001e e e wel recording in progress thank you welcome to the June 4th 2024 regular meeting of the and Arbor Planning Commission for detailed information on meeting procedures please review the full printed meeting agenda provided Deputy Kelly will you please call the role commissioner Lee I'm here commissioner aons here commissioner we commissioner Mills here commissioner hamers Schmid here Council Mish here commissioner Weatherby here commissioner Adams here you have a quum thank thank you and just to note uh commissioner W has just arrived thank you oh right here thank you um we're moving on to approval of the agenda may I have a motion to approve the set agenda um sorry moved by commissioner weather be seconded by commissioner Mills all those in favor of the motion say I I any opposed seeing none the motion
002carries uh may I have a motion to approve the minutes of the May 21st 2024 uh uh moved by commissioner Aon seconded by commissioner Mills uh all those in favor any discussion of the minutes seeing none all those in favor of the motion please say I I I any opposed seeing none uh the motion carries next up are reports from the plan uh to the pl uh Planning Commission and written Communications um we'll move on to council member dish yes yes okay so it was a busy night last tonight in Council land and uh Council on second reading passed the 732 Packard PUD zoning supplemental regulations and site plan in addition Council uh approved the um supplemental regul no does that make sense for 416 Longshore drive whatever it was that we had development agreement
003we we approved it and then we also um we also o authorized um the city to move forward negotiating with a six-month negotiation period for a purchase agreement for 415 West Washington um and that that agreement um as it looks right now goes beyond the things that we built into the concept plan and PUD when we rezoned so that was pretty exciting when we the Planning Commission and then subsequently the council that's all I can remember that you would be excited about but if there's anyone who has anything to add please do thank you Deputy Kelly uh for the manager report I would like to share that the comprehensive plan online survey will be closed in the next few weeks there will be an announcement letting everyone know when that date will be and the
004June 15th Summer Festival event from 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. we'd like to invite planning Commissioners to join us for engagement with the community thank you do any other Commissioners have or committee leaon have anything to report okay written Communications are included in today's packet thank you all right we're going to move on to the first public comment this is an opportunity for individuals to speak up to 3 minutes about issues that are not listed as a public hearing we'll first hear from from those present than remote participants um to speak remotely please press star n if on the phone or use a raise hand feature on Zoom for phone access please call 877 853 5247 or an enter meeting ID 977 66 34122 6 City staff will select callers um uh by the last three
005git of the phone number or by name for Zoom users and you'll hear an automated announcement when it's your turn to speak please move to a quiet area and back mute any background noise for all par ipants please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments is there anyone present who would like to address the commission Mr gber thank you chair Lee Ken Garber 28 H Hill Court first let me start by expressing gratitude to all of you for your volunteer Public Service on the commission it's not easy showing up every Tuesday night plus all the background work you have to do so um everything I say um has that in the background um I also want to thank commission for caring about climate um it's led to some real progress local
006developers now know that a gas connection is a non-starter for PUD applications and for major up zonings that's given us all electric projects at Arbor on Maine at 900 Brierwood Circle a large mixed use project project all electric highrise at 721 South Forest and a large carbon negative project at Southtown on South State I was going to include 732 Packer the project that council member dish uh just mentioned was approved last night it's second reading but I'm just coming back from a meeting and the developer course bases was just told this morning from by DTE that um DTE doesn't have the juice for it so this is I this is an issue that um is very frustrating and I think we have to deal with on some level um otherwise fossil gas should be unacceptable
007in all new construction just like you don't dump raw sewage into the H hon river right now the costs of burning fossil gas are externalized with the atmosphere serving as an open sewer for CO2 emissions we're mostly insulated from those costs here but they're paid by poor people in the global South massive flooding in Pakistan and Libya drought in Sudan and Guatemala wildfires in Brazil extreme heat all over today's high temperature in Delhi was 45° C or 113° fenit uh in Mexico for the last month temperatures have regularly exceeded that in most of the country and you probably saw the story about howler monkeys F falling dead from trees in the um rainforest in the state of Tabasco um and it's not even summer yet uh it's our emissions really causing this not India or
008Mexico where per capita emissions are a fraction of ours not to mention our Legacy of historical emissions as a rich country in city that have long benefited from fossil fuels we need to eliminate them as soon as possible thank you for doing doing your part um in new construction to make that happen just a reminder um buildings account for 65% of the city's um scope one and scope two emissions so in this room is where the big impact on climate happens in this city so thank you for being a part of that thank you Mr Garber is there anyone else who would like to speak to the commission at this time okay do we have any remote callers there are no hands raised at this time thank you all right just give it a quick
009second all right we'll close this public comment uh we're going to move on to public hearing scheduled for the next business meeting so uh moving on to staff Deputy Kel for the Planning Commission meeting on June 20th 2024 um there is one item 3750 wasnot Avenue a site plan for Planning Commission approval a proposal to demolish the existing victory in motel building and construct a new 101 357 uh uh ,000 ft four-story hotel with 159 rooms and 109 parking spaces the parcel is z C3 Fringe commercial thank you um with that we're going to move on to Section 8 a unfinished business which there are none so that takes us to regular business this is the wasai Avenue and East Stadium Boulevard Transit Corridor District resoning as well as the Pittsfield Village townhouse dwelling District
010R3 resoning I'm going to read the the motion which is the Ann Arbor Planning Commission will hold the public he to all those interested in in a proposed rezoning which is an amendment to the zoning map section 5.1.2 of chapter 55 the UniFi development code to rezone partials in the Washington Avenue and East Stadium Boulevard area near 23 and T to CC1 District before making a recommendation to city council the city of Anan Arbor is considering an action to rezone approximately 103 Acres including at least 61 addresses and tax Parcels in the washingon Avenue East Stadium Boulevard area more information is available um along with the Pittsfield Village uh the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to hear all those interested in a proposed resoning which is an amendment to the zoning map section
0115.1.2 of the chapter 55 unified development code to rezone a portion of the parcel in the pitfield Village Development along Parkwood Avenue Zone C3 Fringe commercial to R3 townhouse dwelling it's before making a recommendation to city council uh proposed R3 zoning will match the existing residential use of the parcel and so with that I believe we're going to move on to staff presentation so Mr Leo um thank you and I would like to introduce uh city planner Mariana melen Corrin or just melen um who will be making our presentation staff presentation on this uh package of rezonings thank you so this is the fourth tc1 resoning the city we'll be talking about the wasn Avenue and East Stadium Boulevard areas as well as the Pittsfield Village parcel resoning to R3 these are maps of the
012two discontiguous areas along wasnot Avenue that are proposed to be rezoned to tc1 on the right is the East area along wash Avenue between us2 3 and plat Road and on the left is the more West area which is gacha where it meets East Stadium Boulevard and Stadium between Wasa Avenue and St Francis [Applause] Boulevard the Wasa Avenue area consists of 41 parcels and comprises approximately 88 acres the these are the addresses that are included and a full list of addresses is included in the staff report the proposed Transit quarter Street type will be along the north side of wasnot Avenue between us23 and plat road on the south side of washna Avenue it will be between us23 and Pittsfield Boulevard and then between South here on Parkway and plat Road this is because of
013the extra wide service alley in the right of way between here on Parkway and Pittsfield Boulevard here is a map of the current zoning it is mostly C3 Fringe commercial but there are some PUD planned unit development and office o zoned Parcels there's also one r4b zone parcel but please note that this has functioned as a C3 parcel since 1968 after a Court ruling deemed it so here is just another version of the current zoning the East Stadium Boulevard area consists of 18 parcels and comprises approximately 14.8 Acres these are the addresses included and the complete list is included in the staff report the proposed Transit Corridor Street types in the East Stadium Boulevard area are the south side of washut Avenue as shown on the screen until it meets East Stadium Boulevard and then
014the north side of East Stadium Boulevard between these Parcels along the lot lines as shown and then the south side of East Stadium Boulevard between St Francis Drive and Manchester Park the current zoning in the area is office and then commercial local business Community convenience center and Fringe commercial here is another view of the current zoning designations this is a chart of the standards and the zoning District comparisons between the current zoning districts in the area and the tc1 general standards such as F height setbacks um and then some additional standards below and we can come back to this there are more information included in the packet so I'm just going to give a bit of an overview in this presentation in terms of height limits in the Wasa Avenue area on the map the
015Orange shows the 55 ft height limit which is between 0 and 80 ft from a residential district the blue shows the 75t height limit which is between 80 and 300 ft from a residential district and the transparent layer the clear one shows the 120t height limit which is between 300 and 1,000 ft Fe from residential there is a fourth height limit in tc1 but because of the proximity to residential the maximum height limit in this area is 120 ft this is also true in the East Stadium Boulevard area again the Orange shows the 55 ft height limit the blue shows the 75 ft height limit and the clear transparent layer shows the 120t height limit um which is the maximum in this area the chart here shows the comparison between the current zoning standards as
016the parcels are Z zoned right now and the tc1 zoning standards specifically Building height in relationship to residential areas the blue boxes in front represent a 30ft building which is the maximum height in residential districts as you can see on the left in the commercial districts As you move between 0 and 300 ft away from residential the maximum height limit stays the same in office between 0 and 300 ft from residential it the kite limit stays the same and then more than 300 ft it drastically increases on the right tc1 takes a stepped approach like the other commercial and office districts between 0 and 80 ft from residential the height limit is 55 ft As you move farther away between 80 and 300 ft the height limit is 75 ft and then between 300 and
