requests re25-00003. A petition to reszone 715 and 717 East Hiron Street from PUD plan unit development to R4C multifamily dwelling district to permit the building to be converted from office to residential use. No development has been proposed and an area plan waiver is requested. We will start with the petitioner presentation which will be 10 minutes up to 10 minutes and then we will have a staff presentation followed by a public hearing and then uh the

076commission will consider the motion. We'll start with the petitioners if you all are ready. Good evening. My name is Emily Pelatius and I represent the the property owner. Um, I would like to say that I'm going to be brief in my presentation because I think this is a fairly simple and modest request, but as some in this room know that I've been involved in planning and zoning long enough to realize that nothing is simple and it may require a lot of discussion to get us where we need to be. I wanted to give a little bit of history on the property at 25 uh at 7:15 717 East Hiron um because I think it helps put this resoning in in context. We are talking about the northeast corner of Hiron and and North State Street

077where the Hobs and Black office building has been located in the renovated church. Um that campus was established in the mid 1980s after the church vacated and in fact after there was a small fire in the church that I watched as an undergraduate for my economics class in the old university high school building. And following that event um the city was very concerned with making sure that the city was the church was preserved and a plan was hatched to develop the Hobs and Black campus at that location. So the church has been loc uh been home to the architectural firm along with the old rectory building. What was pulled into the PUB plan were two residential structures that had been used and occupied as rental apartments for decades prior to the establishment of the Hobs

078and Black campus. As part of that um redevelopment project, a reciprocal easement was granted to the property owner of 1715 715717 which provides an access easement off of North State Street and allows for the parking of six vehicles behind the two uh residential structures. Um, in terms of the PUD that was put in place um, by the planning commission, it was really the renovation of the church consistent with federal rehabilitation standards that was considered to be the public benefit of that particular PUD. There's nothing in the PUD approval that relates or speaks to the two structures that are the subject of the resoning this evening. So, this isn't the first attempt to change the use of those two residential structures from office to back to multiple family or at least the zoning district that matches

079everything to the north. Um, there was an attempt in 2015 to modify the PD that covers this property to allow the residential structures to be converted from office back to residential. The property owner at the time went through the public the city's public participation process, sent out approximately 1,500 postcards to addresses within 1,000 ft and had three interested persons show up at the public participation meeting. And according to the staff report from the time, all three uh interested persons supported the modification of the PD to allow the structures to be returned to to residential use. that resoning did not was not able to move forward. The planning commission like tonight held a public hearing and um entertained a motion to approve the PUD modification. Though that motion became stymied when it was recognized that one

080of the property owners within the PUD did not support the reasonzoning and therefore was effectively blocking it. And the planning commission eventually passes a motion to postpone action on the PUD modification until staff has an opportunity to figure out how you make a change to a PUD. Fast forward 10 years later, we've got it figured out. How we can make a change to a PD without the unanimous consent of the the property owners, which is why we are here tonight. Uh my client actually applied to reszone this property in this manner back uh a year ago in 2024. and the application was rejected by staff because of the the then uh text of the UDC. And so we are back here tonight with a live application. I thank Jill for her help in getting us

081through the public participation process. We sent out to over 2,000 postcards to addresses within 1,000 ft and had two interested persons show up, both who at the meeting indicated their support for for this reasonzoning. Um really the purpose of the resoning is to uh restore the zoning to be consistent with the zoning to the north. It's a very modest change. We would like to be removed from the PUD, have the property reszoned to R4C, matching everything that surrounds it so that the buildings can be converted back to residential use. Um the plan would be at most four apartments, two per each house. So really flats. Um but there is the potential that one of the buildings would be restored to a singleuse um situation rather than being divided into two apartments. Um we've talked with

082the staff and they've shared their desire that the property owner incorporate um some bike storage as part of the project moving forward, which of course we're we're happy to to do. and it will be a part of the overall redevelopment of the project should we be successful in moving the zoning back to multiple family residential. That concludes my my presentation. >> Thank you so much, Planner Thatcher. >> I only have a few desperate thoughts to add to that. Um f first this entire site uh as the PED stands now is in the old forth historic district and as such these are contributing structures so the the site can't be redeveloped. There's not a danger that the house that's there now would be torn down and something bigger would be um built in its place. Um

083I think that there were some residents that were a little bit confused about that. So, I hope that um I hope that they understand that there is no development whatsoever except on the interior of the building to change it back to residential proposed. Um the current PUD uh language is um I said archaic in my staff report. I think that's the polite way to put it. It's there are no um supplemental rags. This was very early in the land of PUDS. And um the the thing the one line of the the the PUD development agreement that's important is the first one that says building shall be limited to professional office use. That's that's what we're trying to change today. Um if this building is reszoned, the site will still be part of a site plan

084project, but it will not be part of the PUD zoning district. So, there is an approved site plan that would have two different zoning districts on it, which is not unheard of. Um, it's just a u a little bit awkward, but um so any improvements that are shown on the site plan as it is today, like uh there may be landscaping uh things like that where the parking is laid out, uh that would still be in full force if this zoning is changed. The site plan still there, still valid. Uh, also if it's reszoned to R4C, the site will become non-conforming because it won't meet the side setback requirement of 12 feet. Uh, really not concerned about that. Um, there are a lot of uh non-conforming setbacks in the R4C district in this neighborhood. I

085mean, the neighborhood was built, then the R4C was imposed upon it and uh the houses were already there and like these houses were built in the 1880s. So, um, let's see. It's let's see. I said it's not visually interrupting um the the the the historic pattern of houses by changing the zoning. Uh finally, the um the city council ordinance uh that the the the applicant referenced was passed by city council in June to allow PUD districts without requiring the consent of all parcel owners. It's just one sentence that was thrown in there that most of you are probably well aware of. So that's it. This is the first petition that is applying under that new PUD language to try to change a portion of a site to a new zoning district. Thank you. >> Thank

086you, Planner Thatcher. I will uh invite the public to a public hearing. You can have a seat. Um 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. To speak remotely, you can press star 9 if on phone or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial 8778535247 and enter meeting ID 97766341226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone number or by name if on Zoom. You will hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please ensure you're in a quiet area and mute any background noise. for all participants whether in chambers or on zoom please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments

087I see that you are here Mr. Crockett. So, why don't we start with you, >> Jeff? 506 East Kingsley. Uh, interestingly, it was Chris and me, my wife and I, who are the two people who attended the meeting uh at the public hearing. And Chris is the president of the '04th Ward and I'm the communications officer of the and we strongly support this project for a number of reasons. Not long ago, interestingly, we were here in favor of the conversion of the mail shop over to housing. Uh, and we're uh very pleased that it's within the historic district. It sort of meets all our criteria. I mean, this is sort of a no-brainer. I mean, switching housing or office to housing, maintain the historic district status of the the homes. We're just very, very pleased.

088But I do also want to uh spend a few minutes commenting on the larger task of converting office space downtown because we recent a group of us recently talked to a proper office building owner and who said that he would like to uh have convert office space to residential but the uh the red tape and in the building department made it very difficult and I don't know if there is a way um of the building department coming up with some guidelines to help office space downtown get converted to residential to make it a little easier. Uh, and I'm I'm hoping that that process will go smoothly here. So, we are uh strongly in favor of this development and thank you very much. >> Thank you, >> Adam Duskevich, 1430 Las Vegas Drive. Um, I support

089this. We are in a housing crisis, not an office space crisis in Ann Arbor. Um, and I don't see any problem with converting office space to housing when it can be done. So, great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Chair W. Ken Garber again. 28 Her Hill Court like Mr. Crockett and Mr. Yes, Kevich. I was prepared earlier to fully support this project, but then I um did a routine check of the property owner online um Zaki Alawa. I think he's here tonight um and his company Michigan Rental. Um let's just say there are multiple U of M subreddit threads dedicated solely to um Mr. Aloi and Michigan rental and their management of their properties and that he has achieved a certain level of fame among the city's renters for said management practices. Um,

090now mal contents tend to be the ones who post online. So I went to uh 15th district court records and I found pages and pages and pages of city citations for various code violations and thousands of dollars in fines levied um against Michigan Rental and Mr. Illawi. Uh, and um, yeah, they continue. There's a recently the city charged Mr. Aloi or cited him for u, violating the city's early rental or excuse me, early leasing ordinance and that case is scheduled for a hearing in January. Miss Palacios, I think, is the defense attorney. Um, I guess I don't know how relevant this is to reszoning this property, but I personally don't feel comfortable having reviewed the record, even superficially, um, adding to the rental portfolio of this particular local landlord. Um, just based on what I've

091seen. Um, so, uh, I just I know that this will probably sail through, but, um, it's just regrettable that, um, you know, the what I've seen in the records to date. Um, and, uh, I just wanted to bring the commission's attention to that. >> Thank you, Mr. Garber. Is there anyone else in chambers who'd like to speak on this matter? Manager Leonard, do we have any remote participants? >> No hands raised. >> Oh, I spoke too soon. >> Not too soon. >> Alex Lope, you can unmute and address the planning commission for up to three minutes. >> Hi, this is Alex Low, 2532 Pittsville Boulevard. just uh I just want to say that the fact that uh that this will become a non-conforming structure shows a major issue with our uh side setback rules. Thank

092you. >> Thank you, Mr. Low. >> No other hands raised again. >> With that, I will close the public hearing and read the motion. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby waves the area plan requirement as provided in section 5.29.7.8, excuse me, A and 5.29.7.B B of the Unified Development Code because no new construction is proposed and recommends that the mayor and city council approve the zoning of 715 and 717 East Hiron Street to R4C multifamily District. Moved by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner Mills. We are in discussion. Who would like to kick us off? Looks like it's Mills or Lee. Okay, it'll be Commissioner Mills. >> Thanks. Um, I want to start at the end, which is about the non-conforming. That was the last comment that stuck in my mind and and I also

093appreciate the comparison table as always. I love the tables. Um, I'm curious. Um, it was noted that the side setback is is one of is in your report that makes it non-conforming, but my read of the table is that it doesn't have enough gross lot area either. What is that problematic? Is that uh what is the implication of that? uh you are correct that it's another nonconformity, but since there's the structure already existing that they're not going to expand, then we just look at the lot area to look at uh the number of units that'll be allowed within it. >> Okay. >> If this were a blank site and something new were being built, we would treat it differently. >> You couldn't build anything on it if it were a blank site, right? Or you

094a single family home. >> Single family home. There you go. >> Single family home. That's right. Okay. >> Um All right. Super. I just wanted to make sure I was reading the table right. Um, I think overall this makes sense. Um, changing the use and I I do remember passing or recommending uh the change to the UDC to allow for units or for particular parcels within a PUD to to um pull out effectively of the PUD uh to amend the PUD that way. Um, I appreciate the research, Mr. Gerber, that you brought to this, too. I don't know h how to deal with that information. I'm not going to lie. Um, and I guess I would put it on ask staff is it how like I I don't know that we we do such a

095thing. >> Yeah. Uh so my initial reaction is zoning is set out in the UDC about how we should be considering that and that should be considered by any applicant. Um we talk about this a lot actually in the context of you know types of businesses or the rent charge we um I think we have to be very careful to be thinking about the land use decisions that we are making and those land use decisions shouldn't be appropriate perhaps based on one owner versus it based on another owner. Um we do incentivize some things through sustainability or affordability and there might be change in ownerships but generally my off my initial reaction is I those are the applicant is actually not that significant of a factor for a reasonzoning decision. It is what the plan

096calls for and the context context of where that is. Um we could certainly um pose the same question as it advances from this body to city council um in the event that our legal council would have any other thoughts on it. >> Great. Thank you. Um that was the way that you answered was what my gut had been telling me. Um one final thing uh the comment about challenges in um modifying office space to become residential. Have you heard this? I assume again this is once upon a time I remember this coming into play associated with parking. Remember that? >> Yeah. >> Um and now we don't have parking. So I'm curious if you've heard what some of the tricky parts of that are. >> In short, I'm I'm not familiar with those. I could

097speculate that um there are different building code um factors that might an office building might have been built to that are make can make challenges to maybe fire separations that might be different requirements for a residential building. That's purely spec speculative. I'm happy to inquire to the building department if that's something you're interested in. Um but I think is as much as we can just share that um share that concern raised with the building department to see if that's what something that they want to look at in future. Um, and I don't know if any of the new building codes is trying to to address this as well. >> Okay. I um I don't know if you want me to bring it up in commission proposed business. The reason we've talked before about thinking about

098when there's structured parking, for example, making that built in such a way that it can be adaptable. And if there is something, it feels like this is not necessarily a zoning concern, but if there is something where our zoning in terms of floor height, I mean, I don't think this is a floor height issue, but if there's anything that we could do to make it more adaptable, I feel like that's wise for us to know. >> Yeah, I'll let's leave it this. Let me inquire about the billing department to see what conversations awareness they have and I can report back and see where you want to go from there. Super. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Commissioner Mills. Commissioner Nord, [clears throat] >> this request makes great good sense to me for the reasons

099that Mr. Crockett stood up. It just it puts this piece of property back into the larger district that it's surrounded by or at least to the north of and it makes sense to have it be housing. Um, with regard to Mr. Garber's concerns about the owner. I'm going to say this out loud and put for the record, I am not the city's legal counsel. Um, but it's a core principle of zoning that you zone by use, not by ownership. That who the owner is is irrelevant to this decision. The question is, is are there change conditions or some other factor that would warrant reszoning? I think there are in this case. It's troubling what Mr. Garber is telling us. Um, and hopefully that's something that will be resolved appropriately in other other manners, but it

100should not influence the decision we're making here. The question is, is this the appropriate use for this property? Um, so given that my I'm going to vote for it. I think it's an appropriate reasoning request to make. >> Commissioner Lee, >> sure. I I'll also second that. Yeah, the question really of the resoning is, is there a change in condition in the particular area or the municipality generally? And I think the answer to that is yes. So it was articulated well in the application and I agree that the land use decision should be independent. Um so for that reason I will be supporting this. Thank you. >> Are we ready to vote? >> Oh, Commissioner Adams. >> The only thing I would add to Commissioner Norton's comments about um Mr. Garber's comments is that normally

101as a PRA practicing administrative lawyer, if this kind of stuff comes up in one context and it's relevant to another organization, we'd see some type of referral, right, for enforcement and investigation. Sounds like that's already underway. Um, so I'm not inclined to chase it, but that's kind of how I think it should be dispositioned, but the resoning is appropriate. Did you want to take any formal action that this body would uh recommend to planning uh staff for enforcement since does this fit inside of the enforcement area of planning? >> Um honestly from what Mr. Garber said, it sounds like a lot of enforcement is already underway. >> But for our edification and knowledge, >> I could I could seek to find a summary of what what that is. >> Sure. I I think what I

102was asking was slightly different and I'm sorry I didn't um correctly state my question which is often when we are concerned about something at the table the question is who is the appropriate body within the city who does that enforcement and often it's staff but it comes through a complaint >> uh and that it's a complaint initiation that then um creates the enforcement and so what I think I was asking to piggyback a little bit off of Commissioner Mills and Commissioner Adams comment is uh is would this if there wasn't already a legal proceeding happening and a a member of the public made these concerns to us? What would be the normal course of action for us? Would we um would you recommend that we take up a formal note and uh refer it to

103planning staff for referral or would you just hear it and then take it and then report back to us just for our edification? I think that's where I was going with the edification part >> so that we would understand what to do in the future. >> Sure. So, um much of our enforcement is complaint driven. Those complaints come from a variety of sources. the planning commission could seek uh seek us to investigate something. >> Okay. >> To be clear that the planning department would investigate zoning violations. Um the city enforces a wide variety. You heard reference to early leasing. We have a rental inspection requirement. We have a building department. So there depending on what the nature of that there might be a variety of sources but absolutely whether it's the planning commission or public

104we have a a wide variety of ways that the city receives such information and they're followed up with appropriately >> and so for this specific case can I request what I think you've already agreed to which is to find out where this is and then just report back >> this specific property >> I think so uh just >> there's any outstanding issues with this property >> yes just so that this body knows. We don't make the final decision in um with regard to this. We're forwarding it to city council, but it would just be helpful uh since it was raised here and uh if you could just >> Yeah. And that could be an email or just a quick notice. >> Sure. >> Thank you so much. >> If I may, there are no complaints

