Ann Arbor City Planning Meeting 5/13/2025

001Welcome to the Tuesday, May 13, 2025 regular meeting of the Ann Arbor Planning Commission. For detailed information on meeting procedures, please review the full printed meeting agenda provided. Manager Leonard, will you please call the role? Commissioner Lee, I'm here. Commissioner W here. Commissioner Hammershmid. Commissioner Abrams here. Commissioner Dish here. Commissioner Mills here. Commissioner Weatherbe here. Commissioner Adams here. Commissioner Norton here. Thank you. May I have a motion to approve the agenda? Moved by Commissioner White, seconded by Council Member Dish. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Seeing none, the motion carries. May I have a motion to approve the minutes of the May 6th, 2025 moved by Commissioner Weatherbe and seconded by Council Member Dish. Is there any discussion of the minutes? All those in favor of the minutes, please say I. Any

002opposed? Seeing none, the motion carries. We're going to move on to public comment. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak up to three minutes on the comprehensive plan. This evening, the commission will discuss chapter 5 of the draft of the comprehensive land use plan. So, we kindly ask that you focus on uh the comments on that particular section. Uh we'll first hear from those present and then remote participants. Um to speak remotely, please press star 9 if on the phone or use the raise hand feature in Zoom. And for phone access, please call 877-853-5247. And then for meeting ID, 977-66341226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of the phone number or by name on Zoom. You'll hear an automated announcement when it's your turn to speak and please move to

003a quiet area and mute any background noise so we can hear you clearly. And for all participants, please state your name and address at the beginning of the comments. Uh and I will also mention that this is the final session of this round of comments. This is one out of three feedback um sessions that we have. And so is that correct? Planner Bennett, this is the last meeting for the first round of edits of this draft. There will still be two more drafts that we will be going through publicly that you can attend then as well, but the plan is not scheduled to go um to the city council until November of 2025. Perfect. Thank you for that. With that, is there anyone present who would like to speak at this time? All right. Hello,

004my name is Willie. I live at 528 North State and I'd like to talk about the transition district. And specifically, I think there's some language in the plan right now that asks for a single transition district. And I think that's really good language to keep in the plan. And the reason is the partitioned districts that have been floated around I think could be harmful. One of these partition districts would be a sort of messy industrial district that would go on the south side of town on South Industrial or on Plab Road or Varsity Drive. I don't think this district would be beneficial because right now messy industrial uses are not allowed there, but sensitive land uses are like nursing homes, daycarees, schools, and there's residential neighborhoods directly next to these areas. So I don't think

005a messy industrial district would be equitable or safe. Another floated district, a little subflavor of transition is a sort of shopping district where ground floor commercial is required at least on every arterial street. And unglamorous uses like storage lockers or uh reuse centers would not be permitted. And I don't think we need a shopping district either because walkability in a city doesn't just mean walking to shops. It also means walking to work or the doctor's office or your storage locker or the mechanic and where you drop off your car and walk back. So I think we don't need a shopping district or a messy industrial district. What we need is a broad mixeduse district with performance standards and design standards to ensure that nobody harms their neighbor with nuisances. So I think you would have

006the full spectrum of tools with that single district from special exception uses, performance standards or total prohibition for uses like oil and gas drilling which are currently banned throughout the city. So I think a single mixeduse district with performance standards is the way to go. And if in that process of broadening the district's intent statement a little bit to fit those uses, you find that the TC-1 district is redundant with that, replace the TC1 district. I think that's a totally reasonable thing to do. So mixed use with performance standards at a single district and transition. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Hi. Good evening. My name is Susette Wanoff. I live at 225 Murray Avenue. I'm a homeowner and I also live carfree. I bike and bus commute year round. Um, I'm here to ask you

007to not limit height or housing types and transition zones. We don't know what the future holds. Tastes change, technology changes, climate pressures change where people live and how they get around. If we preemptively cap what can be built, we're locking ourselves into an expensive and inflexible future. Highrises may not be the right choice everywhere, but banning them outright is a mistake. Let the future meet its own demand. Let the market of the moment decide what type of housing makes sense. And remember, renters are much more likely to use alternative transportation, biking, walking, busing. If you want a sustainable car-like city, you need to make room for them. This means more homes, not more restrictions. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Hello. Good evening. Uh, I'm Shannon. I live at 2870 Oakdale Drive and I'm here to

008share my overall content with the skeleton of the comprehensive plan and three land use categories that we have today. Um, I'd like to suggest a few additional details. Um, as I mentioned before, uh, I I don't think the partitions within each of the districts is particularly helpful, and I want to suggest creating zoning districts that are onetoone with each of the land use categories. Um, overall this just keeps things simple and flexible and helps streamline resoning down the line and also prevents us from making complex custom zones catering to each neighborhood. Instead, as suggested by Will, we can use performance standards um and tailor form to each neighborhood by applying things like stepbacks and permitting heights relative to districts around it. So, for example, we should allow highrises in the transition district where it's not

009adjacent to single family housing. Um, in this case, it's a win-win. It allows density and helps people to live closer to where they work or go go to school, but also it helps people who prefer that their single family neighborhoods uh don't feel as much pressure from those highrises. Um, I'm seeing some stickers around here today with those little buildings, little homes with the high-rise adjacent to it. And maybe there's a fear of, you know, that overshadowing. And I I would think that maybe that helps assuage some of that fear there. Um overall being able to apply these different principles across the individual categories that we have for the land use helps keeps things streamlined um but also increases density and allows us to build for a more inclusive Ann Arbor. Thank you. Thank you.

010Hi, my name is Garov Kulcarnney. I'm at 139 Ashley Muse Drive. Um, I want to speak today in uh excited about the draft comprehensive land use plan. Um, and excited about the process so far. Um, I've also not been paid by any developers to come here. I'm speaking as a resident and homeowner who just loves Ann Arbor. I first found out about the comprehensive plan a little over a year ago. There was a series of open houses at the libraries and I attended one. I got to hear about how the planning department was thinking about the future of Ann Arbor and share my thoughts about where I'd like to live and how I'd like to get around town. I thought they were very very well done and staff did a great job of laying out

011information and setting up exercises for us to do as a way to share targeted feedback. So I was surprised to hear so many people say they had only recently heard about the comprehensive plan and that there were some maybe hidden or nefarious process. I wouldn't say I'm the most plugged into an civic conversations. This is my second time ever giving public comment. But I found that uh but I had found out about these sessions somehow. And so I wanted to figure out how did I discover these sessions? Uh, and here's what I found. The city of Ann Arbor had emailed me with the subject line, quote, "share your ideas at Ann Arbor comprehensive plan open houses on April 19th, 2024." I'm also in W 5 and Council Member Briggs mentioned it in multiple email newsletters

012at the time. Uh, in fact, many local leaders had included details of these sessions and other opportunities to engage with the process in their newsletters within the last couple years. This includes newsletters written by local leaders um who are now saying that we should pause the plan. What those advocating for pausing the plan are saying is that those of us who did show up and who did voice our opinions don't matter. That after a transparent and publicized process, we should disenfranchise certain voices. You'll often hear the dichotomy where some of us are deemed activists while others are simply concerned residents. This language also serves to disenfranchise certain voices cuz I too am a concerned citizen uh and concerned resident who plans to spend the next 50 years in Ann Arbor. And I'm very concerned about

013how we're going to grow to meet the coming challenges. I'm here today speaking because on top of sharing my opinions a year ago, I have to come here again to make sure that that engagement mattered and that we don't arbitrarily pause because some people don't like the what came out of that process. And it's perfectly fair to not like the draft plan. We still have several months of public feedback and engagement, which is doing exactly what it was designed to do. Anyways, thanks to the planning commission and especially the planning department staff for all of the hard work you put in over the last several years into a plan that affirms our need for more housing, for equity, and for sustainability. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Good evening. Uh my name is Claire Kolivar. I

014live at 704 Hutchkins on the old west side. And unfortunately, I'm going to have to be one of those to come up and thank you for taking time for the comments, but I am going to be appealing to you and to the city council to pause the plan. So, I have to disagree a little bit. Um, I'm I don't consider myself a disengaged citizen. We've lived at on the old west side for over 30 years. Um, I work at the University of Michigan. I attend a church downtown. We're in a uh a neighborhood that everybody really does talk to each other. But unfortunately, it was just a few weeks ago that a colleague at the University of Michigan brought this to my attention. And I was really quite surprised because I said, why wouldn't there

015have been a greater outreach from the city to engage the residents? So my radar went up and I I it occurred to me that working in private industry, nonprofits and at the University of Michigan, the biggest thing that I have learned is that to get a buy in from the people, in this case the residents is to feel like you really did have a voice from the earliest stages, not when the plan is already being finalized. And so, you know, a process that feels like there's honesty, transparency, and to be included, then I could actually get on board. But the thought of creating a plan that is going to impact the whole city and where people aren't feeling like their voice mattered from day one, I I definitely take issue with that. So, um, I'm

016just going to ask the planning commission and the city council to pause the plan and try to bring in more voices than just that early 2 or 3% that was uh included from from the get-go. Thank you. Thank you. Hey, my name is Sean Kong. I live at uh 2235 Trillium Lane, Taiwan Wu. Um, I'm here to ask the commission to consider not further dividing the um the transition zone into additional or subcategories or or subdists and uh for the following couple reasons. one is uh my understanding is one of the uh districts will be a sort of a messy industrial use and as somebody who lives across from that area so that my house is located uh off of Plaid between Washington and Packard and right across from um her house where my wife

017and I and also um uh my parents in the same neighborhood uh will be you know could be uh zoning in such a way that there will uh you know uh industrial use and for obvious reasons we're you know concerned about uh pollutants in our backyard. uh this but the other sort of potential category that it will be uh within the transition zone as I understand it will be sort of a retail uh area uh first floor uh first ground floor com uh commercial use and that means the very sort of narrow definition of that would mean a lot of the air uh the local businesses that we routinely use would uh be no longer available So, we don't have a car. Uh we we walk to our uh doctor's office and vets. Uh we

018just took our dog to to our vet uh uh by walking yesterday. So, those sort of uses will no longer be permissible. And so, for for those reasons, we would uh I would just like the commission to consider not uh further uh dividing the transition zone into uh subd districts. Thank you. Hello. Hi. Hi. Hi. Uh, so my name is Ethan Jwitt, 502 West Teach. Um, and in case I don't make it to the end of this, my overall message is um that one of the earlier people um talked about disenfranchising earlier voices. The idea is absolutely not to disenfranchise anybody who's spoken before. It's to please not disenfranchise the people who are only learning about it now. The planning commission meeting on January 20 uh 3rd was the sort of first real public meeting

019that a lot of people saw about this and person after person got up to speak. Um given the fact that this room is full today and people are pretty hopping mad, I would have expected that a lot of people would stand up and speak in opposition to the plan, but that didn't happen. Person after person got up and spoke um strongly in favor of the plan. Not a single person opposed it except for maybe somebody on Zoom who I I couldn't hear what they were saying. People um who were there that day um noted a surprising lack of dissenting voices. Um and it isn't that nobody opposed it. I mean look at all the people who are here today. Um it's not that nobody opposed it, they did not know about it. And why didn't

020they know about it? Because you did not infect effectively engage the public. only people in a small network showed up um to support the plan. And it later turned out that a lot of those people knew each other pretty well. The actual broader public of Ann Arbor, everybody um has been learning about this plan only recently. And in the end, it took relatively little to um make that happen. It really took one conscientious and publicly spirited person with a printer. That's all it took. So no, you did not do enough to engage the public. Now, the public is slowly getting up to speed, but we're not experts. And because we were um not in this process from the beginning, we're behind and it's taking us some time. This plan, there is no reason why this

021plan has to move forward at such a breakneck speed. If you look at similar plans in other places, they have not moved this fast. It has taken years. There have been years of public comment. Two years of public comment um in Seattle and uh and uh Minneapolis, for example. Okay. So, all right. I only have uh 49 minutes left. So, I'm going to try to bridge this. Oh, 49 seconds. 49 seconds. Okay. In comparison to those plans, this map is really, really simple. This plan is really simple. Those plans are hundreds of pages with lots of supporting documents and data. This plan has very little data and it's overly simplistic. For example, look at Miller. Your treatment of Miller accounts for half of the derision in this room. Any idiot can look at Miller and

022see that it is not a transit corridor where 75 foot tall buildings should be built. It's a sleepy residential street through quiet treeline neighborhoods. Um and that same lack of care was applied to the rest of the plan as well. And I'm sorry to to speak harshly on that. I know it's a lot of work, but things take so much more time than you think. They take so much more time and they take engagement with the community. Thank you. Bye. Thank you. Hello. Hi, I'm Aaron Kenny. I've spoken here before. I live at 1039 Olivia. Um, I've spoken here, but I felt compelled to do it again because I feel like this is a critically important issue to Ann Arbor, my community of neighbors, and to my children. I respectfully urge the planning commission to

023re-evaluate and delay moving forward with this plan. As currently proposed, allowing four-story buildings, which is my biggest concern in the plan, with unlimited units in residential neighborhoods, especially those in the ring around campus, which is where I live, will only accelerate the trend of wealthy developers and hedge funds buying, demolishing, and replacing our homes. Once these historic homes are gone, so too is the fabric of our community. Our neighborhood is diverse, about 40% renters, the rest owner occupied, and we value that mix. But our location just blocks from campus puts us at particular risk. We're already seeing our streets transformed by oversized out-of-scale buildings owned by absentee landlords. This plan, as written, will do little to address the true of housing affordability and much to undermine our neighborhood and livability. Neighborhoods like ours deserve a

024stronger voice in zoning decisions, and we've already seen firsthand how small policy shifts can have major consequences. The reduction in minimum lot size from 5,000 to 2500 square feet, for example, has directly led to lot splits, mature tree excavations from entire lots, home demolitions, and the construction of dorm style housing. Just next to my home, two duplexes are going up that will house, excuse me, trying to rush through this, 16 to 20 individuals with beds renting at $1,500 each. Hardly affordable. Not the kind of development that fosters long-term community. We're already feeling the impacts on my street. Trash spilling into the streets, rodents in the alleys, drag racing, and early morning DJs. These aren't hypothetical risks. They're our daily reality. We've put cameras up outside our homes. I urge you to take a closer look,

025more nuanced look at the distinct needs of neighborhoods like ours. Ann Arbor should not allow its legacy to be the unchecked replacement of historic vibrant communities, especially for so little gain. A study by the Urban Institute found that zoning relaxations across the US led to just 0.08% increase in housing supply over 3 to nine years mostly high-end units with no statistically significant impact on affordability or access to lowcost housing. We can do better than this and I think if we pause the plan we can include thoughtful thoughtfulness and neighborhood voices at the center of the process. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Yurka Hades and I live on Chandler Road in the first ward. I'd like to speak a little bit about the petitions and memos that have been

026circulating seeking to derail the comp plan process. If we look back at the results of the last three council elections going all the way back to 2020, I think it's abundantly clear that a majority of votes went to candidates with an explicitly pro-ousing agenda. This is not a new issue in our city. Elections may not be the same thing as a statistically representative survey, but they are the basis for our democracy, and the ongoing efforts to discredit the legitimacy of the planning process strike me as having a faint whiff of election denialism. Some may think that a realistic solution to the housing crisis would be to wave a magic wand and conjure a large number of deed restricted houses built under the existing exclusionary zoning regime. But if you truly support the mission of the

027Community Land Trust and the Housing Commission, why wouldn't you want the scarce land that is available to be used for as much housing as possible? Instead, their so-called solution is to promise the false stream of 1950s style suburbia to a few lucky lottery winners. It's borderline comical to site Sunhog population and job growth estimates as an argument in favor of keeping exclusionary zoning. Of course, the current trend lines are flat because it's illegal for more people and businesses to move here. If we ever reach a 15% vacancy rate and abandoned properties are blighting the city, we can maybe start talking about a problem of over supply. The idea that infrastructure costs of new development will disproportionately fall on owners of old existing buildings is pure fiction. New developments are required to pay impact fees and

028long-term owners enjoy capped property taxes. things like power, water, sewers, schools, libraries, buses, etc. all become more efficient and cheaper per person when more people use them. Then there's the intellectually dishonest argument of embodied carbon that draws a line around the city limits and pretends that the rest of the world doesn't exist. There's also the hypocrisy of mourning the loss of places like Brown Court while refusing to make similar developments legal elsewhere in the city. To the concerns about shade, why should shade from trees be good, but shade from buildings bad? I could go on, but I'd like to end with a basic question that I'd like everyone to consider. What is the minimum acceptable amount of land that you think someone should be required to pay for in order to have the privilege of

029being your neighbor? It doesn't matter if you buy or rent singlestory, multi-story, detach, attached housing is by definition having the exclusive right to a piece of land. For all talk of newly built housing being expensive due to labor and materials, the one thing that this body has a direct influence on is the minimum amount of land you need to pay for in order to live here. There are of course ways to make land less valuable by constraining development, sabotaging economic vitality. And maybe there are some who would support such a myopic strategy just to spite the greedy developers. But I hope most of us can agree that highland values are a good thing. And we can all share in that prosperity if we stop forcing every single resident to pay for a superersized bulk package

030at the price of admission into our community. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Jonathan Lavine, 456 Hillale. Uh the decision to limit building heights in low-rise residential zone to three stories instead of four will reduce the housing potential in those areas by more than 25%. And that's because the buildings the projects will be smaller and many won't pencil out. So it's even more important that we allow other parts of the city, especially those with high housing potential to help meet our urgent housing needs. Three quick points for the commission. First, thank you for folding the flex zone into the transition district, but let's not create multiple transition districts. Harmful uses don't belong anywhere in the city, and uses that meet performance standards should be allowed throughout the transition district. Second, uh we should limit building height

031in the transition district only where it borders low-rise neighborhoods, not where it's away from low-rise or close to the core. These are some of our most promising areas for new housing and strict limits there would cost a lot in terms of housing that doesn't get built while helping very little. Third, let's allow but not require groundf flooror commercial uses in the transition district. Mixed use is great, but forcing commercial uses could make some worthwhile housing unworkable uh especially given today's retail and office challenges. Now, I'd like to speak to my fellow homeowners in Ann Arbor. I love living in a city that values social justice, and access to housing is one of the defining social justice issues of our time. This comprehensive planning process gives us a chance to act on our values. To overcome

032our housing shortage, we need more homes across the city, including in the large majority of our residential territory that still zone for only single family. If we wall off the current single family zone, we're limiting our ability to solve the housing shortage. We're also concentrating the costs of change rather than sharing them equitably across the city. That's just not fair. Overcoming a housing shortage means allowing space for, among others, private builders because, like it or not, they construct most of our housing. When we block a new housing, we just drive up the cost of the housing that's already there. But don't take my word for it. Let's listen to the experts. And by that, I mean the scores of younger people, including students, nurses, and teachers, who've spoken up during this planning process and are

033struggling to make their way in our exclusionary housing market. They know well the awful power of their landlords when rental vacancies are far lower than a healthy 5 to 7%. They're aware of the untenably long commutes in search of housing they can afford. They know being stuck in substandard housing because of lack of new construction. This really is a halves versus have nots issues and those of us who are lucky enough to have bought in decades ago need to choose a side. Thank you Dr. Hello. Hi. Um, my name is Margaret McCall. I live at uh 2798 Colony Road in Ann Arbor. Um, I'm uh speaking in support of the plan today. I had a baby last year who's in the hall with my mom to avoid voicing his opinion out of turn. Uh, and

034I really am I'm here today because I want to ensure that Ann Arbor is a place where when he grows up, he can afford to live and stay with me. Uh, to me, this means we need to make a long-term investment in keeping Ann Arbor a place that is affordable and a place where everyone can live. And I think that this means that we just need more housing, plain and simple. Our world has so many problems. There's housing unfability, homelessness, climate change, and income inequality. and we need to make meaningful progress on these issues and Ann Arbor is a place that actually cares about doing that. That's part of the reason I'm glad to be here. Plans like this plan actually have a chance of moving the needle on these issues. We need to be

035bold and move in the right direction. And to me, the plan is doing exactly that. So many folks in Ann Arbor claim to care about these issues and so it's time for us to support plans like this one that actually bring our values to life. I have seen signs around town to pause the plan and this has inspired me to get up and speak for a second time to get out here and take the time despite having an 11-month-old because this really upsets me. To me, it seems like there's a pretty clear feedback process that we're engaged in right now. And it's a proposal. This plan is a proposal. It's not a final answer yet. So, we can keep collecting feedback and we really should, but we can't afford to delay forever. I see this

036as a sort of tragic trend in progressive America to make the perfect the enemy of the good and never actually take action. So in conclusion, I appreciate that the plan is looking ambitiously to the future of Ann Arbor, specifically for young families like mine who hope to be here for years and years and see the plan play out. Thank you to the commission for your hard work on this. Thank you. Hi and welcome. Hi, good evening. I'm Irma Meyer. I live at 2809 Brockman Boulevard. My comment tonight is about why inclusion of all parts of the community is a fundamental part should be a fundamental part of the planning process. To do this, I'm going to read excerpts from an essay by James Roas, MIT educated urban planner working in Los Angeles. His essay is

037based on his educational and professional experiences as a person of color. Here he goes. I'm having him say it because he does it better than I could. Urban planners take pride in knowing, not so much feeling communities. Emotion is generally not a part of their toolkit. Most planners are trained to work in a rational tradition, thinking about cities in head heavy ways and using maps and data to understand and regulate the land and its people. This rigid understanding of communities, especially non-white ones, creates problems because planners only apply a one-sizefits-all approach to land use and urban design and zoning. Not truly listening to these communities or even simply allowing for other ways of being has led to long decades of conflict, trauma, and oppression. Our urban inequities are not accidents. They're products of design and

038intention. In contrast to planners and other experts, most people experience cities in profoundly tactile ways through their senses and emotions. The building blocks of cities are more than structures, streets, and sidewalks, but equally encompass personal lived experience, collective memory, and aspirations. These aspects are what transform infrastructure into place, into a sense of belonging, community. And yet these more ephemeral ways of understanding, excuse me, are discounted when conventional planning practice within conventional planning practice and innovation. Our workshops, he's held over a thousand of them, are designed for people who would never attend a public meeting, let alone speak out at one. Participants quickly realize they possess a singular expertise that surpasses anything experts can provide. After all, who knows and understands their community better than them? This is an extremely empowering realization. I know that quantitative

039research remains important. Again, this is him speaking. Some things do need to be plotted, mapped, and measured, but these metrics alone don't provide a full enough portrait. Oftentimes, they act as perimeters for future development. Having people use their own hands and build their own stories ensures that we are expressing feelings. The goal is to create a vision for the future that reflects their past and shows them how their lives and actions can shape policy and infrastructure rather than the other way around. That kind of engagement can't happen without direct input from the community. They'll tell you what matters. Please pause the plan. Work with all of our communities. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. So, my name is Wendy Ryan. I live at 2317 Packard in an old condominium complex. I also own a building on

040State Street. It's my business. I've lived in Ann Arbor for over 40 years. And during that time, I've seen a lot more density. Um, I am all about affordable housing, but in my 40 years, what I've seen is the property values increasing, increasing, increasing. Um, I don't see affordability in this plan. I don't see a plan for the infrastructure, for the water. Ann Arbor has problems with flooding. I don't see that we have a a plan for um green space. And the plan that I do see is extremely vague. Um, I don't want to live in a big city. I don't want to live in Chicago or New York. I want to have trees. I want to be able to walk downtown and walk through neighborhoods and not feel like I'm being shadowed by buildings.

041Um, I think the plan could be a little bit more comprehensive. I don't think it needs to move so fast. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Good evening. My name is Daniel Rosenbomb. I live at 521 Fountain Street. Uh I just want to make three quick points. Uh the first I want to join the chorus of people uh who have spoken today and beforehand in support of this plan. I think it's a a small step and important step in uh towards making Ann Arbor a more sustainable, welcoming, prosperous, vibrant, and diverse place. So the first comment is I'm speaking in support of this plan. Uh my second comment um to add a slightly more personal perspective. I am lucky enough to be a homeowner who lives less than one block from a transition district as proposed

042in this plan, but I am in a residential district as proposed in this plan. And I welcome density in the transition districts. I'd actually encourage more density in the transition districts. Um I welcome more neighbors on my block. So when I say I want more density in our community, I mean that not just in the city of Ann Arbor or somewhere else. I mean that in my neighborhood and on my block. So I would encourage more density in the transition districts and in the neighborhoods as well. Uh the third comment and really the reason why I'm here tonight is because I read and I heard and I've heard tonight as well people saying uh that uh regular people uh were not aware of this process or real neighbors uh were not told about this process

043and that there was some uh I don't know uh connected group of people who were involved in this process from the beginning. Uh so just to add one voice uh in opposition to what I think of as a disingenuous uh argument in that realm. I have known about this plan for over a year. Uh I am also someone who would call myself a regular person and a real neighbor. I have never spoken before the planning commission. I've never spoken in any city of Ann Arbor meeting before tonight. Um I have no connections to any developers, any elected officials in this community. I would call myself the least plugged in person in this room and I have been aware of this plan for a long time. I've been following this plan for a long time and

044I'd urge the commission to continue moving this plan forward because it's very important for our community. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. Hello. My name is Christine Comr. I live at 1502 Dexter Avenue and I am a person who will be directly affected by a transition district. And my greatest concern is based on my previous experiences with uh the city ordinances is whether or not ordinances will be will cover businesses and all of these uh retail uh coffee shops, bars, whatever that come into the transition districts affecting our light pollution and our sound pollution, noise pollution. I currently live in a place that is like living across the street from a truck stop all night long. And my huge concern is that not only will I be affected by that, but entire swaths of the city

045will be. So, I really encourage that the plan be paused and that more information, more specifics concerning transition districts would be planned out. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Charles Re Chuck Re. I've been before you before. I didn't think anything could call me out of political retirement, but the attempt to wreck our city has certainly done that. I was a total supporter of the mayor and the current council until I read this plan which I realized very quickly was an absolute sellout to big developers and had nothing to do with supplying mid housing. We can succeed. We can we can succeed in supplying this mid inome housing with all the things that are on here, but not fourthstory and residential, not five, six, seven along my street where I live and a

046lot of people's other streets. The biggest problem with this is that you attempt to redefine the central values of the people of Ann Arbor. The central values are the character and the trees and the beauty of Ann Arbor and any other value you can think of is secondary secondary to that. The we're going to kill the goose that laid our golden egg. Uh why is this plan so very dangerous? So so dangerous to the city of Ann Arbor? Well, first, it'll make our city look congested and be congested and funny looking. It's second, it's not needed at all. The latest pro population projections are the population is actually declining. Um at parks they could take down the tree canopy of tree city much of it by just changing the setbacks in residential. There's such staggering

047conflict of interest on this board that I won't even go into it. We do have a strong a real tree ordinance like they have in Evston, Illinois and other places if this is going to go forward at all. Um the setbacks are the key parks. Parks these folks are going to try to take the parks. I spent many years of my life making parks and open space along with Mayor Heftier, the greatest mayor in Arbor has ever had who cared about space, about uh green space and trees. Parks are on the chopping block in eight different places. No, you're not going to have parks. No infrastructure. There's no one to pay for it except the people who are sitting here and the people who are living in our neighborhood. way to pay for I'm sorry.