0171,000 ft the height limit is 120 as I mentioned 120 is the maximum height in both the wasnot Avenue and East Stadium Boulevard areas again further information on the tc1 development standards are in the staff report um but here are a few slides of overview about things such as curb Cuts building Frontage some more about building size street level design things like that the maximum parking standards an arbor has no minimum parking standards for vehicles there are current land uses that have maximum parking standards for example General retail and general office allow a maximum of about four parking spaces per th000 square feet financial and medical dental offices offer a bit more just over five parking spaces per th square feet um the tc1 also has a maximum parking standard it is about three spaces
018per thousand square ft which is between 20 and 40% less than are allowed in the retail medical financial office areas but all of them do have maximums moving on to the Pittsfield Village resoning and then at the end we can talk about both the tc1 resoning in and the pitsfield village resoning this is the parcel that is proposed to be rezoned it is the northern parcel of the Pittsfield Village Development it is about 7.6 acres and contains 11 buildings with 39 sub addresses all of these sub addresses are included in the staff report as you can see on this map the parcel currently has a split zoning where the northern portion is zoned C3 Fringe commercial and the southern portion is zoned R3 townhouse dwelling this is because in 1960 a motion was taken to
019Zone the 400 ft south of washut Avenue to be commercial um as is in line with best zoning practices City staff is proposing to reone the entire parcel to R3 to match the current residential use here is another view of that split zoning and then here is some standards comparisons between the two split zoning districts so the R3 townhouse dwelling district and the C3 Fringe commercial district and that is the end of my presentation thank you all right with the staff presentation completed we'll move on to public hearing this is an opportunity for individuals to speak up to 3 minutes on this item we will first hear from those present and then those uh remote participants to se remotely please press star 9 if on the phone or use a raise hand feature in Zoom
020for phone access please call 877- 85352 47 and enter meeting ID 977 6634 1226 City staff will identify uh callers by the last three digits of the phone number or by name if available and you'll hear an automated announcement when it's your turn to speak please ensure that you're in a quiet area and mute any background noise for all participants please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments and is there anyone present that would like to speak at this time [Applause] welcome hi uh my name is Zachary Weiss um 2424 East Stadium uh representing Stadium investors one so the goal of the C1 seems to be uh to maximize housing and density along Transit corridors promote multimodal and pedestrian circulation we view this as positive for the Washington Stadium Corridor however
021embracing Transit oriented development does not have to mean adopting rules and regulations that mandate only one type of development and disadvantage certain other things like automobile access C and circulation the goal should be to make development in these areas easier not harder the box to fit in should not be so small as to inhibit potential development so what are the types of tc1 rules that are making this box smaller there are several rules as part of the tc1 that limit the massing of buildings that mandate preferential developments of small buildings on small blocks over other types of buildings and we believe this will do uh this will hinder uh the goal of increased Transit ERS ship rather than support it it'll hinder development um overall as well the potential rules of this ordinance that will
022make the enactment of development nodes around Transit stops more difficult uh like the restriction on housing within 100 ft of a signalized intersection that can be especially problematic in an irregular intersection like washingon Stadium The Village concept of small blocks and small buildings may work in Grid like downtown but does may not apply to many of the properties in these corridors regulating building layout and massing can be accomplished in several different ways such as bump outs articulation materials grade changes and so on without heavy-handed mandates on building layouts preferred shapes maximum sizes and other things that sometimes seem arbitrary additionally prop the proposed amendment that limits developments to only two curb Cuts regardless of size or Frontage or corner will not help to promote multimodal transportation and may even cause future safety concerns involving Auto
023traffic that will undoubtedly remain in the area and probably even grow in conclusion we support a simple balanced approach to the TR Transit oriented development that contains certain guard rails versus an ordinance that is too complex to achieve success thank you thank you is there anyone else who would like to address the commission at this time that's presently here all right do we have any remote participants there are no hands raised at this time thank you just give it two more seconds okay with that we'll close public comment I'm going to read the proposed motion is the an arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve amendments to the zoning map a part of the chapter 55 unified development code to designate the zoning classification of parcels in the wasn
024Avenue and East Stadium Boulevard areas as tc1 and designate certain lengths of wasn Avenue and East Stadium Boulevard is Transit Corridor Street type as shown on the attached ordinance the second motion which is the Ann City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council you approve the amendments to the zoning map a part of the chapter 55 UniFi development code to designate the zoning classification of Pittsfield Village parcel 09-12 02-29-20 Parkwood Avenue as R3 townhouse dwelling District moved by commissioner wh and seconded by commissioner Mills we are in discussion would anyone like to kick this off commissioner hamers I have a couple soft balls to start first of all the height limit comparison chart is awesome love it yeah I thought maybe I love it um okay can you refresh my memory on
025once we res zoned to tc1 can owners make interior improvements or tenants make interior improvements to their spaces um yes absolutely um uh compliance with the tc1 therefore enforcement and the way we transition for the new buildings um site site plan approval is our main trigger um you do not need site plan approval to do interior work uh site plan approval does come into play when you want to for new buildings whether it be um expanding an existing building or constructing a brand new building but existing buildings May remain and they can be remodeled redesigned redecorated rebranded and so on and so forth if you wanted to build a new building in a parcel in a space that's currently parking for example but you're not touching the rest of the build do you have to
026do do you have to make the entire parcel in compliance the new development needs to comply okay okay um and then okay that that Pittsfield Village parcel's that's a that's a weird one um so I was trying to dig into the the map um it's a really interestingly shaped parcel and there's like it looks like their Condo building is attached to a commercial building like how is that splitting like um it is it is unusual um we did look into this and our first reaction was there's been an error on the zoning map and um research it is not an error um the it was planned to be split zoned and then yes the parcel is quite irregularly shaped and it's got a little more Frontage on pitsfield Boulevard um and there is a building
027that I would have to assume has um an interior demising wall that means it's two buildings that are attached and the property line is right is down those buildings this is a situation that we have downtown a lot um and here it's going to be going to be a case that where not only is the property line through the building where where these walls are but also the zoning boundary will be there it also looks like it goes in front of that next building I guess my I'm saying all of this to ask is it possible to I don't know like to make that parcel more regularly shaped and like that Condo building gets rezoned as tc1 or the condo management building or whatever that is yeah I mean can we split that parcel to
028make it less of a strange situation yeah um in this case there may be a um um the the zoning and well let me back up a couple things we cannot change the parcel lines okay um who can who can the the two owners can work together and selling and buying or trading or whatever that they do to their land um and it may or may not involve redoing Master deeds and condominium documents um I won't I won't go there okay um there may be some Distortion between the parcel lines and the aerial photo and the buildings might actually not um the and the error would be the parcel lines are deemed to correct but maybe there's been some Distortion and it looks like the building is behind the line the property line maybe that's
029not actually the case to know that for sure um the property would need to be Sur surveyed um surveyed so it's not automatic that the air photo matches identically to the par parcel lines okay okay thank you um I'm actually going to go to commissioner W first thanks commissioner W I just want to separate these two motions uh so that we can uh do the tc1 uh East stadium and then talk about Pittsville separately as opposed to taking them together got it um is that a formal motion it was going to be but you let um you defer to hammeri before I could get it out so yes that's what I'd like to do is just separate them um because then I I I think we can have the discussion we need to for the
030tc1 and that'll move and then we can have this lovely debate about the R 31 okay separately got it I I would think that makes sense um but uh I just need a formal motion then second so I made the motion so if the okay great um and then commissioner a in seconds and so now we go into discussion of splitting the Motions is that right um if it's friendly can't we just accept it as friendly um so you want to keep the discussion together but for the eventual vote you'd like to vote on I want to separate them but I don't think have vote again I made the original motion and we now have a second to split them and I'm just asking is the table friendly because if it's friendly to the table
031then we don't have to do the vote I'm friendly friendly friendly yeah yeah um do do we have anybody that's opposed to splitting the Motions for discussion okay well then I think we can hear these separately and just as a point of clarification for this this is just for my edification of to staff why were these actually taken together these were noticed together oh okay um it was one public hearing so the Motions were presented together because this was something that we discovered incidental to the tc1 zoning it wasn't the primary purpose of uh being on your agenda today okay got it understood no no big mystery okay um with that uh we as for clarification purposes we are now in discussion regarding only the proposed motion regarding the wasna resoning to tc1 uh do
032we have any other com U discussion who would like to kick us off I guess ham did council member Dish as I sometimes do I'm going to ask a basic question so in the staff report um it states that staff decided that it's not necessary to rezone tc1 the portion along Washington all that has the I think you're calling it an alley uh yeah and I just um I can see that it it seems like it would be complicated but I wondered why it isn't necessary I'm not challenging it I'm just asking so that I would be in a position to explain could you pull yeah so um we have two two ways of applying front set back regulations in the tc1 district um when you are on the um the Frontage that has been
033designated a Transit Corridor on our street designation map um your setbacks are minimum of 18 ft from the back of the curb to maximum 28 ft from the back of the curb and that purpose is to allow sufficient width between the curb and the building face um regardless of where the property line is so that we can get adequate and comfortable pedestrian circulation room some room for amenity zones and so on and so forth when you are not um when your Frontage is not designated a Transit Corridor minimum setback is zero maximum setback is either 15 ft for a mixed use building or 20 ft if you're in a solely an apartment building here uh which curb line we it would introduce more confusion than necessary which curb line are you taking it from are