105with respect to this property. >> So, the part where you started, if I may, I have to Yeah. So, I think we're okay. Thank you. Okay. So, uh, so we're going to go to a vote unless there are any other commissioners who want to clarify anything. >> Okay. >> Motion as presented. >> Commissioner Witch, >> yes. >> Commissioner Lee, >> yes. >> Commissioner Dish, >> yes. >> Commissioner Mills, >> yes. >> Commissioner Weatherbe, >> yes. >> Commissioner Adams, >> yes. >> Commissioner Norton, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Uh, recommendation goes on to city council. >> Thank you so much. That takes us to let's see 11A other business. Here we have 414 South Main Street Ashley Muse PUD preetition conference. A proposed amendment to the supplemental regulations of the Ash Ashley Muse PUD. Proposed changes

106would allow all permitted uses in the D1 downtown core district in the high-rise portion of the site. No changes are proposed to the site plan. The PUD and the site plan were originally approved in 1999. We will have a petitioner petition followed by a staff presentation by planner Molen Cochran. Good evening members of the planning commission. My name is Scott Monzelle. I'm of councel with the law firm of Daver Ebisa. Um, also with me today is Steve Calabat over here. He's one of the owners of the property that uh we're dealing with. Um, so I represent 414 South Main LLC. They own two of the condo units in the um Ashley Muse high-rise portion. uh they own the ground floor and then floors 2 through 7 um which are quaintly described in the PUD uh

107supplemental regulations as the high-rise portion of Ashley Muse back in the day when it was more of a high-rise. Um, we are requesting and at the beginning of the process of requesting an amendment to the supplemental regulations of the PUB to allow the D1 uses in the high-rise portion of the U building. Um, what basically this would do would be to allow um uses similar to all the other uh D1 uh buildings on Main Street, essentially to the north. Um, as I'm sure you'll see with a graphic from the planner, the property is located on the west side of Main Street, just south of Madison or yeah, William. Um, to the north of the property is the gas station and then the main street corridor. To the south of the property is the lowrise portion

108of the PUB, the Ashley Muse. And then to the south of that is D2 zoning. And then both east and west of the property, it's also D2 zoning. Um the original PUD, the reason for it is because that parcel was developed with a mix of uses uh including an underground parking structure and that kind of combination of uses was not permitted under the any of the zoning regulations or districts I should say that were in effect back at that time which was in the mid 90s. Um so that was the reason for the PUD. Um, as you uh are aware, there's the taller building on the north and then the lowrise to the south. That form was actually consistent with the city documents in place at the time um where you had a step down

109in height and density as you moved away from uh the main street corridor. And so happily the form of the PUD actually matches fairly closely with what the city has now reszoned from the into the D1 and D2 um categories. Uh we are proposing or the developer the owner is propel is proposing no changes to the site plan at all. This uh proposal would only change the interior uses of of the um the high-rise portion. So because of that there's no real graphics because there's no change being proposed. Um when the uh PUD was originally um proposed that entire the floors 2 through 7 were all office uses for DTE and its unregulated subsidiaries. Um obviously when COVID hit um that uh office core was vacated and was not used by anybody for several years.

110Um DTE realized that they were not going to repopulate that for office uses. And so, uh, the the the condo units were, uh, put on the market and purchased by, um, 414 South Main, which has a variety of, uh, development experience, but was interested in putting in multifamily uses in that space. Um the PUD terms for the high-rise did allow for multifamily, but uh you know back in 1999 when this was finalized, we didn't realize or foresee the the very dramatic drop in demand for office uses or the increase in demand for residential uses or the variety of residential uses that we see now uh in town. Um, so that is the reason that we're seeking to amend the text to accommodate the the uses that are allowed in D1. Just for funsies, um, Ms.

111Palashius was talking about the restart of the PUD. We were the second one in the queue of starting this process and it was actually three years ago almost to the day that I was here making the same pre-etition presentation discussion to the planning commission. Um subsequent to that we did submit an application but then it was stopped by the department while it worked through that issue of who had to approve an application. In our case, the 48 town houses to the south had been sold. The several I don't know if there four or six units upstairs. So, there were essentially 50 uh I'm sorry, yeah, 56 owners within the PUB. Clearly, we would not have been able to get approval from all of those people to proceed. Eventually, as you are aware, um the city

112council tweaked that language to make clear you don't need everyone's approval within the PUD. And so now we're starting back the process. And they said, well, notwithstanding that you've already got an application in because three years have passed. Start at the beginning. So here we are starting at the beginning. We'll have our uh citizen participation meeting this Thursday and we'll see how that goes. Um, so that's basically it. We're requesting uh an expansion of the uses in the high-rise portion only to allow for simplicity sake all the D1 uses that are permitted um to the north. Um, [snorts] uh, Steve is here if he thinks I missed anything and then we're happy to answer questions. Thanks. >> Great. Good evening. Um, yeah, I think Scott did a a great job. Uh, I I just want

113to just reiterate, um, the the purpose of this resoning to the D1 is is just simply to align the the zoning with everybody else on Main Street, more or less. Uh, that that's essentially it. Uh, the structure already exists. We're not creating any new physical impacts or features, no additional traffic, no infrastructure demands, no nothing. All it all it's doing is removing the outdated PUD restrictions that were tied to a one-time development approval and that's it. So happy to answer any questions from anyone if if you have any. >> Great. We'll have the staff presentation and if we have questions, we'll call you back. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, you're welcome. Planner Melen Cochran, do you have a presentation for us? >> I do. And I will just um share screen really quick um so

114we can see um just the zoning. So this is uh a zoning map that the applicant shared. So you can see this is the high-rise, the tower portion um that is outlined here in this PUD district and we are on the cornerish of Main Street and William Street. Um okay. Uh just a few uh general reminders about the PUD process. So this is a pre-etition conference which is a required step uh to apply for and receive approval for a new planned unit development or to amend existing PUD supplemental regulations. Uh which is why we're here tonight. Um and then tonight the planning commission may offer comments regarding the appropriateness of the proposed land uses, the proposals conformance with the adopted master plan and policies and the beneficial effects to be achieved. And that's from uh

115section 5.29.11 of the UDC. And I'll just add a couple more things. So like the applicant said, this is really just about uh amending the PUD supplemental regulations to allow for all permitted D1 uses just in the high-rise portion. No changes to the low-rise portion and no proposed changes to the site plan. Um the original PUD zoning um and site plan were approved in October 1999 and since then there have been three changes to the supplemental amen supplemental regulations. Um these were in 2000 2003 and 2007 and both of those in 2003 and 2007 were for adding permitted uses to the supplemental regulations. Um, as you can see here, to the parcels to the north are zoned D1, downtown core, and to the east, west, and south, they are zoned D2, downtown interface. Um, the

116applicant mentioned that this was first proposed um a few years ago and did not move forward uh because of the requirements at the time for all owners to approve any modifications to a PUD. So, that has now changed. Um, and this petition, like I said, would constitute the third revision to the supplemental regulations that would um increase or change the permitted uses in the high-rise building. Again, those two other ones were also just for permitted uses in the high-rise building. Um, the increased flexibility in the proposed language would allow for all permitted uses, including uh short-term rentals. And this was also noted in the staff memo that was presented at the preud conference that was held um a few years ago. Um overall I have included um in the staff report the original findings for

117benefits in that were included with the original PUD. Um and staff does not believe that the proposed changes would negatively impact the original findings that established this district. Uh the site would still be developed with a mixture of retail, residential and office uses in the downtown and uh the development is surrounded by D1 and D2 zoning. So the downtown permitted uses would be appropriate. Um I'd also just like to note that uh these supplemental regulations were originally written about 25 years ago and the way that we write supplemental regulations now is different. Um and we try to make them a little bit simpler and have more flexibility. And so as part of this, staff is likely to support additional changes that would simplify the language and interpretation. Um mainly reviewing and removing outofdate language, things

118like vehicle parking, um references to chapters that um are now no longer correct, things like that. Um, and I'll also note that the city attorney's office is also considering proposing changes um to section L affordable housing and they are working with ownership of the low-rise um the town houses to propose updated language that would clarify that the affordable units um can be rented rather than just owned. So, this is the first step in the POD process. even though it's just changing the supplemental regulations, the process remains the same. Um, and that's all I have for right now. Thanks. >> Thank you, Planner Meline Cochran. Appreciate your presentation. There is no public comment or public hearing. So, um, and there is no vote. So, we will start our discussion uh from here. Which, uh, planning commissioner

119would like to kick it off? Okay. Commissioner Mills, then Commissioner Dish, >> maybe this is a theme. I'm going to start off where you just left off, which is about the affordable housing. I think this makes tons of sense. And I mean, the question in my mind was at what point can we just take PUDS and say we're just going to reszone it? Because um you don't have to necessarily answer that, but that's one of the things that I was just thinking of. The question that I really had was about the affordable housing component of this and I didn't read from the original supplemental regs whether it needed to be in the low or the high-rise and I just wanted to make it is in the low. Okay. Cuz I just want to make sure

120that that's not lost somewhere along the line. So, as as long as and and that you talked about it and I noted that in the staff report, but just wanted to make sure that that the changes because it's possible it's possible that it's not housing that comes here. I mean, that's what it sounds like, right? Because there's not office. But but because we're changing it in the future, that would always be the case. uh or it um changing it to reference D1 would be something that as D1 changes um and D1 allows for lots of things. Um it's possible that that part wouldn't be. So I was just housing at all potentially. >> Yeah. And I I'll just clarify. So the applicant is coming to us with these specific um requests about changing the proposed

121uses and as part of that um the city attorney's office is working separately on this. So this the affordable housing stuff isn't coming from the applicant. This is coming specifically from the city's at the city attorney's office who is working on this separately. And so any language that would be proposed to change for the affordable housing would come from the city attorney and would go through their review process. and um they're they're still working on it, which is why I don't have too many details, but my understanding is is that they're having some issues with the rental versus ownership aspect in the language and and that's what they'd like to just clarify. >> Yeah. M Yeah, >> if I could just add a little a little bit to that. Um recently actually the city council

122has taken action to acquire I think one or two potentially or at least one of these units. Um, and uh, the based on the PD, the vast majority of them have been successful, but we have had a couple that have gotten to a point where the city has decided to step in because they weren't fulfilling the affordable obligations as originally crafted. So, I just want to emphasize uh a point that Mariana I think did a great job of is unresolved at this point, but we wanted to just be to transparent that um they are really owner occupied focused units and part of our recommendation ultimately to you and to the city council might be to just broaden that to give more flexibility for the successful implementation of those units. Likely not prohibiting either rental or

123ownership, but making sure explicitly clear that either would be potentially a viable outcome. >> Okay. The only other thing that I would suggest is I think it made a lot of sense to allow for some flexibility where there are multiple owners and this change is not the thing that the petitioners before us are asking for and it doesn't necessarily apply to their particular portion of it. And so I don't know how you think about that. like >> well [clears throat] to be clear the the changes to the UDC allow changes to the PUD district but what's important is we still require all property owners to seek a PUD so nobody can seek a PUD designation for a property that is that property owner is not on in support of it or part of that application

124at least but what this [clears throat] does is it enables an individual property owner to consider modifications it is ultimately the city's discretion whether or not to grant those whether it's only specific to an applicant initiating it or other changes to it. So that is an it's an 100% clear observation but it's um it's sort of an opportunity for us to look at that language just as you said for sort of a different portion of the PUD. >> Okay. Thank you >> Commissioner [snorts] Dish. Thank you. Uh I just want to clarify that I heard [clears throat] you entirely correctly Mr. Leonard that um yes, I am aware that we that city has acquired one and probably has another pending to acquire because there were issues of compliance with affordability and that it sounds like

125you're saying that the option to make the affordable units available as rental or owner owned um may make it easier to enforce compliance with affordability. Uh yes and yes because it might provide multiple ways for the city to move forward. >> Okay. Uhhuh. Uh I just need to write that down. Okay, that's great. That's a that's been on my mind. Um so uh so then so here's the thing that I'm looking at. So, it's a we have a [sighs] I mean, we are looking at this as a as a um well, it's a it's a resoning from a PUD and some of the rationale for the resoning is offered that it would be consistent with our various use plans, the city's various use plans. It encourages a dense land use that will foster an active

126street life, encourage diversity of housing opportunities, and stren strengthen the downtown's role as an urban neighborhood. That all sounds great to me. Uh the plan is to create uh two-bedroom, one-bedroom, and studio apartments. Um while students would be welcome to live there, they are not including amenities attractive to students. All of this sounds good to me. um what doesn't fall in my definition of diversity of housing is either uh studentoriented uh high-rise and it's not to say that I don't want more of those but we are seeing those the market is bringing those um and also well and so this is a high-rise so what would make it diverse for me I would love to see multif family rentals that are not targeting students those students are welcome to live there I would not at

127all object to a portion of these units, which would be 120 units taking up floors 2 to 7, it sounds like, being available as STRs, but I wouldn't love if they all were. And is there any way uh No, I ask for your advice on my gut feeling there. >> Could I ask a clarifying question before you answer? So I it took me a minute to track where you were going and then I got there. So I just want to validate that I know where you're going. The the STR comes up because it's a permitted use in D1 where currently it is not permitted in this uh PUD because of the supplemental rigs. So what you are concerned about is the shift to D1 to permit it also permits this additional use. And now you

128want to understand what our tools are to potentially limit that >> right if yeah because we are doing a resoning I mean ordinarily if something is by right D1 we have nothing to say about this but this is a resoning and so uh I am asking yes about the possibility the wisdom the lack of wisdom >> I just wanted to track it because >> thank you yeah it may not have been easy for everyone >> that you want because not everyone has memorized the UDC like uh Commissioner Mills. Sorry. Uh, Commissioner Lee, >> just a really quick clarification question. Is this a is this a reasonzoning or is this a uh amendment of the use permitted uses within the POD itself? >> Who's the question to the petitioner or staff? >> Actually, let me ask

129staff and then I'll actually also time to your question. I haven't lost it. >> Sorry, can you repeat the question? >> Oh, so is this a resoning from PUD to D1 on this condo site or is it the POD? Right. So, it's not a re Exactly. So actually it is the application of the PUD requirements that I I think is more apt and applicable rather than the reasonzoning that we just talked about. So this is a PUD amendment um expanding or expanding the permitted uses to things that aren't permitted within D1. And with that I know that the petitioner uh wanted to interject. So I would love to hear from them about actually their intent behind what this is. >> Okay. So, hold on for a second because Commissioner Dish had a question to staff.

130Do you want to defer that to allow Commissioner Lee to ask that question? >> I will defer that and I will say that um sorry that I misunderstood that and I'm always really happy for the clarification because there's so many details and that's all the more reason why I get to think about the public benefits. [laughter] >> All right, go ahead, Commissioner Lee. Thank you. If I could ask the petitioner um just what their thoughts about their intent for the building and then also if you wanted to comment on the PUD relative to reszoning versus the expansion of permitted uses. >> Right. So first something that I guess I didn't make make clear enough is Steve and his group have already begun the process of converting the office. we completed that's that's been done been

131operating as multifamily for over a year now. So I just wanted to clarify it just seemed a little disingenuous that everybody was having this conversation about about what it would be and the new use and it it's already been converted just for the record and and and it was allowed. >> Can you speak into the microphone? >> I'm sorry. it it was an allowed use under under the PUB anyway, but we want this, you know, just for consistency with the downtown, we want it to be D1. That's that's the clarification that we were sort of, you know, sitting here thinking, okay, that that I I don't know if we communicated that properly. So, >> got it. Thank you. Cuz I I had actually thought like I was like, I'm pretty sure I saw four lease

132signs [laughter] in the front and that uh >> uh and yeah, M Mr. Leonard, if you could um Yeah. And I just want to clarify the uses permitted. That was my understanding as well that they've actually already taken a lot of steps to convert some office to residential successfully in this. Um what are the uses beside right now you have the ability to do commercial and restaurant entertainment on the ground floor residential above? What are the uses that are in the D1 that you desire for the building that you're not using now? Well, right right now it is multif family, but we we just simply want it to be consistent with the rest of the main street, you know, uh uh for long-term resiliency and compatibility with the down with the with the main street.