048Pause for one second. If we could actually pause with the commentary associates so we could let him speak. Thank you. Seven different ways that you're going to pay for infrastructure. They make it very clear it will cost you a lot of money which is ridiculous. Wind population is essentially declining. Wow. I've got it. I hope you read it. Thank you so much. Thank you. Hello, my name is John Beal. This is the second time I've spoken here. I live at Heatheridge. And uh again, this plan uh the so-called plan um you haven't really consulted your citizens, your taxpaying citizens, your voting citizens, and and a survey was done. Um that was kind of a random survey with many of the people if not most of the people really not our brights not really your taxpaying

049citizens. Um they came up with this survey that that really didn't ask them about the plan asked them about other things. So, we've come up with a plan that doesn't contain any data, almost no data whatsoever to support what it intends to do. Um, it's it's qualitative at best. It's a lot of handwaving. Um, and it doesn't demonstrate again that there is a housing shortage or housing crisis in Ann Arbor. Our population has been flat for a while and and it is and people aren't lining up on the street to get in. There are areas you can live around outside of Ann Arbor that are are pretty close to the center of town. What we do have though is a growing infrastructure crisis. If we keep adding people and there is, I would say, hugely

050uncontrolled growth next to campuses with multi-story apartments, expensive apartments going up, overt taxing our infrastructure. What are we going to do? We're going to ask the people that we're going to crowd out of out of our city that currently live here to pay for more infrastructure so somehow we can put in more people. And again, I I completely agree with the previous speaker. People live in Ann Arbor. People move to Ann Arbor because they like Ann Arbor. They don't want Ann Arbor to become something completely different. They don't want to live in Manhattan. They don't want to live in Chicago. No trees, no green areas, no protection for those. They moved here because they want those things. And and the biggest claim here is that we're going to come somehow come up with lowcost housing.

051So do the math in your head. This is not rocket science math. How do you buy properties that are half a million to a million dollars, tear the building down that there's that currently there and then put up a new structure? It's not going to work out. Those are going to be expensive units. And and I think when I was here last time, a gentleman got up and spoke about it in his neighborhood. Five properties have been bought. They were about half a million dollars each. A developer came in, put up, I'll call them duplex condos. Two condos on a lot. They're now $1.2 million. Yeah, that's affordable all day long. Yeah. It's not going to work out. You're not going to get any lowcost housing. All you're going to do is you're opening up

052our residential areas to unrestricted development, which will be by outside developers. They're going to do irreparable damage to our neighborhoods and then it's done. You can't fix it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bill. Hello. Hi, commission members. I'm Emiline Hul. Um, and I live part of the year at in Churchill Downs neighborhood and the rest of the year on U of M's campus. I am surprised a U of M student who is also a lifelong Ann Arbor resident. Please don't put too many restrictions on density in the city. I would like to continue living here even after I graduate and can no longer live on U of M's campus or in my parents house. I don't want to have to move away from a city that I love and have grown up in

053just to be able to afford a house or apartment of my own. Thank you. Thank you. Hi commissioners. Um I'm Peter Hul. I live on Yman Court here in the city and um I'm going to share my core values. My my singular core value is my family and they came here tonight. And I want to ask you to please uh avoid restrictions on these transition zones that will limit density. We need more units there and everywhere in the city to keep housing prices in check so that people like my daughter don't have to move away in order to be able to afford to start their own lives. Um, I just heard someone say that if people want to be near Ann Arbor, they can live outside of the city limits. And when I think about

054that applying to my own kids, that that really hurts. And um, don't don't tell me where my kids should live. And don't tell them either. So, please let's uh let's try and open up Ann Arbor to everyone and especially the young people so that they can start their lives here and stay here if they choose. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Hello. Um my name is Maggie Fry and I live um on Cook Avenue at the top of the steepest hill in Ann Arbor. Um, and I'm not an expert on urban planning, nor am I particularly well connected to others in the room. Um, I have three young children and I talk with them frequently about how I think Ann Arbor will look very different when they are in high school. Um, I believe that with

055the climate crisis that we face that trans transformative urban resoning is inevitable and this plan uh represents the kind of future that I talk about with my children. Um, last year I took my daughter, my oldest daughter, who was six at the time, to one of the library sessions about the plan. Um, she didn't get all the details, but she still remembers it and she remembers some of the lessons that she learned about cities um and housing and how we can better make space for each other. Um, I think that slow urban policy is a problem for cities all around the country. um and that we're facing ur urgent problems that need urgent solutions and so delaying the plan to match the slow timelines of other cities uh doesn't make sense to me. Um I

056think the plan is based on research and creative engagement about the best ways to grow cities for diverse populations. Um and I think it's really carefully communicated so that non-experts like me can understand. But that is not the same as simplistic. Um, and I want to use the remainder of my time to reiterate some of the comments about um, not creating new subdists because I think that that could further delay some of the implementation of the reform that I think is really important for Ann. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hello. Hello. Uh, I'm Jim Swenson, live on Kimberly Road. I've actually lived in Ann Arbor since 1965. Okay. And so, uh, as you can see, I am for pausing the plan. Uh, and, uh, I didn't really find out about it until just the

057last few months. Uh, and so I don't know that it's really been widely discussed. I am concerned about number one, I think there is conflict of interest. it if there are a lot of real estate people on the planning commission. It kind of has a musky kind of smell to it of you know Doge uh you know Musk going in and and uh being in control of the agencies at the federal government that oversee his businesses. And so I think the plan should really be paused. I think there is room for you know for us to increase density somewhat in Ann Arbor. I've lived here since 1965. I can tell you the skyscrapers have been going up, but the prices are not coming down. I jumped on uh um one of those websites looking at

058costs of apartments and things and see, you know, like one-bedroom apartments cost half a million, $500,000. Three-bedroom apartment in downtown Ann Arbor, $1.5 million. It was like 800, 900 ft², something like that. And these are sort of New York prices. And so and then also I've watched some videos about what's happened at Seattle and some other places where the upscaling has just led to higher and higher prices. And so for whatever reason it appears and there are some academic papers that uh supply and demand do not necessarily work in the economic 101 uh way that we expect it to in cities like Ann Arbor, high price cities. And so I think the plan should be paused. look at what you know what uh the population uh increases are supposed to be because I have read

059that the ones that the uh commissions have been working on are not accurate don't line up with SIMCOG and other estimates of population increase and those of course are very important factors right and we do not want to destroy turn you know tree city Ann Arbor into you know just a a Manhattan cut down all the trees and just have 20 story buildings. We do not want that. And and so, you know, I think there's a moderate something in between, a third way. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Richard Dokus and I live at 1243 Marbor Drive. The idea of adding businesses to neighborhoods is not a good idea. My family's experience is a good example. When we moved into our house in 1973, a next-door neighbor had a stained glass business that

060he ran out of, a building in his backyard. He held classes and sold materials for making stained glass windows. He would smelt lead for the glass channels. And on uh one morning, I caught him dumping uh with the aid of an employee a very heavy container of smelted impurities on the gravel road in front of my house. Having a degree in both biology and chemistry, I knew the danger that these tailings posed as they contained impurities of heavy metals. Judging from the difficulty that they were having just moving it down the road, I knew it contained lots of lead. I saw the city attorney who was at that time in 1980 Bruce Leela. He sought to enforce the zoning restriction of operating such a business in a neighborhood in a residential neighborhood. The EPA became

061involved since the contamination took place close to a drain which leads directly into the large underground tunnel from Alice Creek. The results showed that the roaded was contaminated with both lead and arsenic down at least 6 in indicating this wasn't the first time he had deposited the waste on the road. This led to a protracted case over three years before the ZBA and then the circuit court of county before Judge Edward uh Deak. And I'll give you the file uh number in case you want to look it up. This took place over three days. Uh uh the uh uh court proceedings took place over three days starting on July uh 17th of 81. I have copies of not only the court case but the ZBA rulings if you'd like to read them. We had a

062young son at the time whose whose kidneys ended up being uh severely damaged. uh age plays a key role in exposure to heavy metals and this uh led to many tests and neurology visits uh through his young life. Through careful dieting he was able to prolong the inevitable kidney failure which has led to a kidney transplant and now because of imunosuppressants and the covid along with reduced vaccination rates he has to be very careful of exposure to others. The point I hope that you take from this is that opening up neighborhoods to what seems to be benign businesses could, as in our case, result in life-changing events. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Hi, my name is Brendan Roose. I live at 127 Field Crest Street, apartment 203, and I'm here in support of the new

063comprehensive plan. Before I start, I know there's been some discussion uh in these forums about what constitutes a real Ann Arborite or a real neighbor. So, I'd like it on the record that I am currently wearing Birkenstocks with socks and I just got back from a birding trip. So, I think I have very strong Ann Arbor bonafides. I know there's been a lot of um I think people have been misled about what the purpose of new density is. It's not always that the new buildings themselves are going to be deeply affordable. it's that it will help improve affordability of the existing buildings around them. I'd like to consider a counterfactual, a world where maybe Ann Arbor never approved any of the highrises that exist currently downtown, but the university continued to still grow at the

064same rate that it has. In that case, the students wouldn't just live outside of Ann Arbor. They'd be in these single family neighborhoods that a lot of these people are worried about protecting. Those students would have sprawled all over the place. They'd be buying up and bidding up the prices of all these homes. and the neighborhoods that people are so very concerned about protecting would be much worse off and much more filled with students. And I think that one thing that this plan does really well is that it will create districts where we can build densely without impacting those single family neighborhoods as much. I know a lot of these folks at these meetings tend to talk about losing the Ann Arbor that they grew up with, but if we stay on this path of

065stagnation, there won't be anyone growing up in Ann Arbor at all because families just won't be able to afford it. I'm currently a renter, so obviously I want to see the price of rent come down. But the same principles apply to homes for purchase. Like most people, I aspire to be a homeowner one day, but starter homes simply do not exist in Ann Arbor because we've been so static in our vision of what a starter home looks like. Again, just talk to young people and families. We don't all want a detached home with a picket fence, a sea of well-manicured grass, and a two-car garage. Plenty of people do want that, but some of us don't. We just want a place to call our own, neighbors to talk to, and places where we can walk

066and gather with friends. Nobody's saying that you can't live in a single family home if you want to. Let's just make other more affordable options legal for the rest of us. In pursuit of that vision, I also echo echo others support for expanding the proposed transition and hub districts, specifically to include all properties not currently zoned R1 or R2. I also support removing height caps, subdists, and other arbitrary use restrictions within the transition district. This will give young families more options to decide how they want to live while also relieving developmental pressure in low-rise neighborhoods. In short, thank you for all your hard work through this process and let's get this thing across the finish line. I know people are concerned that they feel that there haven't been voices heard, but I think that the

067most representative way we've raised our voices is through elections. and the entire population of Ann Arbor has overwhelmingly elected the most pro- housing city council in history. So, I think we need to just push it through and get this done. Thank you all for your time. Thank you. Hello. Uh good evening, Commissioner Lee, uh members of planning commission. I've spoken before you before um my personal thoughts, but I'm here wearing another hat. The coalition for action on remediation of dioxane card is partnership of local governments and citizens that look at strategies to address the groundwater contamination from the industrial solvent 1.4 dioxane released by government sciences incorporated. The groundwater contaminations has expanded in county to an area over 3 mi long and 1 mile wide. As executive board member of CARD, I'm communicating with you

068regarding the comprehensive land use plan currently pending before you. While the proposed plan contains significant language regarding growth and acknowledgement of city issues and discussions of natural features, it makes no mention at all of that portion of the 1.4 dioxin plume that has been expanding into the western part of the city from Sio Township and moving underground into the Allens Creek drain. The plume has affected S Township wells and may affect hookups to Ann Arbor utilities. In other words, impacts to infrastructure. The city should take a stand on continuing to expand the size of the prohibition zone and provide remediation instead of simply pushing the pollution into the prohibition zone and sending it downstream to our neighbors. We believe a current likely uh delineated map of the plume should be included into the document and

069language included in the document that potential development should provide no risk to homeowners via vapor intrusion and contamination of soils on new sites. The former Michigan Inn and the Ma property abuing Dolph Park on the western side of First Sister Lake are important potential larger parcels to be developed in the city or redeveloped. In addition, as mentioned, the plume is currently spreading northward into wells into Scio Township. This has potential to contaminate Barton Pond, Barton Pond, the source of the city's drinking water. We believe this language and mapping to the best ability should be considered in any final document before final review from you and city council. Thank you for considering my remarks and uh Mr. Lennon uh we will have a hard copy to you and to the commission as well and we'll probably

070use through some maps and documentation as well. So, thank you. Perfect. Thank you. Hello. Hello. Uh my name is Ronald Koig. I've lived at 1215 Winstone uh Ward 2 since 1988. Previously, my wife and I lived in New York City and Brooklyn, Massachusetts. We moved here because we value the small city charm of Ann Arbor. Although I support plans to have densified housing downtown and along major transportation corridors, I'm strongly opposed to densifying single family home neighborhoods because that would destroy the small city feel of Ann Arbor that we love and that attracted us here 37 years ago. Allowing threetory multi three-story multifamily residences will bring noise and traffic. It'll result in loss of trees, stress local infrastructure, uh, etc., etc. Once this process starts, importantly, there will be nothing to stop it until eventually

071single family homes cease to exist and the small city character of Ann Arbor is destroyed. I question the assumptions that underlied the need for such a potentially massive increase in housing. The population growth estimates in the comprehensive plan seem wildly high and unsupported by any real data. Importantly, the era of growth at the University of Michigan, especially at the medical school, is likely over due to massive cuts in the federal budget, including the NIH. and it would not be unreasonable to expect an actual decrease in the number of M employees. This was not accounted for in the comprehensive plan because the decrease in federal dollars is too recent. Now does not seem to be a wise time to forge ahead with such a radical plan that will permanently change the character of Ann Arbor. The

072comprehensive plan cites four other cities that have densified housing. Um, Seattle, Portland, Austin, Minneapolis, but those are much larger than Ann Arbor, four to nine times the population of Ann Arbor. They're medium-sized cities with a much different character than Ann Arbor, which is a small city. And a Google search clearly shows all four still have housing shortages. I want to be clear. I support high-rise highdensity housing downtown and in major transit corridors and that this is consistent with A20 in that public transit use would be facilitated. My specific proposal is to pause the densification of single family home neighborhoods. The rest of the comprehensive plan may well suffice to achieve housing goals in the current reality of growth projections. Let's not unnecessarily destroy the character of Ann Arbor. Thank you. Thank you. Hello everyone. My

073name is Greg Monroe. I live at 1261 Bending Road. Um, so I've lived in Ann Arbor for almost 40 years. I was born and raised here. Um, I even recall uh being a paper boy and delivering the Ann Arbor news. Um, which is an anecdote I bring up to kind of speak to the fact that I was not made aware of the the plan or anything uh that was happening around this. Um, even the few years that I lived outside of the city, you know, my my father is an architect and a builder. My mother works for the university. Um, we're very sort of uh we're very interested in the housing stock in in our community. Um, and it was just over dinner maybe last week that I found out about this. And I bring

074up the the Ann Arbor News example. I I just the folks who say that they were not made aware of this. I just hope that we take their uh what they're communicating and their standpoint uh genuinely and honestly because I truly did not know about this until a couple weeks ago. Um, so I'm here. I'm asking to pause the plan because what I have been made aware of just in the the four years since I've lived here, but most recently post pandemic, maybe a little bit before the pandemic, is I have seen the influence of developers on the the city look and feel and the landscape. And that is not always a bad thing. I grant that. Um but what I think it just in terms of constructive feedback for the plan is I would

075really ask the the commission to clearly articulate and define the goals of the plan but also how the plan will actually achieve these goals right because I think everyone here or at least I I shouldn't speak for everyone but I think most folks can get behind sustainability and affordably affordability and I also think that um you know I personally am for density Right. Um, but I think what concerns me is what this plan feels like is it it floats a lot of these these noble lofty ambitions, but then it also is coupled with sort of this um, you know, Lzan's fair, you know, no regulation for developers. Let's just hope for the best, right? And what what I would like to understand from the plan is exactly how it's going to achieve the goals. And

076that's what I find lacking. And I understand that when you're trying to produce something for the public, um, that, you know, sometimes oversimplification is is needed, but I think that is something that I think would be really important for folks cuz in my experience, I think developers are always going to go for margin. And so what what I have seen is, and I also echo folks comments about one of the things I value most about the city is the character that's within its neighborhoods, within its housing stock. And I have seen firsthand how disruptive it can be when a developer uh buys a piece of land. I have 8 seconds left and then demolishes it, right? And and so maybe that and now it changes the character of the neighborhood. And so I think I'm

077just asking the council to really take a step back um and take a scalpel to this plan rather than a sledgehammer. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, commissioner and city staff. My name is Sarah Vuni. pronoun she any. I'm a third-year doctoral candidate in the department of epidemiology here at the University of Michigan. I currently live at 139 Ashley Muse Drive with my partner and I've previously rented in Ann Arbor and I speak in support of the comprehensive plan. Two weeks ago, I made my first public comment ever um at this very podium. And during it, I spoke about how I'm trained as a scientist and an epidemiologist. You can see that in the previous stream. Um, and I referenced the growing body of evidence that not only describes how our neighborhoods affect human health

078and well-being, but also how increased density drops housing costs. There are dozens of peer-reviewed and scientifically robust studies that support this conclusion, which I've happily shared with the commission and I can happily share with anyone else interested. The data consistently and repeatedly shows that increased housing across cities around the world drops prices. The data consistently and repeatedly shows that we in Ann Arbor are in a housing crisis and we will continue to do so if we do not have a broad and inclusive plan. As um as I was preparing these comments, I was thinking a lot about how I'm a scientist and how I think a lot about scientific communication. Sometimes data and numbers work for me, but they don't always work for everyone. Sometimes they don't resonate. the idea that more than 80,000 people

079commute into Ann Arbor every day, our nurses, our um teachers, our sanitation workers, that resonates for some people, but not for everyone. And I've also been doing a lot of thinking about philosophy. And um one of those things is I've been thinking a lot about selfishness and generosity and ideas around how that can sometimes resonate with folks, things about kindness and compassion. And so I asked at the previous uh time I spoke and I asked people again today, what are we actually afraid of by denying or pausing or restricting this comprehensive plan? There have been months of space and time for public comment and engagement. And I've shared mine in those spaces. For those who feel like they've just caught up, that's okay. There are still months in which comments are available and you can

080make comment. City staff has worked tirelessly to ensure that the public is aware of this plan and there's still time for you to share your thoughts. And so I ask again, what are you actually afraid of? Is your fear grounded in evidence? Or, and I say this with all the love in the world, is it rooted in fear of another or the other, of people who don't look like you or sound like you, of so-called college parties and red solo cups? I want to echo or I want to emphasize that that fear is very understandable, but it echoes the rhetoric of racial covenants that have historically kept people like me, people of color, and other marginalized people out of places like Ann Arbor. And so I ask again, is this fear of the plan do

081you that you have fundamentally a selfishness that might be born out of fear? I really hope not. I I am a firm believer that as your neighbor, as a fellow citizen, I that your world and my world are like deeply intertwined. That my success as a fellow citizen is not inherently going to reduce yours. And guess what? I'm afraid too. I hate change. But I was raised to say if there's not enough food at the table, let's make more for others. So I ask the commission, please let Ann Arbor grow. Let Ann Arbor flourish. And do so by allowing more housing. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Good evening, Ann Arbor. My name is Joe Zilka. I live at 1920 Woodbury Drive and I live, work, and ride the bus uh here in Ann Arbor. I'm

082speaking tight in support of the downtown hub and mixeduse zones on the comprehensive plan and allowing greater height, density, and less restriction in the hub and transition and downtown areas. These are exactly the areas of the city that we should be building taller housing along major corridors, near jobs, near campus, well serviced by transit, and away from low-rise residential neighborhoods. We need more of these because these types of developments will help solve our housing affordability crisis crises uh in from the top down and from the bottom up. top down, of course, by increasing the supply of units to meet our very high demand, pushing up our very low vacancy rates, and giving renters and home buyers more power in the rental and housing markets, respectively. And crucially, from the bottom up, generating more property tax

083revenue for the affordable housing fund, thanks to voters across the ideological spectrum who are here tonight, who came together in 2020 to pass that millillage overwhelmingly in 2020. The Ann Arbor Housing Commission needs as much money as possible in that fund to build subsidized housing for the folks in our community who need it most. Thus, we have no more time to lose. In addition, the hub and downtown zones are already served by our current public transportation infrastructure. If we get the land use right in these areas, we can unlock the full potential of the AAA's long-term transit vision, the Ride 2045. So, what is the ride 2045? Thanks to Ann Arbor voters also overwhelmingly approving the 2022 bus millillage, the Ryan's long range plan right here, right now envisions a future with enhanced transit services

084connecting all of the downtown and hub districts to each other uh with the following improvements. Bus rapid transit lines, highfrequency services with buses running every 10 to 15 minutes and at most every 30 minutes. improved accessibility for seniors and those with disabilities, extended service hours, and crucially infrastructure improvements, including new transit hubs, essentially many bus stations in each of the TC1 or hub districts that are on the land use map at State and Eisenhower, Maple and Jackson, Plymouth and Green, Carpenter, and Ellsworth, a new YTC in Ipsellani, and finally an expanded Blake Transit Center when the completion of the affordable housing development by the Ann Arbor Housing Commission and related Midwest on the former wide lot, which I believe starts later this year. By allowing dense development in these zones, we make it possible for

085more residents to live car light like I do or like car-free like others have said uh before. And this helps everyone, transit riders, pedestrians, cyclists, and yes, even motorists by reducing traffic accidents, carbon emissions, and creating vi vibrant and walkable neighborhoods. These are things that we can all get behind. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, 3565 Fox Hunt Drive. I've lived there for 47 years since we built our passive solar house. I want to thank everyone for their service. Uh I'm not here to advocate for or against the comprehensive plan. I'm here to say are we ready to implement the comp comprehensive plan? Do we have safe systems for our infrastructure? And I just want to give you a few examples. Last week on Wednesday, I drove down Glacier Way eastbound and I looked to see

086if traffic was coming southbound on Hiron Parkway. It's very fast, but I couldn't see because there was an excavator and a trailer in the right turn lane. So, I said, "Not my business." I was careful. I went home. The next day, same thing happened. It was night, but I counted the headlights coming. I waited until the headlights passed. I thought, I'm safe. Let's go. Okay, the third day. I'm coming. And I was actually going the opposite way, but I see all these cars lined up because University of Michigan is getting out. And I go by and it's like, holy, not follow language. Something has to be done. So, I make a U-turn and I go back and I tell them who I am, the construction people, and I said, "I used to be on city

087council and you're violating at least six six city ordinances." And they looked at me, they listened to me, they agreed with me, they made the changes I asked for, but they sheepish sheepishly said the city approved this plan. Now, there were a number of OSHA violations, but I'm not an expert in that area, so I didn't mention it. But what really set me off is that they had one of their employees out in the middle of Huron Parkway directing traffic without a vest, without a flag. They were trying to do what was right and save lives, but that was not the solution. So, I've got a number of other uh examples, but I just want to be real quick. Uh, we had a driver who lost his life after delivering sand to a construction site.

088We had a raw sewage overflow on Maine near Madison. A lot of construction in that area. I'm not saying it was a cause. We had construction workers who had to be rescued from the ninth floor of a development when their little lift failed. We had $1 million condos built without sidewalks. We have vision zero. We're pedestrian friendly and we're building without sidewalks. So, I want to say we got a good process, but we've got to make it better so that we bring people together sort of like mediators rather than bringing out the worst in everyone. So, thank you. Bye. Thank you. Hello. Uh, good evening, commissioners. My name is Tony Panel. I live at 1328 Manover Road in Northwest Burns Park and that's four houses east of uh South Horse so we're right in there

089with the students and we enjoy it and uh that so the forest will be part of the proposed Packard corridor transition district and I'm speaking on behalf of about a dozen owner occupant people on our street but also on a bunch of the rental students um there on South Forest and the neighboring streets um uh in the rent the old rental housing because amidst all that what a lot of people don't know, maybe a lot of people in this room don't know, is it's not all student rental housing between the south of campus and down into our neighborhood. There are lots of owner occupants there. Uh some of them are getting older, some of them are still younger, but it's a very mixed neighborhood. It's a very mixed neighborhood. And I think this is the

090neighborhood too that all of us will agree is this is part of the story Ann Arbor architecture. Now whether you are uh you know a person who teaches at the school at the the college of architecture or not we all value that it's it is part of why we moved to Ann Arbor why we live here if you didn't grow up here. Um so what I'm asking you is a rather pointalistic thing and that's to reconsider this whole that this whole district has been put into has been put into the um um the south the the the corridor transition district. all that area south of campus, south of Hill, all those old houses. Um, this is a numbers old horsing stock. It's the entire swath south of campus and in Germantown and in lower Burns

091Park. These side streets are now mapped within the Packard corridor transition district. This is also home to townies. They are intact mixed neighborhoods. They're not rows of rundown rentals right for reasonzoning. Um there this there there we don't we don't right in there to have more student highrises there would really be detrimental. Um I'm not saying we don't want lowrise but not the highrises. This is the storied backdrop of what is really this is quintessential college towns in America. And if you destroy that it's gone. It's gone forever and you will never get it back. I know that from living in Germany. I know the memories of the old people there from what they had before the bombing. And when it's gone, it's gone. Um, the student rentals cost less in in those areas than

092they do in the highrises. So, a lot of students that live right next to us, they're there because it costs500 or $600, $700 less than to live in a tower up on South U. So, um, it really would be to in to incentivize the destruction of these historical neighborhoods is not good. these 1900 era of homes uh with their towers and dormer windows. These are the brownstones of Midwestern America. These are our brownstones. This is Mid America's Alchat. And your colleagues in New York, Boston, and Germany would never ever consider tearing down any of their alt, any of their brownstones. It would never happen. There'd be an uproar. So just think of that comparable. Okay. Thank you. Hello. Good evening. I'm Lee Talbet. I live in Burns Park area and um 2120 Woodside Road. I've

093lived in Ann Arbor since the 70s. I was a college student here. I taught at Michigan. I taught it here in high. I just I just have to make a comment of what someone has said here. Um uh regarding uh people of color. I'm a person of color and I was not denied housing here in Ann Arbor, but when I taught at here on high, I didn't make enough money to buy the expensive house. I live in Burns Park. It was a function of the um fact that I chose to be a teacher instead of MBA or a doctor because teaching is a very important profession for me. So, it was not a factor of my color, of my skin. The reason why I had the privilege of living in Burns Park was because my

094husband was a professor at the B school and made a lot of money. That that that was the reason. Okay. I believe in preserving the historic nature. I'm concerned about two things no one has mentioned so far, but I wanted to say I do appreciate all the work that has been done and I'm sure you've been as conscientious as you possibly can. But uh to me, I feel pausing for a little bit to get some more input from some people. Not stopping it, pausing it to include some things so that more of us can be supportive living in this community where we all pay our taxes. And I am not afraid of students. I love students. I bike all over in Ann Arbor like my husband. I average about 600 miles around Ann Arbor running

095all my errands unless I have to bring my grandchildren along. I know the streets, but when it's more congested, it's harder for me to bike on those streets. People open the parked doors and I could be hit by a door when I'm trying to keep out of the way of cars that don't want to go slow enough behind me as a bicyclist. And I have been attacked twice on a bicycle. My husband too. and is just motorists who get angry because they want us off the streets. There's a little bit of that road rage. So, when you make it more dense, you're going to have more people who don't choose public transportation, which I think is terrific and I believe in it 100%. And I advocate it. But a lot of people still bring their

096cars and they got to go somewhere and they're going to upend the street. And I'm concerned about losing the trees, the canopy of the trees. When you cut those trees, our our city will be hotter. We'll have less we'll have issues with water runoff with rain. You will release into the atmosphere the carbon that has been stored in these trees. The history of the trees, it's not just the beauty of the trees, they serve a function. When you tear down these houses that are not ready to be torn down, not only do you lose the historical significance, but you are also putting a bunch of trash and it's polluted trash cuz some of it has lead paint and you know other things that are in building things. You will put that into our soil and

097I want to think about the recycling too. So when you talk about sustainability, thank you very much for listening. It's very kind of you. Thank you. Please pause. Thank you. Hello. All right. Uh, just sorry. So, I'm Andrew Robbins. I am a relatively new uh resident of Ann Arbor. I've lived here for about 4 years uh on the north side. I am not really what I would say. I don't have roots here. I do meet the uh sort of definition of what you say an outsider, right? So, I'm not going to come here and talk to you about what needs to be done here. Instead, I'm going to give a little bit of a cautionary tale. I grew up in a town called Simsbury, Connecticut, which has not had any housing growth since the 80s.