034you taking it from the travel Lanes from the far edge of the service Drive the near edge of the service drive and there is already plenty of room for adequate uh um pedestrian movement amenity zones and so forth It's conceivable maybe unlikely but it's conceivable that in the future the service Lane has no parking in it it's a pedestrian it's a expanded sidewalk we don't know but we we don't feel that we need to preserve or make sure that buildings are set back farther from it to preserve those options just the front lot line on this block will will will more than adequately save what for whatever designs might come along in the future so that is why that this one block does not have um tc1 front is not proposed to have a tc1
035front edge designation and then what is the current zoning along that one little bit well zoning is taken to the middle of the road and so and well both in this case the both sides of the road are C3 so the road itself is also Zone C3 and so um I'm sorry I should I should know the answer to this but is residential allowed in C3 residential is allowed is allowed in C3 okay so um it's probably just not allowed to be as tall as tc1 would allow ow it um the C3 district has a 55 ft height limit so and um it's a mixed use District it allows single f it allows all forms of residential single family two family multif family it allows it either side by side or an actual mixed use
036buildings um buildings can be a single use multiple uses you could have single use buildings but multiple uses on the site and so forth It's it does allow for a lot of flexibility um and it also allows for 200% floor area ratio and a 55 ft um height limit so it can have apartment buildings it can have ground floor retail apartments above um it can have no residential okay so the I guess then we're not really losing much development possibility this way um so related to the setback designation or just rezoning to tc1 just the height I'm just just grappling with the height in my head so so um for the outermost edges of the proposed tc1 District um it's it's going to be the same um and so here it's going to be the
037orange area zero difference between tc1 and the existing zoning designation in that orange area both are 55 ft height maximum height limit in the blue area the tc1 district is going to allow a 75t building whereas if it remains C3 it's going to allow 55 ft right so five stories there six to seven stories in tc1 correct yeah so it's not much okay yeah thank you thank you for talking thank you thank you counil member dish commissioner Mills this is also in the lines of like I should know this and we've been talking about this a lot but I just want to verify so other than the setback distances that portion that is not deemed the transit Corridor Frontage what are the other implications and what's in my mind is I recall from our discussion
038around Eisenhower in state that the whatever I can't remember the name of the road that's on the East is not a Transit Corridor maybe and so like what things look like on that are different like uses maybe so can you talk us through the other implications of it not being a Transit Corridor designation on that portion of the road yeah um as of today the only difference is front set back um that is the only thing that a Transit Corridor Street type designation controls um otherwise Remains the Same the ordinance revisions committee and I believe the Planning Commission had a working session discussion on other text amendments that so far are stalled in committee if you will um and one of those things that was discussed would be um maybe to change the um um
039the active use component specific to a parking structure on when you are not designated a Transit Corridor for broader background um parking structures in the D1 and D2 and uh tc1 District are required to have active uses I will note that's not the language in the code but for discussion purposes they're required to have active uses on their first floor we don't want anyone walking past a parking structure and it be parking like to have it active use um any type of retail office so forth um and that's a requirement in the code it's not necessarily specific to tc1 it's specific to parking structures so there has been a request to consider maybe that remains in place um downtown d 1 and D2 but and remains in place on tc1 uh Transit Corridor streets but
040is either not in place at all or maybe is half as much on uh an undesignated Street that's not on the books today that so uh what it would mean here is um if um somebody proposed a parking structure on right there adjacent to the service alley um or maybe adjacent to uh on here on Parkway um on the side of Pittsfield Boulevard on Plat um and those amendments go through then maybe that first floor of the parking structure might look different um but those amendments aren't approved yet so as of today the only difference is um distance the front sitb back distance okay and so that may this in of that portion of the road not being designated a Transit Corridor could come into play we should if we care about that not becoming
041a parking structure like right along that um alley or whatever we want to call it the public alley then we we should this might be a place where we keep it in mind but that's why I can't find it in the code right now because that's one of the changes that we're trying that we're contemplating making to this District correct okay the other thing in the in the world of tc1 that I should know but that that is coming into play I mean much of this Corridor is not super deep right so the idea that it um it's not going to be an entire Village is true for most of it however the Northeast cmost partiel is really deep and so for my refresher and for everyone else's too um I know that one of
042the things that we're contemplating is what is the maximum block size but also can you remind us about what how that applies along the frontage along the public road and any streets that might be made in an internal Village and the and the RO and the buildings that are in that internal Village let's say deeper into the lot is what I'm trying to get at from the internal Village how the what are the design requirements for those internal buildings uh um versus those along the public street so right now the um the tc1 district implies that you should break up your site into um into Village like blocks but what it just actually has in terms of regulating um standards are buildings um the building width parallel to the street cannot be any more than
043250 ft and that would be even if it's the second row or third row building or whatever building width is 250 ft parallel to the street and then the maximum diagonal is 360 um which is basically a 250t square has a maximum diagonal of about 360 um and then the building Frontage the front of the parcel you have to fill it up 70% of the lot wi with buildings and then the space between the the other 30% that's where your driveway goes that's the sidewalk between your buildings that are only 250 ft wide and so forth um so it's leading you the design standards are leading you to make yourself up into squares and blocks um because there's a maximum building size um at least the footprint um and um and it applies to all
044new buildings how does that 70 does that 70% Frontage though apply to those interior streets it doesn't it only applies to on what's on washed n in this case public yeah on the public street because we are trying to frontload the development get the development to have the shortest possible walk between the place you want to go and then your trans and then your mode of transportation and and the active use requirements similarly are am I right that that is about what well right now it is both it is any public road but again not private internal Road correct correct okay yes so so and and the transparency requirements and all of that kind of stuff I mean some of the design standards is that true that is true that is from the P from
045the from the street or sidewalk um that face of the front face of the building so in this case I mean this is different than well I don't know how 23 is treated uh 23 is not designated as a front fronts are um road so the the exact language is going to escape me but it's roads that you can actually access 23 is a limited access highway so it's not considered a front that would be a side okay so but in this case we've got one public Street like that where those where those specific standards about active uses well right now the 70% lot with applies to every street here and at first glance it's Wasa Pittsfield hereon Parkway plat um and in h park it crosses both sides um so chmer actually if we're
046looking at the northeast corner it would be it would apply to chmer and would apply to to was yeah okay yeah and so they the whole every standard would apply to all front lot lines that AB but any of those streets there's amendments that maybe would separate them out but currently all the standards apply to all the streets okay and again though once you get inside there's there's more flexibility like if you were to divide a big parcel into multiple things like there's a little bit more flexibility right in the standard then the some of the standards that apply for when you are adjacent to the street would drop out 70% front edge drops out the meeting the downtown design um building standards for 15ft floor height for transparency and so forth those would drop
047out um for the interior buildings or the backside of those of those um front lot line buildings so I mean obviously a lot of this is because this is a new District this is this is a contemplated a change but also it's an incremental change like it doesn't just because we reone it doesn't make that there's going to be a change overnight and so to the the question that commissioner Hammerman asked about like continuing on what's allowed to continue on what's there now but also um it doesn't necessarily mean that there can't be uh buildings that would be in the interior of some of these particularly of the larger Lots um that are less uh uses transparency in the front kind of thing um and so that's one of the things that I am thinking
048about I mean I I appreciate the public comment and we also had more in our packet um to this effect I think that um this right now a lot of this stuff would be allowed there's nothing in our code that's hindering bu like building things closer to the park to the road that's like filling in parking lots more or less this is in is encouraging that anything new any kind of new investment not again to the interior of a building um that can continue on but any new buildings that are built are moving towards that form that we're looking for and so um I feel hopefully that some of what we answered addresses some of the questions about like continuing on for the future for existing Property Owners um and also just signal that this
049is we're contemplating how this works out so as folks are thinking through what they'd like to see on their place I mean I think that that's something that uh it our zoning is not set in stone and the the regulations that apply um can evolve over time as we learn more so that's kind of my sense of this particular distri especially applies to a couple of the folks Who provided comments that do have larger Parcels in this area got it thank you commissioner Mills we have any other thoughts currently for discussion I can probably ask a question then um uh University in um if you we had approved that Redevelopment under C3 right and so if they need to make any kind of amendments because it's now getting rezoned from C3 to tc1 would they
050then need to actually comply so if they had need to make any changes like we saw with like Lockwood for example I think they need to move you know one foot forward they they wouldn't actually have the flexibility to do that because now they would be actually under tc1 regulations that is that is correct uh proof site plans are valid for 3 years so they could build the approved site plan even past the if the tc1 res zoning is approved um they have a they have a site plan site plan entitles you to pull permits from 3 years from the date of approval and then once you start you can continue even if it then goes beyond the three-year Mark MH um however a new site plan would need to comply with new standards if