133That's that's all we're seeking right now. But the the we already have studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms, and then the first floor has uh we've got, you know, we've got the restaurant, we've got a coffee shop coming, and you know, the office remains uh kind of dead in the back, unfortunately, still to this day. >> Council member Dish, go ahead. >> I would love to have the question that you exactly asked, um, which is not why do you want this, you want it because it's consistent with the rest of the D1 uh uses. I would like to understand better what are the uses that you do not currently have. Nothing has prevented you from converting your building and renting it or whatever it is that you're doing um with residential housing, but you seek you

134you you must be seeking an additional use or you wouldn't be in front of us. >> Currently, we're we're satisfied with the current use as is, but again, I think it's more for the long-term viability of the building. We want it. We want to have the flexibility down the road uh just like everybody else has uh on Main Street. Um whatever that flexibility may be. Um we want this, you know, this this is for long-term viability, long-term resilience. Uh but right now, um we have a successful multifamily. Uh it is nearly you know uh you know we're in the 90s in terms of rental rates and uh so far so good. We're very satisfied as it is. >> And specifically the flexibility that you don't have that you want to have is >> it I

135we don't have anything specific. It's D1. Whatever D1 is we want to have what everybody else has in the district. >> I don't I just feel like I'm not getting a direct answer. Yeah. I mean he's answering you. He's he's just not giving you the the the answer that >> Well, what what answer are you seeking? I guess I and I don't need to be >> Could I maybe address? >> Uh well, hold on for a second. Um so, do you want the petitioner to >> I'm totally happy. >> Okay. All right. So, we'll go to you, manager Leonard, and then we'll let you uh come back again. >> Well, I just want to So, I want to just sort of remind the commission this is a preetition. So, this is a great opportunity, I

136think, for this dialogue and this feedback. Um, I think I'm jumping off of Commissioner Dish's comments. Um, and so I don't want to attribute these to the bulk of the commission, but what I'm hearing from Commissioner Dish and has come up in the past is a concern about short-term rentals as they impact our housing stock and supply. And so, I would, if it doesn't sound like this petitioner, like a couple years ago, as Mr. Monzelle indicated um their conversations with us was very explicit about short-term rentals and they had asked and that was one of the that was one of the reasons why they started the conversation at that time. This is different. They're not asking for that specific use. They're asking for a broader use. But I would just move back to the planning

137commission that if if you are concerned about short-term rentals or hotel or any other use in the D1, this would be a great opportunity for you to communicate to them that as they finalize their PUD petition, what portions of that you would be comfortable with or not comfortable with. That is the purpose of this to give them some of that feedback to know that when they ultimately submit that petition finally um it gives them a little opportunity to respond to some of the concerns you have here. So if if that is a used concern I would I would suggest the commission sort of deliberate on that um and give them the feedback that that might be something they want to address in their application as a limiter or prohibition. >> Okay. So then can we

138have my question that I addressed to staff which is could you counsel me on my >> so >> the concerns there do you advise >> would be like for example if if the application was add all D1 uses your modification to that might be D1 uses however no short-term rentals are permissible or no hotels are permissible or a percentage of short-term rentals are are limited. So that's that's how I would recommend when that comes. Again, they can take this feedback. They might respond to that with the application itself. But that's once it's once it's before you for action. That's how I would recommend you think about it. >> Okay. And I wouldn't want to say no. That seems pretty inflexible. But I would love your counsel as to what might be a reasonable uh percentage

139just to and then you know there may be others on this body who do not share my concern in which case this won't happen. But I thought we would get advice from you rather than me picking something out of the air. >> Okay. Thank you, Council Member Dish. other commissioners. Commissioner Mills, >> sorry. I posed this sort of as a hypothetical and now I'm really legitimately wondering why this shouldn't why we can't have you s have you thought about the approach that the petitioner just before you took which is not amending the PUD but pulling this out and having it reszone to D1 entirely that >> because that's not what this is actually that's what I'm guess I'm not the change that I'm seeing is saying we want to we want things that match D1,

140but the problem is in the future it's still going to be zoned on the map as a PUD and now at supplemental regulations reference D1 and in the future there might not be something that is called D1 which then makes it really complicated and so that is the reason that I did originally ask like oddly like Well, should we just take PUDS and make them especially ones that want to be de in this case something that isn't an existing zoning district just make them that um then I think we have to think about the other things that are required of for this particular PUD and just like we did just prior to which is fun that this is the agenda for tonight um the conversations about like what were the public benefits that were there.

141Does such a change still make sense? But sorry, that's the long leadup. I'm going to ask again like uh I think that there's a difference between amending I know that both of them are amendments to the PUD, but this is like actually instead the block on the map. It does no longer says PUD, it says D1. >> Isn't land use fun? >> Uhhuh. Um, [laughter] I would say that the what the applicant wants to do is to get from here to there in the simplest way possible. And at the beginning of this, we thought the simplest way was just amend a minor tweak to the text, you know, the supplemental regulations would be the easiest thing. Um it is entirely possible that just reszoning the high-rise to D1 would be um simpler. Um it it

142also would theoretically change the test the test although from our standpoint the PUD benefits that were there originally are still there under the text the proposed text amendment. So I I think that we would meet the standard for a text amendment. I also think given the change in the market and the land use plans of the city, it might be an easier lift to reszone it to D1, but to be, you know, hashed out listening to everybody's comments. I mean, one of the things I do want to note is that the city council has determined that, you know, D1 is an appropriate place for uh short-term rentals. This sits right next to D1. It is a building that matches or exceeds the density in a large number of the D1 structures. It would make eminent

143land use planning sense to allow all the uses of D1. There's about Brent maybe 50 uses listed in the chart of uh uses in the city about what would be permitted in D1 in the PUD for the high-rise there's like four right office multifamily I can't remember if there's a couple more so to go through and list all the uses that would be permitted under D1 versus the current supplemental regulations we could do it. Um it's it's a lot, but you know, and some of them would be of no interest to the city or to the owner. Um but as Steve has said, really the purpose is to try to make that building um can the use and the functionality of that building similar to the main street corridor to the north. And had this

144not been a PUD originally from 1999, I suspect that the city council would have zoned at D1 and D2 would have been in the low-rise portion because that would have made again very good land use planning sense. But that is to rewrite 26 years of history. We don't need to do that. But we will certainly think about whether we should just when we actually do an application just go for D1 um versus what we thought was the simpler approach um of the sub of the text amendment. >> So thank you. >> Long answer. Sorry. >> Sure. We we'll hear first from Commissioner Lee and then from Commissioner Nordon. Commissioner Lee. >> Yeah sure. So practically speaking, when you convert office buildings like this, I've looked at a lot of office floor plates, they're very deep.

145And so with um with resi, you kind of want shallow kind of like you want lots of that. That's why resi buildings when you see a Texas doughnut style, it's like you you have a light well in the center, right? So that you create light on both sides. So, I'm just thinking from a practical standpoint of like what this developer had to kind of go through to say, "Hey, I'm going to convert this, but I and I think I we heard you earlier, hey, in in the rear of the space, there's kind of um still office that's kind of dark." And so, I'm thinking just from like the practical utilization of the site based on its current characteristics, right? And so putting um now the and and really I think the larger kind of question

146is yeah I think it's like if this wanted to be a hotel like is that wrong? I mean and I'm looking that I'm thinking of that from the standpoint of okay we have talked about the changing conditions of hey like we need we need to improve affordability. This is a you know downtown zones generally tend to command higher rates. We'd love to see an affordable component of it. I'm just thinking from again practical utilization of the building footprint. We have to kind of ask ourselves is this um like by saying hey we don't want STRs in the rear of the space or something along those lines. And I'm I'm just trying to I suppose articulate some of the actual dimensional challenges that office buildings face when it comes to uh converting use to full resi.

147Um and then also asking kind of a larger um question as to um the the role of tourism within economies versus sheerely from a I'm just thinking from like revar adrs those are um terms that you would use average daily rates revenue per available room as you look at tourism and also visitation and and the kinds of revenue that folks tend to spend especially when they're visiting downtown zone. So the question being like is this I think more and and so I think that by looking at it from a PUD amendment standpoint we may be pigeonhold to say like hey um we'd actually like to see affordable um you know be be a part of this kind of discussion. There's a lot more I think discretion when it comes to amendment of PUDS. Um whereas

148I think the question of like consistency um we heard about resiliency um you kind of have to ask yourself like the downtown core does this fit the overall kind of like pathway of land use patterns that we have talked about and uh so yeah but I just also ma mostly I wanted to talk about the challenges of creating full utilization when there is office buildings that have like a huge depth to it and So that is just one of the challenges again geometrically um uh folks will face. Um so um all that to say uh I I think you'll find that with this body affordability is at really kind of at the core of what we are looking for and to really promote. Um, obviously STRs detract from that and I think there's a right

149I mean literally it's like it could be a family that lives there for a year or it could be a transient, right? Um, but I think the question that you may want to re uh ask is what is the appropriate land use function of this particular parcel as it transitions? Um, uh, well, no pun intended. I know we we're going to talk about transitions um a little later on, but uh so just wanted to articulate some of the challenges geometrically with activating deep um corridors and office buildings and natural light. Thanks. >> Thank you, Commissioner Lee. Commissioner Nordon, >> Could I um ask the petitioner? I'm trying to figure out what were the special benefits of the PUB that justified what were the public benefits that justified having it be a PUB pud way back

150when? How would you characterize the core benefits that it provided? >> Right. It was um there were a variety of them, but part of it was the difficulty of constructing the site under an existing zoning. So the PUD I would say that city council was uh aware of the difficulty of putting that whole package together. Uh but the benefits were you know downtown uh diversity um contribution to the you know the benefit the um activity of downtown pedestrian activity on Main Street. There was the affordability um issue. who you guys talked about the eight units that was a huge factor back in 1999. It was very difficult to figure out how to do. I I'm only saying that because I was the one that got it approved. And so the affordability part was a major

151part of the PUD approval process >> and the and the mixed use >> that was part of it. It was all I mean it's right in the the report that you guys there's a summary of the benefits that the city >> So what because you just said that changing this supplemental regulation wouldn't diminish the public benefits that justified allowing the PD in the first place. >> I don't believe it would. I mean I believe that the the same benefits are still there. I mean, in fact, as Commissioner Lee mentioned, um, you know, there was a concern then and even now about people spending money downtown, um, and in trying to improve the vitality of the downtown retail and entertainment value. Um so the conversion to multif family which has already happened arguably has you know

152produced more of those benefits. I mean there was back then there was a discussion about okay how do the DTE workers go out at lunchtime and spend their money because at the end of the day they all leave. Well, now you've got a better uh I would argue um population in that building that are spending I suspect more money on a daily basis in the downtown core. >> So I think I don't have a strong sense of I'm not heading towards some kind of an agenda but um I do think it is correct that but for the PUD this property would almost certainly be D1 or D2. It's kind of right at the edge of between a D1 or D2. So reworking this in a way that makes it consistent with D1 would be make

153it entirely consistent with what would have been there. But for the PUD, PUDs are different from byite zoning because you have the whole idea is you're a developer is proposing something unique and different than what would be allowed under a clunky zoning code provision, but it's allowable because it's providing some public benefit that you wouldn't get otherwise. I think that's appropriate. I get really nervous when we we when the city starts seeing that as a way to leverage things out of a developer kind of in a coercive way. Um which [snorts] would make me nervous about saying well we'll we'll let you amend your PUD supplemental regulations if we get something out of it. I think that's kind of heading down that road. So I that's why I'm asking would making this change diminish the

154benefits that were in place in the first place when the PED was allowed and if not then there's still benefits to the PUD being there just in some reconfigured state. I'm kind of thinking off the cuff a little bit here but I also want to be clear to the petitioner and I read some of the comments. I looked through the materials for this and the comments from some of the folks who showed up I think at your public participation meeting who were pretty skeptical that you really have some kind of ulterior motive going on here and it's not just because you're trying to make it consistent with the larger neighborhood and and I'm I'm just telling you what I read um what I'm hearing is what you want to have is the option to be

155able to do something different within the future in a timely way without having to come back and request a resoning. So, you're kind of thinking ahead and trying to get there. Is that correct? >> I'm sorry. Hold on for a second. Uh, Commissioner Lee, I mean, Nordon, are you >> specifically asking the petition? Is >> that what you're trying to do here? Yeah, [clears throat] >> it it it's long-term viability. I want to make it very crystal clear to to uh the the board here, the commissioner here, that we have long-term rentals in the apartments right now. They're in the 90 plus% rented. So, we don't have any plans whatsoever uh now or in the immediate future to do any change. We have no reason to make any change to um what what's being described

156here today. Um, so but it's more about long-term viability, long-term flexibility, long-term sustainability uh of this property and and and we were very very sensitive to that. >> Yeah. So, I guess in the spirit of giving feedback on this preliminary conference where you're supposed to be getting feedback >> and and seeing the people's concern that you're trying to be sneaky here and you're not really telling us what you want to do. >> We have long-term leases. How could you know there, you know, we don't have any other motives here. We have a management company that's there. We have long-term leases and we're taking leases. We're we're signing leases for 2026 and beyond and 2027. As a matter of fact, >> put a point on my comment. I think saying that you're doing this just to

157make it consistent with the rest of the D1 doesn't rings a little bit hollow. To say that you're doing this because you want to have the op option to do things in the future like everybody else in a D1 district does that. Okay. At least to my mind that makes more sense. >> Well, that that's that's sort of That's just feedback for you. And then I think as I'm just >> noodling through this, the reason the way to think about it is this is a change to a supplemental regulations on a PUD. That's not a reasonzoning. It's more akin to a text amendment. Um, and you would approve it if it is makes sense given the conditions in the in the neighborhood and the things that have changed. and for a PD it would make

158sense especially if it doesn't un diminish the special public benefits that justify doing the PUD in the first place. So those are the things I'm thinking through now we also are going to have I mean this will open the door to allowing anything that could be in a D1 district which is a lot there's a lot of stuff that could happen but that's not any different than it what's could go on across the street or next door. So, I'm just kind of putting this on the table as we think it through. Thank you, Council Member Dish. >> Yeah, and that's why I read uh the list of benefits that I I don't think I think this was meaning to be current, a current list. Um encourage a dense land use that will foster an active

159street life, encourage diversity of housing opportunities, and strengthen downtown's role as an urban neighborhood. Those were listed in their memo. And in my view, the conversion to residential in no way harms those. I think it advances them. But if in future, let's say more than 20% of this building were converted to SDR, I'd have a problem with that because I don't think that's consistent with those benefits. But I understand that I may be a minority view on the board. But I I do want to state that because it is I agree with Commissioner Lee that STRs are not um STRs one buildings that are largely STR. We are hearing feedback from residents that I take seriously um that the buildings can be empty a lot of the time. It does not contribute to a feeling

160of neighborhood. It contributes to something else. I don't know what it is exactly. And but for me, it is a matter of proportion. It's not a moral, you know, none of this, none of that. And so I would want to because to me, those things that they list in their memo are not diminished by the conversion to residential, but would be if in the future something over x%. And I'm thinking 20 just to be random uh were converted uh to STR. So, and I understand that there, you know, that that may not be a shared view, but I I think that I am reasoning exactly as you want me to reason and I'm coming to the conclusion not that I'm trying to leverage something, but that I do have an opportunity in the way that

161this decision is playing out because we're being asked for to make a change. I have an opportunity to to ask to to make an amendment. >> Yeah. We're not voting on anything today, right? We're just >> We are not. We are not. This is just a discussion. >> Are you done? Council member. >> All right. Uh, Commissioner Weatherbe and then Commissioner Lee. >> So, I'm I'm not sure if this will help or hurt or but I remember when this was built and I remember the uproar when it was built. Um, and it was going to ruin everything, but it was it did replace the downtown hole in the ground that actually had a song, the downtown hole in the ground because it was just a giant hole in the ground for a really long time.