098It my mom, she grew up there, spent her whole life there, got a house there with my dad, and that was, you know, everything. I grew up there. Pretty pretty good life. In the middle of the pandemic, my dad stole everything. My house, my college tuition, everything. And my mom, who had deep roots in this community, possibly one of the deepest roots at that point, no longer lives there because there's no houses to buy. There's nothing affordable. I live out here, which I love, don't get me wrong. Uh, and I couldn't move back if I wanted to because I can't afford it. And I say this not because I, you know, want to h Let me tell you I didn't prepare the speech. Not because I want to use my situation to guilt anyone, but

099more so to tell you that it does not matter who you are. It can happen to you. It does not matter how much you have roots in a community. If disaster strikes, man-made or otherwise, and you find yourself without the ability to stay put, that's it. And housing is not something that can just be fixed in a week. So if we don't start now, that's that's all. So I I do urge please continue with the plan. I thank you very much. Thank you. Hello. Hi. My name is Tracy Swinburn. I live on Potter Avenue. I'm coming today in support of pausing the plan and engaging more citizens in the planning process in a meaningful way. There are now nearly as many residents who have signed the petition to pause that say they would like to

100be engaged as responded to the survey of the planning process. If one of the fundamental values included in this process is to be equity and inclusiveness, the process ought to be inclusive too. And these people ought not to be just as an afterthought and comments on the plan, but as a part of the fundamental assumptions that are so key in this plan. The plan is poised to incentivize whole scale changes to neighborhoods closest to town. Developers will intensively develop areas closest to town with the most profitable units, high-end student focused apartments while hardly developing other areas or creating the kinds of starter homes that key workers are looking for in terms of affordability. I live in Almaner Park and we're just blocks away from high-end student focused apartments. The yard, 618 South Main, Hoover, and

101Green. These seem the most profitable development choice near us. And if zoning allows, I think that we will end up almost entirely being taken over by these kinds of neighborhood in changing over our neighborhood entirely. I think neighbors will feel pressure to leave while their housing value can still be cashed in for to live to another family neighborhood. And I think it would turn over things entirely. And this neighborhood would move from being one that has modest families and can provide affordable housing to one that would be a student neighborhood and decrease the overall supply of affordable housing for families. I think that Ann Arbor residents really do care about quality of place and I think if you engage with them more, you'll hear more about that. You've heard quite a bit about that tonight.

102This seems to be missing as a core value in this plan. I'm asking that you please pause the plan and allow more residents to be included in the process. I think that you'll find that a lot of residents are in favor of more housing and thoughtfully planned density, but at a lower scale than what's currently been proposed and with priority and protection for quality of place. I think with more genuine engagement, you can bring this plan to a place of greater consensus than we currently have now. Thank you. Hello. Good evening. My name is James Farmer. I live at 1529 Pine Valley Boulevard, apartment 224. I was born and raised in Ann Arbor. I moved away for college and I was lucky enough to move back here where I now work full-time. We pride ourselves

103on being an inclusive, progressive, and welcoming city. And I commend this plan for not falling into the exclusionary conservative trap of preserving the character of an area and rather introducing responsible growth that serves our values and grows the culture of our city. I grew up in the old west side in a single family home, but on the streets around me were apartment buildings, duplexes, and community businesses like Jefferson Market and Argus Farmtop. I and many of my previous neighbors regarded these parts of our neighborhood as the highlight of living in that area. Varying elements of land use and density do not detract from a neighborhood, but rather add to it and make it not only more inclusive, but better able to serve the people who live in it as well. So, I appreciate that this

104plan accommodates these developments in lowdensity residential areas. in the transition and highdensity areas. These developments will serve to alleviate the pressure on the rest of the city to accommodate the growing number of renters who love to move here. Please continue to move forward with the draft comprehensive plan to address the city's housing crisis and create a vibrant and more sustainable city. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Hello. Thanks for the meeting tonight. My name is Vince Gruso at 556 Glendale Circle. Um I would like to just make some comments about things besides uh housing issues because we do have some really major issues that we need to deal with and one of them is the Gellman Dane situation. So I'm board member of card and a member of the card or the um board for the

105Alice Creek wershed group as well and we're finding out that um city did some analysis to determine how much water potential we have for drinking water and my wife uh Rita Luso is a toxicologist retired from the University of Michigan and um she with another guy um Dan Mcnell decided or figured out that we probably don't have as much water as people think and that um if it gets contaminated that makes it even less. And the other potential issue could be that Scio Township and Ann Arbor Township already have slight amounts of dioxin 14 dioxin in our water. If it gets to 7.2 two which is a current state standard or yeah state standard for 14 dioxane and drinking water. Ann Arbor would be required to supply these townships with drinking water from Ann Arbor

106because the treatment plants were built mainly by the federal government and they had a agreement with the city of Ann Arbor that if folks outside the city needed water that Ann Arbor would provide that. So, we're in a situation where there's 14 dioxide moving towards the west or towards the east and that could be a very serious situation. You know, we've um our group has published an international journal uh about the contaminated groundwater getting into a home and evaporating would expose the homeowners. and uh this peer-review journal uh decided that that was actually a novel exposure situation that is very important for communities that have gone for 14 dioxane uh in their groundwater that then comes into the house. So I think we need to make sure that we don't um look beyond that. We

107need to make sure we deal with these critical infrastructure issues because nothing will work well if we don't have good water and we don't have good sewage hand management. Um there was some talk of using Great Lakes Water Authority. The mayor was very excited about it and wanted to go that route and Rita and Dan Mcnell actually explained to the city council that Detroit water was not really a good option for us. It's very expensive, very energy intensive, and the quality of its intakes is not the greatest. And so thankfully the city council decided not to use that. So that's something we need to look at, take care of. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Good evening. I'm Ellen Ramsburg at 1503 Cambridge. Uh to begin with, I really do want to thank the planning staff

108and the commissioners for enduring these long public comment sessions and for adding opportunities for more information sessions. I recognize that you have a huge responsibility and I believe you are sincere in developing a worthy comprehensive plan. That said, I continue to be concerned that it is only recently that you've begun to reach a larger and more representative cross-section of residents. I'm concerned that you continue to say that the comprehensive plan is only a framework that details will follow in the zorning ordinance itself. If the comprehensive plan does lacks substantive data and accurate projections to guide the zoning ordinance, then residents cannot depend on the final outcome. I'm concerned because over the last years I have observed planning commission and city council reduce the number of opportunities for public hearings for developments that affect immediate neighbors

109and the community in large. I'm concerned that changes are made to the unified development code with little or no public redu public notice such as the reduction of square footage and setbacks required for a duplex in the R2A zone which now allows two duplexes on a lot instead of one duplex. I'm concerned that planning commission has resorted to passing PUDS in order to circumvent the existing zoning based on the premise that the locations warranted upzoning rather than whether or not the development met the requirements of a PUD. I'm concerned that planning commission is not considering the unique pressures on Ann Arbor for speculative development or the unique qualities of each neighborhood by applying a blanket low residential zoning to all R1 and R2 zones. These concerns make me very wary of the process and very

110scary of the outcome. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Hi. My name is Julie Ritter. I live at 920 Katherine in the old fourth ward, the most densely developed ward in the city. I've lived there for over 50 years. And I've been part of this plan for over seven years since before the pandemic and I'm in I'm familiar with a lot of the different moving parts of it. Thank you for all your hard work. I know it's a big job and I'm really disappointed in the plan that there is now. It's actually an execution process and you're executing a predetermined plan going back many years based on commodifying the real estate of the city of Ann Arbor for the benefit of the wealthiest members of the community and the extremely wealthy interests of people outside the

111community including national and international concerns and businesses who want to park their money in US real estate using a big tax loophole a massive upward and outward transfer of wealth. You don't want to hear from existing residents because you've never truly asked at the beginning what people wanted, what problems they had, and what they wanted solved. If you did, you would have put notices into the water bills that everybody got so that everyone would have known about it. You are astrourfingering this entire process with predetermined messaging that is based on aspirational exploitation and not necessarily based in established fact. We keep hearing from our council rep that this plan is based on settled studies, but those claims are not true. Chain migration does not perform as claimed as detailed in a study from the Up

112John Institute. Rapid transit leading to a reduction in commuting is not settled. If you've been out county any place from Unadilla to Kaiserville to Dexter to Chelsea to any of those places and seen the enormous amounts of development of huge houses on large acreage knowing that those people are commuting into Ann Arbor and not in a million years are they going to move out of that house into an apartment in a high-rise in downtown. Densification leading to affordability is absolutely not settled. I've sent many of you my letter that details 34 different reasons that's true, including the cost of contractors, the cost of supplies, so many different things. Right now, it costs $400 a square foot to build new construction in Ann Arbor. And no way is that ever affordable. This plan is based on

113false assumptions regarding population growth with no reliable citations and false assumptions about many things with no citations. It's not a plan unless you consider it a mar marketing plan for investors. And not only that, it's a concept of a plan. Kind of like Donald Trump's concepts of plans. It hints at the possibility there might be a plan, but this is not it. Please do your jobs. I know you can do better. I know you can come up with the plan we can all agree and let's get everybody on board. Thank you. Thank you. [Music] Evening. Hello. I'm um Alice Ralph. I live in a pretty interesting narrow neighborhood on East Stadome Boulevard. And um most people don't know what that's like. Um I think that the overall the the drastic inclusion of every uh single

114family area uh is um not very human humane. Um, and so I'm going to talk about the fact that I went to three um, open houses at the library branches and I heard the same thing over and over again, which were not really answers, but a statement of goals, I guess. Um, but I'll just say that one person at a meeting last night about this plan had the gumption to say, "This is what's really happening to me." She said, "I'm anxious. This rapid change, this blanket approach is making me fearful." And I was sitting there thinking, hm, that kind of describes what's happened to me as I go to all these meetings. Because living on East Stadium Boulevard, nobody recognizes that the that the neighborhood they're driving through has a lovely little commercial hub at

115at Washington Stadium and has one at Packard and East Stadium and has one at 7th and is it 7th or Pauline? Either one. uh when you when you get into the other neighborhoods and you end up on West Stadium, West Stadium stops being residential and then becomes more of what's going to be a TC1 district. I don't think that the blanket treatments are beneficial to most neighborhoods and I personally have been at my in my house for 50 years and I've seen all the changes that have occurred including the fact that the five lanes plus two bike lanes are below standard in in terms of their width and safety concerns. So this is a really complicated thing in most areas. In my area, I feel pretty much the way this woman felt because any more

116um burden on our neighborhood which is the whole length from Washington and stadium and stadium to Pauline. I mean to we go we have to go past the the uh the stadium uh that we are named for. Um any more pressure will not be good. We would I would like to see the the standards obeyed first to make sure we're not building on problems. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Hello. Um I'm Alex Hull. I've lived here for a while as well. I just want to speak for another group of people who weren't included in the planning process. Um the people who didn't know about the plan and then looked at it and said it's okay. I I didn't know this was happening. Um I'm here cuz I got added to an email list and found

117out there's a planning commission meeting today. But I've read the plan and you know I wasn't consulted. I wasn't I didn't participate, but it represents my interest fairly well. Um, so I think there are a lot of people in Ann Arbor who feel that way and because they're not angry, didn't bother to come out here and defend it. Um, just want to put that out there. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Hello. Good evening, Commission. Uh, thanks for welcoming all these comments. Um, I'd like to make just a few quick suggestions up front and then respond to a couple things I've heard tonight. Uh, first, I'd just urge you to uh consider allowance of highrises in transition when it's far away from low-rise residential. Uh, number two, please ensure that nothing is inadvertently downzoned. Um, thanks

118for getting to the weeds about the map tonight. Um, just want to reiterate my hope that all existing multif family and especially private golf courses will be included in transition. Um, how that district relates to low-rise can be managed in the future with the zoning. If a property gets mapped as low-rise, it will nearly be impossible for that to be denser in the future and might even become non-conforming. Uh, last quick point up front, I echo the sentiments of speakers who asked that transition not be compartmentalized. Um, everyone should be a good neighbor and we need to allow housing where property owners are open to redevelopment. Uh, just responding to a couple things I heard. Uh, one is a very cut and dried issue. There's no real academic debate about housing uh, obeying the laws

119of supply and demand. Uh, yes, of course, new housing costs more than old housing, but today's so-called luxury housing is tomorrow's middle class or affordable housing. There's ads in the old Ann Arbor News that show luxury apartments being built on Packard. Uh, and today they're some of the more affordable student apartments. If we don't allow new housing to get built, when people who have money want to move here, they will just displace people out who are of lesser means from a fixed amount of housing stock. This is an academic community. If you want to see studies on this topic, please Google supply skepticism revisited by the Ferman Center. Um, I'll spoil it and say that more h more homes means lower rents. Uh, on the topic of infrastructure, it's not overt taxed. Water consumption is

12015% lower than its peak usage around 12 years ago, despite a slight population increase. We have plenty of water and sewer. Finally, um I just want to express a little bit of sadness about the fear that's been generated by a misleading flyer that's being circulated. Uh some of you may have seen it. It prominently featured a a photograph from another city of a five-story apartment building built right up to the lot line of a single family home next door. Um which to my knowledge was not even uh in the realm of consideration uh on this body. But um because that was shared handed out at elementary schools along with some misleading statements um the damage was done and uh it's just it saddens me that um that's possible in this community. I would just urge

121people to um just look at what's being considered. Um clearly the uh restrictions on low-rise residential have erased that fear. Uh thank you for your time tonight. Thank you. Hello. Yeah, you as well. Oh, can you hear me? Uh, if you want to pull it towards CIF, pull it towards Yeah, kind of short. Is that good? That's perfect. Thank you. U, my name is Donna Babcock. I'm at 1890 Upland Drive. And um the lady before Alice, I've forgotten her name, made a reference to um the mass study. And I want to reference two meetings that I've been at. Lisa was at both of them. Uh yesterday's meeting at the downtown library and out at Trevorwood was a very interesting um gathering. And those mentioned uh migration and I think that Mr. Westfall just used the

122same theory. So, I was speaking with two other people who were at both of those and I'll give you their comments. Um, when we mentioned this last night, uh, Lisa said when she was giving, she mentioned scientific studies, several scientific studies that supported how this provided affordable housing and uh, but she didn't cite them. Well, that's proof by intimidation. However, she did site one and that is this study and this is the effect of new market rate housing construction on low income housing market and if this is what you consider a way a path to build affordable housing something that takes three decades. So here was the discussion. Um the uh this is the famous migration paper only done in very large cities like Chicago where there are actually lowcost neighborhoods some within reach. People

123with the means move from lesser neighborhoods into the new housing allowing people with even lesser means to move into the old rundown place. Sounds like Ann Arbor. Not unless we are trying to attack the track the better off Ipsilani township. And then the second person who was involved in these discussions said um this is about how housing becomes affordable over time as new housing ages and that's how Ann Arbor will eventually arrive at significant affordable housing perhaps in three decades. In the meantime, the new comprehensive plan will facilitate blockbusting for willing and eager rich developers who will be able to buy up relatively cheap single family lots and convert them to multiple houses buildings. From home ownership to everything rental, the great shift in wealth from individual families to large private equity interests brought to

124you by the city council. It's a kind of latter-day urban renewal. The city paves the way for private equity to take over the city and then private equity rewards the virtue signaling politicians with generous pack contributions. No matter what few limitations might be put on developers in terms of height, massing, setbacks, etc. is pretty meaningless as we have witnessed already. All the developer has to do is propose a pud or a planned project housing uh project. Sorry. Anyways, you understand this is not verifiable data. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Mark Scurbo, 2017 Fair Street. Um some people have expressed concern about new development increasing impervious service area and I wonder if folks have that same concern about the sea of parking in front of Maple Village or Arborand. is free parking right in front of

125the big box store or public good that we should legally mandate. Until very recently, we required parking lots to accommodate every shopper that might visit during the holiday season. So, why wouldn't we want to use that same logic to allow enough homes in the city to house every person who wants to live here but can't afford to do so? Allowing homes to be stacked vertically increases the amount of land area available for green space, trees, and storm water detention. That's why we should allow for greater density in the transition zones. It's a green choice. Some people prefer to live in more carbonintensive detached homes, and that's okay. But in areas of the city where multif family housing already exists and is sufficiently far from detached housing, we should not limit height. Currently, the plan proposes

126height caps in the transition zone, including next to hub zones. This doesn't make sense to me. We cannot legislate the creation of a downtown with the outdated wedding cake concept. Uncap heights in the transition zone away from the low-rise zone or aim for a UDC that's fewer than 300 pages by combining transition and hub into a single city district with a built-in taper. At the last meeting, there was some discussion of unique flavors of transition zone to accommodate different uses. Planning manager Leonard stated that some uses are not appropriate on walkable corridors. I hope that this comment refers to uses that require large single building volumes which would make street frontages that aren't human scale. It's reasonable and not that we'll require separation between walkable residences and some uses. Some people would love to live

127next to or above a bus depot or a reusable container washing station or a thrift shop. Please don't include language that suggesting separating uses. don't imply that some areas of the city can't be walkable and don't make the city district needlessly restrictive. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, I'm Dina Kurs and um I uh live on uh Provincetown Court um north of M14. I've lived in Ann Arbor on and off since 1979 when I came here as a graduate student and I served for a quick minute on the energy commission back in the early 2000s. And one of the issues with um city planning in general um or cities deciding what to do in their communities is that we are um influenced by state law and some of the things we cannot do um because of

128state law. But when I was on the energy commission, I um understood that a lot of the housing that was going up on South U, the developers were proposing to do things um with solar, with uh different kinds of um energy u um containment with the student housing. And I think that when things went from energy to planning and then the developers and whatever um those kinds of things did not happen. And so my concern with this framework of cons comprehensive plan is not so much the um development or densification, but what I heard last night at the library meeting was people talking about thoughtful densification. And I think that's a lot of what I'm hearing here in terms of I don't think we want every place that is dense to look like Beakman apartments

129on um on uh Broadway. I think that we want attractive development. I think that we want development that is sustainable, that is wellbuilt. I think affordable housing should give people the opportunity not only to live in non fossil fuel places but to have access to beautiful outside areas. And so I'm not sure I haven't like read the plan. Um but I'm not sure how those principles, those ideals are incorporated in the plan. I don't know that solar access zoning is incorporated in the plan. And I think that that's really important when we're talking about sustainability. So, thanks for listening. Thank you. Hello. Hi, planning. Hi. Uh, today I am just a girl standing in front of planning commission asking you to legalize more housing. I've heard a lot of comments today about uh studies that

130haven't been cited that have been cited from people who saying that studies say certain types of things or that they don't say that at all. And there's a lot of debate within uh studies within planning and political science about whether or not certain policies work and how that shifts. However, um I want to draw our attention to a recent publication titled public comment and public policy. Um it's published by Alexander Stan in the American Journal of Political Science volume 69 issue number 22 earlier this year. Um this is a friend of friends. He actually came to the University of Michigan last year um to talk about work he was doing on Ann Arbor. Um that work isn't published yet. I wasn't able to attend his talk unfortunately because I had to teach my own classes.

131But this recent publication does give us some food for thought. One of the things that Sam found in studying decades of data in San Francisco is that public comment is often not representative of a society. So when people talk about who is being listened, who is showing up, he says that most public comments are white, they're going to be wealthier, and they're often going to be homeowners. And in fact he finds that often planning commission at least in San Francisco makes decisions that defer to those um those demographics of people who may not be representative one of the people affected by various developments or who have interest in them. I think that public engagement could be better but I'm glad that it's ongoing. I would ask that we make some of these meetings more available

132to people with children. 5:30, 5, 3:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon is not a good time for anyone with kids. That's really hard. If you are retired, you can come out and do stuff like with that. But not parents who are concerned about being able to have their children live somewhere safe. I'll also say that many of my friends who live in Ann Arbor have young children. They have young children. They have no cars or one car. And when they were looking at housing, they were thinking about affordability, but also about safety. A man earlier mentioned that his child unfortunately was affected by lead poisoning. I have multiple friends in Ann Arbor whose children have similarly been affected because they were living in older rental housing. In some cases, landlords were incredibly responsive. In others,

133a friend had to move because the landlord refused to effectively remediate things. She's living in newer housing. She and her family are very happy. I want it to be possible for everyone to have access to different types of housing. In my neighborhood, I live on Woodland Drive in the Dickin neighborhood right by Pioneer. There's a forplex three houses down. There are ranchstyle houses next to two-story buildings. It's a really cute neighborhood. And actually, I didn't even know the forplex was a forplex until someone told me that it was. And my head didn't explode. I didn't die. In fact, there are usually fewer cars parked in front of the forplex than there are in front of many of the single family homes on the street. There is lots of possibility and lots of air between the

134world ending and things staying the same and stagnating. Thank you so much. Thank you all. Hi, my name is John Godfrey and I'm really want to second what Sarah said because I think she's exactly right. I think that diversity of contribution to a planning initiative that a city undertakes is fundamentally important and it should happen at the earliest stages. And that's why it's so disappointing how inverted this planning process has been that you have seen the most people coming before you, far more people than showed up in the sessions that were held last year to talk about their concerns and their ideas and their ambitions. And what's striking is the actual the level of consensus and agreement that exists that we as a city need to have places that are far more affordable than they

135are. We need to make way for new people who want to aspire, who aspire to live here, to join our community. And it needs to be really inclusive. And we need to have more voices at the very inception of the planning. And that's where concerned with we've had an inverted process. We had a process that got launched with direction set for it, with goals that were set for it with no community input or awareness. That is why I think you're hearing people suggest that we should pause the plan. Not stop it, not turn it on its head, kick it to the side, but to pause the plan and do something that's really responsible and respectful for the pe people who have built their lives here and who want to build their lives here. And so

136I I know you're on a mission and you know you're really driven and gripped by a set of ideas and I understand how persuasive they can be and how emotionally possessive of you they can become. But I think you're hearing people suggest we can take a moment to pause. It took Grand Rapids four years to do their plan. It's taking us a year and a half. I think we can talk pause for just a little bit, catch our breaths and do a whole lot better in bringing the community together to bringing the landlords, the the the tenants, the homeowners, the aspiring homeowners, and have a really powerful combin combin conversation that's informed by actual data. and so we can come together and recognize what our common goals are, what our common purpose is as a

137city and plan for our future. So for that, I think it would be wise just to take a step back a little bit and pause it for a moment and reconvene a larger conversation. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. I probably don't even need to speak now. Um, so I am Stacy Har. Hi there. Um, nice to see you all again. Uh, thank you for all your work. I, by the way, live on 2004 Crestland in the Peckard Stadium neighborhood. Um, actually right up from the new Packard Row development. So, it's pretty clear, right? There's a lot of concern. A lot of people are anxious and frustrated. Almost everybody here is open to more density, is open to more housing, is open to multi-housing. But it's the method on how we do this. It's the method

138that maintains the character of our neighborhoods, that keeps our neighborhoods safe, that has less cars on the street. We really do need to work together um to make this happen. We all want, I think, a variety of housing options for individuals, for families, for couples to rent and to own. Unfortunately, with the current plan, there's so much power that's left of the de the developers that we have no idea if any of this will really happen. And Ann Arbor is too special of a city to just gamble it away like that. Irrevocable changes can be made to our neighborhoods, to our historic districts, and we just want to be very, very careful that we know what we're doing and that we go forward. There's also a lot of conflict and disagreement about the data again.