051they needed to make like a small revision or something like that they find something on the site conditions or something I'm I'm just thinking practically from a standpoint of you know we've made changes to site plans before but that's just one of the you know properties I not that was you know yeah I think that if they needed to do a true revision to the plan say there was um something underground they need to relocate some trees and so forth that um that can be handled administratively but if they wanted to move the building placement or if they wanted to building addition um or enlarge the site um any new site plan uh would be superseding and replacing the old plan it wouldn't be tching on it would be superseding okay got it thank you
052so a potential you know risk as a you know I I don't know exactly how far they are with construction actually I haven't taken a look at the site but I just wanted to bring that up as a discussion point and then for for my edification like Arbor land for example um there's a vast majority of it that can go up to you know 120 ft or like it's the clear um uh but so it on the periphery it's 75 ft and then it can step up essentially or is it like if any portion of the property is so just within those it's a variable height limit over the single property got it okay understood thank you um last question I have uh actually you know while other people think of um questions are there
053instances where the two curb cut maximums can hurt us um and I only think about that like I'm looking at like Trader Joe's for example like they have one curb cut currently it's like and and I know that if they came to us and ask for for two then they would need to comply with site plans but is it's two curb Cuts per parcel and I'm just wondering I'm I'm asking the question purely from a theoretical perspective yeah so the code AS currently stated um when you are in the T there are two separate standards one is everybody else and then there's a standard for the tc1 district um everybody else gets one curb cut for the first 100 ft a second curb cut for the second 100 ft M and then you get additional
054curb Cuts based on 600 foot increments so if you had a 700t parcel first 100 gets one curb cut second 100 to 200 gets a third but you don't have you only have um 500 left not 600 so you remain at two but if you had 900 ft you get all three um tc1 District does not increment it says if you are a small parcel and it defines small as 250 ft width you get one curb cut if you're a big parcel and it's very straightforward your big parcel means you're more than 250 ft of width you get two cirk pets so there's not it's not incremental it's small and large there is an amendment that has been requested to somehow re the amendment was um um it be based on Frontage um but we
055are we we're discussing just a variety of ways to both meet the intent of the tc1 district um and allow much larger sites or sites with a lot of Frontage to have something more than just two gotcha thank you I was just uh looking for some clarification so those uh those are the ones I have for the time being do we have any other thoughts on or discussion points that the commission wants to talk about oh commissioner abens um I just wanted to to kind of also make it really clear that to some of the people who have come to us about specific um parts of the tc1 that they are finding challenging or want to discuss we are we are in discussion about a few amendments to the ordinance and I think there are
056avenues for having those conversations um and submitting petitions to change them so some of them are things which are mentioned um in a letter that we got from the owners of arborland like curb cuts um and I think there are some things that were um also in this letter we got from the owners of arborland that maybe and this is maybe what commissioner Mills was getting at I think maybe misread the ordinance or assume that there are uh stricter um regulations in the ordinance than there are so I think part of what we also need to do is kind of educate and make sure we all understand exactly what it is the ordinance is saying and if we see a need um to change it then then that's something that's always possible for any part
057of the for the any part of the UDC um but one question I had about maybe going back to commissioner hammersmith's original question about making Renovations or upgrades to a site like arborland um if for instance the owner wanted to um demolish The Office Max store and build something new there how would we approach the 250t block requirment if it's a kind of Island in a sea of parking that they don't plan to change because you're you described that the new development has to kind of Meet the code but Kroger Old Navy all that stuff can just stay as is so how would you how would you approach something like that the the tc1 district was crafted really with infield development in mind um and we and it was acknowledged it was a known fact
058that it was going on Commercial corridors that have um some fairly traditional shopping centers um so all of the existing buildings can remain it's partially the reason why there's no F limit did not want to penalize did not want to force the demolition of any useful building um but we wanted to make it as easy as possible um to add more building infill but we did make it we want those buildings to go up front we want them to be two at least two stories we don't want them to be too big we prefer them to be smaller footprint and taller um so that new building there it's going to have to meet the setback requirements which is a minimum or and maximum so it's that building may not be able to they can demolish
059The Office Max but maybe the new building can't go there they first have to put the buildings up front meet the frontage requirements meet the minimum maximum front set back requirements and then they can add more in the back so no new construction on the parcel could occur that did not comply meaning the first thing they do would have to be meet the frontage requirement yes the setback requirement yeah the curb cut requirement okay yeah and then but the existing buildings the ones they choose to remain they can remain there stay open for business that's great okay I think there's a lot of complexity there more than we'll we'll unpack this evening but I think it's something to keep thinking about thanks thank you any other Commissioners with thoughts on that that is a very
060complicated uh topic about whether that building envelope is the one that we're just going to be living with with Renovations relative to you know possible um reconstruction so I think of kind of Sears right um or Brierwood as a you know possible kind of like comparison to that right setback larger Mall kind of concept and whether that building envelope just sends getting reutilized versus actually redeveloped unless there's a PUD approach I suppose I would point out that the C3 District also has a minimum and maximum building setback any other thoughts okay so I think that concludes one of the last things that I'll just kind of voice is that again this is in intended to encourage more human scale developments as is kind of noted in that Q&A so this is intended to create it's
061a Wasa uh Road has one of the highest you know uh bus rider ships I think in the county so um that again that that's the intent behind this so with that um I believe that we are taking this one separately from the and for edification or for clarification purposes this also does advance to city council after this right so like no no modifications to the UDC or the zoning map happened here it's going to advance to city council so with that in mind I'll reread the proposed City uh Planning Commission motion which is that Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve amendments to the zoning map a part of the chapter 55 unified development code to designate the zoning classification of parcels in the Wasa Avenue and
062East Stadium Boulevard areas as tc1 and designate certain lengths of wash Avenue and Exum as Transit Corridor Street type as shown on the attached ordinance with that uh we will move to roll call votes commissioner Adams yes commissioner weatherbe yes commissioner Mills yes council member dish yes commissioner hamers Schmid yes commissioner wh yes commissioner abon yes commissioner Lee yes that carries okay that motion carries uh we are now back to the original um the other motion that was split off here regarding the 2270 Parkwood Avenue um the r three townhouse District so we are back in discussion about that so um anyone like to kick us off specifically for that commissioner W okay so um this was complicated uh sort of looking at this is it possible for staff to put up slide 22 from
063the presentation I think is where I'd like to start thank you let get there okay yes thank you so uh I think my first question is if this is reson to R3 it makes it residential and then it pushes all of the tc1 boundaries am I correct yes well not all it just sorry all the ones that are that AB but this change yeah so that will make our goals of zoning this tc1 it will impede I think was the word I wrote down um some of the goals that we have for the tc1 in this place because the the distances changed now so what can be built there are it so now we only get I guess it would be the first level which is 55 ft and if it stays in the C3
064do we get up to 75 ft uh if it stays C3 then the um these orange blue Maps would not change whatsoever okay if it is re if that chunk that little bit is reson to R3 then there would be um then the line would be have a little more of a blip in it and then for the East half of the service alley then um everything would push a little bit north the the buffers or the variable height limits would push a little bit north so a a deeper portion would be orange um the same portion would be blue but it would move up a little bit cuz you know um it's still the same linear feet but the starting and point that whole strip mall that's there no not whole strip mall because
065if you go back to so it's only the dispensary side um one more back to where the zoning is yeah so you see um either way but behind um the at some P at some portion the C3 um the where the black line AB buts um that's not going to change because that's that's already R3 the the line no I understand I understand what you're saying so that the the straight line before it starts the curve is going to stay exactly where it is only where the curve line is where the height limit is going to push northward okay uh okay I I have another question but I'll I'll try to word it better okay thanks uh commissioner aons um since I think the the question here is why not see 3 maybe we could
066hear from staff about the logic for resoning it to R3 as opposed to C3 [Music] well I think what you're saying is why don't we reone the entire block to C3 well we're being asked to we being asked to reone the parcel right to R3 I mean partially rezone yeah uh CL yeah single and so we could also say that it should toggle to C3 instead of R3 well it wouldn't it wouldn't be so much toggling it would be deny this everything remains exactly the same so in the black parcel it would not change no no wouldn't it wouldn't the yellow change to red no we are not proposing that we are only proposing the red changed to Orange to continued right but the you you there could there was a fork in the road
067where you could have proposed the other I'm just asking was that ever on the table and why if not why not why why not up Zone the whole thing to C3 as oos to down zoning the red part to R3 um the comprehensive plan recommends basically the same zoning designation here um here for the Pittsville Village I don't even know if it recognized I'm not sure if the comprehensive plan recognized there was some split zoning but it says that the residential areas should remain the same um in our in our all of our work in implementing the the current comprehensive plan and where we think that the comprehensive plan is going it talks about increasing density but it doesn't really talk about changing residential uses and adding that those uh commercial use component can be