162And this finally came through and the affordability and there was a lot of issues about the affordability and if that was good or bad. And as I recall, the walkway through was considered a public benefit. Um, which is why I always walk through there because I figure it's mine and I can walk through it if I want because it's public. Um, but you know, this was just uh this was an office building. It was full when there were power outages and all the DTE trucks came in and all the DTE people came in. And um I I think I look at it as you know what's our worstc case scenario is that it's short-term rentals or a hotel or and this seems like a pretty appropriate place for those things. I don't know that we

163can I I personally am not swayed by whatever the petitioner says because that's not it could be a different petitioner in two months. it could be. Um, and so I, you know, I really have to go by kind of whatever we're re whatever the is, whether we reszone it to D1 or whether it's a amendment to the PUD or however we decide to do it. Um, you know, we can't take a petitioner's assurances because that's just not really unless it's written down is not a thing. Um, no offense, but [laughter] um, but to me, I I don't the sort of what if this were a hotel, which or a shortterm rental building. I've stayed in one in Chicago that's just a old building. They took an old building and it's all short-term rentals. And um,

164you know, those things exist now. They might not exist in the future. There might be a lot of them in the future. We don't really know, but uh it definitely I I think this is a reasonable use of sort of it's it's really right downtown. And one of the problems is that it's not quite we haven't given it downtown ability to exist. And why that's always kind of a little it's a little weird and it's a little because it's across the street and there's a gas station that inhibits sort of the downtown feel and then like we made all the mountains and the windows have to be there. So then people can't see in and they can't so the retail isn't great. So, I think things have changed and this is a building and a

165development that helped change those things, but now it's kind of behind the times of those changes. And so, I'm I think this is a reasonable whatever however we get there. I don't have particular feelings about whether it's I mean I think this is shows why PUDs can be kind of annoying because [laughter] like we they don't change with the times and then you're stuck looking at something that's 25 years old and we're just having to kind of say I don't know I guess it's okay if but you know 25 years ago it could have been a hotel and it would have been a functioning hotel all these time years and we wouldn't have cared because it would have been a hotel right downtown and So, I I think um again, I'm not sure if that's

166I'm not sure I'm contributing to this, but I'm just saying like I I just I think it's a reasonable it's reasonable. Whatever any of these uses, any D1 uses, I think would be reasonable here. And however we get there, I I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to ask. >> Commissioner Lee. >> Cool. I I'll make it quick just um for when you underwrite a hotel just by way of STRs or whatnot you generally try to assume um 60 to 70% occupancy you hope to get 70 sometimes you'll range from 50 to 70 there's seasonality as well so I think your concerns about its impacts to sense of community uh you know within the actual you know the transient nature of things is is well placed um so I think that there's a real um

167concern to be had um the I I think the overarching question for me especially with the context of this is is there a deprivation of the public good that was envisioned at the PUD level. Um and I'm just going to repeat kind of what you had indicated which was best interest of the surrounding properties in the city of Ann Arbor. The downtown area is preserved and enhanced by providing highdensity mixeduse development on the site. High quality of architecture and site design which I don't think we lose. strong pedestrian orientation. I think we still have that. Enclosed and below grade parking. Okay. Um and a variety of residential units on the lots described above and with a beneficial effect on and will not adversely affect the surrounding properties or the city in terms of public health

168health, safety or or welfare. And so I I [snorts] really think um our and I suppose maybe if the question is posed is are does STRS have a detrimental impact on the health, safety, general welfare? Um I I think reasonable pe people could probably disagree on the um community activation of like an apartment building versus one with a certain ratio. But to me, I think it's more important that we focus on is there a a detraction or a deprivation of the public goods sought and agreed to at the PUD. Um, and I'm not con I'm not particularly convinced that there is by, uh, you know, changing this to D1. So, um, so to that effect, um, again, those are just, uh, I I I suppose I don't necessarily see a huge issue with this. So,

169thanks. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Nordon, >> thank you for your I'm trying not to beat a dead horse, but >> please don't beat any horses. >> Try not to beat any horses dead. Um I think it's usually the case when someone requests a resoning, they have a particular use in mind. I want this resoning so I can build a hotel. This is a little different because there's something there and it's working and you're requesting effectively kind of a resoning and everybody's trying to figure out what are you doing? What's the secret behind the door thing you're really trying to get at? That's what I got out of the stuff I read. So, I'm just trying to respond to that. Uh, and and my council to you was just to kind of think about that as

170you think through and go forward your proposal about what you're trying to do. It makes sense to me that you're just looking ahead and want to have the freedom and flexibility to do what everybody else in the downtown can do. I think that's okay. I'm just suggesting that might be the statement. [clears throat] >> Have you asked a question? >> Um, no. That was just friendly. That was just friendly. >> I can clarify something for you though. >> But he hasn't asked a question. >> Um I could ask you could you clarify it quickly. Just really quickly the >> what what you're asking there was there was a case for uh uh there was there was a company that approached us four years ago when we first bought this thing to do short-term rentals. That's

171why that subject came up then. Right now, we're doing just fine as multifamily. We're doing great actually. Uh and we're very pleased with what it is, but we want to keep the options open should something arise. Uh as developers, we just want to make sure that we have all options available to us for the long-term viability of this project. That's it. Nothing else. There's no there's no agenda. Um like I said, we have leases into 26 and 27 right now. So, um, we'd be foolish to stop what we're doing right now at this point. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. Any other feedback from commissioners? >> Planner Marie. Uh, Melen Cochran, do you have any feedback or clarification for us or the petitioner at this time? >> Uh, no. Just that if you got

172all of your recommendations and you feel good, then that's all we need. >> Great. So, it sounds like if I were to do a quick summary, I'm not going to um take up uh former chair Lee's uh summarizing abilities uh which were so great uh to say you may want to uh come back just as a a clean D1. Um it seems like that might make a lot of this uh easier and um we look forward to uh your petition should it arrive. >> Appreciate you. Thank you. >> Yeah, have a great evening. Thanks for joining us. All right. Thank you. That brings us to 11B, other business. And I believe we are going to be joined by uh principal planner Michelle Bennett. >> I know it it changes a lot. [laughter] I hear it

173change like at city council and other places. So, I'm trying to keep up with the times. And as you get um settled and ready to give your presentation, Mr. Monroe, can you come up? I wanted to I'm going to use the the privilege of the chair to understand something that you said that I did not quite get. So when you were talking and thank you for coming up for Yeah. [laughter] When you were talking about the 250 ft buffer from our natural features inventory, let's assume no one knows what you're speaking of, even though it's in the record and it is accessible. Just give me a sentence or two of what you have in mind as you are making this uh recommendation to us. >> Yeah. So, um what I have in mind is what

174I told Brett on Saturday is kind of my gateway drug to the whole comprehensive plan, right? And it is this boy that's an entrance place. Uh [laughter] yeah, it it's a place that's been near and dear to my heart and I can honestly say for my entire life, right? I grew up by Argo. Uh even when I didn't live in Ann Arbor, when I came back to Ann Arbor, that is the place where I went, right? And uh if you all are familiar Longore Drive, right? It's this lovely dirt road that kind of curves away from the city park, right? And historically there has been steep slope right and woodland which are in the natural features inventory which are pictured right there in a picture that is actually outdated and probably should be updated to

175reflect the devastation of the woodlands and that steep slope right um and so what what I have in mind is that my understanding is that development occurred without a site review that's my understanding and so If we're saying that we're going to protect our natural features and yet there's this loophole that allows our natural features to be destructed without site review and the UDC says the way that we protect our natural features are through site review. I think that's a hole. And so the 250 ft I also want to add as you've watched it like I've watched this construction they have not just impacted that side of the road they've also impacted the other side of the road which is also in our natural features inventory and so you know that's where I got the

176250 ft buffer granted that road is not as wide as 250 ft but I do think it it's a reasonable place to start the conversation. >> Okay I think I I understand better now. Thank you so much. I'm going to direct my question to staff. I you're good uh for from my point so you can have a seat now. Thank you. So uh Mr. Leonard um this development in particular was on private land and on private land that doesn't require a site plan review. >> Well, private land is not the distinction. >> Great. This is this is why I was starting this this way because I knew you would jump right in and give me the distinction that I needed. So uh the uni unified development code sets thresholds of what scale a project requires

177what level of review and Mr. Monro is absolutely correct projects of that scale don't require a site plan review. Um they can be they're still reviewed to make sure they meet setbacks and the like. But a distinction that I think he is raising is that when we process a building permit for either a new home, a new quadplex, multiple single family homes, what have you that fall under that category, we do not require tree mitigation. We don't require the the all of the natural resources. Those requirements and review are done for site plan review, right? And so what uh what happens is as in the past we have set that threshold um partially to frankly control the cost and impact of different scales of development. And so >> because the site plan is more than

178just the natural features remediation cuz now you have to invite almost all of the city's departments. So you've got to bring in engineering, sanitation, traffic. So the cost to a development would be significant and assuming that was a u a mono uh structure um that could be cost prohibitive for them to build on a parcel of land where they by right could. But >> I think Mr. Monroe's point that he made this weekend and now is that the city has the ability to set what that threshold is though. So, >> yep. All right. I I that was helpful. Uh and I appreciate the indulgence of the table. Not that you could stop me, but uh I was using the privilege of the chair to get uh that clarity. Uh planner Bennett. >> Yes. >> Are

179you ready for your staff presentation? >> I'm ready. >> Excellent. Well, I will turn it over to you now. >> Great. Um in your packet under the this item, you should have four attachments. I'm going to propose how I think we should go through them for this evening with any modifications that you all want to offer. But I would suggest that we start with the document that has the edits that we discussed from last meeting. I want to show you all the notes that we took. There were a few instances in which you asked staff to come up with the wording for some things. So, I'm going to draw your attention to those examples first. But anything that's on here is open um for us to talk about. But this these are edits that you

180submitted for the November 18th meeting. We discussed and took notes and here are here they are for you to correct the record if you think that we u missed anything. So I'd like to start there and then secondly you have the comments that are being submitted through the engage page on the project page. You have all 500 and something of those. So after we go through our edits, I would open that up for you if you want to bring any of those up for discussion that we can I can take notes on here and add to our running list of edits for next time. And then um as a part of that, I also included an updated future land use map. Not updated in that we changed anything, but updated in that there were requests

181to have a higher quality map. So those are in there. That's in there. and we can open that up and see if that's um to your all's liking. And then lastly uh was the memo that um Chairman White had brought up where I walk through the process of um future land use map to zoning map to text amendments to resoning kind of laying out that process of how things um will go and how they currently go and how they will go. Um, so if you all are okay with that, then we'll start with the staff edits. >> All right. Uh, do we have any feedback from the table? >> Um, uh, Council Member Dish, sorry. >> Thank you. Yeah. Um, in general, these all looked great to me. I checked over, but I was conf

182I was confused by the first one. >> That's a new one. So, I was going to draw your attention to some I was asking a slightly different question, which is Do we have any feedback on the proposal from uh planner Bennett? Okay, great. You you have made your comment, planner Benner. Go ahead. >> That's a great segue. That's where [clears throat] I was going to start. So, if you can see under discussion, um so that would be page two. Page two in the document you have, but it is referring to page 57 in our third draft of the comp plan. So, um Brett, if you could share your screen, um I want to direct you to the map. This is a staff edit um that came to us recently. Um, and to be clear, this

183map already had a few questions from you all and changes that you all wanted to be made, particularly regarding the major walking barriers that is indicated by the orange lines on some of our um corridors. So that was the original kind of ask from staff or I'm sorry from planning commission but staff had came back to us and thought that um because they are going to be starting the new pros plan coming up that they feel like it would be best for them to sort of categorize and reimagine you know what counts as a community park what counts as a neighborhood park. Um this map on page 57 lays out that community parks you know they have their own definition here. they're 5 acres or greater. Um, and so they had asked like, could you

184remove that for now and replace that second bullet point um, with the text that you see here? So there's on top of that, there's another option. We could completely remove the map if you all are okay with that. Um, that would give us more room for formatting. or if you feel strongly that there should be some reference to parks there, you know, are other maps of just our park system for example that we could add. >> Sure. Uh, council member Dish. >> Okay. So, I I don't necessarily I'm not I don't feel a pressing need for a parks map. I'm fine with removing this map. I like the language that says replace the second bullet point with the following. And so if that's going to go in, that would be great because I hearing this

185a lot about the lack of parks. So I like this language. >> Any other commissioners? >> Great. Oh, Commissioner Norton, I didn't mean to say I was just reacting to the fact that I was moving on and you interrupted. Please don't hear anything else. >> Um, that's fine. I'm thinking though that we make it clear. I'm trying to remember up at front at the start of this comprehensive plan, we say this plan is replacing yada yada yada, but it will work in conjunction with was the pros park plan one of those that it will work in conjunction with. So, we're not like getting rid of this. We're just saying that's the place to go to get the more detailed information. >> Correct. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Can would I think it would be better

186if commissioners have concerns about anything that's in here instead of us going one by one? I don't feel like >> I was planning to go one by one. I had like three or four that I was going to show you where we actually wrote something new. >> Okay. But >> which which direction do we want to go? Are there table comments or do you want to go with the four new ones? >> Okay. All right. Go. Well, so do I have clarification that this is a supported change from >> Yes. It doesn't look like there's any opposition uh to the staff. >> Remove the map and replace the language. >> Yes. Okay. >> Just if for everything in the spirit of clarity um when you I don't even know I don't even know how to

187say this. I think what I want to say is there has been a lot of controversy around the parks >> and removing the map I think will feed into a narrative that there is something untoward happening here. So out of an abundance of [snorts] communication and clarity, we should note that this change was requested by the parks commission. And um once that process is finished, a new map will be created and a future version will include that just so it doesn't feel like it's being it's underhanded uh in a sense. Go ahead, uh Commissioner. I I I'm right in line with you, but maybe a little friendly amendment. I would kind of add both both of the text, right, to remind folks do the replacement that's proposed, but also add the rationale to remind folks

188that the pros park plan is one of the plans that's done parallel with this plan and it's currently being updated and revised and that's the place to go for that information so that we don't >> so it's clear we're not >> I like that. That's a that's a good one and it's just an overabundance of communication. >> Does that make sense? >> Go ahead, man. >> And just to the rational question, I just want to be clear, part of the feedback we got from our park staff was this sets like a floor at 5 acres and they didn't they thought that that was overgeneralizing and not perhaps giving enough nuance to our wide variety of parks. though just to further the rationale that this is nothing by no means insidious. It's actually the opposite that

189this might be too much of a generalization. >> Okay. So I have um that we there's support to remove the map but that we should um add in the text that we will continue to refer to our much more detailed pros plan um now and forever. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. [snorts] Um the next one here is just about uh page 58. We went back and forth on where this text should go. Um this is an addition that was proposed um to just give a bit more context about our historic districts. So um I made the recommendation to put it on 52 as a key consideration. And I gave a backup that if that causes a formatting nightmare that it could also go um on page 51, but uh this would

190become a bullet point here on page 52 if we're okay with that. >> Yep. >> That was I think my original >> because it I tried to craft it as a key consideration for the Yeah. So I would support that. >> I don't think there's any objection at the table. >> Okay. I only have two more I think. Um so let's scroll down then where in your left column where it says page where you get to um one 113. Okay. So this is in the table where we talk about our different land use categories. And um it was proposed that the column here that says zoning for hub was not treated similarly to the way that the other land use categories were treated. It simply says amend D1, D2 and TC1 while the other land

191use categories have more of a narrative. So, uh, I provided some narrative and am asking to see if you support or not. So, it reads, um, what how it would read there instead is, uh, new mixeduse districts that permit greater densities in land uses to mimic an urban downtown format with improved safety and functionality for non-motorized users. >> So, it's on page seven. It splits between page six and seven. if folks are looking for it. That's fine with me. [snorts] Any commissioners? >> All right. >> Okay. And then uh lastly, if we go scroll down to where it says um page 118, this is at the bottom of page seven in your document. Um, there was a request to talk a little bit more about short-term rentals, and we had thought about putting it under

192new and diverse housing options. Oh, I'm sorry, Brett. Actually, it says supported changes on 108 and 109. It was originally on 118. Yes. So, right here where it says new and diverse housing options to add a paragraph beneath that about short-term rentals. So, I just wrote a brief kind of history of when they were allowed and the process we've gone through and that we are looking for tools to help monitor and identify short-term rentals and that the findings can be used to help determine how policy can improve uh can be improved to meet our goals um our affordability goals. >> It's factual. Correct. according to Brett who reviewed it. Yes, [laughter] >> as long as it's factual. >> Okay, I don't see any objections or changes. Okay. Um, so those are the ones I just

193wanted to draw your attention to, but please note on all of these I noted supported or not supported. This is what we are going to take to our consultants to make the next um changes. So, um, if we scroll down a little bit to things that came up in the November 18th meeting, I just want to go through some of those. Um, I didn't receive any comments, um, any edits. So, that's why we're going over old edits. There are no new edits from the planning commission. Um there was a suggestion for us to make data more available like a dashboard and or have some annual progress report to share you know how we're advancing these goals. So I suggested to add that to the implementation matrix. You can see where um there was a request

194for us to reference homelessness. Um and so I found on the pages where I think that that would be suitable. Um and there we would add we already have references to working with the county to address homelessness and there it would be added to also work with our nonprofits. Mhm. >> So we'll just be adding them. Um lastly, there was a like a brief mention of adopting more flexible ADU. >> I'm sorry. >> Planner Bennett. So under the part where it's we're saying it's adjusted to add the nonprofits. Can can what are the thoughts around the specificity of our nonprofit affordable housing builders? Is that what you mean by that? Or were you just how are you how are you and Brett thinking about that? I believe that's the context in which it was brought