139Do we really want to do we really want to take the chance with messing with our city without just all being solidly on the same page or we'll never get on the same page but pretty close to the same page closer than we are now perhaps. Um I think it's really important to make sure that we review the data to look at things together. Um hundreds now thousands have have urged you to pause the plan. um the same levels that we reached last fall. Um again, I can't echo John Moore and I really shouldn't have bothered to speak after him, but nobody really wants to cancel the plan. We know we have to go forward. We we know we do. I'm I'm open to density. I think a lot of people are open to density,

140but we just want to do it carefully. Um so, please let's make sure our common objectives are met and let's just take some time to pause the plan. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Do we have anyone else present that would like to speak at this time? [Applause] Okay. Do we have any remote callers? We do. Charlie Brad, excuse me, Brad, you can unmute and address the planning commission for up to three minutes. Uh, Chairman Lee, thank you. Planning Commission. Thank you. Excuse me. It's a little challenging to hear you. Could you speak a little louder? I moved my microphone. Does that help? Oh, yes. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Um, so I'll repeat, uh, planning commission, thank you. Um, planning staff, thank you. This is a challenging process. It's contentious, but I'll

141say this is what good planning is about. It's bringing people out and getting the issues out in the open. And I forget who the quote was, but it's like making sausage or law. You don't want want to watch either being made. Uh it's not pretty. U so I have a particular concern that I would ask the planning commission to instruct the staff and consultants on and that is to better structure this by neighborhood. Ann Arbor is not a onesizefits-all kind of place. My good friend Claire Kolivar spoke earlier today in public comment. She lives in the old west side. I live in Orchard Hills, which is the kind of classic 1967 colonial and ranch neighborhood. We're very different. I have many colleagues and friends who live in the Burns Park area and their neighborhoods are

142very different from the Bryant neighborhoods. We have people who live in Ann Arbor Hills and that's different from Maple Miller. We we can't get ourselves that one set of residential zoning rules are going to fit all of these. So, let's collect data. And yes, I know. Thank you all uh planning commission and staff. You've started to recollect data, but it's still not being done on a neighborhoodspecific basis. And council members, you're at least calling meetings of your wards, but wards have many neighborhoods with different issues. When you look at such documents as the feedback from the um open houses, you see a very bunch of very mushy generic input. Uh that's not enough to base a plan on. Um so uh please neighborhood specific and let me briefly digress to those who say uh that

143when we say pause the plan we're attempting to cut off the voices of the people who are participated. I've been on involved in this for 18 months. So I can't claim ignorance. Uh but this is not about calming the voices of those who spoke out but rather and here's why I'm not in politics myself. Uh I'm a professional engineer 35 years Thank you. Uh thank you so much for your comments. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Caller with the phone number ending with 345. You can unmute and address the planning commission for three minutes. Hi, this is Kitty Khan. I live on Krauss Street in the thick ward. I'm afraid people are mistaken in thinking that this plan would result in more affordable homes. The reality is that it wouldn't. It would be the

144opposite. I'm hearing people say they are in favor of the plan because they want to be able to live in Ann Arbor after they graduate or they want their kids to be able to live here or they just want more affordable housing in Ann Arbor. I ask that everyone do their own research and just look around at the rents and home prices and you will see the truth. This plan will result in the demolition of affordable homes and they will be replaced by market rate developments because developers will target the least expensive areas in town. As other speakers have said, many new developments have been going up, but rents and home prices have not been going down. Instead, they have been going up. and the new developments are anything but affordable. I am pro-affordable housing,

145but this plan will not result in more affordable housing. Please pause the plan and think about the facts. Thank you very much. Thank you. caller with the phone number ending with 644. You have up to three minutes to address the planning commission. Go ahead. My name is Kathy Boris. I live at 1726 Charlton in the fifth ward. Let's quickly review our recent city planning history. Several years ago, a l a loosening of ADU restrictions was proposed to help relieve the housing crunch in Ann Arbor. Public push back against this proposed change centered on the lack of notification of what was effectively a sweeping residential resoning which allowed two homes to be built on lots where formerly only one home was allowed. Ultimately few new ADUs were built probably due to the high cost of construction.

146Then a few years later, transit corridors were proposed called TC1s. This was upzoning along some of the city's main bus routes. This plan included high-rise buildings with various height limits. The plan is in place now, and the Brierwood redevelopment is part of it. Public resistance to the plan as a whole centered around the fact that it does not require developers to contribute to affordable housing, green space, or infrastructure beyond the usual minimal city requirements. One or two city council members introduced an amendment to require more from developers, but the amendment was voted down by the rest of city council. Meanwhile, the university continued to increase enrollment and some landlords and developers discovered the high profits of short-term rentals. Both of these trends added to the shortage of housing in Ann Arbor of of um long-term

147housing in Ann Arbor. Presently, the draft for a new comprehensive plan is before us. Its most salient feature is that it eliminates single and duplex residential districts called R1 and R2 and replaces them with a new low-rise residential zone. The resistance from the public again centers around the city's failure to inform and include the public. The draft itself suffers from general fuzziness and some glaring omissions. For instance, it should describe as accurately as possible the effects that the dense land use recommended could have on our infrastructure and how much it would cost to make sure that infrastructure could efficiently serve all residents. Also, for a city comprised mostly of climate change believers, there should be some information regarding how the densification proposed might affect the likelihood of flooding in our town. Most significantly, the draft

148proposes replacing the current natural features plan rather than incorporating it into the comprehensive plan. See page four of the draft. This particularly illconceived effort to streamline and simplify the comprehensive plan should be resisted at all costs because excuse me, the natural futures plan is the only document that we have that serves to protect our trees, wetlands. We're at time. I'm so sorry. Groundwater. I'm sorry. We're at Thank you so much for your comment. I'm sorry. Ashley Duke, you have up to three minutes to address the planning commission. Go ahead. Hi. Um, I just wanted to say, um, my name is Ashley and I am hopefully a soontobe homeowner of 235 South Wagner Road. Um, I came across the Ann Arbor Community Land Trust nonprofit organization on Zillow. Um, this nonprofit allows the opportunity for county

149employees to live much closer to where we work. Currently, the high cost of living in Ann Arbor makes it challenging for any middle class individuals or families to find housing. Opportunities like the A2 CLT would open the door for teachers, nurses, first responders, and etc. to fully participate in the community um they help support. I think affordable housing is a critical resource that can dramatically help people offering stability, security, and opportunities um for individuals and their family. It's extremely hard to afford buying a new home as a first-time home buyer um with my salary as a government employee. Um I think the Ann Arbor Community Land Trust um organization can benefit the city in many ways like workforce stability and reduced turnover rate, reduced commute times in which benefits the environment, economic development and educational

150and community engagement. Um I'm excited to get established and love to be a part of this commu uh amazing community. However, right now that we are getting timelines that it is going to take 18 to 24 months for these approvals um to begin building. So, we're kindly asking for an expedited process for these approvals. Not only will this expedited process help the ones who are currently ready to start building their homes, but the sooner we are able to get started, the sooner we can give this same opportunity to others. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Caller with a phone number ending with 194, you can unmute and address the planning commission for up to 3 minutes. Hello. Go ahead. Hello, this is Rita. Hi, this is Rita Mitchell calling from 621 Fifth

151Street. Um I wanted to just touch base on an issue of section 4.1 of the draft plan uh in goal 4 which encourages walkable connected neighborhoods with access to basic needs and amenities which includes parks. And my concern is that there's a reference to underutilized parks um that could be potentially transformed into housing is what it reads like in this document. My concern is that if you already own the public land that is available for parks that is a park, why would you transform it into something else if that area needs a park? So, I'm I'm very concerned about losing some of the public benefit that we already have and I think we need to have specific guidelines if we're going to make those kinds of changes. And I don't see any kind of guidelines

152identified for making a transition of the type that's that's implied in section 4.1. But I'd like you to consider that as you move forward. And um this would be one of the things to consider in a pause. Carefully look at the parkland. And what does that mean when someone says a park is either underutilized or of poor quality? both of which can be changed, especially if there's more dense housing nearby. Don't discount what we already have. Thank you. Thank you, [Music] Luis Vasquez. You have up to three minutes to address the planning commission. Uh, great. Thank you, Luis Vasquez, 909 Barton Drive in Upper Lower Town. Um, in regards to uh section five, I believe it it is what you are covering tonight. Um, I'm in favor of allowing uh high-rise buildings in the transition

153district when they're not immediately next to single family neighborhoods. Um, also in favor of allowing the same types of commercial opportunities throughout the transition district. Uh, and I I don't think there's a need for creating subd districts. Uh, this can create market distortions and complexities and delays in implementing the zoning later. Uh and also um to not please don't uh downzone multifamily neighborhoods by allowing them to be lumped into low-rise. Uh any new restrictions um in single family areas make this uh especially important. Uh and you know considering that um you know uh planning commission and uh city council have uh tried to make uh three stories the the limit. Um I live in a three-story house in uh the north side. Um, and uh gosh, um, if I wanted to split my lot today

154and build a fourstory, uh, unit um, in on the, uh, split off lot. I couldn't do that because of the current uh, zoning. I'm right next to a bus stop, an AAATA bus stop. this would make sense for um my wife and I to uh downsize uh into uh a new structure um and uh provide opportunities for others to live in my neighborhood. Um but I can't do that because of uh the zoning. And finally, I just wanted to point out some of the loaded emotional terminology I've heard used tonight, uh, such as blockbusting, um, uh, cutting down the tree canopy, uh, destroying our neighborhoods. Uh, you know, that's really a bunch of baloney. Um, so I, uh, I disregard it entirely. Okay. Thank you for your time tonight. Um, I know you've got a

155lot of discussion before you. So, uh, thank you once again for all of your efforts. Thank you. No hands are raised at this time, Chair Lee. Okay, give it just a second. Okay, with that, we will close. Oh, a second. That's good. You gave it a second. Yeah, that that's why we give it a second. Caller with phone number ending with 710. You can unmute and address the planning commission for up to three minutes. Go ahead. Hi there. Uh my name is Rob Russell and I I decided I'd pop in at the end here. I live at uh 2004 Crestland Street. Um up until today I've been part of the positive plan group. Um, mainly for my part, the current swath of investment developers making the ginormous multi-unit buildings with numerous beds that can command

156exorbitant rents. They scared me not just because of the inheritant imbalances that occur because of who can afford them and who can't, but that they eat up purchasable plots in the city in favor of rentals that that uh funny to funnel the local money into bank accounts located who knows where. Um but the the the recent national political situation and the fact that my 401k has tanked as a result. Um I decided to do some some research into mutual funds that are are doing investing in development projects and many of them most of them actually have doubledigit returns even in this economy and I have found several whose perspectus are looking at places like Ann Arbor to pad their pockets. So um I've changed my mind. Uh, please continue with the plan. Get those ugly

157shoe box looking rentals built. My 401k needs it. Thank you. Thank you, Angela. You can unmute and address the planning commission for up to three minutes. Good evening. Thank you. And uh thank you to the Ann Arbor Planning Commission. As a W3 resident, I live at 1053 Lincoln Avenue and I urge you to pause the comprehensive plan due to major gaps that undermine its effectiveness. The plan does not meet Michigan's planning enabling act requirements for long-term population, economic, and infrastructure projections, nor does it fully integrate existing master plans like the natural features plan or regional transportation strategies. It lacks a dedicated affordable housing plan. It emits a thorough environmental impact assessment and it provides no fiscal analysis of development impacts. This rushed process has resulted in limited public engagement and insufficient data analysis. Unlike peer

158cities with clear actionable frameworks, Ann Arbor's draft relies on vague goals and includes problematic proposals like the flex business district which restricts housing without evidence. Without addressing these issues, the plan risks legal challenges and fails to provide a truly con comprehensive equitable vision for the city. Please pause approval until these deficiencies are resolved with increased public awareness, increased public comment, and with robust datadriven revisions. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Caller with the phone number ending with 534, you can unmute and address the planning commission for up to three minutes. Good evening. This is Tom Stalberg. I live at 1202 Traver Street in the heart of lower town Ann Arbor. I've been providing in Ann Arbor for over 30 years now, affordable and workforce housing in gentle density. I started with a triplex that

159I bought with two friends, a fixer upper. We moved on from there and kept that as a rental. We bought sidebyside duplexes. Getting investors, we bought additional duplexes. We help people owner occupy duplexes. I did that work as a broker. It works. Dental density is a real thing that can work. The homes that we rent out blend in with the neighborhoods in terms of scale. This plan will not be providing that. This plan will risk that. The plan passes a tipping point where dental density will work and where that land becomes more valuable to be torn down to have million dollar condos built there or apartment buildings that are expensive. This plan will hurt the more moderate segments of the market. It will generate a lot of expensive housing. It will not generate moderately priced

160housing and it will reduce the supply of moderately priced housing because that's what will be targeted for tear down and redevelopment. So the supply in the moderate segments of the market will decrease and the price will increase. So I feel really bad for the people especially the young people who are wanting to get in the market and I'm a buyer broker for first-time home buyers. I know firsthand for my clients that it's tough. But those people have been duped into thinking that this plan will provide for them what they need. It won't. It's going to provide expensive housing. It's been admitted by people on the planning commission, city council members, planning staff that what we're going to do is increase expensive housing and wait for decades for the rate of growth of housing to slow

161down. Not to be cheaper, but the rate of growth in prices to slow down. But it's going to slow down in those top segments of the market where we're adding supply. It won't slow down in the moderate segments of the market where we're not adding supply. So supply and does supply and demand does work. If you look at real estate as a segmented market, which is how you must look at it because that's what it is. That's what the market is. That's what developers know it is. We're going to drive people into the townships for the attainably priced housing. So we've lost affordability and we've lost sustainability and there is no equity in this plan at all. Thank you very much. Thank you. Katie, you have up to three minutes to address the planning commission.

162Go ahead. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Hi, my name is Katie. I am a resident of uh Manchester Road and I would like to share my thoughts as a recent um home buyer. We just moved to Ann Arbor 6 months ago. and I am in support of the uh planning commission um just because as has been echoed many times how difficult it is to buy a home um in this city. Um for scale uh we moved from Grand Rapids. We've lived in Grand Rapids for the last 10 years. Um decided we wanted to move to Ann Arbor to be closer to our family. We went to school at U of Aad, me and my husband, and um really just struggled to find a place. We paid 350 for our house in Grand Rapids, and

163similar homes now are going for 750 and postponed how quickly we wanted to move because we just simply couldn't afford it. And the neighborhood that we lived in in Grand Rapids was just like what the development is talking about now. Mixed development with separate downtowns, little neighborhoods that have these goofy little shops that Ann Arborites say they want to still have um all of the places that couldn't afford downtown Grand Rapids put up in these little side downtowns where you could walk to get a haircut at a local salon or go have breakfast or go to the candy store, go to a gift shop. all of those really great things that cater to your community with dense single family homes mixed with one to two level apartments and duplexes. It wasn't noisy. There were trees.

164It was a great place to be and I wanted that in Ann Arbor. I looked at Burns Park. I looked at the old west side to be able to have my son ride his bike in the neighborhood, meet up with friends, go see a movie at a local theater. And we couldn't have that because it was just too expensive. And it's sad because both me and my husband, we moo our finances and we did it right. Like I um I'm a pharmacist. My husband's a data scientist. But my friends, my friends who want to have kids, who want to have the kids go to the schools here, to have a life here, whose kids we want to be able to grow up here and have their friends here, they just moved to Ipsy Canton. Um,

165and they they just can't even consider a place like Ann Arbor. And it's sad, you know, hearing some of the oppositions like the one person who said, "Well, just live outside the city." Well, I don't want to live outside the city. I came to Ann Arbor because I love Ann Arbor and I love the walkability and just being able to have an option or more options for local places that cater to us as families. So, I definitely support this proposition. I love the idea of having a separate downtown um and stayed in Eisenhower where I live. Um it's a dead zone. There's nothing there. There's no trees. It's just parking lots and buildings. So, I highly consider for my generation, for the generation after me to help contribute to the economy and help it grow.

166Thank you so much for staying to listen to me. Thank you. [Music] No other hands raised. Okay, with that we will close public comment. Thank you. Um and thanks for to everybody that came and spoke. We really appreciate your civic engagement. All right, with that I think um do I have who wants to power through or who wants to take a quick break? Let me just get a break. Break. Okay, we will take a 5m minute break. We will be back at 8:11 p.m. Thank you. All right, we are going to resume the meeting. Thank you for your patience. All right. Well, now that we're done with agenda item number five with public comment, we're going to go into agenda number six, which is unfinished business. There are none. And we are going into the

167agenda number seven with prior to this particular agenda item, we are actually going to offer a time for commissioners to respond to some of the public comment that we heard. Um, and please, if we could uh come to order in the room. Thank you. Um, so I will give some space and some floor to commissioners who would like to respond to some of the specific um, public comment items that they may have heard. So, does anybody would anyone like to say a few words about any comments? Council member Dish. Thank you, Chair Lee. Um, I like that one of the commenters reminded us that people came here together to pass the affordable housing mill in 2020 and that did bring us together and the sustainability millage as well. And so I think that we know

168there's cohesion in this community and the plan might not be bringing it out, but that might be because we we aren't all um coming to it with the same facts and some of us have some misconceptions about what's in it. So um one uh commenter um asked for the goals of the plan and how the plan will achieve those goals. And I want to start with a data point. Between 2013 and 2023, Ann Arbor saw meaningful increase uh in population for only one household category and that's households earning $150,000 and over. We added 6,000 of those houses in that decade and we lost 4,000 households at 50% AMI and below. And I can actually I can actually barely read that because it is unbelievably distressing for me. And I think a goal of the plan

169is to not go in that direction because if there is one way I don't want to live in New York, it is that way. I don't want to live in a city that has people actually Manhattan actually has people at at the extremes at the highest and the lowest and none in between. So this is even worse. This is going in an even worse direction than that. So one thing is certain from the academic literature to do nothing or to downzone will increase prices. Another thing that's certain in the academic literature as uh Mr. Westfall has already said housing markets do exhibit the logics of supply and demand. And if you add supply at the top over time and it is this is the overtime part that housing will age into affordability. That's one mechanism.

170But the other mechanism in that uh me affforementioned upton up John study is that uh when you add uh housing at the top was I writing this down somewhere? Um people will you will uh wealthy people can move into that expensive housing and they will leave a less expensive vacancy behind. And as long as people keep moving in to slightly more expensive housing than they're living in now, they will keep creating vacancies in somewhat less expensive housing. and that um people do move um in that way. That kind of vacancy chain will never reach to the to the uh least advantaged neighborhoods. They will never reach the lowest income desile. And that is why you are lucky to live in Ann Arbor where you have an affordable housing village because you can use that to

171build housing. Um, I'm puzzled to hear that we are opening up neighborhoods to unregulated and unrestricted growth. Um, there are regulations in each of the three neighborhood and housing uh um plan categories. The hub, the transition, and the low-rise residential. All of those are neighborhoods. All of them contain housing, and all of them have regulations. Indeed, the low-rise res residential is restricted to three stories because this body accepted a request from city council. Thank you. Uh this body has expressed a feeling that Lockwood the housing of the form of Lockwood wouldn't be a good idea in low-rise residential. It's too too blocky, too inconsistent with what many low-rise residential neighborhoods look like. That's fine, but those are those are restrictions there. Um, so we heard a concern that we would cut down all the trees

172and just have 20s story buildings and there might be something in between. It seems like the plan has a lot in between there. That seems like it's the point of the plan and that's what we're going to talk about tonight. Um, there was concern about natural features not being embedded in the plan, but it is embedded in our zoning in our ordinance. So, uh, we just need to say that in the plan and I think we made that edit already. Um, most puzzlingly, we heard that the parks are on the chopping block, which they aren't. But even if they were, you can't chop them without a public vote. So, it isn't within the power of this commission, even if we wanted it, which I don't think we do, to um eliminate parks. So, um, yeah,

173that's all I Oh, I was going to read a sentence from the Up John study, but I will put it out again in a newsletter totally cited and referenced because that's what I do for a living. Thank you. Would any other commissioners like to respond to any of the comments or on general comments? Um, yes, sure. Commissioner. Yeah, you know, since March, we've been presented with um a near constant drum beat of demands to delay, suspend, or otherwise halt what we're doing here. Um work that we haven't done in a long time, I think over 16 years, on the basis that some aspect of our process is defective or undemocratic. It's been called top down. Um there a variety of attacks on the legitimacy of the process. And um you know there was one quote

174from a few weeks ago that we're trying to plate and squeeze out the public which given how long these meetings are going I think we're going about it in a pretty um indirect way. Um we've been listening I think for well over a year um the preparation of the plan this is a guidance document. Um, it's been transparent to the public in a in a way and to a degree that even enormously consequential, complex pieces of hard legislation are not. Um, every member of the public has been provided with access to its preparation and every member of the public has been provided with opportunities to speak and be heard on the plan and the broader issue of development and land use regulation in Ann Arbor, which I should note has been a central issue in

175every election that we've had over at least the last three to four election cycles and perhaps longer than that. those elections um which supply the council's democratic legitimacy to initiate, direct and approve this work product and the plan specific public engagement process which has been far more rigorous than what state law requires have provided voters and residents with innumerable and ongoing opportunities to participate in the process, provide their input, and be heard. And that will continue to occur until the plan is done. But that public access and transparency has come at a cost. and it's a cost worth paying and I want to be clear about that. But I think we also have to be cleareyed about the bill. Anyone asking to further delay the plan has to have an answer for that. While we've

176worked on it, the city's elected legislature has remained largely out of due respect for this process and the need to include the public in that process. Largely frozen on the comprehensive land use reform, arguably the most pressing public policy issue facing the city. The voters who elected these leaders to act to address the city's housing crisis have been asked to wait. The democratic legislative process is nearly frozen. The mass exploitation of renters and home buyers throughout our city continues unabated and we've heard from several of them as part of this process. We outsource 80,000 daily commuters and the destruction that activity creates outside of our city. Economic and racial segregation and displacement continue in many of our neighborhoods. the I would urge the individuals who are urging us to pause to go back and revisit

177Professor Leavine's comment tonight about the connection between housing policy and social justice and to reconcile their request to wait with those costs, the human costs. My family's per my personal story, my family story is the story of migration, moving towards economic and educational opportunity. I did it. My parents did it. My grandparents did it and when we all did it, we moved into houses built in a period in America in which you could build legally a lot of housing and so we could move towards that opportunity. The longer we wait on the plan, the longer we wait to legalize more housing types, the longer we deprive the next generation of the opportunity that I know I took for granted. Thank you, Commissioner White. Uh just a few things. Um and unfortunately the the commenters aren't

178here in the chamber to hear. So hopefully you will uh hear these comments on uh YouTube later or maybe if they get captured in the paper. So uh the first thing that I wanted uh to note is no one is forcing anyone especially single family home owners to sell their properties. Uh there is no mandate from the city. There is no mandate in this plan. I think people can uh stay housed uh if they choose uh to do that. The other thing is we hear often that the only people who get to speak in this uh process are those who pay taxes. And I think what is trying to be uh communicated here is that renters don't pay taxes, which is false. Uh renters actually pay often times more taxes than single family homeowners. By

179my own calculations, most renters pay between $500 and $700 per door in the city of Ann Arbor. And uh depending on when they move into those dwellings, they might be in an uncapped uh environment. So they're paying the highest possible taxes that are present in our city. Uh we heard comments about the loss of the tree canopy. I do want to remind Ann Arborites, there are one over 1.4 million trees that are present. Uh that was as um recent as a uh 2012 study uh that the city of Ann Arbor commissioned to count the tree canopy. And uh I think we would be open to increasing the tree pan uh canopy and as I said last week we could do that by exchanging um car storage for uh planting more trees in our city. Uh

180the other thing that I just wanted uh to note is often times I sit at the table and I hear my neighbors uh talk about our city as if only those who live in single family uh detached dwelling units are those who live in neighborhoods uh or have neighborhood character. And I just want to remind us that the the bricks, the stone, and the wood of those dwellings do not make our neighborhood character. It's the people who dwell in them. And everyone who lives in Ann Arbor, that lives in a residence, they live in a neighborhood and they often are proud of the neighborhoods that they live in and their voices shouldn't be diminished uh at all. And so I'm grateful for those who have come out to share with us this evening and I

181look forward to continuing this process. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner W. Well said. Um, Commissioner Weatherbe. So, um, one of the things that I think people are really scared of is how how much their neighborhoods could potentially change and how quickly. And I just wanted to um make a statement about my neighborhood where there have been 11 multifamily projects that have gone in and uh it has somewhat changed the tenor of the neighborhood. There's a lot more dogs. There's less traffic actually uh more parking spaces because uh we got rid of some of the curb cuts. Uh more trees. The buildings have been required to plant trees and many of those single family houses didn't have trees and I've lived there for 29 years and there's been 11 new projects. So, this doesn't happen quickly.