068done but it is but there I feel that there is nothing that um directs me in that direction um this was an effort to sort of clean up the zoning map I don't think that anyone in Pittsfield Village had any expectation that there was a bit that was zoned commercial I don't even know if their any of their rules or regulations or any of their desire it's not a separately owned part I don't know if they would want it to be used as C3 um we thought that if we were to rezone the proposed Parcels to tc1 you're going to be left with a little strip of red on the map felt we felt that was odd but we didn't propose to rezone the entire block to C3 thought that was one bridge too far
069without some very robust discussion nothing seems to lead us to the direction that we should be flipping solely res itially zon properties to mixed use um and we just did not entertain that as part of this this was um a little bit more of a consistency with land use and clean up the map and not leave an island uh an awkward island of Z3 that may that the current property owners may not even have known was there um just a clarification question for process um what I'm hearing from the commission is generally they don't like the idea of down zoning or you know decreasing density particularly on this side and what I'm hearing also from staff is this is meant to be administrative cleanup of the spit split zoning this was just done with a
070you know intent of hey we got this weird kind of um so procedurally let me ask one thing um if it were to go the other way it would need to be propably noticed it could it's not something that could be changed at this table is that correct um correct okay I didn't mean to yeah Le the question but uh it would require you know U Reen noticing Etc um I also have just a little bit of like hesitation of just like kind of like imposition I mean like the administrative cleanup makes sense to me um but I also hear you know some of the other Commissioners saying hey we don't want to necessarily down Zone either and so which leaves us in kind of a interesting territory so just wanted that procedural clarification and
071and the intent of Staff as a cleanup item so any other thoughts commissioner Adams yeah make this quick um I think the current so I appreciate the desire to clean up the map um but and I I'm also um let to get the point about not wanting to down Zone I guess for me the current zoning the parcel doesn't make a lot of sense the zoning makes sense when I look at the map the map has logical appeal I understand why the northernmost part of it is included in a district that was Zone C C3 substantial portion of it is in fact used as commercial you know sort of looking at the that how it's used and it it is at least in part per perhaps substantially commercial use um I guess I've given the
072choice between changing zoning that I think is good to conform to a bad parcel or a a logical parcel um I I'm just not inclined to make the law bad to bad facts right if we've got a zone that looks right and matches how it's being used long predates the plan conforms with the expectations of the folks who put money into these properties either by purchasing them or leasing them or whatever their interest is I would leave it alone rather than turn it into something to make the parcel right if that makes any sense thank you any other commissioner thoughts commissioner Mills thanks for bringing this up because I hadn't even really thought about the impact that it has on what happens to the north and I agree with what commissioner Adams just said a
073question that I have in part about um kind of what the what the longterm expectations are here is is there anything about what's built here now in R3 or what's what's built there that is non-conforming do we know about the non-conformity with like people thought that this was an R3 maybe like I'm I'm just curious if it was built to R3 standards or if it was built to C3 standards you mean what's in here what's in what's in the weird shaped pink Parts um I believe it was built to the B District standards of effect in 1949 I'm not actually not I mean I'm I'm being funny but no it was built to the bees District standards that were in effect in 1949 or possibly starting in 1943 I think is when construction started um
074I this predates our current zoning any version of our current zoning ordinance it I don't think it exactly fits C3 and I don't think or R3 um it was built to an entirely different zoning code and so it comes with some existing nonconformities I believe that those buildings there those are buildings that are um Pittsfield Village related buildings I think it's their um maintenance office maintenance storage building I think it's their um commun some Community buildings and so forth maybe at one point it held a launder Med I'm not sure um but those are not commercial buildings um in the sense that it's not a grocery store or a barber shop so to to that point um I I also see the idea of leaving this very islanded parcel if we're what I took the
075thing uh what I took away from the previous exchange was maybe we should just leave that little weird thing of pink and Zone around it but I'm curious like what would be the implications of just making that tc1 instead like of rezoning that it's if there's already non-conformities like that it doesn't they wouldn't be able to they're they're not meeting the C3 District like I'm curious I about that I mean just because of the line that it creates there it could be reson to it could also be zoned tc1 for that matter it could be zoned office it could be zoned um anything um I personally would be more in favor of then maybe like getting a survey hiring a surveyor and doing being more careful about the designation of the boundary line it looks
076from the air photo that some of the Town not only are the some of the non-dwelling units um included in the pink but it looks like maybe a couple of the actual town homes are included um I I I'd like I would prefer to be much more precise than if you're going to separate out the existing Pittsfield Village tow houses from their non-dwelling unit buildings um my recommend recomendation would be then to to postpone and somehow get a more accurate survey and to survey that line okay commissioner we I was just going to ask what our procedures were for either withdrawing this motion or uh postponing it uh so that we don't send this uh forward to city council um you this is just procedures like what what are the proced yeah I think you
077should you you should recommend you should not support it you should recommend denial of the motion I don't you can't withdraw it it's a mo it's this is a you need to comment on the petition at hand so that city council can um uh can vote on it I think you possibly could recommend that it not even move forward to to city council but you are a recommending body your recommendation can in fact be denial or could be a an alternative recommendation so we can't withdraw it because we didn't initiate it and staff initiated it and so because staff initiated we can't the Planning Commission when I say we cannot reject the staff recommendation well sort of like yes to both things you can reject we can reject it in the vote but then it
078would go on to city council what I'm asking specifically is do we have the the power at the table to deny the motion and withdraw it so that it does not advance to city council so that it's just a procedure question so if um maybe mix Kelly can also Implement if this was a private developer um after the Planning Commission um denies a motion they have the option to withdraw their petition right as a staff initiated petition I have never come across this question so although if I treat myself as a private developer I suppose I can withdraw my motion my petition or could the Planning Commission direct staff to withdraw it I'm just I'm just trying to understand what authorities have well me too I I've actually never come across this question okay cuz
079I I think it would be better for us to pull the whole thing as opposed to denying it and sending it to city council because it has to then go through two more uh readings um if you know with that and we're not even sure what we want uh just yeah just based on this part of the conversation right sure there's a lot of people want to weigh on on this from from the manager perspective I I would strongly recommend there just be a recommendation to city council and have them be the deciding body if there were a majority interest in um with withdrawing this then I would have to suggest that you postpone while I get advice from the city attorney's office y um that was my thought is tabling is also kind of
080an option but uh commissioner Adams I just want to vote to not recommend it that's I think our role and that's that's what I support got it and then council member Dash I think that probably makes sense but I I would like to say that I think this might be very confusing for city council um you know you all come to it with a longer time thinking about zoning things and parcels and maps and advantages and I fear there will be an inability to make a clear decision um the denial the recommendation to deny does not help them very much does not help us I shall say because I am among the confused um it so but I don't you know I I want to take um it's just something that's going through my head
081that this is this is this is confusing and if we I mean the idea of of resoning at tc1 that might be a weird problem for the Pittsfield people because anything they wanted to do to those structures that would have to be yeah two stories I will move to table this do I have a second I have a second commissioner white second we're in discussion of tabling um I think to me personally this is the clearest way to get get clarification from uh manage managers um from City attorney yeah and City attorney well is it the will of the entire body to with to is is everyone at the table interested in withdrawing this or do others feel that it should proceed to city council commissioner abon I have a question yeah I'm I just
082don't know that I understand the difference between tabling it and denying it so the idea of tabling it is because some Commissioners feel strongly that it shouldn't go to City Council but there's also I thought I heard the possibility that if we deny it the petitioner which is you all still have the ability to consult and withdraw it if you decide to do so right so yeah I'm just trying to understand the diff the difference sure we're we're interested in keeping it because it's best practice to keep one zoning District within one parcel and we could do more met we could pull more metrics of about whether or not what portion of uh potential Redevelopment would be reduced by 20 ft by this additional very you know incidental buffer to you know we could split
083hairs over that but uh it was proposed for a valid reason and the staff perspective is it's it was put on for a reason and we'd like to keep it on for a reason understood and so um just for my clarification then if the if this body voted to table it which that's not postponing it's just tabling is is there a difference uh table those are the same things yeah yeah to me that's the same thing then what what would be happening after that my my understanding is that it would give staff a chance to talk about how this should proceed um if we deny it my concern is that it would cause city council confusion if the petitioner didn't withdraw and and they ask what are we trying to do here um it's like
084if we recommend for denial with the expectation that the petition withdraw it and then for clarification purposes my understanding is that at least for the most of the commission they don't want to see a re a down zoning um I Heard a descent with commissioner Adams and the respect of saying simply uh that is actually used for commercial so I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with the clar uh administrative uh clean up here um and so so again my my thought process was to provide staff the time necessary to talk about the best path forward without us tastly saying um we recommend denial and then it goes to city council and causes confusion all right so a point of order point of order finish could I just really quick so the table we did
