001I'll call the order welcome to the January 16th 2024 regular meeting of the an arbor Planning Commission for detailed information on me meeting procedures please review the full printed agenda meeting provided Mr Leonard will you please call the role yes happy 2024 Commissioners commissioner Lee here commissioner abam here commissioner wh here commissioner Mills here commissioner hamers Schmid here commissioner dish happy 2024 Mr Leonard thank you here commissioner Clark here commissioner Weatherby here we have a quorum great thank you may I have an motion to approve the agenda U moved by commissioner um Mills and second by council member dish uh is there any discussion all those in favor please say I I any opposed seeing none the motion carries um may I have a motion to approve the minutes of December I believe it's 19th
002I'm sorry uh December 19th 2023 moved by uh commissioner oh I'm sorry long a thank you it's been a long day it's been a long day and seconded by commissioner Mills um any discussion of the minutes um all those in favor of the motion please say I I I uh any opposed motion carries sorry commissioner abon I keep trying to say Ellie uh next up our reports to the Planning Commission uh council member dish do you have report I have nothing to report there was a meeting but it contained no planning related items thank you for the update Mr Leonard uh a couple items of general interest and more specific commission interest one uh this Friday is the an arbor Bicentennial kickoff celebration at Michigan Theater it is a ticketed event but um if you
003are interested in that event um please check it out um today also the city announced a public information session on Monday January 29th 2024 for the Sports Illustrated Conference Center uh and information session um uh very pre pre to the subsequent development review process but if uh Commissioners or the public is interested in that keep keep an eye out that'll be in the city council chambers again on the 29th at 7:00 p.m. and it'll also have a zoom option to watch from the Cozy confines of your couch um the uh an online comprehensive plan survey has been posted in uh spread and is available to the community it is available to all at plan.at go.org pl24 um no end date to that survey at this point um we we will probably announce at some point
004but we want to make sure we get a wide ranging response so um just trying to encourage as much uh voices as possible and then uh finally on a um a bit of a um bummer note for Alexis and I and the commission I wanted to share I think I announced at a previous meeting that city planner Chris Chang um was retiring um additionally uh Administrative Assistant Mia Gail both retired this week um we are um so happy for them but obviously um will be crying in our uh cubes occasionally as well so um just uh I wanted to acknowledge all of their commitment to the in support to the Planning Commission and the and to public service over their 10 years with the city thank you uh do other commissioner officers or committee liaison
005have anything to report seeing none we'll move on to section number six public comment this is an opportunity for persons to speak up to 3 minutes about an issue that is not listed as a public hearing on this agenda we'll first call on individuals present to address the commission and then report uh remote participants to speak during this public hearing remotely please press star9 if listening by phone or use a raised hand feature if viewing through the web link for phone access please call 877 85352 47 and enter meeting ID 977 66 341 1226 City staff will select callers that have raised their hand using the last three jits of your phone number or by name if available you'll hear an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak and when speaking please
006move to a quiet area and mute any television or background sounds so that we can hear you clearly is there anyone present um oh I'm sorry for either method of participation please state your name and address clearly is there anyone present that would like to speak to the commission Mr Garber thank you for braving the weather today and joining us no thank you chair Lee and commission for coming out tonight um Ken Garber 28 H Hill Court subject of my public comment tonight is public comment um I don't know if you're aware but Planning Commission public hearings May soon be a thing of the past that's the recommendation in this report a new approach to Economic Development um staff report there will probably be a council resolution in the coming weeks the report gives several
007reasons first getting rid of the public hearing will shave time off site plan review since they must be noticed 15 days in advance while regular agenda items only require 18 hours so can be added much later this saves maybe 10 days then there's what I call the futility argument from the report quote there is an important question to be asked as to whether it is fair to invite the public to participate in an engagement that is extremely unlikely to result in any meaningful changes doing so creates a false promise to the public and dilutes confidence in city government end quote as a member of the public I find this incredibly condescending that having a public hearing is unfair to me because it gives me false hope that I can have influence so let's eliminate the
008public hearing um I wouldn't come down here um this often if uh I didn't think I could make a difference so to say they're getting rid of public hearings for my benefit I find deeply offensive it speaks to a disregard for the public that's evident throughout this report yes there are some hand waving in here about timing public involvement earlier where it can add value but there is no proposal in here to schedule a public hearing earlier in the process our role is pretty much reduced to being informed about a project yes we could still comment at the beginning of the meeting during General comment as I'm doing now but that means choosing between the site plan and other issues we won't hear the developer and staff reports first and we'll only have a few
009days uh not notice to prepare I don't know about you but I count on the two weeks notice to start researching a site plan the report argues that we have months to become familiar with a project but in reality unless we live within 1,000 ft of the site the first most of us hear about it is when it's scheduled for the public hearing um so uh I I think this is uh under your control I I urge you to keep the P the public hearing um for site plan um it's hard for me to even believe that we're talking about this but that's where we are right now thank you Mr Garber do we have any remote participants we do not all right um with that I will close public hearing um we're going to
010go to section number seven public hearings for the the next business meeting I did not see any staff yeah uh due to uh the holidays we did not have those uh established before the packet went out but we do have a new public hearing schedule for February 6th um the there will be one new public hearing item it is 711 Church PUD zoning and site plan this is a request to Zone a 1.1 Acre Site from r4c multiple family dwelling to PUD plan unit development and adopt supplemental regulations to allow the development of up to 450,000 ft and a site plan to construct a 17-story apartment building with ground ground floor commercial primary proposed public benefits to the PD would include contributions to affordable housing and enhanced sustainability building would have 273 proposed apartments with