182I live on Main Street. I live in an area that was zoned commercial and multif family near campus, relatively inexpensive. So, even in an area with that's very sort of ripe for development, um you don't get a lot of projects. And I think people need to understand that these things don't happen. This isn't going to happen tomorrow if we pass any zoning reform. It's going to take a while. I also spent uh some my lunch hour today looking at old uh copies of the Michigan Daily Archives, which are very easy to search, lovely to find uh issues. And it turns out that we've been complaining about ne neighbors, new neighbors development, out of town developers for at least a hundred years. Uh I was able to find some references from November of 19 of 8

183uh sorry so 103 years ago of people saying what we really need is zoning reform because there wasn't zoning at the time and that that would solve everything if we had zoning and it would prevent out of town developers from coming into our city. So, I just want people to know that this is something that we talk a lot about and we will continue to talk a lot about and there will be people on all sides, but this is nothing new and it's nothing um it is not this body or city council that is trying to do this wild new thing. This is a a struggle and a conversation in cities and has been pretty much since cities started. So um I think we should give each other some uh grace and understand that there

184are uh comment um points on all sides but that this is not but also remember that we are all neighbors and we are all trying to do the best for the city. And I think sometimes people uh conflate sitting behind a dis with um trying to ram something down somebody's throat or change a neighborhood when really it's just we're all trying to work together and to have the best city possible. Thank you, Commissioner Weatherbe. Do we have other commissioners? Um Commissioner Wait, wait, who? Let's go with Commissioner Aprons. and we'll go with Mills and then I can be relatively fast. Um I yeah I many things I wanted to say have already been said by uh my eloquent co-commissioner. So um but I just wanted to I think I continued to be disheartened by the

185amount of misinformation that continues to circulate and a lot of the people who spoke tonight and were upset about the plan quoted misinformation. So I just want to set the record straight on a few things. It seems that some people are still uh circulating an idea that low-rise residential is going to be four stories with un no limit on units and no limit on lot combinations. That is not true. Um we have agreed against the will of some of us uh to limit low-rise residential to three stories. Uh if you walk around neighborhoods, you'll see existing three-story buildings all over every residential neighborhood in this town. um it's well within the kind of existing uh fabric of those neighborhoods. Um and we have talked about ways to limit lot combinations and um units or density

186I should say. Another uh thing that I heard was that we're ramming this plan through in a very short timeline compared to other municipalities. So, I just want to put it on the record that this work started uh almost two years ago and by the time we're done, we'll probably be approaching almost three years. Um, Commissioner Dish already addressed this, but parks are public land. They're not part of any of the reasonzoning that we're do or any of the um they will not be part of they're not on the on the slate to be reszoned as part of this plan. There are no parks that are suddenly going to be um available to be developed with high-rise development or housing at all. Um the the person from Almondinger Park who spoke about their fear of

187618 South Main the yard Hoover and Green I just want to reassure them that all of the area around Almondinger Park will still be zoned residential. It'll be part of low-rise residential. It'll allow things like threetory um duplexes, triplexes. Uh currently you can have ADUs and multi-units there. It will not change the character in the way that you're imagining of your neighborhood. Um, and the last one is that somebody talked about UDC changes or zoning ordinance updates that that were not that just were hit in the dark of night um, past with no public notification. That's illegal. We always have a public hearing for every change to our zoning ordinance. Um, and that will continue to be the case. Thanks. Thank you, Commissioner Mills. I also had some of the things that I know we've

188talked about in the last couple of meetings, few meetings because we've been taking public comment and um talking about this for a while on the list, but most people kind of covered the things that have already changed. If anybody wa goes back and watches this, right, I want to recognize that different people come at this at different times and learn about this at different times. And I want to thank the people who showed up and also like that they don't all show up at the same time cuz like goodness we would be here many many many more hours. Um so if you if this was your first time coming thank you. If you came back and said something new awesome thank you. Um I also just want to reiterate we've talked about this and again

189if people are just tuning in now you might not know about this. This is all part of the public engagement process. Um, I certainly hope that we are not taking hours of public comment and it not doing anything with it. I'm expecting that our final draft will reflect the idea that we are hearing that that there's shared values in this place of loving this town. A lot of people love this town and I think like this is why they care. This is why they come here. Um, I also hear lots of shared values or shared goals that it's expensive and like we need to think about affordability and also share goals that we need to think about sustainability and those in terms of where we have put where voters have put their pocketbooks. Like I

190think we've heard that again and again. I also think that people recognize that like what we have right now is not if we just put a bell jar over the city of Ann Arbor, we can't achieve either of those goals effectively. And so things will there will be change. And while I would love for them there to be win-wins all of the time, sometimes there are trade-offs. And that's what actually a couple of weeks ago we talked about the comprehensive plan needing to talk more about those trade-offs and how we how we envision um dealing with those. And so I'm expecting that because of the public comment that we have, we're going to see even more of that in the next draft. And I think that that's good and that's important because the reality is

191there will have to be trade-offs. Period. Um, and so, uh, I look forward to continuing the conversation, and I may say this again for the people who are new next week, right? Like, because I think that's important. We know that people come in at different times, and they are all welcome. Thank you, Commissioner Mills. We'll go to Commissioner Norton. Um, a lot of what's been said are things that I would have liked to have said or I'm happy have been said. I'm not going to repeat them. Um, I am concerned um that we stay faithful to this goal of asking people to come and comment and then to meaningfully respond to comments. We'll be in much worse shape if after all of this is said and done, we don't really listen to people and and

192and acknowledge their concern. So, I I'm just going to I hate myself for saying this, but I was talking to the planning staff here suggesting maybe artificial intelligence, oh my god, is a way to go to take all of this feedback we've been getting. AI is actually not too bad in terms of summarizing lots of material and pulling out themes. Um, I don't like the way it works with the web web and scour the web and pulls stuff out, but for summarizing published comments, it's maybe a useful tool and they assured me they've already been playing with it to see testing it to see if it would work. I would thought I would convey that to you all. I think that would be a useful way to pull out what are the key things we're

193hearing over and over again because we are pretty much at this point hearing some things. We're also hearing some new things that I want to explore more like the water supply questions that came up tonight and water contamination. There's some issues that are popping up that we definitely should pay attention to. I'm not sure how or when to fold those into the conversation. Um, and then I want to make sure that we I don't want the plan to be a tit for tat. Someone said this. Here's our response to that. But but we do need to acknowledge I think for the sake of trying to produce a plan that was accessible, it was a bit thin on detail and kind of discussion of the background justifications and we've been called to to task for that

194and and we need to rectify that. So, and and I'm not pointing fingers, but we need to acknowledge that and and do a better job of laying that stuff out so that at the end of the day, folks who feel like they came and and spoke were actually heard. That'll be really important um for the outcome of all of this. And I think I'm probably just saying thing everybody already knows. Um I will point out I've been teaching planning for 30 years. Oh my gosh, does this really drive home how complicated this whole process is. and how difficult it can be to understand where different kinds of decisions get made. The plan is a guidance document. It's not going to have overnight effects. That's going to make some folks who want to see immediate change

195unhappy. It's going to make folks who are really scared to death of change maybe relieved. Um, but it's an important document and we need to take care and what policies we establish because they'll they'll provide important guidance and and so it's worth taking the time to work that through. The really difficult things that I think folks are really concerned about are the design guidelines. I think a lot of the concerns are much more about design than they are about density per se and we'll need to really noodle on those carefully as the follow on. Um the goal there will be to provide enough guidance to make sure that whatever changes are happening to neighborhoods are conversant with the neighborhood and not overly disruptive but not give so much ability to neighbors to complain that they

196have an automatic veto um on everything. That so much of this effort is going to have to be walking the line between allowing effective change that really isn't the benefit of the community while listening to folks but not giving them veto powers to stop everything. Um, that's all stuff that I think we're all familiar with. Now, I'm speaking to the folks who are watching the late night videos. Um, those will be those will be the challenges that we confront going forward is how to strike that line. Where's the right place to put the detail? Where's the right place to strike strike that balance? Okay, I'm on a soap box. I'm going to stop. Thank you. Gotcha. Thank you, Commissioner Norton. Do we have any other commissioners that would like to respond to any of the

197comments that they heard? Um I think actually everyone spoke. So um there was only one thing that I wanted to mention. Um I've heard about infrastructure concerns and I want to say that during the actual site plan process um it goes to every division to review these items. And one of the things I've heard consistently is about storm water. And I do want to address that. So the county water resource commissioner publishes storm water standards and actually the vast majority of Ann Arbor properties do not comply with current standards because they were developed prior to 2014 when the latest set of code revisions came out. So the storm water retention requirements um has to do with the first bankful flush. This is when it rains for an hour. How much water can a site retain

198before it starts discharging into your uh storm water drain? And recall that again waste water is separate from storm water. Waste waters, you know, when when you flush your toilet or if your dentist is working and you know there there's a suction cup, etc. So that is separate from when it rains, right? And I think the challenge that we have is that for every single project that comes up, storm water gets looked at. actually the more properties that get redeveloped the better our city will be in terms of actually retaining storm water. So I wanted to just kind of put that process out there as something that gets looked at every single project. Um and the county water resource commissioner will take a look at that. And then I would be remiss in saying if

199I didn't echo um my gratitude and everyone that did come to speak because it can be very challenging to come up and speak publicly. And this is not this is our document, right? This is um it doesn't matter what I want, it matters what you want. And as Sarah had, as Commissioner Mills said, this is policy is about tradeoffs. And we will continue to work to balance the voices of everybody that we've heard to try to put the best uh most um equitable uh and accessible plan that we can. And for for myself, I you cuz I've heard a lot of folks talking about what Ann Arbor means to them. Um I I moved every single year of my life until I came to Ann Arbor 97. I went to Bryant Patel Tapen Pioneer Michigan

200undergrad, Michigan grad school. Actually, Sher Norton was my first interview for grad school at the time. He was the chair of the planning program. Uh I love this city. Uh I owe I owe so much to it and I will continue serving it the best I can. So, I just wanted to make that clear that again this is a collective document that hopefully reflects accurately reflects a positive vision for the future of Ann Arbor for the next 50 years and that we will do everything we can to incorporate what we're hearing and to do the best job we can to make this a more equitable place. So, uh that is my soap box and we will move on to now the next section which is talking very specifically about chapter 5. So, okay, we are

201moving on to comprehensive plan review chapter 5. Now, we are in other business. So, we will go to staff planner pennant. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Um, I think before we get into editing the documenting, I have a few things I'd like to touch on. First, um, they are related to the schedule. Um, last meeting I was asked what's our plan for June. So, I thought I'd give you an idea of what we're thinking. Um, so tonight is the last meeting for us to review the draft uh for this round of edits. Um, on May 20th, you have some developments coming your way. There will be no comprehensive plan discussion. I think what we will bring to you that day is a request to adjust your schedule again so that in June we can start

202um June 3rd and June 17th start at 5:30 again for those two. and that would require you all, I believe, to vote on adjusting your schedule. And so, I can tell you what we have planned for those two meetings. Um, there has been some questions that we feel could be better answered by staff that specialize in this. So, if you all are amendable to this, on June 3rd, we were hoping to have our economic development um office, it's just a one a one-man office, attend. Um we could have our systems planning um staff come to talk about infrastructure. We introduced that memo last week, but for more questions and more discussion about infrastructure, we thought we'd have them attend. And then we've also invited Missy, who may or may not be able to because it's

203um 820 week um but to have her attend to talk um possibly about the concern about solar and taller heights um in residential areas. And then that's where we could start also looking at the implementation matrix which is one step more granular in what our strategies right it goes goals strategies and then what are our actual actions that staff have to use uh to operationalize all of this. So that's um pretty hefty. Um so we'd like to start earlier then we request that each speaker only have 10 minutes to present and then 20 minutes of Q&A. So that's already going to be an hour and a half right there. Um and then the implementation matrix could take substantial conversation as well. Um on the 17th then um we would have the second version of the

204draft. Um we will hopefully get it to you before then. Hopefully by the 10th so you have at least a week to review. Um currently we only have one meeting scheduled for you to review the second draft. Um that meeting is also when Arbor South returns. Um so that could also be a long meeting. There is a little wiggle room to continue the conversation on the [Music] 24th. Um, so we could have a second meeting maybe dedicated to the second draft of the comprehensive plan, but we were perhaps waiting to see how it goes or what you all would like to do. Got it. So to make sure that I recap, the actions that we need to take today would be to have a formal vote on June 3rd and June 10th to start at

2055:30. That would be introduced at next meeting. Oh, okay. Got it. Understood. And then we have to talk also about including an additional meeting on June 24th as the fourth Tuesday. Did we already agree on that? I feel like we all said we would start coming on that fourth Tuesday. Um well, so the 20 the 24th is currently set aside as like a subcommittee meeting which is no longer because we're all together now reviewing this document. So, um, there's currently nothing on that agenda and so if we needed extra time, if you wanted more than one session to review the document, but I suppose that would come to you on May 20th as well, cuz that would be an adjustment to your schedule. Is that correct? Yeah. Um, also we do have June 10th as

206a work session. We were contemplating keeping that as a work session. Um we have uh a a tenative update from our transportation team on some of the transportation tiered corridors that city council has um been directing them to start looking into. Um we also um were contemplating presenting your work plan um potentially at that at that work session and we thought it would be also an opportunity to uh introduce that implementation matrix potentially at that meeting um for your consideration as well or excuse me introduce it at the third and then if we wanted if you had some more time that you wanted to spend on it dedicate some potentially additional time at the work session on the 10th. So, um, so I I did hear somebody asking about June 10th and just wanted to

207declare we we do have some work scheduled. We were contemplating um keeping that as a work session. Um, okay. I understood. Yeah, Commissioner Adamson want to understand the rationale for extending on the third. So, we have economic development, systems planning and OSI coming in. We have no plan topics and no and no what else do we have in the agenda? implementation matrix introducing the implementation matrix to you at that time. Okay. And what does economic development want to talk about? Well, I don't know if any of you have met him. Uh he's brand new. So, part of it would be an introduction and part of it would be explaining more about the comments that he provided for the draft. Okay. That he provided last. Yeah. The edits that he provided last meeting. Okay. Uh yeah,

208Commissioner W. Uh did I understand you correctly that our June 17th meeting is the Arbor South meeting? Correct. Okay. So Cherley, I would like to recommend that we separate those because the discussion for Arbor South, they actually had a half hour for present or 20 minutes for presentation and there was a lot of discussion before that and I I feel unless we were going to meet at 5:30 and then that's what's proposed. But we have no control over the comments and we just did 3 and 1/2 hours of comments tonight and all we have is the plan. But we'll have the second draft of the plan plus Arbor South. Yeah, I would be open to it. Also, I'll be just for pure transparency. I'm recused even if I don't work at Oxer anymore. So, um

209so just as a um I'm happy to separate it cuz then I don't think I would actually come to the meeting. So, when do we uh elect new members or new officers? Isn't that in June as well? Uh that's uh July 15th. Okay. So, yeah, I would I would strongly recommend that we um we figure out how to move the uh revision of the comp plan away from the 17th. Okay. Yeah, Commissioner Martin. And then I'm I'm like everything is hitting all at once. I'm traveling for work on June 3rd, the 10th. Sorry, you can't go and the 17th. And I'm really I don't want to miss any of this honestly, but I'm I've got things I can't um leave. So I would be delighted if we could push the second draft of the plan

210after the 17th. Okay. And then we lose you. Yeah. Um and perhaps could we um do we have to do this right here at this particular meeting? And perhaps we could send emails just to kind of coordinate those dates. We we do have the notice. So that that's the big thing for Arbor, right? because there's a public hearing. Yeah, our result has already been noticed because it was postponed to that date. So, yeah. Yeah, you're good there. But we do have to notice if we're pushing things up to 5:30. Yeah. Um, so I think that's already been calculated and why the decision needs to be made on May 20th. So, I was just letting you know our thoughts about June, but you won't actually have to vote to amend your schedule until the 20th so

211we could prepare. So, what I would I guess what I would suggest is we go ahead and we plan on presenting the second draft to you at a convert the fourth Tuesday on the 24th to a regular meeting. Um maybe we go ahead and start that one also at 5:30. I agree. Um and we present the draft at that and then I would just ask that um after this meeting we'll see what if any ramifications that might have to the overall schedule. Okay. Yep, that sounds good. Um, yes. Uh, before I make my comment, a clarification then, Brett, according to that, then the 17th would revert back to a 7 p.m. start time because the only thing on the agenda would be Arbor South. Yes, let me confirm that, but I would anticipate that. And

212then the 24th would convert to a regular meeting starting at 5:30. Regular meeting starting at 5:30. I just want to express some serious concern about only having that one meeting to go through all of the changes to the second draft. So if there is I would like to advocate for a second meeting to review the second draft, which could be July 1st. July 1st, which How many people are out of town that week? I don't know. We'll see. Um, yeah. I I just think it's so unrealistic to think that we'll be able to get through it in a meaningful way, especially I think we could anticipate hours of public comment at that meeting. I think at every meeting we have to anticipate hours of of public comment. Um, so we can add it to July

2131st if we'll have quorum, but remember that July 17th is when you will have that draft back. Um, so we're now getting into quite a tight turnaround to make any other uh edits, but I think we can still push to July 1st if needed. What about June 10th instead of the, you know, convert that work session to a regular meeting and do it then? Start it then. Well, isn't that when we're getting the version two? Like we're getting it that day and then we'll talk about it kind of thing. Or is it? Yeah, that would be early for us to be able to provide it to you with any time to review it in advance. So, I guess the nuclear question. Okay. Well, just like if this July 17th deadline moves back a week, if

214everything shifts back a week or two weeks, what happens? Not nuclear. I'm hearing from the left. Yeah. When is um So, maybe you could look at it and see. I just I just really want to have the time to Yeah. after all this 100%. Thanks. So, for this for that purpose, I would say for now, let's plan on uh June 24th uh with a 5:30 start. Let's plan on July 1st, probably also with a 5:30 start. Okay. Um and then, uh Michelle and I will just go back and figure out we'll have to also talk to the consultants because that'll have ramifications on sort of any final final tweaks. It will just it it will likely result in an amended schedule. Okay, understood. Um, yeah, Commissioner Adams, I I also think that we may find

215so we're going to get the draft on the 10th and we'll have two weeks to chew on it and get our comments into staff and I'm hoping that that that process will be like we're going to be looking at showstopper issues at that point. We're not going to be we're not going to be fine-tuning the document at that point. So, it may take a meeting and it may it may we may not need an extra one. Um, I'm putting my cards on the table. I mean, anything that would extend the timeline, I'm pretty opposed to, but um and I I'm hoping that we can spend 5 hours, 3 hours, um, and get through it as long as folks like were aggressive about spending the two weeks in advance of that meeting getting comments in. Commissioner

216Mills I think if all we're looking at is revising what's already in there, I we've gotten a lot of public comment on earlier thing like after we discussed things and I'm trying in my mind to figure out how I how we're going to again add in some of that con that the conversation about trade-offs, how how what we're hearing here is going to be incorporated into it because I hope it is it should be and so I'm maybe this is part of the understanding making sure that we can expect that in the next draft and I imagine that again once we start talking about trade-offs that's actually going to make it more complicated and people are going to care about words and we haven't actually talked about specific words yet right even though people may

217be inclined to do that so I both like hope so and want to prepare us for the idea that maybe it will actually be more complicated. I'm really hoping not. I mean um again so we will have two two weeks before that before we'll talk. So if we get the feedback in so the process that Michelle laid out for us for the first round, we didn't really follow it, right? We sent in a lot of written stuff and then we talked a lot. We actually ended up talking a lot about the written stuff that we sent in even when it wasn't controversial even if we all agreed. So we can incorporate whatever public feedback we think we need to incorporate over that two weeks get it reduced to writing and then just work down the

218table and find out what's controversial and what's not. If we have big discussions at that meeting about values, then I think we will need two or three more sessions and we will delay approval and that really feels like a bad idea. Yeah, Commissioner Edwards. Uh, Commissioner Adams, that made me think about a possible process, which is that um, if we all took one week to submit our written comments, and those were coalated and returned to us, then we would have time to flag the things that we did not agree with or that we wanted to raise for discussion, and then we could use those to form an agenda and essentially ignore everything that had not been flagged because I think part of what happened last time is that we didn't really know where the controversy

219was and so we just kind of started talking through everything. Mhm. I really like that. Okay, understood. So, right now what we're talking about, just to recap, make sure my head's clear on this. June 10th is when the version two comes out to us. We take until June 17th. We submit our written comments. We have a collated understanding of whether we have any conflicts between or at least tensions or disagreements. M and then we are going to take June 24th which will be a working session I'm sorry not a regular meeting session that we add to the overall um schedule and then we also but hopefully it we get through the entire draft at that point. Um if not we can take a look at July as well. So um so if you if um

220again for those watching um there's no changes to agenda today um it will have to be next week. So, just as a heads up. Um, okay. Gotcha. Planner Bennett. Um, everybody else kind of good with where we stand on that. Julie, I just have a quick question. So, May 20th is a 7:00 regular meeting. Correct. Okay. And we don't have anything the following. What's that? No, we don't have anything the 27th. May 27th. There is a meeting on May 27th. There is OC. OC OC. Okay. Remember OC. Okay. Got it. Perfect. Comments are due the 17th then. June. June 17th. Yes. One week after June 10th. Yep. All right. Planer Bennett. Thank you for going over the schedule with us. Sure. Um, if you see in your packet, again, sorry before we get to editing,

221there are a few things that we can go over if you'd like, but we completed our three open houses on April 24th, April 30th, and May 7th. Um, the QR codes are still live and we've sent out an email to our subscribers that it will be open until May 12th at or sorry, May 16th at noon this Friday. So we are continuing to collect information but these are some preliminary results um that we started to look at um I think on May 8th the day the day after. So um the preliminary results for the spring 2025 open house are laid out here for you explains the layout of the session and it's attempted to be a mix of quantitative and qualitative data. So if you look at um the three goal areas that we have,

222we asked our attendees to rate goals from 1 to 5 and strategies from 1 to five and then we asked for their feedback and their priorities. So you can see their the average score for each one and then you can see uh a summary here of what people said. I wouldn't say that there are new arguments or thoughts or concerns being brought to us. Um I think when you read through this it will all sound very familiar to you. I think another thing to point out is there's no really strong consensus on anything. So even when there were um 188 open responses um you can see here the highest kind of concentration of comments was 27 comments kind of surrounding density and 20 opposed. So many of these when we went through and tagged them

223had very few um people mentioning them over and over again. So that rem that remains a challenge I would say. Um there are also several people that attended. I think we had about 120 to 150 at each event. Um so not everyone who came left comments. Many people came I think to have conversations with staff, with planning commissioners, and with council members. Um they've all been encouraged to submit this. I tried to remind everyone that I'm having dozens of conversations. It's the most helpful for me if it's in written form because then I can digest it and summarize it and share it back with the with the planning commission. Um, so here is your summary for that. I'm happy to take any questions if you have any or if you'd like me to go through

224it more thoroughly. Okay. No, I think we're good. Okay. We went through the same exercise with the future land use map. That was only in person. that is not continuing online. So that is final. Um we took a look at where there were concentrations of comments. So you can see there's four major areas there. Again, there wasn't like I think there was almost 200 comments. It's not like there was a vast majority in one area. It's spread across the city. Um, and I believe the main areas we talked about were Miller, um, Burns Park, Plymouth, and Nixon, and then the flex district, which has already been changed. Um, so those are summary for that as well. Um, this can just be added to our collection of responses that we've received from residents and perhaps added

225to an appendix or, you know, recorded somewhere publicly. Got it. Thank you. So, that's everything for your packet. I think we can go on to editing now. Brett, do you mind pulling up the um draft so we can put it on the screen again? Okay. So, in your packet as well, you should have a running list of all the edits. I encourage you to make sure that you think Brett and I are recording those accurately. Um, but this is a running list since we started. Um, and just so we're clear, when we meet with our consultants this week to talk about editing this document, I am going to probably create priorities like as in the ones that we've discussed publicly. I'm going to say to make sure that those are done, that staff's edits are

226done where they align with you. And then if they have time before the second draft to get to all of the other comments that you all submitted that we didn't necessarily discuss publicly, but they might have been smaller edits like changed residential to neighborhood or something like that along those lines. I don't when I Oh, sorry. You Yeah, go ahead. Uh, Commissioner Mills, a as I was going back through here, um, the questions that you had for us for chapter 5 that we are continuing to discuss tonight are on the top of page 8. Do you feel like you have solid answers from us on there? Because there's some of these that I feel like I don't and maybe I was just tired. But like, do we want to define or how are we thinking

227about low, mid, and high density, for example? like I don't know that we talked if we talked about that I was not I don't think we've explicitly touched on that. Um but I suppose we can we can do that today now that we're kind of wrapping up chapter 5. Um, and that primarily came from residents concern or interest for more information because during engagement and during earlier stages of this process, we did attach like height ranges to things and so you'll still hear people say like, "Well, I don't want a transition zone that's seven stories high near my house. Even though seven stories is not written in the plan, that was a number that was discussed." Um, and I think it may have been you, Commissioner Mills, who wanted to maybe have some more definitions

228about what these things mean. So, I I did add it in here, and that's for you all to decide if you want when we say, you know, low-rise residential, what do we mean? So, we know that's three stories, but we don't have that same level with the other areas. And so that's for you all to decide if you want to be consistent with that or if you felt like it might be more pressing, you know, and that we could leave it just for residential. It wasn't just that one too. There's others about uh I think we talked about the infrastructure constraints and we had a conversation about that one last time. But in terms of level of detail, again, what we're hearing is about design and I think we haven't really had a convers like

229we don't there's not tons about that in the current draft. And so how is that something that we want to include in the comprehensive plan and what and where would it belong? And similarly the the fourth of your bullets about keeping the number of homes which I think or keep a limit of the number of homes or expand on how that would be regulated by design. Like that's something too that I don't I don't have clarity on which again maybe that's on me. Well, I think we've been clear about not wanting to regulate by the number of units, right? Um, and then I think the way the plan is discussed now, it just mentions regulating by form using formbbased code. Um, so if that's sufficient for you all, we can leave it at that. I

230know many residents are unfamiliar with what that means. So, we could spell it out more. Last week, I proposed a change regulated by form and dimensional, right? which is in here uh at the bottom of page nine. Page 109. No limit of homes change to scale and density regulated by form or dimensional requirements as appropriate. Yes. Okay. Thank you for reminding me of that. We did record that. So that's that's currently how you are all have decided how you want to describe what the residential district would be. Can we give some examples of what form and dimensional standards are? Because there was there was an exchange last night at the library of someone who was very concerned about what formbbased housing was and I think was maybe confused about prefab housing and form-based zoning. It

231was it was very confusing and um not easy to it was not easy to wade through. In fact, I think it never got resolved. So even just some examples we've you know um so I mean setbacks right are right setbacks height lock coverage um what are some other major ones could be floor area ratio that is definitely not hard not not not easy those are just yeah but lot coverage is helpful I think leave out floor area ratio because that'll just spin their heads Yeah. And setbacks, right? Absolutely. Oh, go ahead. Go ahead. There was similarly a conversation about lot combinations. And I know we've talked about I don't see anything. Is there anything about lot combinations? I think the problem with that I mean maybe we can but it's just this is where I

232then begin to get very con confused or just because the geographies of even within wards but definitely across wards are so different that if we were trying to regulate how much you could develop on in low-rise residential and we talked about lot combinations if we give any kind of number, it immediately is nuts because in my neighborhood you wouldn't want to say no more than two cuz that gives you half an acre and I can put you know an entire farm there but I'm a bad gardener so I won't. So I mean we don't want to I don't know how that issue of not not you know preserving the rhythm of the neighborhood. I don't that's what we will do and I and I and I hesitate to Yeah. But how do we translate that?

233I know but well we can leave it to the planning profession. One of the things that might be helpful is to take it specifically from page 96 um to take a look at this. I feel you're going back in time. Yeah. Did we remove this page? I thought we moved this. We got rid of. Okay. Gotcha. Which version can I can I go back to the lot combination and Okay. pos the question that if if the plan and our regulatory authority successfully use form standards to quote unquote rightsize infill development to their context. Why do we care if lots are assembled or not? I don't care. But I feel like when you say we're going to regulate based on sebex and like I think that it it is without knowing what that is. I think

234that there's a lot of question. It lends itself to questions and so I don't I don't necessarily know that it's just I heard I thought I heard a comment about lock combinations and I was like wait I don't remember talking about lot combinations and so like I thought it from the table and so I would propose that we focus the product on the language. It it is it it's it's challenging, right? Cuz we're going to talk about the tools that we might use to do that, but we're not identifying specifically that these tools are a 4ft setback or a x porch requirement or what have you or this lot coverage requirement. So, but I think I think putting our efforts into that rather than because if we are successful in that those being manifest on

235one building on one lot or 10 buildings on a massive lot should have the same outcome to that context. Yeah, that feels right. And so like I don't like my colleagues want to talk about like lot combinations because of the topology of the city and how different neighborhoods have different um zoning or excuse me um lot lot sizes. So for instance one RA is already 20,000 ft. So once you combine that you're now up to 40,000 and you can get a lot of coverage. But if we are going excuse me uh towards a form then it shouldn't matter. It it should have this kind of same fill and presentation. And my concern and this is this is just a point of order for me to raise. I am um very concerned about the language of

236neighborhood. I I don't know how we talk about it. Um and I haven't held tightly to the language. I'm going to misquote uh a commissioner, but like um continuity I think is something we want to pay attention to um because some neighborhoods have been historically um sort of cordined off in the city for certain amounts of development. And so if we accept that as an embedded structure and then we try to maintain that then what we're doing is continuing that housing segregation into the future and and that is that's something that I lighted to even in the council um uh language uh because it's the same language uh and again I am not casting aspersions on anyone who drafted that language. But it's the same language that the pro-segregationists use because it's all about slowing

237things down. It's all about incrementalism because what they want to do is maintain the segregation that is in place. And and so I just want to raise that uh language. And so that's why I appreciate what you have articulated, Mr. Leonard is if we go in the direction that we're talking about, it should smooth this out and it should allow us to achieve the goals that we want without embedding the housing segregation that is already present and preserving it, if you will, into uh future uh structures. And I also have a point of order. I I thought we were on page 110 absent uh Commissioner Mills question about the top of 108 because there were four questions there that she wanted to make sure that you planner Bennett or Michelle if we're doing Michelle tonight

238um had questions and so I I'd like us to go back to page 110 uh cuz you know it's already 9:16. Okay. But can I Yeah. Go ahead. I don't want to belver the point. So, I had mentioned last week that I wanted we had talked two meetings ago about changing the old fourth word to transition. I checked the change log again and it still says old fourth word and old west side and I I want old west side taken out. That was not part of the that was not part of the straw poll two weeks ago. What page was that? It's on It's just part of the map. Oh, you mean on the map? It's in your So, it's in your change log here. So if um looking for old west side hold on

239old fourth it says on page chap I think it's page 13 of your change log one page 101 old fourth word and old west side should be transition district. It should be old fourth word should be transition district. Oh okay just old fourth word. Yep. Um, I do have a question because I'm I'm still not quite grasping this, but if lot combinations are possible and we're not restricting by number of units, I mean, I think this is what's freaking people out is they're calling blockbusting. So, the way that we're currently discussing it that would be permitted, but blockbusting has a specific definition in history. It is about developers undermining a housing uh unit to lower the price so that they can buy it at a discount thus block busting up the the block and then

240reselling it at a higher price and then taking uh the profits. That's not what I was going to make that comment to what one of the public commenters said. Um but that is not what we are imagining. We're talking about density uh that is u already restricted by council's three stories and so and if if we're in the lowrise residential we I don't I don't see why how we would see that as a block busting activity. Okay. If we if we don't use that word, if that's not the accurate word, the idea still though is that without using number of units and if lots can be combined, there could still be a lockwood a lockwood, which is the main concern that people are bringing up over and over and over again and that we haven't

241I don't feel like there's confirmation on if that's the direction we're going or not. Yeah, I I I guess I I guess I am hearing that conf I'm hearing that the that's the focus on the using formbbased standards to I don't know right size whatever gets built on those lots whether they're single whether they're a single lot or yeah I think I think to be clear what we're talking about is you could have somebody purchase every lot on a block in in the context of a neighborhood if if that would be possible. But that wouldn't mean they could build a corner to corner block on that. It would still have to meet these form based standards where they would have to realize whatever density of development in the form of standards that get ultimately prescribed

242to regulate it. So it might it might result in taking 12 houses from a block in this most extreme case and allowing them to be replaced by 12 new structures. But under the new code, it might allow multiple units in those, but they would still have to be broken up in some way. So that's what I am hearing from the planning commission that the importance is the scaling of the structure in the context of its surroundings. It is not whether that structure is one of one on a lot or it's one of 12 on a larger lot. I mean, it's not that different than the way that in TC1 we limit building frontage, continuous building frontage or maximum block size, right? So, there are just dimensional standards that we can impose that would prevent that.