085that wrong so when you table something it suspends all debate and it just it's laid on the table um and we don't even vote over it because it takes precedent over other motions the postponement requires a second and then it is debated so oh that's all thank you for the clarification commissioner aens I feel like we're overstepping our role a bit to PO vote to postpone something so that we can give staff time to do something that they've just communicated to us they don't intend or desire to do and that we are overstepping our role a bit to say oh we doing this to keep city council from being confused that feels like slightly paternalistic to me so I'm not quite sure I think if we I think if you don't agree with the motion
086you vote against it that procedurally to me that seems the cleanest got um council member dish so I think that the fog Has Lifted um I think what I am confused about what I personally am confused about and what I can imagine city council may want to hear more about is how consequential is this really how much of an impediment or diminution of the gains that we're working toward in tc1 is this that would be information that could be provided either in response to a c number question or it could be built into the staff report which would be slightly different than the one you've already written I however you would want to do it because I think that will be the issue for this body to deny it without a clear statement of what
087exactly is the problem would be confusing that it it is a it is just not a clear message uh understood uh commissioner W and I think to my my earlier point about trying to understand what this body is allowed to do I think it if I heard uh planard Deo correctly you've never been asked this question and so I think that's what got us into part of this conversation was can the body reject a proposal from staff and we don't have a a clear answer on that so the motion that is before us it sounds like staff wants to go to City Council but my question remains unanswered we could um segment my question out so that it doesn't delay what you want to do here and then we can get an answer from the
088city attorney for future um things that come from staff that the T that the Planning Commission may want to ask staff to resend and then we'll have a set of rules I'm happy to vote against this uh but I have been told repeatedly by the planning managers that the Planning Commission cannot and should not send additional notes to city council when we deny things that our denial is a is enough information and so to your point um council member dish um I think staff will have to justify what they are doing at your table if we take this motion up and deny it um as oppos to us because I've been told we should not do that planer Jalil um I was going to say um the body is uh postpone table um that's fine
089but that implies that should come back um because you want to see some sort of changes and I am honestly at this prior to council member or council member and commissioner um dish saying I was unclear about what you actually wanted me to do um if you want to have a discussion on that I'll can give you some talking points but um the the minutes of all the meetings go to the to the um Council and as staff and when we transmit our items and we write up a summary we explain either why they supported something why they recommended denial and that should help the council um understand maybe why it was denied what was wrong with it maybe what you would want to see for it um and and the minutes go with them
090so they can can see for themselves about well what what was it um I think that council member just did just now explain a little bit better but before then what I was going to explain I am unclear about why you don't why the down zoning is it because you don't and and if you want to table this in a come back then I need more information cuz I don't currently understand do you not want to down Zone it because you don't want to have you don't want Pittsfield Village to have any more rights you you don't want them because it's them they are the land owners so you don't want them to have any possibility or no I'm I saying it backwards you do want them to have a possibility of devel of adding
091commercial uses on their site is that why you don't want to down Zone it you want them to have full use of this corner of their property or is it solely because you don't want to change the tc1 district height the you don't want to move the residential boundary because that's a um but those are two very different things one is property rights and the development the Pittsfield Village could be losing which is unclear if they even know they have and one is changing the one is um its impact on the um on north of it and those maybe that that's in my mind because if you anyway I did not know I don't know what then You' wanted me to do if you postpone it got it and to be clear and the the
092difference between table and postpone you're 100% correct what I really meant to say is postpone not table you table and I could second it and there's a majority but then right um but it sound to me it sounds like we'd rather just actually go to a vote and not postpone this at this point so can I can we just get a vote just to get out of the motion of postponement is that oh of the tabling so should both that down exactly so so can we can we do that just to get out because right now we're in the the table motion right now so um can I just do a Voice vote yeah yeah okay all those in favor of taing all those in favor of declining the tabling I okay okay we're now
093back in the original yeah so so okay there okay so now we're back in the original motion yes okay so council member Dash Okay so I think that if it's fine to I I I totally with what I said about how denying this would be confusing but if we are if the Planning Commission wishes to deny this it would be helpful to articulate the answer to the question that Miss Deo posed because and then um again it would be helpful for staff to provide for Council either in response to a question blah blah blah just how uh either just how much we do not want to deprive Pittsfield Township of rights that they do not know that they have or how what is the big deal let me just put it in very plain language
094about moving the residential boundary how what what is the loss I mean we articulated that when we talked through the implications of keeping C3 for the one block on washon and so it would be helpful um because we cannot be against down zoning in principle that isn't a sensible position that's just a kind of a uh it would be sort of a Dogma like we are against down zoning we are only four right so if we could clarify um that would be helpable thank you uh commissioner abens I'm happy to clarify and I also don't think this is a huge deal um but if you wouldn't mind pulling up slide 22 again I would appreciate it it's just that making the whole parcel residential and then knowing that for tc1 there's a 30t required offset
095or setback from residential it it significantly impinges on the ability to develop those tc1 Lots North of that blue line to the same extent you could if you leave it as is so right now where the red becomes green that's the line between residential and mixed use so you have to offset that 30 ft North there's a required buffer if if we change it all to R then it's 30 ft north of the blue line so if you look at the lot on the far right up Corner along Pittsfield that becomes quite the developable area of that lot becomes quite small the impact is you know to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 eight Parcels it's not this is not huge but I think that's the difference so if you leave it as is
096it's administratively unclean but more developable as tc1 that's my logic I I am not for me so it was uh planner to Leo's second uh hypothesis Asos and I would still love to see hear that expressed in feet I mean I think just even a diagram that showed the two the difference as is and changed would be helpful for city council thanks got it uh commissioner white last comment and then for for me I think it was helpful to understand what the precipitating um action was and the thing that I appreciate about you planner Deo is you adhere to the comp plan and the land use uh guides and so you noted that both of those documents basically um require this kind of cleanup and we are in the midst of a comp um a
097comprehensive Plan Renewal we also have four amendments from uh city council talking about making uh development uh easier and more straightforward and so as those things are intersecting I my strong feeling here is we leave it as it is until the new comp plan is done and then if we need to do administrative cleanup at that point that's where we do so that that if you if you were asking me what my concern is that's it and I understand it is so helpful to understand that you're you're doing your job and as you were doing your job you're like this is not right and then you realize nope it is right and let's clean it up and so I think um that all makes sense to me and I understand why you brought it to
098us I would I would say you know hold it until after the new comp plan is uh in place so that that is your your North Star as opposed to the document from 2009 thank you commissioner white and we'll have one final comment from commissioner hamers okay trying to get in okay this is this is kind of crazy but you said that you don't even think that these people have any idea that it's zon like this would you has has staff ever approached a parcel owner and been like hey do you want to like split This and like helped them through the process to does that ever happened um this situation has not happened in in my tenure or my career we have had other Parcels that have split zoning um and but it's usually
099a commercial property um and the split zoning is for some sort of commercial and then a P Parking District which was historically used as a buffer um and then U we work with that professional developer um on putting forth a reasoning application so like they are much more aware of the of the implications this is the first time that I personally have come across um sort of a residential property having split zoning um and um I see that there there's pros and cons to each way we didn't um like I said my very first reaction was that this was an error and then only upon research it was when I was trying to prove that it was an error I found out it actually was not an error this is the first time I've come
100across this in okay my career got it thank you um with that I'm going to read the motion and we're going to go to a vote um thank you for all those watching for bearing with us on this somewhat esoteric conversation um the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve amendments to the zoning map a part of chapter 55 unified development code to designate the zoning classification Pittsfield Village parcel 09-12-2019 main address is 2270 Parkwood Avenue as R3 townhouse dwelling District Deputy Kelly since this isn't taken together with the other motion we might need a new mover and seconder okay uh move by commissioner white seconded by um commissioner hamers Schmid we're at the vote commissioner Adams no commissioner Weatherby no commissioner [Applause] Mills no council member dish
101yes commissioner hamers Schmid no commissioner W no commissioner abon no and commissioner Lee no seven opposed one in favor that motion fails thank you we're going to move on now to other business uh this is the 3551 Packer uh Road prep Pew conference this is a proposed PE uh planned unit development zoning and site plan uh this is a proposed resoning from r4a um to PUD to construct 49 units of affordable housing in a four-story building uh over approximately 4,000 ft of retail single curb cup from Packard will lead to a 54 spot parking lot behind the building and the existing residents will remain on site we do have petitioners with us so um and I believe we are going to be starting with the petitioner presentation first is that correct welcome thank you yeah
102pull up my presentation real fast okay thank you everyone for your time my name is May mallum I'm with MHT housing I'm representing them today for a Packard rezoning proposal and so I'm going to do a little project team breakdown as I said we're the co-developer MHT housing van Fox co-developer is ISA properties with Rodney Issa right behind general contractor o excuse me architect would be concept Design Studios Kyle art and then general contractor MHT construction van Fox engineers at well Chris Ro rther is right behind and then Todd Pasco and the managing agent would be MHT how MHT management van Fox again so a little bit about who we are and uh we have 33 years of experience we own and manage 62 properties we also have third party management of 89 just within