195up with yeah nonprofits that help you know end homelessness. >> Okay. >> Combat homelessness. >> Yeah. That could be both um housing providers, service providers. So I think it was just trying to broaden the [clears throat] partnership beyond just the county as sort of like our continuum of care agency to other actors in in that in that space. >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay. Um there was a suggestion for adopting more flexible ADU regulations. So I have looked through the plan when we talk about missing middle ADU is included in there. So I feel like that has been covered. If you all want that specifically called out, we can discuss that. But I think that that is um included in what is already written in the plan. And then for the last two, um you

196can see in your packet the new future land use map. If you all feel like that's high enough quality, then that's what we will replace the current one with. Um, and then lastly, you asked me to outline how things will go uh in January and February. Um, and this is on the first page of the memo, but I'll just walk through that um, quickly. The comment period ends on January 5th at 9:00 a.m. So, I want to add that because a time has been added. It is 9:00 a.m. Um, any comments that were received after December 11th at noon will be placed on the January 6th uh agenda packet. Um at January this at the January 6th meeting, um the planning commissioners will be looking at their last round of comments that are submitted through

197the engage page and any last edits that you all would like to make to the plan. We will then bundle them, organize them, and send them over to our consultants. They will determine how long they think it will take to make those edits. But the way we have them all in front of us now. So unless there's a major change, uh we feel like this could probably be ready for a public hearing in the second half of February, one of your later meetings in February. Um so then it would go through the first public hearing with you all and then after that we, you know, we have to notice all of these things. So we need the, you know, the right amount of time in between meetings, but we would look then for the city

198council meeting likely in one of their March meetings. Okay, that's it for this document. >> All right, >> Commissioner Mills. >> Um, the ship may have sailed since I was traveling the last time. I just thought one of the comments that I provided that it says is not supported. I just thought I would provide some rationale for >> and and just to clarify, you said the ship may have sailed. >> Oh, the ship. Sorry, [laughter] the P ship. The ship may have sailed. Guys, it's past my bedtime. >> It is not. It is 8:30. [laughter] >> This is peachy time in those households. Thank you very much, child who's watching on TV, go to bed. Um, [laughter] >> and this is referring to page 115. 115 to 116. And and this is the thing, sorry

199guys, that I keep on coming back to [laughter] from the infographic that I saw about the thing that I feel like comes up an awful lot, which is the recognition that even in our existing zoning, um, uh, we have an awful lot of tearowns and building of very large structures. and thinking about how this is in reference. um how that some of the concern about the number of units within a building is specifically about that like the size of the building and legitimately the um the infographic that was sent out through a an Rapids prohousing group was thinking about ways to get the missing middle and also do it in a way that is um not just about lot combinations. And so one of the suggestions was including maximum building sizes that are tailored based

200on the number of units. And so you would both potentially have a maximum building size for a single unit building. Can you >> as well as a maximum building size for a multifamily building that scales appropriately so that you are again both limiting mansions >> and taking care of the reaction to the same thing that Commissioner Abrams was talking about in her in her figures. Right. So just saying regulating building size. I feel like we know this from parking. We can have building, we can have parking maximums and parking minimums and they work very differently. My sense is I I read into this that that particular language on 116 where we talk about the the ways that we're effectively using form-based codes. I I interpreted the the reference to building size as thinking about maximum

201building sizes. I feel like there's a lot of comfort that could be given to some folks to say we are cognizant that this is part of the concern. That's why I added that because I didn't think it actually changed the meaning and if what we are um and so that that was the intention behind that. I understand it's not supported. We can totally move on. But I just thought this comes back to this this graphic that I got from the Grand Rapids folks that I thought was really helpful in helping me understand what that could look like. Um, so in case that in case that is back a possibility to vote that back onto the island to make that ship not to call it back to harbor. I don't know. [laughter] So it's just literally

202adding maximum within where we say >> the final bullet point. Yep. So this is the second bullet point under form and site considerations. Yep. >> And you want to add maximum >> maximum building size >> because building size is not currently there. So you want >> Building size is there. It's on the fourth line. It's it's between the third and the fourth line. >> Okay. [clears throat] Okay. >> And it just says and may address building size. And I think what we I I don't know what we would mean other than maximum building size. I mean I can't imagine you're meaning minimum building size, but maybe. And that's exactly why I mean, I think it's better to be clear what we mean. >> Is there support? >> I don't really recall discussing [laughter] this before.

203I think because you weren't here to push it. Um, I don't have any problem with that. I think it's fine to add that. >> Was there some reason staff didn't want to add it? >> No, I would I would I don't have any objections. I think that it is the intention there. However, I just want to be clear. There might be other aspects there. The thing that I would say is part of this plan. It doesn't have the answers to all those things. There might be lot size regulations as well that we might look at from a maximum perspective. There might be density calculations. So I I don't have an objection because I think that is the intention. But I just want to be clear that there's going to be a lot of decisions to

204be made in that regard. And by including maximum for there for only that one, I don't think it hurts anything. But I just want to be clear, we're going to have to be wrestling with some of those other issues as well. >> Commissioner Adams, >> I don't have any problem with the change. I I my recollection is that we because nobody raised their hand, we dropped it. Um my only hesitation is I I've tried to focus my own review on like the absolute essentials at this point. Like anything I'm skimming off of the public comments that looks like an error or a major gap. This doesn't strike me as essential, but I'm fine making the change. >> Other commissioners. >> All right. Looks like there's support. Let's uh Commissioner Nordon, >> can there have been

205some comments that keep coming up that I'm not sure that we've adequately addressed including coming back to where you started this session on natural futures >> and um is there are we going to talk >> I'm sorry who are you addressing >> the chair? I'm not sure if I'm addressing you or you >> Well, there's a lot of us down here and you just looked and so I didn't know who you were looking at. So, [laughter] I think we're we're done with this document and then what I had proposed as next is the public comment that we've received. >> Unless we're not done. >> Can we do the map and then the memo and then do the public comment? >> I I need to ask. >> Sure. Go ahead. >> When am I supposed to

206introduce the sentence on homelessness? >> Now. Okay. So, we're not done with this document. >> Okay. So, [clears throat] uh, by request, uh, or by the s at the suggestion of, um, council member Gazi Edwin, um, on page 63, uh, PDF page 37, section 1.4. Um, I'm thinking at the beginning of that paragraph. Michelle, were you thinking at the beginning? Um, I'll read the sentence and we can let the body. So, the sentence is this. Homelessness is an outcome of housing scarcity, rising costs, and displacement pressures and must be addressed as a land use and affordability issue. It's a statement that she worked with communic community advocates around homelessness on. And I think it's a statement that s that that makes explicit something that I think is would be agreed with by this body. And

207so though I know we are late in the game, uh it seems like a good thing to affirm in our um in our in our in the part where we're talking about income eligible, you know, affordable housing. So does but we were not sure where to put it and this was one of the places you had suggested Michelle. So the Yeah, >> you said 1 point. I thought I had said 1.5, but I think it works for either. >> Oh, 1.5. Yes, that's even better. Yeah, that's even better. Sorry. [laughter] >> Well, I think if there's support for that that if you all trust staff, we can figure out where to put the sentence in the paragraph. >> I'm fine with that. >> Great. >> The map. Do we have any objection to this higher

208resolution map? It's awesome. >> Great. Okay. Do we have Oh, sorry. I I did it again. I'm sorry, Commissioner Norton. I have to stop these verbal ticks. >> Um I think the map is much improved. It's much easier to read. I would just ask um I think it's stated in the text, but I would add ask that you add a little bit of text at the bottom of the map >> that's in here >> on the map itself page >> where you you all had asked us to take the language from page 135 and put it under this map. Um >> clarifying that it's a draw it's a Yeah. So that's you're going to do that. >> Yes. >> Okay. Yes. That's what I was going to ask again. Thank you. Mhm. >> At least

209I'm consistent in my thinking when I see [laughter] >> Yep. Commissioner Mills, >> I think I saw this on the grid of the memo from before. >> Mine was the comment about the colors associated with the hashed part that's um residential or transition and because it uses orange it looks like hub. So I assume that in a future version or maybe you're like that's a bad idea. >> No, I think that's just not under discussion. That's under a staff supported edit. Unless you're not seeing it there, but I my recollection is I put it in there and we will make that change. >> I saw it there. Yeah. Okay. I just didn't know if this was the updated map. >> I mean, >> we didn't talk about staff supported edits last time. We only talked

210about like that's why you're seeing under discussion. I went I made sure you guys, you know, validate everything I said. We didn't get to the other edits. They're just going to happen as is. Yeah. So when so it'll we'll have this resolution of map but with improved colors is what I'm hearing. >> Yes. Awesome. Cool. >> Neon flash. >> All right. So we have the map. We have the um commissioner proposed edit. We now have uh the memo. Can we take a look at the memo? >> We're going to um if you wanted to bring up any of the public comment that's in your packet from the engage page. We're going to do that last. >> Last. Yep. We're go to the memo and then u go to the comments. >> Um Okay. Do you

211want you want me to walk through the this memo? >> No, I think everyone has read it. >> Oh, okay. [laughter] >> I I trust that everyone has read it. Um I did and I thank you for it. Um but any discussion >> you I will you include um petitioner initiated resonings. >> Mhm. >> You don't talk about council initiated resonings did or did I miss it? Um I think I talk about that in the sense that the future land use map is essentially like a city backed either you know by council like I think I was trying to show that the future land use is sort of the precedent for that um and that's how we will be planning to reszone the city but that additionally petitioners have that right as well >> and

212I the the reason that I asked for this was there is um ambiguity about how resoning happens. I think a lot of people in the feedback that I'd received only know about it through the city initiated process but were unaware that at any time anyone can come and make a um resoning petition. And that was just what we were trying to highlight so that it doesn't because part of the feedback that we were looking at in particular was um around the fact that we're making um a plan that will create a set of code that will initiate resoning. But it ignored the fact that individual petitioners could come and do it. And there is a process for that. It is already spelled out in the UDC. And what was helpful for me when I met

213with uh planner DO is she she gave me a a helpful insight to this. She says once the plan is approved, even before the UDC gets changed and new zones are created, petitioners will come and ask for a reasonzoning because they're seeing uh to use a uh a biblical term uh which is really just a Greek term, the telos. They see where this is all going and so they want to they want to be there right on time. >> Yeah. So, >> which is all fine. I And maybe this is a bit formalistic, but um >> anytime you label it, [clears throat] it's >> a [laughter] bit formalistic. I would I'm just going to suggest you've got process for reszoning and you've got a subheading for petitioner initiated. It would be useful to have city

214council initiated as a second subheading and it maybe only needs to be a couple sentences that you know one of the reasons you update a plan and then you look at the zoning is to see are there places we need to update the zoning code to now reflect the plan. That's kind of what this whole plan update is about. And then in addition to that, it's always the case that petitioners are coming before us and asking for resonings. So this this memo will become its own freestanding document. And I think it would just kind of it'll take on a life of its own. It would be helpful to have that extra subheading and have a little bit of an explanation. Is that making sense? >> Yeah, I have no objection to that. >> Any other

215feedback? >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> Just to say thank you for the language around transition. That will be very helpful the way you describe it >> in this memo. >> Yeah. I I hope that helps. I I I'm I'm trying to explain trying to assuage any fears that like um that there isn't that there isn't a process when we are in between that time when we have adopted the plan but haven't it rewritten the UDC. What kind of happens in that limbo? That's what this memo is meant to address to show people that like we still continue this process and that it's been on it's been on the books and will continue to be. And then my I think I put it in my comments to you um planner Bennett, but I think we would

216benefit in the new year maybe between the period of the plan being approved by this body and it being approved by the next body that if we could have a presentation on just like planning 101 could just go back and just sort of help people understand how the UDC gets activated. The idea that there are um plans that get reviewed by staff but don't have site plan, therefore they don't come to this table. It just some of the bigger issues that I don't think a lot of people grasp, but there are assumptions about and if we could just have a a little section on that. It could be a staff presentation with a discussion and we can figure out the format. But I would actually invite the public if we could figure out a way

217to do it in a in a uh organized way to ask their planning questions like you know we just set aside some time and it's like fences like this neighbor's on a corner so the fence over here looks like this and their fence over there looks like that. Oh, well, it depends on where the position of the house is relative to the, you know, the other pieces. And I just feel like any demystifying that we can do, um, from my point of view just establishes more public trust >> in the process. And if we can engage the public in an orderly fashion where they feel heard and we can respond with information, I feel like that helps engender trust. So, I would just propose that manager l >> 100% agree with that. And just uh

218put another plug in. We don't have any more at the end of this year, but next year we will be um rescheduling a couple of our what we call A2DU. Um just to put a plug in for that. That's where we send our um planning team out to different um places in the city for basically an open office hours. And that's a great opportunity for people to also come and want to understand the nuances of a fence or how to do this or that. So, um that's I totally agree. I think that's a great opportunity for this board, but there it's not the last opportunity. >> Yeah. And I I think the reason why I'm proposing it here is the the number one uh criticism that we receive is there we're not in a dialogue

219because the nature of public comment is it's your time and then it's our time. But if we schedule a timelimited dialogue and we can u administer it orderly, I think that can help sort of take a little bit of that away so that someone can say, "Hey, I think this thing got reszoned illegally." And we can say, "Okay, let's pull it all up and we can show you in UDC exactly how it got resoned." [laughter] Um, and how this all works or lots, you know, we're looking at a lot that was already a double size, but we thought it was a lot combination. And so therefore, we're doing something underhanded and it's like, nope, this this is the law. So, we actually have to follow the law. And that could be an hour um on

220a on an agenda where we just have a initial presentation and then we have a a bit of a form if there's a way for us to facilitate it that fits all the legal statutes. I would love any feedback or discussion or objection to that if you have it. Okay. Fantastic. All right. So, I think we're done. Oh, no. We have 523 comments to review. [laughter] So, how would you uh propose to do this? I have I I just have a couple things out of the public comments that I wanted to raise from my review. Um, did you have an orderly way you wanted to receive these planner Bennett or are you just open for us to uh share with you? >> I'm open for you all to share. >> Excellent. The chair can't go

221first. So, who would like to go uh to kick us off? Oh, Commissioner Adams. >> Got a quick one. >> So, um John Hilton wrote in [laughter] >> um suggesting that our discussion of the history of We have a discussion that's lengthy regarding the placement of the plan in history that refers to how the city became segregated and how that segregation was uh enforced informally and formally which he argues to be inaccurate fundamentally. Um, I reviewed his arguments and I don't know that I agree, but at the same time, I didn't write that section and I'm not a historian and some of it is cited to and some of it is not. >> And I realize this is a homework assignment more than it is like feedback, but it is something that I think we

222really got to mail. Um, it's a pretty serious discussion within the overall document and he's alleging that it's just false. >> Yeah. Um, so we just need to go back and who I don't know if it was consultant drafted or staff drafted, but um, if if the response back is we use passive voice in that section to slide over some complexity and nuance, I think I'm reasonably comfortable with that. If we think he's right that it's making inaccurate claims, I think we got to make some guesses. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Uh, Commissioner D. >> Yeah. uh I flagged the same thing and I read it carefully and I have uh taught some of this history and so what I took away from I took I did not fully agree with him. I do not agree

223with the statement that segregation was not based on city law. I think minimum large minimum lot sizes was quite clearly something in city law that created racial segregation. So, I I just think that, you know, and I'm sure that if he and I had a conversation, we might come to see that similarly. But he did mention that we do not mention Ann Arbor passing the first open housing law in the nation in the timeline. And we might want to put that in because that did happen. um uh it it was relatively close in the time of adopting those minimums. So, it's a very complicated history, but I think his comments boil down to you left this one thing off and you blamed the city for segregation and that's not fair. And I'm I'm being a

224little bit crude, but if I'm boiling it down and so yes, I think it would be great, as Commissioner Adams suggests for staff to look that over, see if they feel good about the whole thing, but I would just recommend sticking in where we uh the city passed the first the nation's first open housing law before the federal law required it. Great. And I would add um I was on a I served on a panel with Dr. Matthew Countryman uh from the department of history here at the University of Michigan who also knows uh the local history. They've mapped all of the houses that were owned uh by black families in the Kerry town including the churches, the business, the social uh setting. So he might be a resource to um doublech checkck uh that

225uh information. And I also would articulate that it is not entirely the case that the city did not use its enormous um rules and laws to enforce the segregation because the city received I sent you this um uh document. the city received block grants from the government to do selective code enforcement. And that was a um a tool that they used uh to um displace African-American uh families who could not qualify for uh insurance. Uh while the city of Ann Arbor did not have uh a um red line map, they did have uh the fire insurance map was a tool that was used to um deny mortgages to African-Americans because they could not get fire insurance and therefore they could not get a mortgage. So it was another uh tool that was there. So there

226are a lot of um both overt and probably not so overt tools that city government and the community use to um segregate. Um so Dr. countryman has I think um probably from from my vantage point given that panel I think the best pulse on it and he would articulate that Ann Arbor was ahead of its time uh as a progressive community uh because it actually permitted an African-American community to to live here and then we now have to understand how that community was displaced and so that was a that was a collection of tools both formal tools and informal tools uh for that. So, I'm happy to make a connection. Um, >> thank you. I appreciate that you look into this. >> I'll do it tomorrow morning. Anything else off the off the top from

227anyone? Go ahead. Uh, Commissioner Dish, >> I have a very short list. Um, uh, we received many comments that are asking us to resolve the residential or transition category. And um I think that the memo that you have written is a great response to the anxiety around that. Um so I just wanted I what I'm trying to do right now is just address that we're not not listening to these comments but that this is our response is that um you know that is going to be hard work [laughter] and it's going to be done. when we sit to think about that. Um, we keep on hearing about shading of solar and I can't remember if we ever got any language about that. >> I thought we did and a present. Oh, no. I'm thinking of

228neighborhood week. Uh, there was a planner who did a whole presentation on shading. Um, a former planner. I can send you the link. it was quite exhaustive about specifically Ann Arbor and how the building heights affect um others. So there's a couple things that I remember. Uh one I thought in response to that partially in response to that was the capping heights and als in residential and also making transitions height context sensitive so that there wouldn't be that issue or we'd help mitigate that issue. Um Missy Dr. Stoultz from OSI um asked some researchers to look into it at U of M. They had some preliminary findings that it wasn't um that severe and so I think upon hearing that we didn't um put a ton more in the plan on that topic. >> Yes.