243Yep. Okay. And but is that that's the shared vision? Yes. And I I I think we also should anchor this in reality, which is in order to build a Lockwood in one of these residential neighborhoods, we're looking at a $16 million land acquisition cost, which would make the cost per unit so astronomical that it would not pencil out. So, we cannot imagine every fear that someone has absent of reality. There's a there's a 4 acre lot in my neighborhood right now that is for sale that no one has bought and it is already zoned for high density. And so this idea that as soon as we permit this uh we're going to have lockwoods as if lockwoods are bad. I would love to live in a single development in my a senior development in my

244current neighborhood that I can still walk and get to my groceries and to my church and to my library. Um, and I think that's the um I I I want to clarify. I think we don't necessarily have alignment. I think that I think we talked about Lockwoods not being appropriate within a neighborhood context just given the actual scale of what it feels like as you're walking and then what is the overall block length right as as you continuously walk. So it has to do with paracity and the legibility of the built environment. I think that is important um to a certain extent. So we have talked about appropriateness. So I I think we will continue to differ in that particular respect. So I think I just uh rather than using Lockwood for me um if

245we could look at Hoover and Green because that is in a neighborhood. It's in my neighborhood. It is a block to it is a full block. Love it. don't you know I'm it responds to the neighborhood but how would something like that rather than a lock would you know so to to actually kind of respond to that one of the ways that it's possible to do this u if you are having an kind of like a wall right like a longer block so when you have multiple block assemblies it's possible to use articulations to to create almost courtyards right where where you have kind of like setbacks in between and that that creates again the visual contrast and the kind of complexity needed. I think what folks are or at least what I'm hearing is

246that there's certain um concerns with respect to like one blank wall of a single materiality that goes and spans you know 200 ft or something along those lines. But um I think using different types of materiality as well as articulations that create um it can be done in a way where it doesn't feel like a massive long lengthy block. Um essentially there's there's going to be um good enough kind of like setbacks and material standards that give that legibility. So that that is kind of a way to make that happen. Yeah. But I so I and this is a question maybe for staff and and folks who know better than I do. Once we got away from the unit-based restriction on scale and density, then it is hypothetically the case that you could have lock

247combinations result in a very large structure if you're regulating by dimensions or form. But the judgment I think we're making is that that's not a realistic risk. That's a hard idea to convey. But using the law to tell people that it's not going to happen means that we're going to go back to sixbedroom oneunit deals. And we've I think council member Dish, you've talked about this. Members of the public have talked about it. That's that's a pretty absurd result to force on the market in order to respond to a non like a like borderline impossible scenario. It's too expensive. It's not happening. Have I Does anybody disagree with that? I I'd like to be proven wrong if that's wrong, but I thought that when we got away from the unit based restriction and went and

248we said last last week we clarified its form and or dimension depending on what's appropriate that we were not going to use the law to block off that that hypothetical that is truly like a pie in the sky hypothetical. I think what I was putting on the table is that you could use form and dimension to to limit block. Yeah, because you could the same way we do in TC1. we have a maximum building frontage. So you have to have a break, you know, you can't have a building. So we could do that at a residential scale. There's the answer. So I think what I would recommend because we already use dimensional standards and so adding those is fine. Setbacks, heights, people understand that. I think what people don't understand is form based code and

249to be clear this would obviously be a hybrid because form based code is only regulating by form. We're regulating by use and form. Um so that maybe we could just add some examples of what we mean by formbased to maybe help clarify that to the public and bring it back to you for the second round to make sure we're getting the vision correct. I that would be helpful for me. The way I understand form based code would be like in our downtown we kind of have a little hybrid because there's at the 12T mark you're required to use a different type of material so that it just provides a sense of scale as you're a pedestrian that is a type of a form base right like you're not regulating by F but you're regulating by

250a material that which creates a different segmentation or visual separation so I think using some examples to get familiarity with what form based means would be helpful for sure Could we do any do we know that we're going to delete the picture on 109? The image. I believe the edit was to remove the top graphic so that we had more room for these bottom images to make those larger cuz that graphic in particular looks like even though it says it's row houses the way it's drawn I mean literally I had conversations with people about this and I was unable to defend because they saw what they saw and I was trying to say no that's not what you know Those are row houses. There are there's I guess you would say one woo articulation there,

251but it looks like a big long thing, right? To them, it looks like a big long thing. And it's just because these aren't legible to the public in the ways that they are legible to. And so they were insisting to me, oh no, no, that's just that's a big long Lockwood like building. And oh god. So I mean there's a real there there we know that we need to have integrity in the words that we use but there's also a real communication gap and we're we hear it every night here. Half of what we hear is frightening because it is frightening but it's not in the plan. And that is really I'm trying to have integrity, but I'm also trying to be honest to the conversations I'm having with people on the end that I

252am working on this, which is between here and you know to my my 20,000. So y so following I'm trying to understand we've been talking about in the plan about encouraging gentle in gentle density gentle increases in density in single in the single family residences and that's what we're hearing is just this great concern that some monstrosity is going to be built and I have in my individual conversations oh this got built and it was fine and this got built and this was fine I don't object to that but in their mind they're they're perceiving all of these horrible things that could be built that are way out of scale. So, back to my earlier comment about we need to figure out how to um allow gentle increases in density that are conversant with the

253neighborhood. Pick your word. I don't I I'm very mindful of the your language concerns and the history of them, but we're telling them we're going to do gentle increases in density. That's got to mean something. We're hearing from everybody, my neighborhood is different from everyone else. And we just we heard comments earlier, well, we have to be careful about neighborhoods because they're different from everywhere else. So, we have to account for that. Um, we're saying in here some text about we're going to develop formbbased codes and standards. Where are we going to do that? Where is this a place where we're the plan is calling for general guidance on we're going to do this and then we're going to do it through the zoning code? That's what would be appropriate. So, we need to make

254that more state that more clearly and and that what we're calling for is a standard based a set of standards that aren't so um differential to the neighborhood that they can be to everything, but also aren't so discretionary that it could mean anything, right? We're going to have to walk that line. And I think we just need to state more clearly in here. That level of detail will be addressed in the zoning code when we get to the code reform to make it consistent with the plan. Is that what everybody's thinking? I I think so. For my clarification, does the sentence in 108 still exist? Further analysis is needed to identify additional measures for preserving neighborhood scale and which will be explored during the resoning process. I hope so. Did I get struck as far

255as I know? Okay, got it. Well, that that sentence I think encapsulates exactly what that sentiment was, right? That further analysis is needed to identify additional measures for preserving neighborhood scale. So, council member D, I just wanted to I support striking that graphic and moving I think I think we had talked about moving to larger example photos and striking the the graphic for low-rise residential on page 109. And I would support doing that. I I think the graphic can't be saved. Um, and the reason is is that it it in it showing examples, it shows a shotgun. It shows h housing type shotguned into a low-rise residential, which I don't imagine is how it will happen. And it portrays, I think, maybe a representative, but I think a false example. I'd rather show people larger

256examples of these buildings to scale next to other buildings that look like theirs. Um yeah, they were probably still made at four stories because we changed that after. So that's Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. So, but do you think even even if we sort of tried it, we'll be taking another swing at it. I'm worried it will it'll the other graphics I think do a really good job. And and this one for some reason because of the nature of the district, I think causes some alarm that I don't think is consistent with what we intend. And one of the comments that we heard two meetings ago was the photos are really good, but they're too small. So, we can use that real estate to blow them up. Yeah. And okay, everybody on the board. Uh, well,

257just a a clarification to Commissioner Norton's comment about gentle. The the presence of gentle in the comp plan comes from the quotes of the residents which we've struck. And the only place that it survives in the actual plan would be on page 53 when we speak of missing middle. And so it's just one modifier to the amount of density there. So I think it would be better for us to settle on either missing middle as opposed to gentle because missing middle includes everything that we are discussing where gentle for a lot of residents once that term is used they're going to define it and then it will become a cudel because we are not abiding by what their definition is where missing middle goes I can't see because everything is tiny on my screen but

258from duplexes to live work units right and that is the scope because that would include the Hoover and Green building that we are speak that uh Commissioner Weatherbe spoke of um and everything in between. And so I I feel like just to help us not have to have the same conversation that we're having about the stories and the height cuz there was agreement over my objection as uh uh Commissioner Abrams mentioned uh to go from four stories to three. We we heard that feedback. Uh the table had a robust discussion about it. We vote it and now we have moved on. I think it would be helpful for us to sort of settle in on the missing middle housing because otherwise what we're doing is we are um embedding into our neighborhoods the housing segregation

259that exists there today and I don't think I I cannot support that. I want to have a conversation about that but I have a straw poll on the table and I want to get that done and before we move past it. So what was the straw poll? Straw was strong was striking the graphic on page 109. Sorry, I thought there was agreement. I think there was already agreement on I just didn't we accepted that. We're good. Yep. And so just real quick on page 109. Are there any other kind of like thoughts other than obviously organization? Yes, we during this conversation a couple mentioned different project examples. Are there project examples that you think that we've experienced in our community that aren't included in those typical building types that you think would be helpful? But

260didn't we have a conversation about how some of those are are inaccurate or confusing and we talked about sub substituting some for others? Yeah. Well, we definitely want to align the bullet points with the images and there was some misalignment there, but I think I thought we talked about like the duplex is enormous. It's like there's a much more common version of a duplex in Ann Arbor that shows up all over and this kind of thing. We can Yeah, we can look for duplexes. And so I thought we had a conversation also about the attached single family home photo. Am I making this up? I remember this conversation. Okay. I I think we had a conversation about better images. Yeah. Okay. But are there prototypes that are missing here? There's also Sarah's Go. It's I'm

261going to come back to this actually now Hoover and Green got brought up. This is that's a great example. Is that a small apartment? Is that what we're imagining in low density residential? Because I if it is then then we should have that shown here. If it's not people like how do we define small? Yeah. And so and I don't think I don't think that Hoover and Green in my mind is a small apartment building and that is me. I will just I will just say that is me. Um but I feel like that is something that we need. So you're happy it's not here. I am happy it's not here. I would like to have there's no depiction in those pictures of what we mean by small apartment building. And this is why I

262did my research last week to say like here are different like maybe they're all small in everybody's mind. Um, but I I feel like if we're saying small apartment buildings are in low density residential, thinking about what the I'm not saying F, what the footprint of that is, right? Right. Like that's Well, you were making an argument last week about the ground floor because it's really the ground floor that matters most to most people. It's sort of what feels um conversant to them as they walk past it. And I think it's on Madison that we have the threestory apartment one. So I think Green and Hoover doesn't fit because it would be over the height limit. So I don't think we have to worry about it in terms of height. But um if you look

263at the Madison apartment that you took a photo of, um it is three stories, but it's upscale because it goes so far back into that lot and it's a L. it can present in the same way that a Hoover and Green could because it's almost near a corner. So, um, but I would say that is very comfortable in a lowrise. I would have no objection whatsoever to the Madison being there because I feel like that's where it is today. Sorry, I just This is why we need two meetings for the second draft. We we've like just back this conversation is so important, but we've like backslid and we're rehashing the low-rise residential conversation. We haven't I don't think it was always clear. I don't think I don't feel like we are. I just we were

264asking what are are there any other comments on this page of this? So, we're going to we're going to start graphic and find some better image. But you during the conversation, you were talking about other images. And the reason I'm asking this is I think this will be helpful to the prior point to to help articulate what we mean by stand form standards and help to communicate that. So um that's why I posed the question. I Yeah, I was Oh, I wasn't saying I wasn't uh direct I might have been looking at you Brett. I was not directing coming at you. It was at us. It was at us directing it. I just wanted to just point out that this is an important conversation and also why things take more time than we think they're

265going to because we have not yet begun talking about transition yet. Um but I think what my takeway is this I think a small apartment building should be on here and I also I would agree Hoover and Green is not a small apartment building that is a full city block. Um I think the the buildings in uh Commissioner Mills PDF are much more appropriate. I agree and they range from five units to eight units. There's a ton of them. Hill and Brown, you got an example as another. So there they are conveying a sense of scale and fit and gentle conversency with it. I want to make sure that doesn't get lost. And I I understand what you're saying, Commissioner W, about the missing middle, but that's kind of describing type more than it is

266these questions about form and fit with the neighborhood. And so how are we going to make sure that that concept isn't completely jettisoned? I just don't I don't think we can come to an agreement on what gentle means and therefore I don't think we should use it because your definition of gentle won't meet my definition of gentle and so cuz I think having a block a full block the block that I'm on on Scio Church full of town houses would be fine for me. three-story town houses because they're like the row houses that I grew up with in DC. That was a neighborhood. That was a resident that made very clear sense. But there are a lot of folks we've been hearing from who would not would would say that's not gentle. So I I

267just don't think we can get to agreement on gentle and because we can't we should use jettison it completely then we're agreeing that we're not going to worry about it anymore. That's my concern. Well, that that does sound like your concern. I would agree. I'm not think I don't think I'm alone in putting that concern on the table. Sure. I mean that that's why we can do the straw polls when we need to give uh the staff the uh feedback the straw poll about whether to use the term gentle. I'm not proposing that. I'm just saying if if we need to go in that direction, we have tools to help us uh figure out whether we're going to use it or not. I let me clarify. Not. So I I mean this is the question

268we keep coming back to. When are we going to just sit down and really noodle through this difficult question of how to how to figure out what fits in different neighborhoods? And we're going to have to do that at some point, right? It's either going to be through the plan or through the zoning code. I don't think in the plan we can get to ne like every single neighborhood and how we're going to regulate it. But I think if there's more like warning that would clarify that that's if that's what you all want to do. So my concern is that we not write the plan in such a way that when we get to the zoning code, we say, "Oh gosh, that's not part of what we need to do in the zoning code cuz

269we didn't bring it up in the plan." And I'm afraid that not speaking to designing form-based codes so that new developments fit in the neighborhood, pick your word, fit, they're conversant with the neighborhood, they're not overly disruptive. So I think you and I have different goals. I'm trying to remove the existing housing segregation that exists because it's exclusionary. And when I hear we are trying to build housing that fits the existing housing segregation, I hear that it is perpetuating that because this is a 50-year look. This is not a five, not even a 10, not even a 25. This is a 50-year look. So um I think one of our commenters, one of the very first com commenters said um let's not restrict things today so that we have the ability for tomorrow to have

270their own conversations. And so I think we need to have an expansive view. I think we are restricting it already. Council has given direction to planning. Planning has accepted it for a height limit. Now we're in the conversation about not restricting the number of homes because otherwise we get into these very weird configurations, you know, one bedroomedroom or one unit but sixbedroom kind of things. No, I wasn't suggesting that we go there. That's not that's how so so when I hear gentle what I'm hearing and and this is this is because of my social location uh which I think is very different. It's preserve neighborhood character, protect protect property values, maintain harmonious communities, support neighborhood schools. These are this is the lexicon of exclusion. And so that's all that's on the one extreme and I

271get totally your concern about trying to undo fixed patterns, but I see that as the other extreme. I'm trying to figure out where's the middle. Yeah. Where's the compromise? Well, the there is no compromise with folks who don't want anything. I mean, that's the problem. We haven't been given suggestions. We've been given Let me be clear. I'm not I'm not knuckling under to folks who don't want anything to change. I'm not going there. But I think that's I also kind of recognize the the idea of transition over time. And I'm hard heartened by the folks I've talked to who said, "Yeah, I've seen developments. I've seen triplexes come into my neighborhood. They're fine." What is it about them that have they're still where they are? They're in their neighborhood. They've got a triplex that doesn't

272bother them. Was that just happen stance or is there some way that we can navigate that and give some assurance that we're not going to build a fivetory building 4 ft from your lot line, which is what everybody's We already provide that assurance. We've limited it to three stories. We talk about uh using setbacks and dimensional regulations and to what end though I mean we've the one thing we've clearly done is limited the heights and we're very vaguely saying we're going to use formbbased standards and what I'm asking is to what purpose what I'm hearing well we're really not but the building types are cottage courts town houses single family homes accessory three dwelling units, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. None of that is I think we're actually doing a lot to communicate the intent. I I

273also just I also feel like zoning is where we actually debate all of this stuff in in the UDC updates, not in the complaint. And none of this stops a single family development or excuse me a single family detached from uh doing a lot combination and building a Bigfoot there. Um and we have no restrictions in our code for the number of related people who can live together. So I I was at Traverwood with you this past week. I sat next to uh a neighbor who was like, "I'm afraid." That was his phrase. And I said, "What are you afraid of?" He's like, "Well, I don't know what's going to be built next door." And I was like, "You currently don't know what's going to be built next door." And he's like, "Well, it'll be

274a single family home." I was like, "But 34 people could move in. As long as the building code permitted it, there's no restriction." And he's like, "Well, where did they park?" And I go, "You can't park on Miller today." And he's like, "Right." And I was like, so so that that's what I am working through is we have code that permits anything as long as it's a single family home up to what 3500 square ft before they have to talk to you, Mr. Leonard. And you can clear cut all the trees because it's in private development. And now we're being more restrictive in a sense with what is coming that's supposed to densify. And I think it's reversed. I I and in some ways I appreciated the comments uh from Commissioner uh Mills uh early

275on in this conversation that some of these decisions have unintended but also perverse outcomes. So I I think um I hear you. I I just don't have an answer for you other than to say I don't agree with Gentle, but that's it. Yeah. So I don't think I mean I think it's okay to say I mean the the thing about gentle is that we would have to define it right we had a woman who came in and said you know define gentle define there were several things I wrote them down I think we noted them that night and and I don't know how we would define gentle but one of the things I actually think this plan defines which I do like is missing middle. I mean, funny enough, there's so many concepts that are

276in the plan that didn't really get defined. And um the way I have been thinking about how to convey what's going on in low-rise residential is that it envisions these lowscale multifamily missing middle housing forms to coexist with detached single family homes. I don't think that's, you know, and that it makes it legal again to build these once common missing middle housing forms. I mean, these were common in Andor. So, we're actually reaching back to a past that was certainly more economically diverse by vers by virtue of its housing patterns. And so, um, and but you know, 1957 and then the 1980s changed all of that. So we're So the vision everybody has for the kind of increased density that could go into any single family residential house would be a duplex, triplex, quadplex, townhouse

277or cordage cottage. It would build. It would depend on the size of the parcel and what whatever we say whatever we do with form standards that will without referencing parcels affect how much area you can have for your thing. I mean cottage courts don't fit I mean they fit on a very particular kind of lot. Rowouses could be very consistent with the rhythm of the neighborhood. The one standard we've clearly established is not higher than three stories, right? What are the other standards? Well, we're not going to do that in the plan. I I mean, we've we've given we'll give examples of what form based standards, you know, what tools we have in formbbased standards, but I don't think that we want to tie the hands of the zoning to come or impose a sort

278of uniformity because we're dealing with one land use category. We're going to have different zones. Let me ask it this way. What how will we describe the purpose of the formbbased standard? The purpose is to bring back missing middle housing which was once common in a more economically diverse time in this horribly now obscenely I'm I'm being a little bit I'm playing devil's advocate here. So that doesn't do it for you because now you're descri missing housing is to bring back forms that aren't here. No, the middle missing middle housing is the forms that aren't here but were once common and right but now we're saying but don't worry because we're going to adopt formbbased standards for what purpose? To minimize the disruption of the stuff that's going into the neighboring properties. I think like

279the like the height limit the formbbased standards will be used to to limit the size and scale of development. And we have not yet had that conversation and we will have that conversation and we will have to decide if a typical single family home is 50 is ft its facade width do we want something that size bigger smaller trying to get into the plan is a signal that we're going to have that conversation so it's right but I think it's there in the sentence that one read out loud which is further analysis is needed to identify additional measures for preserving neighborhood neighborhood scale which will be explored during the reason. That's the key sentence. So that's the purpose of the formbbased standards. Y I'm okay with the missile milling housing. I'm the missing middle housing

280that's resonates with I mean probably Donnell doesn't like this. We say preserving neighborhood scale. You probably take issue with that. But I think we do say in here preserving neighborhood scale which feels like what you're saying in terms of uh that's Yeah. So maybe I Okay, that's what I'm looking for because that what I want to make sure is that we have that conversation and I could very well end up agreeing with Commissioner W on what those standards would be cuz I I totally get his concerns, but I don't want them to be chopped off at the el at the knees now because we didn't include that in the plan. So So maybe I'm pushing a point that you already settled some time ago when you pointed out that sentence is still there. Your hand

281up. Yeah, I was um I was just going to suggest that the the language in the plan that says that we will do that work. Maybe part of this is us linking it um in some way to the typical residential building types. I would just say that having this plan that says we're going to do that work and here's examples of what we want to accomplish, I think would be a great jumping off point for us to start doing the zoning work to figure out with deeper dives what is it about these examples. And with each one of those, we're probably going to be doing more research about different versions of duplexes. What are ones we like? What are ones we don't like? What are versions of stack flats that we like and don't like?

282What are small apartments that we like and we don't like? So, I would just say that I as Michelle pointed out before, I don't suggest we are going to be able to we're not going to be able to satisfy everybody with a level of specificity that we will get to where they would want us to get. But I think we can get to a level of spec specificity that we we think zoning is the appropriate place to do that. And we're signaling very clearly here, these are the types of products that we're going to be steering towards. Um, and that that's the place as to how we put together the regulatory framework, whether it's one district or 34 districts that get to those things. Um, that's how it'll be realized. I I'd like to point

283out I'm thinking about Can I say he was joking, please? I'm thinking about all the comments we keep getting over and over again about one size plan doesn't fit all, one size plan doesn't fit all. And and what it's usually voiced in the context of my neighbor, you should set aside my neighborhood or that's what I'm hearing except Okay, I know. I get that and I'm I'm totally hearing it. But I think that people don't understand the diff the difference between the land use categories and zoning districts. And this plan has three now land use categories. And we don't know how many zoning districts it will take to realize them. Correct. It will be fewer than we used to have, but it's not going to be three cuz that would could be Yeah. I think

284people are responding to the fact that we have one residential future land use district and so they think that all regulations are going to be exactly the same across the board and that is not true. That's what I do not want to I don't want to put out there that we can guarantee that there are going to be many residential I agree zoning districts. I don't even think I'm not saying there's going to be none, but I just think can we not be 13, but I don't think there's going to be one and I've feel like we've been clear about that. Yeah. No, I know. But I just want to really make sure we don't set unreasonable expectations in the public about customized zoning districts for their neighborhood. that is not it's not going to

285be that either. It's not going to be one zone and it's not necessarily going to be that every single neighborhood has their, you know, customized zoning. That's not how it is now either. And I'm trying to point out I don't think we need to do that. If in fact we're successful in designing formbbased standards that make sure that no matter what district you're in, it's not a one-sizefits-all, this standard building is going to go everywhere. you're going to have buildings with storm form based standards that fit the context of the neighborhood. I think that sentence we read covers that. Yeah. So that's my response to folks who are saying it's not a one it's not a one-sizefits plan. It's context dependent. But that's going to happen through the zoning code. Correct. Primarily through the form

286based standards not by the proliferation of districts so that every neighborhood gets its own zoning district. I'm not I'm not talking about that. I'm not talking about a proliferation of districts. But I just am pointing out that what is their their misunderstanding is they hear mid-rise residential and they think that's a zoning district. Sorry, I always do that. They they hear lowrise residential. Sorry. And they think it's one zoning district. It's one zoning district. That's that's their misunderstanding. I I completely understand that. The misunderstanding comes from conversations here where some I mean some commissioners aspire I think we've aspired to that. Yes. I I think so. I don't think we should indicate that we have to do more than two zones like I think that's our minimum and then uh I would argue it's our

287maximum but that's a conversation we will have at the table. I I want to make sure also that we're giving practical feedback especially I feel clear on I feel clear if you all are ready to move on to transition. I feel right you I'm just going to throw in one little wrench. Okay. Thanks. Right. The where where my head's at? I've read that sentence now like I don't know 30 times at this point. And it's that last sentence about preserving neighborhood scale. For me it is about um increased legibility of like the idea of preservation like it induces this concept of like protectionalism like in in my head like this concept of um there should be different types of product types like whether it's a 1,200 foot or a 600 foot or a 3,000 foot

288like you should have the option in different neighborhoods to kind of choose the housing type that you would like to be in, right? That that fits your And so this idea of that, you know, and and I'm I'm trying to absolutely balance the the needs of kind of or what I'm hearing, right? and really kind of incorporate that. But that that sentence right there um I think it is pivotal, but I am kind of worried about the exact wording of that saying preserving neighborhood scale because I think what it is about is about um preserving um legibility I think is early not the the word the operating word of like preservation is a little concerning to me, right? Because that's like historic, right? Historic preservation. pres preserving is a problematic word cuz you're fixing things

289in Yber. What about respecting? No, I mean well and like I think the idea it needs to be improved legibility, right? like we want uh I I I don't like and I guess improvement is already kind of like a judgmental or subjective kind of case but I I this sentence um while I think it is necessary or like the concept of it is necessary for the purpose of like just what we have heard I don't think it's correct in the right in the current state that is in because again the idea should be that different neighborhoods I'd love to live in Burnsburg I used to walk home from tap the middle school, I was like, "Oh, wow. All my friends live here. I I'm not going to live there. I live in a attached townhouse.