1032023 to 2024 we've had 10 closings over 500 employees our property span from West Michigan all the way over in East Michigan we have a large portfolio in the Detroit area we're also in some small parts of Indiana uh but really what makes us different as we're a nonprofit and we really commit to our communities that we work in um we have food pantries eviction diversion plans some or community cleanups and um our taxes are all paid in full and a little bit about Isa properties um they're family-owned business and they do Residential um proper management they also manage Medical Offices strip malls shopping centers shopping plazas schools and um managed charter schools so just like a project overview uh you can see the site there in the top that is 2.53 acres and it's
104located on 3551 Packard Road uh we're proposing a mixed use development so to have residential 49 one-bedroom residential units it would be targeted to seniors 55 and over and then also there would be commercial space in the bottom part um this is would be all affordable housing there would be 12 at 30% area median income five at 40% area median income 9 at 60% and 23 at 80% we would be going for the 9% mistra funding round um we've been really successful with this in the past actually this year in round one we received three Awards and um this site would also have three EV charging stations and it would have the ngbs plus standard and then the timeline we'd be looking at is to apply for the 9% round in April of 2025 the
105awards would be announce would be announced um roughly around July 2025 the closing would take place approximately February 2026 um oops I copied that one over twice and then uh end of construction would be 2027 so reasons on why to reone from r4a to planned unit development um so r4a consists of multif family dwelling units but it doesn't include commercial and it's also low density so we would need to do PUD to have higher density which would make it economically feasible for the development um to consist of entirely affordable housing and then the higher density will allow the building to be built with energy efficient standards EV charging National Green Building standards as I um said pre previously and then also all electric appliances it's also in a great location too in terms of bus
106routes um in order to get people to commute from both in Arbor orsan um and then the Pud option also allows for commercial space as discussed too and it'll allow for the existing multif family Residential Building to remain in use and be repurposed I'm going to go ahead and invite our architect Kyle art to speak on the plans should be on the zoom call ky's in the process of being promoted they need to accept the promotion to panelist perfect okay uh can you hear me yes we can all right um thanks um for your time um my name is Kyle art I'm with con Design Studio I'm an architect uh and uh I work with MHT housing across um the state on many of their developments um this development specifically um we are proposing a
107four story uh new building uh approximately 11,500 11,455 square foot uh per floor um sorry it's asking for a video um which I don't want to do um so it is an 11,455 ft per floor um new construction the first floor would be a commercial and the uh on the on the front facing commercial and office on the Frontage facing Packard with residential in the back and then the upper three floors would be um all residential all one bedrooms all 650 Square fet to meet the Misha uh M design standards and um and and that way we can meet all their design standards with in the within the unit design um the um the heating systems we would be in all electric uh style heat heat pump uh within the units uh for this building
108um as Maya mentioned the nbs's uh National Green Building standard uh we would be um pursuing the plus option which um which should therefore put us into a design requirement of meeting the doe Zero Energy version I think they're on 10 now um by the time this is designed might be 11 or 12 they kind they update it every year so um it's a high energy threshold uh uh standard and uh Zero Energy ready not Zero Energy but Zero Energy ready um so the uh the site has an existing two-story building on it um that is occupied uh the plans for that are um not really determined yet um but Mr Issa um has some ideas on that the um exterior materials of the building like I mentioned it was going be four stories first
109floor would be um more of a storefront appearance for that retail retail area and then the upper ref floors would be a metal siding um with vinyl windows andish building materials and windows um to to to ensure that we do meet that Zero Energy ready requirement um if there are any other questions I would be happy to answer them thank you cool thank you I'm not sure we we were supposed to see some of the images uh this is our only site plan right now we're really preliminary um yeah got it perfect thanks is that the end of the petitioner presentation y great thank you and then with that I think we move on to staff presentation yes that yeah yeah planner Kowalski and planner Shake good evening um so it's a pretty good summary
110that was just presented to you but I'll go through just a quick little bit background of what what we looked at so again as with any PUD we first examine you know what zoning districts will it fit in does it fit in the existing zoning District um clearly is already covered the um the density that they're proposing actually would for just residential wise it would fit under an r4e zoning however if issues with the R4 of course it does not allow mixed uses uh it would solely be residential uh one of the other big takeaways from that is obviously as you've heard they're pledging basically 100% affordable housing at this location r4e would not guarantee that so with the Pud we have the ability obviously to require this as as is required to a certain
111degree as a public benefit but they are going above and beyond that with 100% affordable housing so really that would be the challenge with kind of finding any zoning District to fit in there the uses ultimately of the existing structure that's on there that can be determined a little bit later down down the line again I know the um the owner is still going through some options in there that would be something that obviously if and when this would come back to you those that us would have to be at least outlined in the sense that we would want to build that into any supplemental regulations so that in the future they don't have to go back for rezoning if to use that like they can continue using it for residential as long as they
112want but the options are there to go back and convert it to whatever use they may want in the future um so again obviously one of the main benefits that we see right now is the provision of 100% guaranteed affordable housing with this uh just a couple issues that we wanted CL Clarity on and they actually covered some of it tonight regarding some of the um sustainability elements so um she did cover that in that presentation there that's where we wanted a little bit more clarification on um as well as we did have a little bit of concern of the parking layout to see to help explain you know justify that ultimately and there's ways again that that can be uh shifted deferred whatever may be we can build things within the supplemental regulations and
113again ultimately as we get further along they may have more exact specifications on what the parking needs may or may not be um and I think that kind of covers the the issues of our concern uh which were again were relatively minor in general staff was pretty supportive of the project uh just clarifying A couple of additional items um and that covers it for now and um we definitely are available for any questions perfect thank you thank you planner Kowalski and seeing that this is a prep PUD conference or actually isn't a public hearing associated with this so we're going to actually Dive Right into discussion um commissioner W kick us off so one I just want to know like here is another PUD that we're seeing for an affordable housing because our existing zoning
114won't actually achieve what we want to so I just want to note that again uh we had a good conversation with the um comp plan um subcommittee about this when we looked at um the Maple Road uh development so uh couldn't we achieve this in office except for the affordable housing uh I don't I don't know the F num so I haven't we did not do a comparison with the with the office District but commercial in the office so I know they mentioned a little bit of office I think probably the office you mention kind of administrative office I'm sure just managerial so um the office zoning allow resal it would allow residential up to six stories right or 55 55 ft so four so it would fit their height requirement and you would be
115able to do your commercial on the first not not in office no there' be no the commercial you could only do office and residential okay yeah okay um so the it would be helpful yeah I I think I have a question around like why we can't do what they are bringing to us in our existing zoning and they have to go to a PUD because I just feel like this is this is the third one yes like almost backto back where someone is coming and and we're close to a zoning but not close enough and therefore it has to go into a PUD which feels a little more yes it does involved but again one of the key features that we for the Pud unfortunately is the guarantee of affordable housing with any other zoning
116right um there is an enormous amount of parking here it is all parking and a little bit of housing uh so if this comes back uh as a PUD that that's going to be my my first thing is um just please please please please get rid of all of that parking either make it open space SP or put more residential on there I know you have to build your Capital stack to see if you can build it and so your Awards will determine what you can build here but that is a lot of parking so those are my initial thoughts thank you your thoughts comments out commissioner Mills I was similarly thinking usually we have to beg people to put commercial into residential and I'm curious that jumping through all the Hoops for commercial in
117this particular and all the Hoops being doing the Pud um I'm just really curious about what's intended there um this while there is some commercial activity along the corridor it it's behind a gate and I don't know if that's intended to change but like I actually had to look it up cuz it I it always seem like a I don't know I I'm curious about the commercial component here and so especially because what we often hear is it's hard to make commercial like to get it full um do you and I don't so so that's one of the reasons like I get that that's the that's the thing why you can't do R4 e um and why it wouldn't work as as office and I don't want to discourage affordable housing by any means and
118so certainly the public benefit that you could have through having it as a PUD like locking that in is helpful it again is just curious to me like the Pud process is not one that gives you flexibility because if anything changes over time you have to come back to us and then it's really expensive so I'm not trying to talk you out of it but I'm kind of saying like again I get that what you're planning on doesn't fit anything else so it meets that criteria it's just curious thank you any other Commissioners with comments oh commissioner Adams I'm going to make another comment that you might want to ignore um but uh which I have a tendency to do I don't have a huge amount of heartburn with the parking but I I think
119if you're going to come back with the same amount you got to justify it Benchmark it tell us why that you need that amount of parking because I I don't want to I don't want to see ground floor retail go in and then not be activated but if it's if I think coming back in with more than just we think we need this amount of parking to activate it with actual data would be helpful to Anchor that discussion because if we can get more housing out of this project that would be great instead of parking council member dish yeah I'm really going to just follow on the same theme but there is uh in your report you suggest that the prop excuse me that the proposed development enhances the walkability of the existing neighborhood and