229And so I'm glad that you uh reminded me that we can cite th the two things that you're talking about that we did do in the plan. Um, [sighs and gasps] yeah. I don't know if we should put I mean because people are feeling like there's a contra that like the city's working at odds with itself with its own policies. And if there were something we could cite to say, you know, it's not all day long unless you're, you know, in some kind of canyon in Manhattan, which is not really what we're going to create. Um, but I don't I don't really Yeah, sorry. >> Maybe we could follow up with OSI if they've it seems like we sort of heard the conclusion of that, but we don't really have the detail of it. Maybe

230there's some way we can take that to a referenceable finding in some way. >> I confess I think that this came through either right before my summer vacation or right after and so it got buried. Um, but I think it was that uh Dr. McGra had finished a study that she's an architect that included some figures showing throughout it's it's not so much they don't necessarily show throughout the course of a day but at the at throughout the course of the year like when there would be shading and when there would not be shading. Um, and so I will figure out I think I don't know where that is public, but I I saw something that was finalized. [laughter] Um, so I'll put that on my back. I'll dig it out. >> Yeah, it was

231looking at like winter solstice, summer solstice, and then I think it was like 9:00 a.m. noon, 3:00 p.m., 6:00 p.m. And it was three stories. I think it didn't go higher than than four or five stories. um right next to a single family. >> So there there were a few different scenarios. So we can dig that out and see where >> we can refer to that in the plan >> and that might be something to that Toddman might be interested in putting online that then you could refer to. So that's what I will actually follow with because then you could reference it. It would be freely accessible actually. So just for what it's worth, part of the conversation was I think it's a really cool analysis that other communities might have interest in and one

232of the things that my center does is to try to share these kind of things and the feedback was it is very specifically tailored to our latitude and so we should not necess like >> there there are limitations to generalizability and so this was very much for Ann Arbor it was based on a 5ft setback distance which is what we have in R one B I don't know which one one of the um one of our specific zoning districts and so there were some questions about whether it would be super useful to generalize it so I didn't put it out through the center for empowering communities but I I will follow up with Jen and see if she's interested in being able to put them on top to reference >> that would be fantastic and

233then it's easy to just have a couple sentences and a reference to it and to maybe state explicitly that um by capping heights in residential and making transit trans transition contextsensitive, we are aligning [snorts] this plan with the solariz program that is an initiative of you know I might have put that too strong but uh you know um I'm asking only because I'm trying to be uh responsive. We were asked to provide guidelines on conflicts between historic districts and underlying zoning. But I think that there there wouldn't be a guideline. I mean, the point is that the historic district I don't want to say trumps because I really don't ever want to say that word, but um but that that's the guidance, right? I mean or Yeah. >> Yeah. There is underlying zoning now. >>

234Yes. So, >> right. And you can only do what the historic district allows, right? And what the district commission approves and there are certain things that cannot be approved. And I think we've said that many times. So I think this request I I don't know the exact one you're referring to but I have met with the old west side and I think there is some fear around any mismatch between underlying zoning and what we're proposing and there is some overlap in the old west side where we are saying that it can be transition and so I think there's some question about like what's the precedent behind that if um if zone if the underlying zoning now says that it can be a certain height What position does that put like the HDC in when they

235have final say, but they also have, you know, the underlying zoning and their own guidelines. Like there just isn't a ton of precedent, I think, for that. And that worries some people in that area that live in that area. I I don't know if I call president but an example is recently [clears throat] there was a large scale development just north of the Michigan theater. The literally the historic district boundary is basically along the back of the buildings that front liberty. It doesn't include the properties along Washington. If you look closely in in that development there's actually two buildings as part of that development. There's a smaller building that is accessed basically only off of the alley. Um, and then there's the larger building. I would say that that is an example where that building

236in the historic district despite similar zoning for both of them happened at a different outcome because of the convergence of both zoning and historic district regulations, >> which is always the case unless the the um historic district zoning is or uh um designation is removed. And so the the land use imagines what that land would be if there wasn't a historic district there. And that was how we drew it on the map. And um it is now restricted by the historic district designation which would require a uh vote of council and [snorts] then a vote of the neighbors or the folks inside that zone and the Michigan legislature. So I'm I'm not sure how else to just you know sort of offer comfort uh to the group given that there are three layers of if

237you will protection. [clears throat] Um there uh since Commissioner Abrams is not here to say Abrams is not here to say this um I do want to note that there that I do still find in the comments reference to proposals that are not in the plan such as proposals to reduce or remove lot sizes, setbacks, and other regulations. So >> yeah. >> So what's the edit? >> No edit. >> Okay. It's not [laughter] an edit. I'm just making note because this is one thing that Commissioner Abrams did one time. It's just saying can't address this because it isn't a thing. Um, and uh, >> well, I mean, under 1.1, it says reduce or remove minimum lot sizes, adjust setbacks, and other regulations to allow more flexibility. Does it say minimum lot sizes in 1.1? >>

238Remove minimum lot sizes. I'm looking at the implementation matrix under 1.1. >> Yep, that's Yeah, and it was quoted differently in the person's comment. So, I believe that they are not understanding the intent of this because >> But you're not proposing a change right now. >> Okay. No, because that's part of zoning. And it's not as if it is not as if the proposal is that everything will be allowed to take to go from lot line to lot line. There's no >> there is no proposal for adjust right there's no nothing like that. So um and then uh I think we I mean I have raised this before what Mr. Monroe is raising which is that because our natural features protections are right now triggered by site plan review and this plan envisions more things

239being by right and bigger things being by right. there is I wouldn't say a hole but there may be there there may be a shift um and I would not I would not reference the particular thing that went on on Longshore because that's a different thing that was a lot split and whatever so um we can consider having building permits trigger those um but we need uh trigger natural features protections, but we also need to consider the limits on what we can say that people can and cannot do on property that they own, which is where we are now. And so I do not suggest a change to the club. I think this is just something that we will wrestle with when we move forward. And that has been my understanding all along. It's not

240that we are unaware that we are making a change, right? Or or so I put this out. Is there anything that we should say that anyone feels we should say? >> Good. Commissioner, >> one of the reactions I had reading the public comments was the um there's a lot of folks who are commenting as if this plan resolves um all of the land. I'm I'm chuckling cuz it's it's sort of a startling like task to think about, but um imagining that we're addressing every issue at this table. The length of the document would signal that and I think that I didn't quite appreciate that in January that by making a document so big and so all-encompassing, we have in fact signal to people that we're doing everything here and that nothing can be done after

241the fact. I think that if there's a desire to do something on that level, I think separate and independent factf finding needs to happen and it needs to be done carefully because I've already been in front of the ZBA like three times and just to do renovations on my house. That's a highly regulated house that I have. Um, and I would hate to have to like I just cut down two trees to put a solar array in. I would have hated to have come a fourth time in front of some panel to get permission to add solar panels or cut down a tree. So, I just it's not to say we don't want to do that or that the balance we're striking is right. It just feels late in the hour and outside of our

242scope. Uh, Commissioner Norton, [clears throat] >> that's so I'll point out I've had people complain to me and we've heard lots of comments that this plan isn't nearly detailed enough [laughter] and how much more detail we need to move and then we and then we get but this plan is so long I can't wait through it all. There's just too much here. So, we're definitely trying to and and need to strike a balance. That said, I'm troubled that um if we have standards to protect natural features, they should be standards that exist to protect natural features that shouldn't change based on whether or not you had a site plan review tripped or not. They're they're standards that should apply. Either they apply or they don't. It shouldn't be it's artificial to have it only apply

243because we've defined something to require site plan review. So, but I don't think that we can resolve that problem in this plan right now because that's not the level of detail we're getting at. So, I'm looking on page 152 at the at the goals that are speaking to natural features and I I'm wondering and maybe I'm kind of looking at staff and maybe you can come up with the right verbiage, but it sounds like in the process of doing the things that we said we should be doing, which is to update regulations and processes to reflect current ecological understandings, part of what we should be doing is revisiting the code to make sure that important natural features aren't slipping through the cracks. um because of artificial requirements or something. So that in the process of

244updating the code, we need to be mindful that we don't want to create loopholes that actually defeat the purpose of having natural features protection. Can we just add that sentiment somewhere in that text so that we don't so it doesn't slip through the cracks? >> Is that goal 10? >> It's goal 101. >> Can you suggest So you want it to say >> I can I can noodle on I keep use the word noodle. Um I can think about this when I can send you s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s suggested if that's okay with folks. >> I think generally it's

245okay. I just want to highlight that this is the current code currently. So the the plan doesn't change it. This is how it currently is. >> The way it's currently working. It sounds like something's wrong with the way it's currently >> which is from from one point of view the plan is not making this change. This is something that already exists and I started to look at the map around uh 250 ft from that inventory. I think that would it would prevent a lot of development. It would actually change almost everything. So in order to look at a buffer from Mr. Monroe's suggestion, we'd have to see it in a gsi map like we see TC-1 to see what it would actually prohibit. And if every tree is um fitting inside that criterion, which it

246currently is not because it's by site plan review, then almost nothing can be built because of the fact that we have 1.5 million trees. So it's trying like I I hear and wanted to clarify what I was hearing and I think it is potentially worth us revisiting the UDC but that is coming. So once the plan is approved, if it's approved, the next phase is the UDC amendments and that is the appropriate place to say how are we handling natural features and what is inside review and what is outside review. And I think we should do that in light of um we also need to do that in light of uh potential downstream burdens that we would put on land owners that we have not considered. I mean, we have petitioners that come who are

247frustrated with our waste management because they have very strict rules for that. Um, as I talk to planners, I hear very clearly whatever the fire marshall wants, the fire marshall gets. Like that's a rule, but it's not written in the UDC. So, those things are they have implications um on the development environment. And I think it is also um slightly at odds with um the economic development memo uh that the city administrator um sent and has been uh instructing some of the work that we've been doing to try to simplify development in the city. So we have a lot of things that are at odds um with each other. Not to say, you know, I I have five landmark trees in my backyard, so none of those trees would be able to be cut down

248and no additions can be added um you know, for the same purposes that um Commissioner Adams uh just noted. So, I just want to make sure that we recognize that what we're actually discussing is in the current UDC. I can appreciate that we may want to strengthen what we say in the comp plan and if that's what your uh proposed language is, I have full support of that. >> Totally understand what's going >> but I don't want to get ahead of the UDC uh [clears throat] uh process because that's where it'll be managed. >> If the language we have in the plan is signaling strongly enough that we should revisit >> natural features protection to make sure things don't get slip out because they're in loopholes or whatever. But see, that that's the part I

249I'm I'm probably not uh it's been a day. We've had uh two ill kids at home and I've been at home with them. So, navigating all of that. I'm not currently sick, but I'm wearing a mask even if I was. >> I'm not. Let me step back and say, >> yeah, >> um >> I don't know. I'm haven't studied the UDC to know if what's going on there is could be characterized as a loophole or if that was a policy choice that was made or something. >> Sure. And so that that's the part that I'm >> told that we would only apply standards because we've defined some some things to go through site plan review and others not. >> Right. So you're you're you're at a I guess what I'm trying to say is the

250the scope of what we are talking about. I feel like the thing that you are questioning which is valid and should be debated and discussed is out of scope because the this current plan is not proposing to change that. So, so we're not saying >> is signaling that we should be revisiting the whole UDC to advance our new goals >> and when we get there that's where we could directly address the plan is signaling strongly enough that we recognize that that's something that we need to and maybe it's already there. I mean I someone could convince me the >> I'm not trying to convince you. just trying to make sure that it was the slipping through part I think was it like I I would be in a different position if the plan said um

251you know all these things are now going to no longer um have this review and I think that's the piece that uh Mr. Monroe is trying to get at is that if more things are going to be by right, does the by right automatically mean no site plan review? And so how does that then fit inside that criterion? And I think that's maybe the thing we need to process, but let's hear from uh commission uh commissioner Adams and then we'll hear from staff. I haven't turned to my left. I just wanted to say I mean I I think the plan as a value expresses plenty of support for the preservation of natural features. I think that the specific claim that there's something about our current udc that's arbitrary I don't agree with. So to the

252extent that there's a desire to make a proposal, we need to do it some other time. I don't like I think the plan is adequate on the on the on the policy. It's not making a specific recommendation for changes and I'm not in a position to support that. I don't I don't agree that site plan review as a trigger is arbitrary. It I actually think it reflects a rough policy choice that certain types of larger projects need that type of review and merit that type of review whereas my solar array does not. >> All right. Um, manager Leonard and planner Bennett. So uh I don't get to vote on this plan but I think goal 10 the highle goal there I think gets to this point. It's to balance development with protection and integration of

253critical natural features. So I I I do think that the plan explicitly identifies the goal of finding that balance. Now, I fully agree that the nine members of this commission, the members of my staff, let alone the members of this community might have differing opinions on what success looks like in that regard. And honestly, that's probably why it is framed as it is. It is not saying, you know, and I think Commissioner Dish, to your point, part of the part of the start of this was I think there was a desire to at least not lose ground. And I think it's fair like when we're talking about opening development, are we going to lose ground because of different byright developments or whatever that goal [clears throat] tasks you and the city and staff of finding

254that balance and I think the ordinance development is the time to do that. We heard some examples here in about you know trees in my backyard or whatever. Those are great examples that there's a lot of ways to do that. Right now we don't prohibit the removal of lame trees. there's just a consequence and we could change what that consequence is. >> A quite expensive one because the housing commission had to come before this body and apologize and pay a fine that was almost $100,000 for that landmark tree. >> The other the other piece of it is is that we rely on we rely at times on a not insignificant cost of a site plan. So we know exactly what features are on that site. And so um so there's a lot of considerations to

255go here and I do think that the ordinance is the right time to do that and I think that this conversation is evidence that this commission is mindful of what that balance is. But from my perspective I think the the plan calls on you and the city to find that balance >> other commissioners. Oh, sorry. >> Yeah, I just want to reiterate. I think that is why balance is is selected, right? And it's not more strongly worded because we are being asked as staff, not just in this department, but across city staff to help try to sol solve the climate crisis, the housing crisis, right? Um, and we have pages, we talked about this a lot earlier about these trade-offs, right? Not every single site can be the most affordable, the most dense, have the