290Actually, I love the place, right? Like I I know my neighbors very well." And I agree with you that the neighbors, the people that live in that's what actually makes up the fabric of the neighborhood. So, like to me, it's like those kinds of options should be available in different neighborhoods, right? Like the different price points, etc. So like the idea of the preservation of the continuity again like that that does seem operatively slightly concerning from that standpoint. So but but that being said what we don't want is the detraction of like architectural dividend or value that's created through legibility of the neighborhood like as you walk past it like it it needs to make sense. Like what we don't want is like abrupt and then you know when we talk about the concept of

291gentle you're right gentle means different to different people like abrupt and violent transitions right I'm trying to use kind of the opposite of what I would consider to be gentle um I I I think and I'm trying to figure out like what's the right way to word this in a way that is yeah whether it's respect I don't know is it just uh something along lines that further analysis uh is needed to identify additional measures to ensure that new development is realized in the example scales here. Yeah, we're Yeah. So, we are preserving scale, but like we're we're capping the heights. We're we're we're considering scale. Yeah. I mean, why don't why don't we just recommend like I I think I I'm hearing a lot of agreement that preserving neighborhood scale is a little bit

292too protectionist perhaps. So why don't we just try and craft some language that is a little bit more general or doesn't okay because it should be explored during that reasoning process right and and again there is value to legibility there is value to but um also by you I legibility I don't where the public will get at all. It doesn't resonate with me and I I think I think it's worse than some of our planning nerdy terms. It's a very design focused word. I if you can give us another adjective like a synonym. Yeah. Yeah. Let's let you all do it and the consultants. We need to do a vote on the gentle density before we move on to transition. I'm okay with not using the word gentle. Can we scrub it? I just want

293to make sure that it's just on page 53. Um, well, while we're at it then, but that's only because you asked, Michelle, Michelle, I literally want to move forward. Yeah, I want to move forward, too, but can we also scrub neighborhood character from page 108? Sure. We should get rid of neighborhood character everywhere it exists. That is such a That is such a hot It's a hot phrase and it's the only place in the whole planet shows up. So, it's very easy to just want to be clear that when planners say that, we're talking about mass and scale. We're not using it in the way that other people. So let's say neighborhood mass and scale district. I mean yeah cuz character gets us into these conversations that are not productive. Page 110 transition. Can I

294take a swing for sure? Can you take a swing? Please, Dan. Please. So I I submitted a comment on this and I'll try to track it because I think it's it's relevant to the Miller feed push back we're getting. So I think Miller should state transition provided that we and there's I guess two changes that I want to make to this is pa sorry which page are we on? I want to make sure I'm tracking this right. We're on 110 110. Yep. So 110 talks about it's got the I think it says mid does it say midrise in here or is that back in the table? No. It's here. I thought it might have just been on the table. It is on the table. You're right, sir. All right. So, it's more on the table

295than it is here, but it's relevant to the discussion here, I think. Um, I think we want to say low to high-rise buildings, but we want to say depending on proximity to residential to nearby residential homes. The reason I'm saying that is if transition backs up to hub, there's no reason to there's no reason to limit if it backs into hub. And some of these transition districts do back into hub. Some of these transition districts are right along like the Miller example comes front of mind where people are are saying that's a residential neighborhood. That's not a major art artery. There's not a bus line on it. They're making all these arguments and there's merit in that. If we're already saying in here that this district self-regulates height when adjacent to established residential districts and

296we are backing it up into hub and hub is high-rise. there's it should taper down from that appropriately to residential and I think it can uh without changing the character of the district. So I wanted to already say that it says low to mid-rise I think in the table for 102 but it also says you know in other places higher intensity uses and higher density housing. And again that's not really I think the thrust of what I'm saying. The the main point is because it backs into some hub and because it also it goes right up against some houses. I think it's got to have it's okay if it's highrise in spots but it's it's got to taper as you get closer to residential appropriately. And I think that solves for the Miller objection because

297the Miller objection we're getting is this is too dense for us and if the tapering is right then that solves for some of that. Well, the objection to Miller is also that the right of way is very narrow and that it's the same as a res like many of our residential roads that we did not put to transition. So there's doesn't solve for all of it. But I think a lot of a lot of the concern has been we're going to get these taller buildings right up right up along here. And I think having it having that tapering mechanism more clearly stated helps a little bit. It would also help to know what it's going to taper from or if it's not going to I mean I don't know what was given at the public

298engagement sessions. And I think that I'm worried that the low level in transition that was sometimes referred to is actually more um aggressive than TC1 is. Because in TC1 the taper is uh if you're within 80 feet of an R1 you can have 55 feet of height. But I don't think we put it have we discussed this taper. Where are you basing that on? I'm just basing it on slides. I do think I do think in our slides we had talked about tapering heights for this um district and but I don't think we had specificity of what that was. Yeah. And I and I had that conversation a lot with people in Miller as well like you know that we envision tapering but I don't know what that means. I don't know if that means

299if the full hay would be realized there or not because those would be details for the zoning. So the I think there's a concern because if there are details out there and the details are higher than than the president of even TC1 and there are things like Miller if we're if we are keeping that if Travers are that were were there numbers on the slide? Yes. Originally when we talked about all of these districts, we had heights attached to them and I believe transition was four to seven stories at its minimum because I think what Commissioner Adams is saying right is that we would use the we would limit the height even lower if you were directly adjacent to a to a residential. So they a lot of them are right cuz they're on corridors

300that have single family homes on them. Um, so what does adjacent mean though? Because in in TC1 adjacent means um shoot it means the it's within 80 ft. That's the that's for the lowest height in TC1. You could you can get 55 ft if you're within 80 ft of an R1. I don't mean to I don't mean to restrict the debate. I think you're asking Council Member D. asking good questions, but I I I guess that feels separate for me from can we can we say high-rise to low-rise? Like that gets to a level of detail that I'm not sure I want to get into in this document. I agree. But if it's out there and there are petitions being circulated and signed because they think something is fixed and I hear the issue. I'm

301just saying I'm asking for a straw poll on making a change to low to highrise and a taper away from residential neighborhoods without being specific. And if we want to I think right after that address the issue of do we want to get specific that would be totally fine to have that discussion. I just don't want to dis I don't want to I don't want to make the job that staff has of incorporating the edits harder by tangling up two different conversations in one. You're absolutely right. So, is there any opposition to low to high-rise with a taper from what how did I frame it in my note? I said, um, reward mid-rise and medium scale in reference to transition to read low to high-rise buildings depending on proximity to nearby residential homes. So, yeah,

302the purpose of transition was to be mid-rise. I understand that. I'm asking for it to say low to high-rise buildings depending on proximity to nearby residential homes because some have transitioned backs up into hub and there's no reason to limit it to mid-rise there or or where it's isolated and far away from a a residential home. It's it like again it it the sensitivity there feels entirely related to getting close to a residential parcel. And I think we can design a taper mechanism like we did in TC1 to do that work for us. And if it's right up against hub, there's no reason to limit. Um, and maybe staff, do you want to explain your rationale for wanting to limit even when it backs into? So we we thought that it was appropriate to suggest

303a scale that would be smaller than the hubs. We had identified that the hubs are the most intense place for development. Um transition zones we had keyed to a lot of building code potential which uh honestly haven't been fully realized yet with the adoption of new building codes. um uh setting a a height that of seven stories would have been approximate to the international building code and how a lot of housing gets built across the country under the international building code. But because we're so special here in Michigan, we decided let's keep that around five stories instead. Um so that was the intention of it is to um and and also to communicate a smaller scale of development um just in in the way I've been talking about with a lot of people over the

304course of the last couple of years is talking a lot about uh the development uh on South Mainard and 618 as examples of the types of development typology that I think would be appropriate along these corridors. Um, without the specificity as to how far it would drop as it gets closer to residential or with what proximity, whether it would drop below four stories at all. Um, so I think what now is being considered is that this district is really more referential. So it like I guess what I'm hearing is it might drop to three stories when it gets close to residential and have the same limit as hub when it's adjacent to hub which is just a little bit different about how we were laying out the district but that's commission's prerogative. The one of

305the other things I recall reading in the somewhere uh is that that I think yeah it's actually the end of this chapter that the the trans the what well no let me just quote it because it says that that there there's a desire for some flexibility around where these where the boundaries of these things are. And so, um, one way to to, uh, I should just, oh God, I really hate the way the screen does that. Um, it is, yeah, allowing certain boundaries to be fluid rather than strictly prescriptive. And so I suppose that the change that um Commissioner Adams is proposing would enable greater fluidity where transition meets hub. Um and we might want greater fluidity where transition meets R1. Mhm. And so that's you guys can take that to a vote if you

306want. Yeah, I think you have that with the language as it is. I think what is being proposed is basically just the transition zone having a wider range of opportunities than um having sort of a separate communicated character district as it's currently. It's building it out a little bit. Yeah. And it I also wanted to signal to people when they read low to high-rise buildings depending on proximity to residential homes. I want people to read that sentence and see the tapering without having to reference something else. Yeah. And just one other piece that I don't I don't I don't I don't think this is a reason not not to consider that change, but um when we're talking about infrastructure, sizing infrastructure, whether it's locationally or across the city, [Music] um adding high-rise potentially to more

307of these districts just might be a factor in areas of the city that might now be real might have the potential for greater capacity. It might also result in different projections. You know, you'll recall some of the early projections we did about build out of the future land use map. That might change the potential to increase that volume as well. So, um yeah, it's um I I don't think the fluidity is I think that's built into the plan. That's the intention is when you have transition versus a hub, we want the fluidity to understand that um it's hard for us to predict now 20 years from now what the pattern of land use ownership and arrangement is there and give the city a a reasonable opportunity to consider how to how to how to respond

308to a request. Um so I don't think that that that is particularly helped or hurt in any way by this proposed change. Okay. And to be specific, are we talking about page 102 on the table? So it's the low to midrise instead of low to mid-rise, you're saying low to highrise. Okay. Tapers. Okay. Gotcha. And depending on proximate proximity to lowrise resils above context sensitive to height, but I agree that your wording um Commissioner Adams make doesn't make them have to read two bullet points and hold a thought in their head that long. I don't want high-rise ripped out of context. So, I want I want the intention clear and um because that again could be inflammatory and it's not the intent. It's just when we get close to hub, we should be able to

309go higher. Can I just look at the big map for one minute? I know I don't want to. No, you guys can keep talking. And then while that happens, can I just um can I just ask what unified street wall means? I think we've got a straw. We're done. Is there consensus? That's what I was going to say. I don't I don't think there's objection. I'm good with it. Okay. Okay, great. Yeah, if you didn't object. Okay, so we're we're good on that change. Um, and then the next one just underneath the unified street. More can somebody else understand what that on page 102? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's just it's just right underneath it high and then unified street. I didn't know what that meant. Yeah, it's uh I think that is uh obviously unsuccessful,

310but it's intended to reflect a lot of some of the similar standards that we have with our um that we originally had with some of our TC1 and our D1 and D2 where um we have some requirements that you have uh maximum setbacks. Um and the D1 D2 we have frontage requirements where you have to occupy certain amount of the block. So it was intended to communicate that as part of the transition district. It was intended to be very corridor pedestrian oriented and part of that um to use your I think some of the experiences you were talking about have a relationship with people whether it's material or height or whatever. So I think um an unsuccessful way of trying to say that the the form of development would be very multimodal supportive and um

311particularly for pedestrian maybe can we just say pedestrian oriented? Yeah, for sure. Okay. Okay. Street. Cool. Something. Yeah, cuz you um if we're to walk by. If we're Yeah. Nice to walk by. I mean that's that is what we mean. like good for pedestrians, pedestrian friendly. Can we um stay here for a moment and I can make another suggestion for a revision to that table? I think we were always planning to come back to this table once we had talked about all of the districts and then we could make the changes. Oh, okay. But if Well, I just would like to strike active from first floor commercial. Yes. I think we've heard from a lot of people um sending us comments and also within this body that there would be many good commercial uses that

312may not qualify as active that we would want to allow in transition zone. I thought their comments was more that you they don't want to require that there's active like that there's a commercial use at all at all. Sorry. At all also that. So, so should we just change it to So, you want to strike that for both the hub and the transition? I Yeah, I would support that as long as it's not required. I mean, I think we Yeah, if it's not we require we have a lot of like I would envision us revisiting or keeping or modifying our form standards like about transparency and first floor height, but we don't have to keep those either. Should we say permissive instead of active? Right. Yeah. It would be better if you had to keep

313allow it, but we don't want to require it. Yep. Well, it doesn't it's inferred. That's what it's just not clear. I think Yeah, I think that's all that we're not we're not saying that it's it's just listed there. So, it's not Yeah, I guess I read every I read most of this as something which either going to be required or limited. Is it an aspiration or not? Sure. That's why aspiration I think it's an aspiration of being here as a goal. Sorry. So, I'm misreading this. I So, maybe this is the issue. I'm I'm assuming things in here are either limits or um requirements. It's these are trying to uh these are trying to These are just descriptions. Describe what these districts might be. No, but when you say low to mid-rise, you mean not

314high-rise. Only low only low to mid-rise, right? Or so when we say Yeah, but that's not been modified to low to high. No, no, I know. But, I'm just saying they're not just like des they're not they actually are imposing limitations. They are not descriptive because before we but before we just trans transition we could not have highrise in the transition district. So it was a restriction and that was the that was the intention and is to no I think what I'm saying it's not like uh includes but is not limited to the following. It's actually more this is this is intended to be more uh defining the limits or the parameters or the constraints. No. Well, I didn't or maybe we can do maybe let's go go the other direction. When you say active

315first floor commercial, what do you intend that to communicate? Um, for me it would be an aspirational that the first floor businesses have a a public connection. They have um uh paracity like where people might be coming and going. um that may be an active, you know, it might be a retail use, it might be an office, maybe it's just a gym as part of an apartment complex, but I think all of those can help create an interesting uh pedestrian experience. Um I yeah, I agree. I don't think act I'm not sure active use is the right term, but my question is is that a goal of ours like or would you prefer to have the experience of you know the bank blanc on South Main? Personally, it would be I would we could I

316would rank those. There are things I would prefer to see, but I would never want to rest do something that would cause no h like that would if that was going to be housing. Great. But do you want us to So, we could say encourage do you want to identify it as a goal to see if that's something we can achieve or not? That's the purpose of this plan. Well, so I I personally think that um it's the Jane Jacobs kind of like eyes on the street concept, right? Like I I want passive security to be inc encouraged on sidewalks by just few I mean like I think in TC1 for example required what 70% transparency right on on like you need glass kind of on the first so so I I certainly think it's

317an aspiration that we want to increase passive security. I mean it doesn't necessarily have to be active but even just having eyes um of somebody being able to see what's happening on the the ground floor is great. The the challenge is is like if you had imposed it and said like, "Yeah, you have to have some type of a commercial, right?" Then it's like, "Okay, well, it's vacant. Sorry. Yeah, I can't lease it." Right. Exactly. And I think it's just the question of how people read it. I did not read that as a list of requirements because it says residential, commercial, light industrial. I assumed you weren't going to require light industrial. So, I didn't read it as a requirement, but I had a number of people raise to me, make sure that you guys

318don't require that. So, I don't know if we just it's it's just a matter of clarification or something or because someone did come up to me at a at a comment session at an engagement session and say the problem is we don't trust you. And I thought yeah that is the problem. Thank you for telling me. Um and you know sometimes the way we word things it helps to when you know like they just put the most suspicious spin and Yeah. Yeah. We say like perform. We might not fix that by changing this word. But I don't think active is the problem. I think just how are you reading that list? Yeah. Is there a suggestion on what to change it to? Prefer active first for uses or encourage. Well, no. Could I suggest building

319uses on the side? Could I suggest interactive streetscapes or something? Really, it wasn't the commercials. You were trying to get some diversity and interaction going. So, residential, commercial, light, industrial, interactive streetscapes, pedestrian friendly or something like that. And not and then I'm not sure interactive streetscapes doesn't necessarily sound comforting to me. I've walked by interactive streetscapes and okay, but not necessarily great. I don't think the pro I I don't think the issue I mean we could take out just take out the word active and say forceful or commercial. We could leave in the word active. It might just be helpful if it was permitted building uses along the side because then it's obvious that it's not required building uses. Let's let's in the gray. Let's hold off on this one. Come back to it when

320we tackle the tables cuz I think we can talk about the transition district, right? Um on page 110 and let's circle back to it because uh I think we've talked about the intent. We may be circling a little bit. So I want to make sure that we we hit this and the rest of the pages. Um so let let's go to page 110. Um my my comment here uh is actually with the paragraph that starts with both the ride 2045 long range. Um, one of the things that I'd love to see for the consultants is instead of that saying like emphasizing the importance, right, that that's what they have said. I'd love to see if there's some level of integrations. They plan to increase bus service or they have a certain number of like I

321just want a little bit of analytic rigor to that particular sentence as opposed to just saying like they they plan to. Do you guys see that? Um it it just says that it it emphasizes the importance of locating higher density development near transit routes. But then one of the things I was thinking of is like in the third paragraph, can we um more specific? Yeah. Yeah. I just I it needs a little bit more meat, I think, is kind of where my head was going. So you know, we shouldn't make promises that we don't have any power over though. Well, that's fair. I I suppose 2045 is just saying like I'm like I'm I'm I'm using Miller as kind of like an example, right? Um does 2045 state that they're going to increase bus service,

322but I guess that's beyond the scope of what we have. So, okay, point taken. Disregard, please. Uh wait, you want me to remove that as a comment? No, no, just just remove the comment. Yeah, forget it. I agree with you. We can't um Yeah. So since we collapsed this and the flex district, we need to think about adding in I think the primary uses in buildings warehousing research and development need to go somewhere. Do they don't they fall under light industrial? Yeah, light industrial is in there. So in previously in the pre in the then I guess that was a weird thing to call out in the flex district because they had light industrial plus research and development and warehousing. So I just want to make sure that again this is where we ended the

323last thing what the intent is of this district is inclusive now of the kind of intent that we had in flex as well. So again, I don't because I don't know that we necessarily need to have two separate transition zones. I'm not necessarily calling for that. I'm just calling for an intent of the zone that recognizes the multiple things now that we think might fit in this. And so um yeah, so to piggyback on that, if we have collapsed flex, I think what I'm hearing is like, well, R&D needs to go somewhere, right? So if we collapse them, the And I remember it was Mr. Leaf that said um he did not want kind of like industrial uses on like South Industrial or something like that, right? Um, I I want to be clear, uh,

324like nuisance, odors emanating beyond the property line, all of those standards still apply to this district, right? I want to make sure that that's Yeah, there's performance standards. Perfect. Yep. And so I But but I also want to acknowledge that there's a flexibility to those uses when they're aggregated amongst similar uses. Like for example, [Music] um marijuana business odors when in integrated into commercial business commercial businesses was a thing. So So absolutely no change exists there. But I just I just want to I just want to recognize that having two uses that might be more prone to odors next to each other is might be a different experience than one of those uses next to residential. Gotcha. Like a Sriracha. I don't want to relitigate flex again. But your example of the marijuana shops, don't

325they have to have filters? they do with they don't always work to the satisfaction of but that's a code enforcement issue. It is and and it's a it's also a resource question. It's also just yeah thinking about staff and thinking about when we what we require a conflicting land use buffer for like it's not even about I mean that's about a parking lot right and that the fact that if it's a residential at all if it's residential in a mixeduse zone now the neighbors have to have a conflicting land use buffer where they wouldn't otherwise and I mean I know that that's something that we can change but I like that's one where we I um that I that I think where that kind of comes up and it maybe you weren't here for the

326last conversation about that. So um but I just we want to make sure that if there's content about things that we want to make space for in the city and we've decided that we're going to collapse them all into the transition zone that the transition zone is not now just only about about um creating a street wall. right? Like that's that's what's going to be hard actually. But that decision that decision was made last time I think so I my recommendation is that those uses now do have to be built with a street wall and my recommendation is that we add industrial to the intent section here. um to be a little bit more clear about that that now we expect our light industrial to be meeting those same intentions about walkable nodes and corridors.

327Um and I would also suggest that based on the last change, we also consider adding a high-rise example to our building types. Okay. I'm okay with the high-rise example. I don't think we need to change the street wall concept. it that no I'm not proposing we change it but I think I don't think but I I the idea with collapsing flux into this one was that this one accommodates industrial it wasn't it wasn't the judgment that we need to make industrial have a street wall I think but on the table that we just talked about we talked about a street wall right but that doesn't require a street wall so there's a we're getting into I'm okay so we're looking at 102 Um well I think we were looking at one to higher density housing

328with opportunities for complimentary retail and commercial space fostering walkable nodes and corridors. And so if now we are incorporating our research and industrial I think we should incorporate that language here. And when I see walkable nodes and corridors it I think of street walls. I think of orientation. I think of setbacks. And so my understanding from that conversation last time is we are now imposing that intention on a greater variety of uses not only the ones that were included here but also warehouse research etc. No that's not what I intended but okay well then I guess I don't understand I mean we could just the the intent statement for flex said preserve opportunities for affordable diverse mix of flexible uses and scales. Yeah but that's gone now. No, no, no. I know. But you're talking

329about folding that intent into the transition. What I'm saying is there's nothing about scale in that in the original intent for flex. It just says flexible uses well and scales. But no, no. I I think it was flexible there. The transition district, I think, takes a more affirmative action to say we have a typology in mind of development for this and we weren't carrying that same typology to the flex district. That's that's what that was my take on it. And so by eliminating that flex district, you had directed to put the transition district where we had previously flex. So now we're imposing this development physical typology. I understand like I'm clear that you wanted the flexibility of uses and I get that. But now this is a I this is a imposing a typology of

330pattern of development I think on those uses that is going to be challenging not impossible. This is the same thing we struggled with TC1 and we made those modifications and so we can do the same thing here. But I think we should be clear that that's now how we expect those uses to be realized in our community. So I think there's more in what you're envisioning than the words on the page. I think that's what I'm trying to call attention to. So like you're the words on the page just say so is it the word walkable that for you feels in congruent with flex but I think research park drive could be walkable. Okay. Or that's just me personally. I'm just saying that doesn't if there's a tension between let's identify the word that is

331if there's a tension between what we collapsed like I don't intend to transform self-industrial into a a walkable and I I think we can agree to disagree on whether it could be. I'm saying I'm not trying to impose anything on the industrial what's currently zoned M1 or M2 that we're folding in a transition in terms of its walkability or its street frontage or whatever. What I need staff's help on is how to carve those districts out and still preserve. They don't need we don't All I intended to do with proposing getting rid of flex was the intention of flex was to do something I didn't want to do which was create this um you know wall off a section of the city or discourage housing. We we didn't need it and that was the intention

332of getting rid of it. That's fully compatible with folding industrial into these zones. If that's intention with the walkability requirement, then we can find a way with language to carve it out. But I don't want to impose a walkability requirement absurdly on two industrial largely industrial areas that currently industrial areas of the city that don't seem appropriate for that. Yeah. Again, my my read was of that conversation was that you wanted to we wanted the commission wanted to bring to those geographies the intentions that we were talking about with the transition district which are street walls maybe some version of active first floors multimodal multimodal and so you know that's what I was that that was the conversation I I take the direction. I'm not trying to relitigate that, but if that's the case, then

333I think the transition district has to be much broader because practically speaking, we need to be able to communicate to land owners when X version of the transition district is appropriate to apply and when Y version of the transition district is appropriate to apply. So what I could do is propose some language if that would be helpful because I don't think I don't think that this is this is just an exercise in saying with respect I mean we what we want here is in areas where it's appropriate to um encourage you know walkability in some of these notes. I mean these districts don't apply I think in the way that I'm hearing you say that they apply. For example, we say in here with respect to um you know, we just got got done talking

334about how we want um active first floor commercial on arterials. That's a sub that's a subzone within a district, right? Like an arterial is not the entire district. An arterial is a spot inside the district, right? Well, an arterial is a corridor and most of our transition zones are on corridors, right? But it's but what I'm saying is it is a part of the land inside of the district. Right. So like south industrial as an arterial. I'm no I'm saying that the districts don't apply in this rigid way that you're suggesting. I'm saying that we could say we want walkable street frontage in these parts of transition, but maybe we're not going to incentivize it in other parts. And the the district can be as flexible as we need it to be. In other words,

335the tension that you're pointing out, I think can be solved with drafting. And what I need help with is how to draft it. Well, generally, if there's two different intents for then they're two different zones. It's not two different intents. It already allowed light industrial. So, you're you're intention here is basically so I'm I'm looking I'm back on the table. So, building form contextsensitive that could apply very equally to um any land use. I think uh shared entries um that is probably more applicable to commercial and residential I'm thinking than maybe industrial but I I I don't know that for sure it you know I guess it's possible you could have you know you have office marks um reduced automobile dominant site design that like that's one that I think that there might be uses

336on south industrial that are actually very automobile ccentric right now a bus garage, uh, auto repair, what have you. And they don't have to be absolute. Again, just like TC1, we said we could see those being realized, but they have to follow our form based standards. Um, a unified street wall, that's a building form standard that is there across the district. Um, so you're what you're suggesting is perhaps there's a building form. I'm trying to understand there's a building form though. I think this is kind of the tension why originally we had provided flex was we think that there might be distinct building forms and development styles for different categories of uses. The purpose of flex is preserve opportunities for affordable I mean it was entirely an employment district. So I'm what I'm I'm happy

337to help with language. to just want a little direction on what you're trying to accomplish on. You're pointing out, I think, correctly, that we may not want reduced automotive dominant site design and self-industrial. And I think that there are a handful of there's a handful of statements in here that we need to make sure in our drafting apply to the parts of transition that we think they're appropriate to apply to and not to the parts that we don't. And I was hoping that by adding relatively small slices of the city to transition that we could accommodate it in and with some hopefully minor tweaks to it. Maybe. Yeah, I'm happy to propose changes. Sorry, I wanted to get back to kind of what um Commissioner Mills and I were commenting about. If we we've already

338agreed to collapse flex, that means the two categories of permitted uses that aren't on that aren't on flex or that's gone from flex would be R&D and warehouse. The question really I think for me is like less about the building form that permitted use component of are we just good with just eliminating R&D and warehouse from like the permitted use of like districts everywhere? We don't call out every single we're we're saying in here that we're we're allowing light industrial in transition which we already did and I don't think do we need to call out adult inter I mean there's a million different things in here. I I'm not sure we need to call it out in the plan what's we say light industrial isn't that sufficient. Um we've distinguished warehousing and light industrial I

339guess it could be. Yeah, I suppose the the question is are we cool with um the example that we heard earlier tonight about the glass maker in a transition zone, right? Like I think about like light industrial in so long as that they're subject to performance standards, I guess I'm not really all all that concerned. Um you're saying that light industrial already encapsulates R&D warehousing. Is that I think warehousing was pulled out if I could guess because light industrial could be for example like a 3D printing shop or something like that and that could fit in. But a warehouse for example like if you look at our transition corridors like those are usually massive onestory kind of sprawling buildings that I don't think fit the intent. And so I think that was probably pulled out