120it is hard to see how that would be true um with the amount of space that's devoted to parking here um you wouldn't even be able to walk between these two buildings without having to walk through a parking lot which I have never found to be a pleasant experience to add to I think commissioner white and council member R disa's uh Point um one of the standards for the PE zoning design review would be actually the provision of open space and so I understand this is kind of like an underutilized it's a grass field right now that's what it looks like so I love the idea of infilling it with senior housing and and from what I heard this is all electric hey pumps you guys are planning to have an all electric building is
121that correct that' be the goal um we have to work it into the perform to make sure that all adds up correctly but that's absolutely okay gotcha I think for PUD standpoint um again the the provision of affordable housing and so long as it still meets the you know sustainability kind of goals of the city um and just I think it's really the provision of public you know open space that you know allows for recreation as I know noted I think in one of the slides it said that the nearest park was about 2,000 ft away um and that's actually the maximum that I think people walk period like otherwise people take different modes or they're very not likely to do so um especially if it's geared towards seniors right with possible mobility issues I
122just want to be mindful want to make sure they have access to Recreation Etc but overall to me I'm infill of a currently V vacant you know grassy field to be filled in with affordable senior housing um that is sustainable um I think just the provision of that open space would be awesome commissioner hamers so I'm really supportive of this overall um I drive by this property quite frequently and I've always sort of like what is this and it's really cool that this is going to become um a lot more housing and affordable housing I have similar comments on the parking um the so I was trying to do the math on the like 49 units and it looks like they're all going to be in the new bu but then when I was looking
123at your breakdown like 14 + 14 + 14 + 4 doesn't equal 49 it equals 46 so just when you come back like clarify exactly how many units and I guess just back on the commercial um component of it which is great if you can get tenants which we have hurt we we've had you know Property Owners come to us and I'm thinking specifically of the George to convert commercial into residential because they're having trouble filling it I would I would I don't know if this is possible in the design but like if there's a way to sort of design that commercial space so that it could be easily retrofitted into residential if commercial just wasn't working out you might just want to explore that but thank you for bringing this to us abolutely uh
124commissioner Weatherby yeah I would agree again on the parking it just feels like a lot of parking um I think I am less concerned about the commercial than I might be if it were a different group bringing it to us um the petitioner has a long history of commercial success in the area so I I think probably has a better idea of what commercial might work in this location um I I do have similar concerns of like right now it's a big fenced in area and like I'm assuming that won't be true going forward um one of the things that I would like to see and I I I don't know what's possible or what's not possible I'm just looking at the map here but things like um uh Community Gardens connections to the Pioneer
125Memorial Park so that there are some connections because otherwise it's pretty isolated and front's unpacker and actually that neighborhood is a nice neighborhood in the back so so whatever kind of connections could be made as part of of the kind of green space and would would be I think positive thank you any other Commissioners with comments feedback do you as a petitioner think you got some helpful feedback absolutely thank you so much for all the feedback we um we'll take this all into consideration and um do adjustments to the best we can and and uh hopefully be back for a PUD resoning right perfect thank you so much all right great uh we're going to move on to uh thank you for uh for coming yep and then we're going to move on to other
126business this is um actually the uh we're going to review our schedule and this is the meeting schedules SL meeting cancellations for the June 11th working session and the July 2 regular session so Deputy Kelly sure we queried the Planning Commission members for whether or not there would be a quorum on the 72 meeting and it looks like there may not be a quorum for that meeting as it falls around uh you know City Holiday 4th of July so we recommend cancelling that uh based on uh your attendance and um where the date Falls also we have no currently we have no petitions scheduled for that are ready to be reviewed yet in July so I don't even have any that I would be moving to a new agenda uh so that gives me some
127comfortability too uh the 611 working session is normally when we would have advanced some of these types of presentations around P prep PUD petitions and so forth but since those have U we've had space on your regular sessions we don't have any current agenda items for the 611 working session so that was a proposed cancellation thank you um we'll just move into discussion and I'll motion yeah commissioner aens just one other thing I noticed that on my C on my calendar at least the October 15th meeting my calendar invitation is for the 16th currently so maybe we can make a note to update that I will bring that up with our administrative staff tomorrow thank you any oppositions to this any other discussion items okay well um I think we do we have to vote
128on it to cancel it yes we' need a a motion to cancel with the moover second okay got it do do we have a motion to cancel okay um move by commissioner Weatherby seconded by commissioner Mills um all right we're going in vote to cancel June 11th working session and the July 2nd regular session oh Voice vote all those in favor say I all those opposed motion carries all right we're going to move on to section 11 of the agenda which is public comment this is a second opportunity for individuals to speak up to 3 minutes on any issue um we'll first hear from those present and then remote participants to speak remotely please press star 9 if on the phone or use a raise hand feature in Zoom for phone access please call 877
129853 5247 and enter meeting ID 9776 6341 1226 City staff will select callers uh by the last three of phone number or by name if available uh go hear in automated announcements when it's your turn to speak and please ensure you're in a quiet area and mute any background noises for all participants please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments and do we have anybody present that would like to address the commission am I all to ask a question yeah yeah yeah you have three minutes sure um thanks again um Zack Weiss uh with best uh 2424 Stadium um just want a clarification on the tc1 one of the regulations uh the 100t um residential buffer uh sort of my question was what was the reasoning behind enacting that and in
130the you know specific case of the washingon stadium split if the regulation is from a signalized intersection I guess where do the measurement take place and how does it affect residential development along that Corridor um so I don't know if um U than yeah thank you um sorry I I know that was highly specific but fig but the Planning Commission isn't obligated to answer because it's strictly comment so it's at their discretion if they you still have time on the clock if you'd like to use it no that that was it that was just one a clarification while I was still here so um got it thank you thank you do we have anyone else present that would like to address the commission we'll try to get back to you on that H questions thanks
131Charlie Ken Garber again um 3551 package still up on the board um sounds like a great project and but I agree on the parking stuff um yeah hope they come back with less but otherwise they really welcome um PUD in my opinion um I guess your NE the last item on your agenda before adjournment is commission proposed business um I guess this is I'm going to come to you with a public proposed business here um I this is something I brought up on May 7th um I don't know again you don't have to you're not supposed to answer me but think about this this is about section 5184 D on uh in your UDC exception to height limits I'm just back from the citizen participation meeting for 611 church this is the 19-story building um
132between church and Forest just south of South University and they took advantage of the 30% um height exception uh based on the sustainability component uh which is defined in the UDC as um when and where a solar collector covers at least 0% of the building footprint area on a site and the electrical panels of the building have capacity to solely power the site by electricity including any conduit and other necessary infrastructure for future conversions if complete electrification is not achievable at the time of initial construction so um yeah there's putting up some solar panels doesn't amount to really much in terms of the demand of the building or building that High um and they're making it electrification ready but it turns out all that is is um enough conduit to in theory put in a
133rooftop electric um heated boiler but when pressed they agreed that that isn't the ideal heating solution all electric you want to go with a vrf a variable refrigerant flow system which is a completely different system in terms of the guts of the building you'd be running heads to individual um units you wouldn't be using um a a boiler system or forc air system like you would with furnaces so they agreed it was pretty unlikely they would ever make this conversion um but they're sort of doing the genu flecting to meet the letter of the UDC and getting the extra 30% in height so uh what I would like to see is that Definition of sustainability component for the uh um height 30% height height exception Revisited and actual and call for um electrification itself at
134the time of construction um and maybe and affordable housing uh component which I guess is 15% of units to 60% Ami so um that's my public proposed business for tonight and thank you for taking that into consideration thank you Mr Garber do we have anybody else that would like to speak at this time seeing no one do we have any remote callers there are no raised hands right now thank you with that I will call close public comment uh we are moving on to the next agenda item commission proposed business is there any commission proposed business commissioner white uh at the recommendation of the Deputy planning manager I'd like us to look again with our comprehensive subcommittee um at this PUD that just came in and why our existing Sony um would not allow this
135and why they have to go to apud and then I having heard what Mr Garber just said I was looking in the UDC um 5184 defines part of it but it doesn't address the part where he is so if we do pick this up um Can sta at least acknowledge where the height limit um definition is for the for the uh solar CU it it's page 93 it's not defined in this section it's defined in another section and so if we do look at what Mr Garber is um referring to we just need the reference point of where the actual solar is defined and how it intersects with 5184 or D commissioner abens are do you mean that where the where sustainability component is defined so I went to look for what he just said
136in the UDC based on the code he gave me and I couldn't find it there and then commissioner Mill says this is it but the definition of the solar is in another section of the UDC so I think sustainability components in the definitions at the end of the terms but I think what you're pointing out is that that's confusing and so we should include it here yes or at least reference it so that we would know how to address what we are currently hearing got it cuz it's not got it you have to go find it got it so understood any other commission proposed business all right seeing none I'm going to move to the last item on the agenda which is adjournment moved by commissioner white seconded by commissioner Mills we are oh all
137those in favor say I I any oppos pleas move very quickly we are a turn thank you