256most trees, be the most suitable for solar, right? At some point, we're going to have to decide what that decision-m framework is. And so, I think that language is trying to say like we have a lot of things we have to balance. We do respect our natural features and we will get to that later. So I think you are both correct, Chairman White and Commissioner Norton, that we don't have to solve all the loopholes right now. That's for the UDC. But it is time now to say like, do you think this is hitting the point that you want to set us up for a UDC rewrite later? >> So I think that's what I'm trying to get at. I totally get that we're not going to solve the problem here. We're going to solve it

257when we revisit the EDC. Is the language the way the goal is sten stated sufficient to signal that we expect to do that when we get to that stage and make sure that we're taking steps to protect and if everybody in the commission is satisfied that it's strong enough then I'm fine with that. >> Want to make sure we've thought about it and make sure we're comfortable with that. >> Yeah. What say you all? [snorts] [clears throat] >> Commissioner Mills. >> Yeah. Sorry, you you saw me. You're thinking. So, I am looking on page 152 because I and I flipped back to the to where we talk about goal 10. Overall, I do think that this is the place. I actually think that the language on 152 has some here's my observations. The very first

258part um the very first non-bolded section under 10.1 says um blah blah blah maintain 2025 regulations. So that suggests to me that we shouldn't slip the m the maintain the regulations like I think is the nod to let's not make it worse. But I also and in my mind I toyed around with like do we change that maintain to um evaluate because I think that that gets into if there are pro things that are broken right now but I I actually think that that could potentially make it worse. So like I I like the idea of maintain. There was some language earlier on in the earlier chapter where gold 10 was actually introduced that said something about like site review and and that made me think like oh we're only talking about site plan review

259but in the very first bullet point here it [snorts] talks about um incentivizing quality rather than quantity in open space and space requirements within the zoning code. So it's not just within site plan review which again I think that that can be interpreted a little bit more broadly. Now this is only in the context of open space but but this is it's open space to protect critical natural features. So I think I think that actually if somebody wanted to think about this in the future when we take up this bullet point that's the place to do it like I think that that gives us the flexibility in language. Um, and that that language that I was talking about that made me feel like it was only about site plan review um is linked to the

260second bullet point here because in the earlier text it talks about earlier consideration insight review but it doesn't it's not repeated here and I think that this is this is our implementation matrix. So this is what we're going to look at and this is not only insight plan review. The second bullet it's it of um result in earlier considerations. that doesn't say doesn't say specifically site plan review. It just says within development sites. So that is my rambling way of saying I think it's covered. And also for people that care about this topic when we get to this when we get actually to implementation that I think that um those are the places where we'll be able to come back in and say um hey we might have some loopholes now and the language doesn't

261say that we're like we're it's entirely about balancing. It's not um uh opening more gates necessarily. So, yeah, that's what I was thinking. I'm comfortable with it, too. >> All right. It doesn't look like there's support to make any change. >> I'm okay with I I wanted to have this conversation just to make sure we're on the same page about what we're doing and so thank you. >> Yeah, absolutely. U Commissioner Weatherbe >> just to now the only thing in that with your second bullet point it is in the four to six year range and I don't know if if that seems fine or if which one in particular the develop and incentives. >> Yep. >> Yeah. the the the time frames are are tough because the thing is we're going to be writing the

262UD rewriting the UDC at once and so that whole process could take several years. I think this might just mean the ones that say one to three is where we would start. Um, but that's all up to you if you all want to make that >> Yeah. I'm not saying that's unreasonable, but it sort of signals maybe not [snorts] as important or >> as like a ongoing or one to three, you know, >> would you like to propose something? >> No. >> Okay. [laughter] Commissioner Dish, uh, you had the floor, uh, with your list. Have you finished your list? Okay. Other commissioners. Oh, the chair. Oh, thank you. Uh, let's see. Uh, Mr. Garber wants us to change a whole bunch of uh words uh because of resiliency. And I wonder um so through those

263seven comments, are there any things we can extract out of those that would be helpful? Um here that would strengthen our commitment to the com to the climate um and our understanding of that. and the challenge that we find ourselves in. So I think a lot of the feedback was just the the term isn't as meaningful and useful um in the way that is used and it's used a lot in the in the text. >> So the recommendation is to strike that word. Well, I'm I well a I'm asking the table um thoughts about how we can through our words strengthen our already present commitment to uh the climate. So we have the millage we're taking affirmative action all of the time uh to that and is that is that effort equally uh reflected in

264the plan and I think Mr. Garber's comment as I understood it was the use of the term resilience is is not as useful. Go ahead uh Commissioner. >> Um I I think I understand what Mr. Garber is concerned about. I'm I'm thinking like an academic. The academics debate all the time over the use of terms and they can always find out reasons for why this is a bad term and it doesn't d and you can kind of go in circles. So, I'm a little less troubled that we're using the term resilience maybe too much. The thing that I struggle with is is I understand as we've had conversations in the past, some of the things that we're being asked to require through the plan, we can't actually require because of state law. >> Correct. >>

265And so, what I'm trying to figure out is does the plan make clear enough what we have agency to be able to address versus what we just can't do because it's state law. are bound and our only recourse is to go lobby the legislature. >> So, and I didn't have a chance to study Mr. Garber's comments. >> Well, and and we do now I think under this current administration, the city now has an a lobbyist uh at the state level because I know I wrote a letter when I was secretary to the federal government uh to lobby for uh some initiative that we were looking at here. And so I wonder if staff could take a look at our current lobbying efforts and see if any of those efforts to affect positive change towards the

266climate could be reflected in either our implementation guide or in the code itself. So just supportive language. So when we talk about X that's followed by a climate millage that was passed by the city. It's followed by lobbying at the state level. It's followed by um ongoing initiatives to address the climate and the the crisis that we find ourselves in. Something along those lines. >> Okay. So, the recommendation is for staff to look at our lobbyist efforts in this regard. But is that >> just to see but just to see if there's any way we can strengthen what we're saying um inside the plan >> as an action? >> No, I guess a reflection of the efforts and work that we have already undertaken and are undertaking. So does and I'm and forgive me the

267you know I've read it and I've read it again but I haven't committed it to memory. Uh so like do we even talk about the climate millage that we've put in place. So that could be something that would be added, you know. So like a for example, all I'm looking for is like maybe a a parenthetical somewhere where we say for example our recently passed climate mill, our lobbying efforts at the state level and our ongoing efforts to um meet the current climate crisis. that would be the kind of >> so OSI has reviewed this every single draft and they have added in many instances um those kind of sentences of things I was unaware of. So there are several um kind of four examples or four instances of where we connect and where they're

268already where they're already doing things. Um >> would that be adequate? >> I think so. I mean I can talk to you offline too. Um well if I can I don't know if I can never know how that all works but it's just towards this end. I don't think there's any objection from the table. >> So I don't have an actual edit at the moment. [clears throat] >> We you do not >> I think I did just check under millillage and there are many millages that we mentioned but we do not mention the climate millillage. >> There is an edit. >> Is it in the timeline? It should at least be in the timeline but >> I don't know >> if it's missing then we can add it. There's an edit. >> [laughter] >> Okay.

269>> Yeah, there there's an edit, right? >> Yeah. And this is what I made, Mr. Leonard. So, the sustainability, climate, natural resources policy agenda. So, if we just reference that, I think that that at least says that it's we're not paying lip service to it. We're actually um taking affirmative action uh in the regulatory environment we find ourselves in. If we had a more permissible regulatory environment, we'd be able to do more. >> It is in the timeline. Okay. >> Okay. I when I search under a millillage I didn't >> I think uh the other millages are referenced in boxes and it says a little bit more about what they're doing and so maybe I mean it'd be very easy OSI is constantly generating factoids about things that they're that that have you know increase

270in solar and all that kind of thing and using village funds to do it and that might be great. Um, do they mention the Bryant decarbonization? >> Yeah, I was going to mention that one, too. >> Yeah, let me look under Bryant >> in this plan. >> Yeah, >> we had an image of it and it was removed along with the cartoons, I believe. >> Oh, it just got scooped up in the in the cartoons. >> Is it? [laughter] I thought we had removed it. >> No, no, not the image, but the but the project is O. I hate laptops. 88. Page 88. It does. It's It isn't There isn't detail. Um. Yep. And also it Yeah. So 88 actually we mentioned the shading thing and it just could be augmented a little bit with

271the language about transition stepping down. There's a place like right in there to fix that. Um yeah. No, this is good. But and the you know maybe a little bit more specificity on what the millillage the climate millillage has done would be helpful but I don't I don't really want to make this a homework assignment. It's very late in the game very late in the game >> to me. It was just a parenthetical so not not a big um a big >> but that's supported as an edit for us to discuss more about the climate mill what it does and also BR community decarbonization efforts. I I think given the magnitude of that project and at this point now we do have the Department of Energy $10 million grant that's really coming through. >> Okay.

272>> It it warrants a little bit because it's like it's a national it'll be a first. >> Well then we don't need to plan for it since it's already done. >> Maybe we plan for more humidity. >> We've been out there drilling those geothermal holes as we speak. So there were four major uh areas that I saw in December. Uh it was around the transition which I think the memo addresses. The historic district which I think we've already addressed. There are ongoing conversations around affordability. I I think uh Commissioner Adams uh addressed some of that tonight in his uh comments uh which I appreciate it. Um and then the infrastructure uh concerns which you brought up uh planner Bennett at our work session uh last week that there is um still a large uh comprehensive

273plan that is happening around infrastructure. And so the plan already references it. And so I just wanted to note that as I look through these comments, those were the four repeating um uh comments that came up. And then with regard to the affordability questions, I just anywhere that we can in the afford affordability where the plan speaks about affordability that we would point people to the housing appendix. Um because I don't think I'm I'm beginning to believe that people haven't looked at the housing appendix because a lot of the questions that I hear about it are addressed in the housing appendix. But I don't want to um make a disparaging remark about whether or not someone has read something. But it is there. It is in the plan. We have a whole appendix for it.

274Um, and so I just want to um, state that on the record again. And if you feel like there are places inside the plan where staff could just refer to it, see the housing appendix, I think that that would be helpful uh, for folks who might be scanning um, and not looking at the whole document. And given on engage they're in two separate links, >> I think a lot of people don't realize they're actually forming a single document. other commissioners. Oh, >> can I go back? >> Oh, yeah. Sorry. >> In terms of the word resilience, are we suggesting an edit there? >> I I did not propose one. >> Okay. >> Commissioner Lee, >> I I thought Mr. Garber's point was well taken um in the sense that, you know, I advocate for clarity

275and simplicity wherever there can be. I I do want to avoid jargon at any point we can. That said, I do also think there's actual value to the concept of resilience. So I I guess this is actually one in which um the ability to adapt, overcome and come back stronger is the kind of concept when we talk about social resilience or um physical resilience, things of that nature. So, um I don't have a proposed change, but I do want to acknowledge that um I agree with his sentiments about simplifying or making it more plain. Um that said that I actually do um think there's still value in the concept of resilience. So, I don't have a proposed change, but just want to acknowledge that I've given it thought and um still don't have a change

276to propose there. So, thanks. >> Thank you. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Mills, >> as we were having the conversation about the changes, first of all, I really appreciate you put putting in specific changes. Like there's a lot to dive through and a lot of the comments were really long. Um, and having being able to search for page like what the specific changes are was really really helpful. So, thank you. Um, many of these I feel like I I really hate to punt, but I sort of want to know if OSI supports them. I mean, I think that a number of the changes are really strong. Um, and some of them make me think like I don't know. I I I know enough to know that it could also go sideways for some of these things.

277And so I'm curious um about what that would be. And so if I were to do anything, I before making these specific edits, I I would love OSI to weigh in on them, which I don't think is part like I wasn't I don't know that that was the plan. So, um, so that's for and I kind of use that same lens for any of the others comments, which honestly there weren't tons of comments that were specific page edits. Um, and so that um, that's the filter that I would have here. I don't know if that works in our proc like our timing wise. Um, and I confess that like I I can also go through them all 32 31 31 separate edits um to to see if there's specific ones where I think I just

278had I did not do my homework to come to this meeting having gone through all of them. I confess. So are you you're referring to you're not referring to this discuss the climate millage and the car in the Bryant community decarbonization. You're talking about there are more edits in the packet that you're looking at that you would like OSI to review. >> Yeah. So within the 520 what is it 523 >> 56 >> 523 lines there are number that are from Mr. garb broken like 31 comments broken down specific edits broken down into multiple and it it's super easy to follow. I just confess there were 523 lines in the spreadsheet and I didn't do at all. Um so I I think that there are some elements and I kind of want somebody else to

279weigh in and I'm not prepared for that right now. So maybe that means that I missed my opportunity and I'm sorry that I failed. Um, but that I would suggest that that would be something very e like specific rather than going through all 523. Like there's there's some that are extremely specific edits and like does this from a staff perspective make sense? I would love to know that and I think OSI is well positioned to weigh in on some of the specific changes. Um, again I on the conversation about resilience like I completely agree with Commissioner Lee like there's pros and cons of using something that is like that and um and I'm looking at the one right now about emergency response and shelter. Like actually that's what a lot of folks are thinking. I

280mean that's how I think about resilience hubs but I don't know the implications of changing the name of a resilience hub to emergency emergency response and shelter. like um I think it takes out some of that jargon which I think could be helpful but I don't know if that loses something then and I I legitimately would need to phone a friend like ask >> so >> can I respond? >> Yep. >> Um that term in particular [snorts] is from OSI and so why we're using that word to align with their terminology. There's probably other references to resilience where maybe we could consider changing that one, but that one I feel strongly like we're trying to show support to their to their effort. Um, I'm happy to show OSI these comments. I I can't guarantee given

281the holidays coming up that they will review all of them and have responses by the January 6th meeting, but I will ask them to do so. >> Commissioner Lee, thank you. um kind of going back to the thematic elements like the four that she had kind of uh said let's I wanted to talk about the infrastructure um comment as it was a fairly recurring theme um I'm going to specifically speak to um Mrs. Derphy's comment um just regarding and I just for purpose of clarification I'm thinking through this like okay so let's talk infrastructure what are we talking about okay storm water the ability for sites to retain water actually a lot of the sites currently don't comply so when you develop it they'll be required to have a certain level of retention that'll actually

282be a good requirement what else okay tap fees for wastewater treatment So that that is a question I have. Generally, you're required to pay a tap fee. So when you tap into clean water, whether you size a 4 in, 2 in, 6 in, 8 in, um you're going to uh pay a tap fee associated with the level of fire suppression, um how much water you plan to consume, etc. So let's take for example there is a neighborhood that is well and I just want to because generally as a developer you you come there you start talking okay this is my tap fees etc. Um what happens at the point where that that incremental developer comes and it's like oh shoot um hey city so I would like to build a triplex it's by right and

283you are telling me that um uh we don't have any more clean water capacity um or >> uh wastewater capacity right um generally it's been on an incremental fee like a water tap fee basis. Um lead me through because I think that's one of the questions that was specifically um just what happens at that point whether it's substation electric capacity or and it's that one like it's at capacity and that next developer comes and says hey I'd like to do this and you're like actually we don't have that. itself. >> Yeah. >> What happens at that incremental moment? >> So, that's a big question and a [clears throat] lot a lot of different things could happen. But one of the ways that we mapped this out is we mapped out where we thought there was

284potential. So for example in a lot of residential areas when in talking our to our infrastructure spe specialists converting a significant percentage of homes from single family to triplex the infrastructure in those areas is really is appropriate to handle that >> and so when we make the regulatory changes that start doing that we will look at that as part of that. On the flip side, um if we have identified maybe some area as hub and based on the assessment that's happening out of an infrastructure perspective, we find out that we need to make some infrastructure investment prior to being able to realize a high level of development. At that point, we're going to have to be thoughtful in like a petition by petition property owner application for that or certainly any city initiated reszoning to

285to do that and that is sort of the first level of protection. The second level of protection is regardless of any site that of particularly of a large scale that is site planned. That's part of the analysis is to make sure that we do have the capacity. And sometimes as part of that we find that there might need to be infrastructure upgrades as part of that. And so that is frankly a concern. Sometimes we hear from petitioners that not only do they have to pay the tap fee but they might have to be responsible for infrastructure too in order to provide that. There might be times where the balance of what that infrastructure would be necessary in order to accommodate that might be out of the realm of their proform or whatever. And so >>

286does that help answer the question? It's there's a lot of different ways that it could happen. Um, but in short, we're going to be mindful of the regulatory framework that we do, where we enable it, to make sure we can accommodate it, and particularly those areas that are frankly going to have more potential and thus a bigger impact. We're going to be we're going to have to look very closely at those public services infrastructure studies that Michelle referenced that are going on right now to make sure we're we're phasing that work appropriately. >> Yeah. Gotcha. No, that that's helpful. I'll talk a little bit about my experience when we had to build a clean room. Um it's just a room that has a very very no dust whatsoever, right? It's for um analyzing semiconductors. Um