340originally in flex. Oh, so it was um so even prior to the collapsing of flex, it was extricated. No, I'm I'm just saying I think that's why there's a distinction. I think that's why like they have light industrial and warehouse cuz warehouse is such a distinct kind of building format that usually only fits well in industrial areas. I don't I don't think there I agree with Commissioner Adams. I don't think we need to list every use, but I I I think that maybe broadening the light industrial to include um office or research just I feel like it's missing like one more category broadly. Yeah. R&D. Yeah. Um ultimately we kind of talked about the importance of having economic diversification in in the consideration of what that means overall. um at least I think I've mentioned

341that in the past. Um it appears that we we've collect flex which I'm okay with conceptually speaking. I just wanted to make sure that we didn't just lose kind of the concepts behind what that was going to be. So um but commercial light industrial I think are encapsulating. So I think that's Commissioner Mills correct me if I'm wrong. I think that's what you we were talking about. I was like, "Hey, if we're getting rid of Flex, shouldn't we take a look at what we lost in Flex? Make sure that's mentioned." Well, yeah. And I just pulled up the UDC uh light manufacturing. There's a number of things. I mean, again, maybe Cole and Coke dealer we don't need to have anymore. I don't But like food and beverage manufacturing like Yeah. Do you want that

342on Miller? like Zingermanman's, you know, bakery. I'm just if this is the place, if this is the district where it's supposed to go because we're not having it in low density if in the sorry in the land use category where it's supposed to go because our districts I'm just trying to make sure that we have someplace and I'm and I'm also thinking about again design standards. I get that we can differentiate between them and having design standards for a residential building that might go on south industrial like hopefully you do want that to look walkable to be more walkable but then if it's next to things that are not I'm just trying to think like again there's nothing that we don't have sidewalks to nowhere and it's not a great experience if it's not continuous

343so I'm thinking about how how we're thinking about what those standards are in a district that h can have lots and lots of things which I again there can be benefits in that. I just don't I don't know how to do that and there's lots of things that are on our list. Yeah. So what I'm hearing is we need to broaden transition district to provide more types of form that are more inclusive of everything from high-rise to perhaps explicitly automotive dependent development. So one thing is with the transition district is I don't know why we would I've walked down South Industrial many times. It's very walkable, but there needs to be a sidewalk and not a pole in the middle of the sidewalk. There needs to be sidewalks along that. I don't think we're restricting

344anything by saying yes, it still also needs to be walkable because if I'm going to go rent a car, I I'm chances are I'm not going to have a car to drive to the car rental. That's not entirely true, but uh you know I don't think it's a I think we can use those reduced automobile dominant site design still in a place for for an industry that traditionally might not have sidewalks in front. But I don't think we I don't think it's bad to have sidewalks in front or to have the street wall close to the or have a good walking experience. Like I don't think that's a problem to have. I I agree with that sentiment. There's no reason to, right? I mean, you know, Arbor, well, the 777 building, I've walked around there

345the lot. It's actually nice to walk around there, but that is a it's you wouldn't think of it as a traditional pedestrian nice pedestrian experience, but I think it's not problematic to make it more pedestrian solution. I mean meaning meaning that we had talked about you may come back and you staff's made this point a few times that the districts that are created by the plan may need to have there may need to be multiple versions multiple flavors. Minimize parking for southindustrial might look different than minimize parking for a different like different sections of the city that use transition. this may, in other words, this is a tension you're pointing out that feels real to me, but it's it becomes real when we actually sit down and make the zoning map. Um, and to the

346extent that it doesn't make sense on the page of the plan, I think I'm hoping that we can draft it so that it does, but I I I don't I come having trouble right now at the table doing it. Is that fair? I think we all are. Okay. So, so is that a correct is did Brett summarize that correctly to broaden more types of form? Well, it seems like a no. There's two things seeming to happen. So Brett's way of saying broaden it and include all of this stuff, which I'm not sure how that would actually work, but it isn't what I'm trained in. Um that's one way to go in order to avoid um what people were saying earlier in public comment partitioning or or offering several versions of transition. So you you have

347to go one way or the other. You either have to create more than one version of transition, one in which things are distinctly allowed that really aren't that aren't as compatible with um a majority residential um district that has supportive services and and commercial but not a busy yard on it. So if you So I mean so there I don't think there's I think we have to do one or the other. I think we have to have more than one version of transition or we have to have one very broad transition which then is very difficult to I mean well maybe it wouldn't be I mean I don't know maybe all of that can easily be done in zoning or you know the idea of context specificity does the work of yeah in this context

348we've got a lot of apartments here and so you know I I don't know but what I don't want to have happen is what's happening in TC1 which is things like grocery stores are saying we want to modify one thing and we're saying no you have to do these form standards and then they're like well then we won't have a grocery store anymore and that's not desirable because none of us wants to have to drive to Pittsfield Township to buy an orange. So, I'm I'm concerned about the I'm concerned about what happens if there's a form typology that isn't really consistent with the uses that we're trying to pack into transition. So, I can see two versions of transition or however many you want. I I I'm not sure. And I can and I can

349imagine that you guys could work out the broad but context specific. I could imagine you guys could do it either way, but aren't a lot of uses already self-limiting? So, aren't the use itself going to sort of decide like even if it's zone transition, you might not be able to do what you want to do because the parcel doesn't support it. There's not infrastructure that support not I sorry, I did not mean to say infrastructure, but like space to turn a a a 18-wheel um tractor trailer around in. So you're not going to put that there. Like our church is now and flex, but now I suspect we will either go to transition or hub and we're a big warehouse. It's a 26,000 ft warehouse on 3.2 acres. And we have about 120 units of

350housing across the street. We have a 35 ft setback with a sidewalk. And it's very walkable. People walk all through the church. We have a playground in the back. Uh we have a Gaga boil court right there as well in a ginormous parking lot. And so, but because it's set so far back, what we started on with Mr. Leonard was the the street uh the street wall like you were trying to design a street wall with these uses. And so, you know, would that bring our church building closer to the sidewalk? I would love to do that because it would be a more active use, but we had these setbacks from 1977 that put us 50 feet from the street. So, I I feel like the use that's going to come in is also going

351to be self-limiting where we saw that ourselves. Maybe another my sense of getting rid of the flex district was the concern that it was written in such a way it was going to keep out housing when there could be housing put into those districts. But what Mr. Leonard is pointing out is well then if if you go the other way now we're going to let anything that was in a flex district could be in any any place in a transition district which means which I don't think folks were contemplating. 100% contemplated it cuz it it already allowed it. It it allowed light industrial and and the the other thing that I kept thinking about was I live really close to the parts of North Main that are zoned industrial and they're surrounded by parkland. They

352border residential south industrial does as well. So it's the idea that there's this area of the city where these noxious uses can just go and and create, you know, sound and like nuisances that that's not that's not the case. like we have we already allowed light industrial into the transition and it it felt redundant and the purpose of it didn't feel important like we don't okay so then I'm not then I'm confused by why you're objecting to um the there was a typology that went along with a transition district that you weren't envisioning because it doesn't feel like a tension that we need we we can address the tension that I think I hear staff pointing out I think is properly addressed in the zoning if and by properly addressed I mean it will become

353more clear once all right I can't draft this zoning to work here I can't do it so I need to do two transitions because unless I do two South Industrial won't make any sense and there's going to be a bunch of non-conforming stuff in it that's but I'm not there yet in terms of my level of granularity I'm looking at a guidance document that's supposed to be high level and I feel like I can I can draft the and make changes to the way transitions describe to avoid a problem with the way transition itions currently were to accommodate the change we made last week. That's what I'm hoping. It sounds like to me then instead of tonight trying to come up with a replacement that we broaden and then when we get to zoning that

354we understand that transition might be more than one zone. Is that what I'm hearing? Um I don't I I don't actually think that's necessarily the case. Um, I actually think me and Commissioner Mills concerns are assaged with the overarching category of light industrial. Um, that and then also I think Commissioner Weatherbe is the one that pointed out whether that like the building formed should still be even if it is um, you know, going to be an R&D or a glass blowing you know light industrial use that it should still have some form of like pedestrian walkability. I don't actually think that we need to make any changes to 111. I I also think it says typical transition district building types parenthesis not an exhaustive list, right? And so I think it just provides a lot

355of uh flexibility in that respect. So I don't know that any thing needs to be changed. Uh my concerns just about flex district being collapsed is I I have no concerns at this point. Um, and okay, I think I did hear from uh council member Dish, was it you that had said like maybe there is two types of flex uh transition districts, but again I I don't necessarily think that's the case. I'm all I'm saying is that I'm hearing two different ways we can approach and I think the idea I think the way you put it Michelle is perfectly consistent that we're going to broaden now and when we get to zoning we'll figure out if broad works works because the uses are self-limiting or if there needs to be more control. But we want

356to be mindful of not imposing typologies on things that can't fit them and then making them unable to make any changes to themselves. Okay. And can I just ask for clarification on a point that I think is clear but it it came up so I need to clarify it. So the list of primary uses includes office. The fact that office is a use in transition does not mean that all of the things that are currently permitted in an office zone under our current zoning would be permitted in transition. Is that correct or not correct? It is ultimately your and the council's discretion. I mean, I think of office as a we're talking about a new plan. I don't think we're having we're intending um that much f fidelity to our old definitions and arrangement and

357assemblage of uses under those districts. Um, but I I don't I as I would tell anybody, I wouldn't I would never guarantee that this body and the council don't find some similarity to the current office framework and defining that. Okay. The reason it came up and I think this is a reasonable concern is that am I correct or not that uh STRs are okay in office? Um I would have to look but generally we allow them where hotels are as a permitted use and in residential zones we have more restrictions. So since transition is a residential zone we would have restrictions undetermined. It's a zone that includes both uses. So, we do we have not gotten into that granularity of are hotels included in the uses in the transition zone? And if they are, I

358think short-term rentals would be totally appropriate there. I don't know why we'd allow a hotel but not a short-term rental. Well, I guess that we I don't want to argue that at 1054. Um but I think that we are asking we are we are presenting this plan as having goals around affordability and what affordability affordability yeah affordability sorry um and there are things that I think residents are willing to give on if the goal is affordability but if the goal is commercial profit in the form of an STR because their experiences with STRs are not the same as their experiences with hotels. STRs can be party houses. You know, you one gets a fair number of calls from constituents and there is a sensitivity as we've heard tonight around this plan simply creating wealth for,

359you know, developers without really creating homes for people. And so, um, I think that there would there would be more resistance to the transition district or to its, you know, to its good things if there weren't assurance. And maybe this isn't the appropriate place. Maybe that comes in zoning, but and and it comes because the plan the the the the goals of the plan and everything I think could be read to say it's not consistent with allowing STRs in transition zones just as we don't allow ADUs to be used as STRs because when we when we I'm quoting a staff member here who's not present um when council um um legalized or I don't know allowed ADUs, it was within explicit purpose of gentle density increasing housing and so to you if if you let

360them be used as STRs, that's how they will be used. And so they would never be someone's, you know, motherhood in-law apartment or whatever. And so I think that same logic I can I can see that same logic applying here that uh the STR is a really it's a very seductive use. It's a very it's a very profit intensive use and it would take it could take over and um it would be I think it would be upsetting to many people if our transition districts didn't accomplish greater multif family housing but just accomplished louder parties on the weekends and more possibilities for that. I'm being really, you know, graphic, but it's what I heard from some commentary and I feel like I need to bring it. I hear your points, but we don't ever talk

361about short-term rentals anywhere in the plan. So, are you suggesting that we try to insert that language because that feels like something that we need to talk about in zoning? I I do agree and all I'm saying is that I think if you know if we can articulate and I know that there's no I mean yeah we're not going to we're not going to reg we're not going to write regulations for STRs we already have them but the ones that we have depending on how we treat this idea of you know hotels could be here I didn't think about hotels offices um I think we need to to be true to the goals of the plan when we come to think about that question when we hit zoning um because there there might be a

362feeling of bait and switch but there's not but there's not a revision to this to this text here that you're putting on the table to discuss revision I was asking for a clarification and the clarification that I got was DBD yeah and could be kind of depends could be so that's okay with me because I can make an argument that given the intents of the plan we we'd have a you know a very good and logical discussion where we decided not to permit them or to you know permit some you know to limit the numbers we there are many ways that one could go there but uh you know so I feel okay about that um a hard no would have been better but I don't think a hard no is appropriate for this moment

363in the process and but I needed to raise this as an issue because it is important that we that the plan is genuinely Wait, I don't want to finish that sentence. I'm I'm just too tired. Thanks. That was just needed to go to Wait, we're not done with transition. Sorry. I just wanted Is anyone else in support of eliminating the graphic on page 111 like we did for residential? I find it to be quite problematic. I think that would probably I assume uniform. Okay, great. Yeah. Yeah. And then um I'm down. Did I miss did anyone suggest adding in the primary uses list adding something about mixeduse apartment buildings or um it just says mixeduse storefront which I don't maybe that should be revised to say mixed mixeduse building. Sure. I'm good with that. Thanks.

364Yeah. Any objections? And we talked about adding a highrise to the photos. We're not doing new business. Wait, what? It's at 11. So, oh, wait, but sorry, Michelle. Did I do you want me to repeat what I just said for So, I can change I can add change mixuse storefront to mixuse building, but did you say something before that to add? Oh, just to strike the illustration, which you already were going to do. Thanks. It also strikes me. I I put this in the comments, but the small condo building is here. That just feels like a weird typology sheet cuz condo is a legal designation, right? Not a building type, right? And if it's small, like should this actually be in residential? Like I wasn't quite sure what exactly what we mean. What do we

365mean between condo and apartment? And yeah, I don't know. We should probably just stick to the typology cuz condo is a ownership. Yeah. Type. Okay. So, thank you. Enjoy. Sounds good. Let's move on to hub scale condo. So I I just have a a very simple question which is this is the intersection of the land use map to the DDA. Um the DDA is potentially expanding its boundary and is because currently almost everything that's in the DDA is zone D1 or D2. So what is the overlay once the DDA expands? Does it just pick up hub? Does hub pick up D1 and D2? Can we just make everything here TC1? So I think you followed the hub the hub largely matches their proposed expansion. Okay, that's that's a good uh starting point. Not 100%. I

366think they're looking at some things to the north that aren't. But so so then that would allow us to expand D2 into hub. Well, again, you're you're thinking about our current zone. We we Yeah. It might not be D2. It might be H2. Okay. All right. But yes, it could be if we end up using the D1 D2 framework. Yes. Okay. All right. Great. That that was my question. Although D2 would probably be less development potential than the transition district as currently drafted. Okay. And then when what did I want to Five Corners again? Is that going to get picked up into the DDA? Uh, that is an area that they're looking at as well. Okay. I don't know if it ex I don't know if it includes that building, but that commercial area definitely.

367I think all I'm thinking about here is non-conforming use, right? That we're going to change the land map that would make something that's already there non-conforming. Um, and so just how are we picking those things up so that we don't create new nonconformities as we expand the map? The map doesn't create any non. Yeah, I understand what I said. Any other edits to the hub? We like it. I want it citywide. Uh I'm going back to the chart on page 102 and picking up. Is it too late in the night to pick up this confusing conversation around active first floor commercial exposure? As long as it's not required, that's what we're Can I just change it to prefer? Well, if I'm the only one who reads that as a requirement, then I can just let

368it go. I just want to make sure that's clear that we're saying I think it permits I think it it seems like it's permitting. People are reading it a bunch of different ways and that's okay. Um, but if what was the suggestion? Preferred. Preferred first floor commercial. Okay, there's a look at this gray thing here. We could put preferred or permitted or Yeah, permitted building uses. Sure. Right in the gray box. The way that I would normally phrase this would be um crown floor activation on arterials. Um, so it might not necessarily say active use, but it's a ground floor activation to a certain extent. So, um, and that would be again something that's encouraged, but not required. Would that be a use then or would that be a form? Well, simple. I know exactly.

369I think it's better as a form. I think it's better as a form if we're not talking about actual use. I think that's the form. Yeah. And it emphasizes the aspiration, not that it's a specific. Yeah, exactly. Um, is there an intention to keep the illustrations or we're striking those as well? Top of 113, 114, and 115. Are they all gone? Oh, 14. But that 103 is gone, right? Yeah. 103 doesn't represent what we've done. Oh, that's great. Yes. Great. And so now we're going to 113 and oh yeah I 13 14 15 those are all gone. I assumed 13 was gone. I don't personally I think 14 and 15 actually illustrate what we're talking about much better than any of the other illustrations in here. But so I don't know. Do do you feel

370like they should be lost? I presume they're gone because we're not putting those restrictions on those hub districts. you had a so the commercial shopping center and the research park don't have any they're not referenced anywhere in the plan. So we're getting rid of this whole spread. Yeah. Like 115 is just we're getting rid of the whole spread not just the graphic. Well because it's the whole premise is on the different character hub areas which the planning question is has struck. So I don't So what page numbers are in this? 114 115. Okay. Is the planning commission in agreement on that? Am I I think so. I mean I read that second paragraph starting at however redeveloping these areas presents challenge like that that just like none of this stuff like I mean I like

371it's true but I don't know what it's actually saying about the plan itself. Right. There's no real substance. It's like it it's it's almost like a paragraph that just says words. So proud of you. You're going to get this under 100 pages yet. Yeah. Um so yeah, I'm the I'm the one with the machete over here. Yeah. Yeah. It's true. It doesn't provide actually any guidance. It just says it's just it's just like hey, I know we'll need we'll need strategies. Yeah. Yeah. It just like it doesn't have any kind of real guidance. So I I would strike 115 it in its entirety. And 14. Yeah. I thought that was already gone. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. There's something that I hesitate to raise and you probably would like me to really hesitate, but it is

372a it is a tick. Yeah. Go ahead. I'm kidding. On um and 112. So, the reasoning statements there is strong support I'm I'm back on 110, but I'm not I'm just illustrating that there's a parallel. There's a strong support for higher density development blah blah blah. However, some residents have expressed concerns about noise overcrowding and traffic and then hug their strong support for blah blah blah, though concerns remain about affordability and environmental impact. To me, this is a place where there's a gesture at a problem of tradeoffs, but it is just sort of presented in a descriptive way like there's this and there's that. And one of the things that we talked a lot about in the early phases of warming up for the Kaka plan was we talked about how the plan has to

373help us make some decide about making some trade-offs on these things. And so I don't know if the hub district because it's meant to be a high density district were saying, "Yeah, this is where we're going to get a little bit more impermeable service." And there might be concerns about that, but that's a trade-off we make to say here's where density is really [Music] appropriate, you know, or I don't know, or maybe you don't want to confront that head-on, but I think that if if the plan doesn't articulate something about we can't have every goal we all the time, everywhere, right? We can't have everything meet all of the boxes that we care about. I think the plan should say that because otherwise we'll have to keep saying that. We can look at adding some

374additional Yeah. Emphasizing that. I mean, I think everybody understands the most important thing is ease of planning staff and early bedtimes. Yeah, it's getting late for sure. I will throw out that on page 113 we also say mixeduse storefronts which may be more appropriate in the hub but we may just want mixed use buildings mixed use buildings. Yeah, good catch. Page 113 uses modern mixed use strike apartment. This this is more of a clerical suggestion. Oh, there's both mixeduse storefronts and mixeduse apartment buildings. Oh yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Just mixeduse buildings. and probably yeah and probably just broaden the residential definition. It could be stack flats or a lot of different things. Um this is just a clerical suggestion. Um I'm in favor of like just reducing wordiness throughout. Um so when you have intent, David,

375what is the reasoning behind it and aspects to consider? You could just use rationale and considerations, right? Just just try to keep it as simple as possible. Just makes it a little bit more accessible as opposed to really just having like eight words. Yeah, I think simple but also like intent reasoning aspects to consider like splitting up some of those paragraphs would be helpful. Yep. Just Yeah. Um brevity combine reduce a bit. So um anything else on the hub district? So so far kind of what I've seen is uh graphic alterations on 113 and the redaction of 114 and 115. Correct. Correct. Cool. All right. Flex is gone. Okay. 116 117 is 118. So I think this is just in reference to those three other categories that are on the future land use map that

376aren't actually zoning, but they're parks, public land, and University of Michigan. So, I think it's just a reference to these add, you know, character to our communities, but there's not as much there because we're not actually zoning for them. Yeah. And if we wanted to do anything, we could point to the parks plan here, the University of Michigan's uh development plan, and then the school district. Yeah. Their strategic plan for their building. So, I think those three things in there sort of help um sort of anchor them and then I think we're done for implementation. Okay, you guys ready to tackle? Okay, I got I got one final quick one for you. This I swear this will be 20 seconds. We'll see. We'll see. I'm gonna cut this. Oh, page 48. U way back there's

377a multifamily target reference. I think it's rental in the original data. It's just a correction. So references forgot Michigan housing plan from multifamily targets. I actually had removed that, didn't we? I we talked about the data. I don't I checked the correction log and I didn't see anything. I just wanted to make sure it got flagged. this last bullet point here on the left column that goes onto the second column where like the the housing plan the Michigan housing plan it's rental and owner occupied units I think in the data it just needs to be checked um so the footnote five I think it's saying in the Michigan housing plan it's rental there is no single family home targets in that data. It's all rental. Yeah, that's it. That's all I got. I'm glad you

378brought up that page. Well, I I just want to ask if it makes sense. There's a lot of concern going around that we don't have population projections to justify any sort of housing targets or I mean is there any way to just cut some of this stuff so that we aren't arguing about it because it doesn't really make sense for us to say I mean there had been slides and presentations about you know this many people and blah blah blah and people unless we can clarify that they're capacity estimates and nobody you know nobody makes a target of how many people you know how do you even fulfill that and how would you make the judgment about how many is correct and so they're asking us to justify with hard data something that I don't

379even think we should be promising well I I think of it is the sak data is is based on history in a lot of ways they put together projections for the region and they distributed amongst a lot of communities us included and that's where sort of our projections come from I would encourage the commission and the public to think this is a place where we have the opportunity to figure out how how we want to try to influence that trajectory, right? And so this plan, I think, is pushing it to say, could we make land use decisions that might push that trajectory upward? Now, is that going to drastically change it? I I don't know honestly, but it has the potential to increase it or that might be manifest by just increased growth or it

380might be us realizing frankly a larger share of the region's growth than we might otherwise. Yeah, I totally agree. I just we got to get to public comments still. So, let's wrap this up. Thank you. It's just that it's been there's a lot of pressure around there not being a a basis in data and I do not know how to respond to the I I that is one of my responses is that the data assumes a limit you know it's artificially limited right so I but okay maybe this isn't it's just that you know the opposition there's a lot of opposition I'm going to convey made to our project team a lot of edits that we talked about here. We're going to share a lot of the edits that we didn't talk about there. Um,

381we are going to do our best to filter it and um, I hope that you feel the gumption to critique me um, to the greatest extent possible when you see that second draft as to whether or not I did a good job in um, navigating all the conversations and feedback that we've had so far. This is just the next draft. So, um, so thank you. You have all put a lot of work into it and I'm excited to get to this next step. Thank you. Sounds like a very small task. I'm sure you'll dispatch it in a weekend. Yep. Okay. Thank you everybody. Okay, so we're going to conclude other business. We're going to head on to the last item of the agenda, which is public comment. This is a second opportunity for individuals to

382speak up to three minutes on any issue. We'll first hear from those present, then remote participants. To speak remotely, please press star 9 if on the phone or use the raise hand feature in Zoom. For phone access, please call 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-66341226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of the phone number or by name on Zoom if available. You'll hear an automated announcement when it's your turn to speak. And please ensure you're in a quiet area and mute any background noise. For all participants, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Mr. Westfall. Thank you. Not to belver the night any longer, but I uh couldn't resist. Um, thanks for a great discussion, Kirk Westfall, 3505 charter place. I forgot to say that at

383the top. Um, I think uh uh allowing the flexibility to go to highrises in the transition district is huge and that's going to be um a lot of where the housing will go. Um, I hope that that wasn't taken to mean that it could only rise up to hub. There are large blobs of transition right now like in lower town without a hub. Um, which should be allowed to uh get h, you know, much taller in the middle of it when it's not next to lowrise. So, just that small clarification. Um, I hope that's a subject of further debate. um ground floor commercial. Uh, you know, I I support um managing externalities like um I've I've always been a fan of legislating active uses on certain shopping streets downtown. There was a debate about this

38415 18 years ago. Um and city council ultimately declined to take it up. Um, but I think enforcing actual active ground floor commercial like stores, restaurants, that kind of thing, in other words, not banks and offices is important to do on in a very limited basis where we have shopping districts that are sort of our economic engine. Um, I think appropriately you guys decided to do that in TC1 on major corners, although it just frames it as non-residential, so it doesn't even have to be commercial, which I think should be also cleaned up. But I I appreciate the discussion that you don't want to enforce it on, you know, long stretches of of transition. Um, I may have missed this in the packet. I I hope there's more discussion about the map. Uh I um

385there are places that are now multifamily like where I used to live in Gettys Lake which unless this has been changed it still is showing as lowrise and I think it would be um there would be a huge opportunity cost for you know if that ever redeveloped or some of these older apartment communities redeveloped that they had to be low-rise that that would be um I I hope that's considered uh in the next cleanup. obsession. What else? Um, yeah, I'm still a little unclear on Hub. Um, like Fifth and Madison, I think Hub is going pretty far down south of William and that's labeled Hub, but Beakman is not Hub. So, I'm a little unclear on that and I just, you know, would love to get clarification or eliminating that distinction. Thanks, guys. Thank you.

386Do we have anyone else present that would like to speak at this time? Good night. Thank you. Do we have any remote callers, Mr. Leonard? We do. Jurka Lattis, you have three minutes to address the planning commission. Good evening. This is Jerus calling from the first ward. Um, I'd just like to repeat my question from earlier this evening since apparently a portion of the audience found my comment so objectionable that they felt the need to drown it out. Uh, I think the central question we should all be asking ourselves as part of this process is what is the minimum acceptable amount of land that someone should be required to pay for in order to have the privilege of being our neighbor? And then let's ask ourselves if the answer changes based on whether we're only

387talking about people or also implicitly including space for cars. because many parcels in this city currently have more impervious area devoted to driveways and garages and parking lots than to buildings for actual people. And that's totally fine. I think if f folks want to own driveways and large lawns, I haven't heard anyone proposing to take that away. But consider the flip side. Should people who want smaller pieces of land not have that option? Or maybe are we saying that they're only allowed to live along dangerous multi-lane roads? I think this is the one question that most directly gets at the heart of the issue and should be the central focus when it's time to write the new zoning ordinance. Thank you again for all that you do. Thank you. No other hands are raised. Chair

388Lee, thank you very much. With that, we're going to close public comment. We are going to move to the last item which is adjournmented. Moved by Commissioner Mill, seconded by council member Dish. All those in favor say I. I.