287DT said actually you we need to upgrade the substation. Um we don't have enough electricity to actually serve that. Um, we ended up, uh, you know, through negotiation with the tenant at the time, um, from the developer side, we ended up paying about $500,000, uh, negotiating a new easement. Um, it's a part of the project cost. And I think one of the things that um, folks are concerned about is that will this result in higher taxes or will the city be on the hook for paying for infrastructure upgrades? And and [snorts] I I want to and that's why I'm thinking through like I do want to make sure that folks understand because I saw that was a kind of repeated occurrence of concern about infrastructure capacity and it's done really kind of at a project

288by project level again and when we talk infrastructure I want to be like I guess concrete because it's it's it can be vague. So I'm talking utilities, electricity, natural gas, um and then that utilities and then let's talk storm water, waste water. Um uh there is also again treatment as well as supply of water and these things get looked at at a project by project basis and if there's insufficiency there is like the developer basically gets uh and what we have talked about is like well is it fair for somebody to use up like from 95 to 99% and that next developer to you know have to say oh shoot now I have to pay a much larger one if I have to upgrade the substation and that that's where that thoughtful whole kind of

289like capacity planning makes sense. But I think one of the things because I for example Mrs. Dury's concern um I think has uh just about zoning and permitting getting ahead of infrastructure on a project by project basis if there isn't capacity. Staff says that to the petitioner. It's not like and then the petitioner has to kind of deal with it from a oh shoot I have to budget for this now and um and then they may come back and say okay it doesn't work um they may look to say I'm providing housing at a 20% at 80% AMI so um could I take a look at a tax increment financing to help me with the infrastructure upgrades there may be different ways to tackle it but I don't think there's a point in which the

290changing of zoning results in this um total kind of like catastrophic loading of infrastructure because it's done at a project by project. Each developer has to go through that process. So I I just wanted to talk about that incremental process of like when somebody submits um city staff reviews it and so and like and the actual changes that are profered here is about adding to page 130. It's possible that the vision for a particular area neighborhood development may need to be delayed until the local infrastructure is upgraded. That's an entirely fair I think assessment. Um the question is whether that acknowledgement is um I suppose like u does it add a level of um comfort relative to what's its actual utility? Um because to me I'm like yeah it is absolutely possible. I think that's

291actually a a very fair statement. Um, but again, I I defer to trying to simplify language as much as possible and try to take out things that don't necessarily carry meanings uh or carry um substantive impact. That's that's really what I meant to say. So, um just wanted to uh clarify. I think a lot of folks that had concerns about infrastructure at a project by project level, there's a very thorough analysis that occurs. And generally if you are at the capacity um it's like sorry it's yeah you're gonna have to pay to upgrade it essentially is and then we have a discussion about does this make sense etc. So, um, just wanted to give that, um, bit of a backdrop as to a lot of the comments that I've read. And so, um, I'm not

292sure that I am specifically asking or proposing for the additions of, um, the commentary regarding local infrastructure alignment causing potential pauses because again, it it's that that's just kind of a a fact of how uh, some of these developments might go. But I just wanted to acknowledge the concerns around infrastructure. We hear you. And um city there there's very talented engineers and city staff that are reviewing every project to understand capacity um from uh waste treatment, trash removal, electricity, water, um storm water retention, etc. So um just wanted to give that feedback. Thanks, Commissioner Adams. This is quick. Unfortunately, it's another one that I can't quite do on my own and I can't propose something specific, but I will but I will flag it's not a general comment. Um, there are along Packard Street, this

293was a public comment we got flagged it. >> There are five or six what I'm going to call residential slivers. They look almost as wide as a road. Um, that starts from where a Packard interfaces with what appears to be stadium. There's a little strip there and then there's a few more strips that you'll see as you visually track down Packard Street. They're literally like in some cases as wide as a road. The problem with it is that it's going to trigger tapering for all of the transition. If you've got like a little tiny strip of residential there, you're going to like maybe it butts up against other other transition or something else on the other side of it. If there's a strip of residential and we taper off a residential proximity, then it's going

294to automatically whack all that stuff down to three stories when it probably doesn't need to be and I can't actually tell if those slivers were intentional or not. Meaning like >> future land use map. >> Yeah, there might actually be good reasons for those slivers to be there and that's what I can't scrutinize. So if there's scrivener errors like meaning it's a product of the staff getting more fine or the map getting more fine grained then I'm fine leaving them in. if they're intentional, but if they're errors, I just want them taken out and cleaned up. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. My guess is so um between the second and third draft, we moved the map from like the Adobe Suite products to GIS. Yeah. >> And so there have been a few things

295that have come up like that where I think it's just like that transition to a new software. I don't recall us ever discussing that. I don't have that in the records anywhere that that would be um done deliberately. Do you recall anything differently regarding that? No. So I I think that's just like I can ask them to maybe fill it in, but I don't think that was done on purpose. >> Yeah. I don't want to disrupt any specific policy changes in the map, but if that's just a product of moving from one image to another or any other kind of error, then I just want to get it cleaned up. I'm relying here on the fact that the plan's specific about how these are meant to be general guidelines and I'm not that concerned about

296the policy ramifications of it. But if we can avoid that error, again going back to my original comment about cleaning up errors at this stage, that's something I want to fix. Other commissioners. All right. Seeing no other commissioners, planner Bennett, did you get what you needed tonight? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Excellent. I think I can go on to agenda item number 12. Public comment. This is a second opportunity for individuals to speak up to three minutes on any issue. We'll first hear from those of you who are present with us in the chambers, then remote participants. To speak remotely, press star 9 if on phone or use the raise hand feature in Zoom. For phone access, dial 877853-5247 and enter meeting ID 97766341226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of

297their phone number or by name if on Zoom. You will hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please ensure that you're in a quiet area and mute any background noise. For all participants, whether in chambers or on Zoom, please uh give us your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present in chambers who would like to address us at this time? Hi, I'm Susan Kaufman. I live at 630th Street. Commissioner Weiss, you asked what more could be done to reassure those of us who live in or near I'm actually outside historic districts um about their ability to essentially continue operating under the guidelines of the historic district commission, which I appreciate. But what would make us feel better is to have the underlying zoning comport with the way

298the historic districts actually look on the ground, which could be done by making the land use category, the underlying land use category residential. It would encompass everything that currently exists in historic districts, including multi-unit buildings, apartment buildings, including commercial establishments. Nothing would be excluded that I think have been the goals for those neighborhoods. It's hard for us to understand why the transition zoning must remain there when it can't be enacted given the historic district guidelines and why we can't make the actual land use be reflected in the underlying land use category. So that's what we've been struggling with. It's hard to understand why we're remaining committed to a category that cannot be enacted to which we cannot build which is true of uh transition. So thank you for your consideration. I appreciate your efforts but

299it's still a frustration for us. So thank you. >> Thank you. I was going to call on you, but I I figured you were going to come. >> Thank you. Appreciate that. Um, Greg Monroe, uh, W five. Um, okay. So, let [snorts] me be honest. I I understand the the rationalization of, you know, maybe this is a UDC punt thing, the issue I brought up with the natural features protection. I I truly understand that. Um, but I will point out the comp plan does make a pretty strong value statement, right, that these things matter. Um, it also acknowledges that residents are concerned with that balancing act you all just described. And and again, uh, Commissioner Mills, if you're pointing to a specific bullet point with like a four to six year time horizon, I think

300we can update it with more robust language. Um, and again, I'll I'll go back to the the balancing act. So, it seems like this is an asymmetric trade-off for us, right? In the UDC, uh here's a quote like collateral damage during and after construction on scenically important sites must be scrupulously avoided. It will take 150 years to replace any intended losses. That's right in the UDC. That is our city value statement of sort of what is at stake, right? Uh you've seen in the news this week, Seattle and Palestine are in the news for uh flooding and undergoing a lot of disruption, right, to their lives out out of flooding and natural um disasters. So you know, forested land observes two to four times more storm water than developed land. Mature tree canopies intercept 30%

301uh of rainfall before it hits the ground. Um clearing and grading slopes cuts water absorption by as much as 90%. And again, the development I'm speaking of occurred within 200 feet often river. So this loss accelerates erosion, delivers more sediment and polluted runoff into our primary source of drinking water. Uh and and just simply beyond a public health concern, this loss just feels to me like an erosion of public goods that are disappearing at an alarming rate in this country. And so um again, I I also I'm not going after your trees in your backyard. That's not what I'm asking for, right? Let's not conflate the long-term property owners with active development activity, right? So, I understand that maybe the UDC perhaps intends for bigger scale projects, right? For these protections to be triggered, but

302I again taking all of this into context and again, if you frame these as 150year losses, I don't think that's a good trade-off for 10 condos that cost $1.5 million each. I really don't. I don't think it moves the needle on anything and we are losing in the long run, right? So, um, you know, and again, just to hearken back to like an earlier comment, you know, I I understand that that there may not be another city somewhere else that we can point to and say, "Oh my gosh, like look what happened once they reszone, but I think a lot of us are saying we're seeing stuff in our backyard, right?" And so we're seeing luxury condos being built in our backyard and we're seeing the erosion and loss of natural features which again we

303all seem to agree even with our documentation. We're making a value statement that these things matter and we're just sort of giving them away and it doesn't seem like anyone seems to care and I think that's a problem. And the last thing I'll say is that I think it's also a problem. It's not that we're relying on the private market to build housing. Like I understand that argument. It's that we're relying on private market to achieve outcomes that are in contradiction to profit motives. So that's all. Thank you. Thank you, Moro. >> Gabrielle Boer, 1721 Newport. Um just to follow up on a few things that I had mentioned earlier. Um, someone had said something along the lines of like, you know, everyone comes up here and says, you know, you're not listening to me,

304so therefore you're not listening to anybody. Um, you know, most people in Ann Arbor don't even know this is happening. And they know that something is happening cuz there's pause the plan and neighbors for more neighbors signs out, but they don't actually know what's going on in their own town with their own government. And that was said multiple times in the comments. Um, so I feel less concerned that my specific voice isn't like the poster of all this and more that like the residents of this community don't even know what's going on. And you know, the the way that the comments have been addressed tonight really does elucidate for me what this process looks like, which is not very comprehensive, not very responsive to the community of the 400 people who were randomly sampled to

305give input about this. um the response of this team does not feel very robust to what people are coming in and talking about. So, uh this plan doesn't appear to have the robust support that you guys seem to report. Um and just to address a couple other comments. You know, development today, um looks pretty different from what development, you know, 40 or 50 years ago looks like in terms of concentration of capital and, you know, um uh just in terms of like who's buying and selling houses that, you know, profit is is really coming from holding homes, right? Um um centering builders versus the residents and things like that. I think that that's a huge problem. Um, and you know, to liken um, you know, Ann Arbor to a city like Houston, um, feels like

306really odd given that Houston is like millions of people and there's like all this sprawl. So, um, yeah, you know, it would just be nice for there to be like a real, uh, relationship between the government and the people who at minimum would like to have a better understanding of what exactly went into this plan, who was consulted about it, and what problems is it designed to address? Is it designed to address problems of people who want to move into this city or is there really any thought around what people who actually live here want and need? Um cuz those things just aren't really lining up for me. Thanks. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Ken Garber. Again, um, yeah, just as an aside, I I share some of Greg and Gabrielle's discomfort with the process.

307Um, although I haven't dived into the specifics to the extent they have in the area of natural features. Um, I am grateful that this commission is listening and you are and certainly to my comments. But again, I'm not that really concerned about the edits I suggested, although I appreciate Commissioner Mills um careful reading. I'm just glad that they were brought up. Um, I'm also glad they're being sent to OSI uh for their um comments. I will say that it might be obvious by now that I have some fundamental divergence in in my point of view from OSI. I very much appreciate the work that sustainability staff is doing uh on all kinds of levels implementing the benchmarking ordinance, the solar program, the SCU, the Bryant project. They're working extremely hard and doing very valuable work.

308But uh there are some concepts that we're baking into the plan that are actually not consensus concepts. They're controversial. The circular economy is one example. Um yes, we obviously need to do more recycling, reuse, and sharing, but what the plan um explicitly states is that we can decouple economic development from resource use. This is an active debate out there on whether this is this idea of green growth is is actually uh something we want to buy into or whether we want to attack the problem on the uh demand side. So um but we're going with this in the plan without any discussion. That's why I feel grateful to have at least brought it up. Um on the resilience issue, it's similar. This is actually a huge field in urban design and sustainability around the this

309whole concept of resilience. It's very complex and city staff has actually made fundamental contributions to that uh discussion. Um my position is minority position. I think that um we've taken the concept too far, that it obscures mitigation at this point, that it's unwarranted optimism, that it's anyone can read anything into the idea of resilience if they wish, and that I'd like I don't want to see it eradicated from the plan. I did not suggest changing sustainability hubs, but I I just wanted to raise the issue, and I feel I've succeeded that these are not consensus ideas, but they're going to be in the plan. Um, and I wish we could have a community discussion around sustainability that um, takes on um, some of these issues. So anyway, I'm satisfied with that. My issue I thank

310you. Thank you, Mr. Garber. Mr. Leonard, do we have remote participants at this hour? >> We do. Do we have any who wish to speak? >> We have that as well. Caller with the phone number ending with 194, you can press star six to unmute and address the planning commission for up to 3 minutes. >> Go ahead. >> Hi, this is Rita Mitchell calling. I um report the public comments that were made tonight, especially regarding natural features and I'm really concerned about long-term retention of trees and I submitted a lot of comments to y'all in separate blurbs. Um but what I want to point out is that especially mature native trees and other vegetation really represent keystone elements that support environmental benefits. And I'm worried about how and who will determine the balance between development

311and natural features. How's that going to be decided? Because actually I ordinarily see that it's the trees that lose and once they're gone, they are gone. Um, on page 100 of the third draft of the comprehensive plan, there's a reference to the 2014 urban forestry management plan and the update of that has not been released to the public. It was supposed to be a couple of years ago and we still haven't seen it and we haven't seen the canopy the updated canopy uh survey. I would love to see that because surely we have fewer trees today in the city of Ann Arbor than we did in 2014. That table references um canopy cover based on the zone zoning categories that were in effect in 2014 and that will be changed likely um from based on

312the comprehensive plan. Um with that I want to just point out that that in um the the projection was changes over 30 years in canopy there was a projection to have a change from 37% to 67% canopy cover in residentially zoned properties. We know from the way the plan is being developed that there'll be much fewer. The land mass, the land area will be smaller for residential properties in the future. So, we're going to lose trees. We may, let's say, we magically got to 60% goal on the those zoned residential. We still have fewer trees in in the city because less land is zoned residential. So I'm wondering like how are we going to move forward with balance to keep the important features the environmental features that we get from trees and other vegetation that

313are also important for our public health safety and welfare and for part of um supporting the the wildlife that lives here. We I have this real fear that we are going to lose touch with nature and that's part of the reason that I really want um strong consideration of trees and real determination of what this balance means and how it's going to be managed. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Mitchell. Alex Low, you can unmute and address the planning commission for up to three minutes. >> Hi, this is Alex Lo, 2532 Pittsfield Boulevard. Um, I want to uh thank Commissioner uh Mills for uh pointing out actually another issue with our um R4C zoning that uh that I hadn't seen when I commented about the uh the the setbacks. It uh uh shows that our

314zoning uh really does need a lot of work and so I'm glad that we're going to get that opportunity over the next year or two. Um I also want to point out that uh that according to the Washington Post state uh uh data the tree cover in Ann Arbor has uh has in fact increased over the last uh uh several years not uh not decreased. So I think that uh that we're doing well and we should uh continue what uh what what we're doing. I also do uh do want to say that uh that I I understand people feeling um unrepresented in the uh uh in the uh the discussions about the comprehensive plan. I certainly uh feel unrepresented uh in in these discussions. There have been uh there's been uh nothing to talk about

315height minimums, density minimums uh uh etc. even in places like downtown. Thank you so much. >> Thank you, Mr. Low. >> No other hands raised. Chair W. >> Thank you. I will close the com uh public comment and take us to item number 13, commission proposed business. Seeing none, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. Moved by council member Dish, seconded by Coun uh Commissioner Adams. We are adjourned. Oh, sorry. I have to ask you to vote. All those in [snorts] favor say I. >> Any oppose? Now we are ajourned.