011over 1,000 bedrooms amenity would amenities would include on-site vehicle and bicycle parking and streetscape improvements this proposal includes six Lots 703 707 709 to 713 715 721 church and 1208 Willard Street thank you with that we'll move on to section number eight which is regular business I believe this one actually is going to be the 28 45 South Street RightWay release and vacation at this time I'm going to be recusing myself as this matter involves my employer thank you thank you commissioner Lee okay so this is a petition 2845 South State Street RightWay release vacation a request to release vacate three areas of roadway rights fronting 2845 South State Street including a 50t by 229 ft and a 50ft by 51 ft along South State Street and a 27t by 310t foot area along East
012Eisenhower Parkway is there a petitioner presentation for this um there is not this evening so I'm going to pinch hit okay so we'll move to a staff presentation planner de Leo thank you um as mentioned this is the 2845 South thank you 2845 South State Street uh Street vacation RightWay release um I have up on the screen an aerial photo of the entire 2845 South State Street site the release includes three segments of RightWay there are two pieces on South State Street one piece on East Eisenhower um these are asked to be vacated so that they can be considered for future infield development and the segments of RightWay were acquired by easement or by deed for future needs um beyond the beyond the existing or established right way but those future needs are unlikely to
013happen we're not considering widening Eisenhower any further for example um and the vacation request is limited to those additional areas not the traditional Redway itself um let me pause for a moment to switch um screen sharing things this is a go here we go um all right okay so um on the screen is the survey and legal description um but first we have an area um shown in the staff report and highlighted in yellow if my pointer is working this area is a 51 by 50t area um that is outside of outside of the RightWay and this area just below it is a 229t by 50t area these two pieces were acquired along with this piece here which is not shown because it was already returned but these two pieces were acquired in 1973 the
014area South here was returned in 2014 I do not have an explanation for why the other pieces were not um these areas have no utilities or sidewalk encroachments in them so they will just be simply returned um to the land owner upon approval the next page here we go um here on the screen now is a more detailed of the two pieces and then here on this screen goes along with page three of the staff report this is a 310 FTX 50 foot piece along Eisenhower Parkway it was acquired in 1972 and a piece fronting the gas station which would be here where the cursor is was returned in 1985 but the corresponding piece on the other property was not so the request is to uh return this piece now this piece has a little
015bit of underground utilities underneath it and there's a little bit of sidewalk encroachment um and so we will be getting an easement back um from the property owner for the for those pieces of public infrastructure but an easement would be different than a than Road ride of Way Road R of way does not count towards your lot area but the land would be returned but we would retain some easement so setbacks would be taken from setbacks would be taken from the um The Returned area the whole sight lot area would be taken from or would include then the return pieces um and I do in the last bit of the attachment shows the easement that will be returned back to us as you can see we do have the easement documents um but the language
016and the dimensions are still being reviewed by our public services department and our attorney's office this project will be this is for rec a recommendation by the Planning Commission and so it'll still move on to uh city council so we'll finalize though making sure that easements um have the eyes dotted and the t's crossed by then uh staff is recommending approval sub object to confirming those easements but we are recommending approval as it will have no impact on vehicular or pedestrian access and um no no public interests would be harmed by this vacation happy to answer any additional questions if they come up thank you so we'll now move to the public hearing this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to 3 minutes about the street vacation at 2845 South State Street
017sorry right of way vacation um um we'll first call on individuals present to address the commission then remote participants to speak during this public hearing remotely press star9 if listening by phone or you can use the raise hand feature if viewing through the web link for phone access call 877 85352 47 and enter meeting ID 977 66 341 1226 City staff will select callers that have raised their hand using the last three digits of your phone number or by name if available for those accessing through the web link you'll hear an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak when speaking please move to a quiet area and mute any television or background sounds so that we may hear you clearly for either method of participation please state your name and address at
018the beginning of your comments is there anyone present that would like to speak at this time is there anybody who would like to address the commission remotely No Hands raised let's give it one moment okay cuz you are moving so efficiently no speakers thank you we'll now close the public hearing I'll read the proposed motion the an arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve the 2845 South State Street right of-way release vacation as proposed subject to conveying an easement for existing public utilities and sidewalks moved by commissioner Mills seconded by commissioner dish we are in discussion commissioner Mills I won't make the normal V like joke about the vacations and we we do talk about vacations a lot but this is the first time I feel like that we've
019talked about some kind of vacation of some piece of property where the conveyance of that was relatively recently like it it's not like an alley that feels like it was there since time Memorial like where we didn't have records of it so I guess my I bring that up like this caught my attention because I mean the 70s aren't that long ago um when we say that the city obtained the deed or obtained roadway rights did we purchase them um I am fairly certain we did not but I the timing lines up I did not do the research but the timing lines up that these were acquired um at the time that 777 Eisenhower was built okay um I this makes sense I've never asked this question before because it's always been like really really
020old the alley was drawn on a map nobody ever used it right the road was drawn but we never it was never used that way and this just seems relatively recent and the reason that I bring it up is when we had the discussion about how expensive it would be to increase the road R of way along kind of the tc1 corridors and the idea that we would have to buy that it makes me think like if we bought this I feel like somebody should buy it back from us personally so um if if we didn't purchase it if it was just conveyed as part of the development then this totally makes sense to me and without that detail like I don't it doesn't totally matter the buck doesn't stop here it goes on to
021city council I would just encourage city council to I would have that answer before it goes to city council maybe because anyway um otherwise yes this absolutely makes sense we do not need that road to be as gigantic as that road is okay commissioner W uh just for my edification question so let's take a look at the Eisen how figure which is on your staff report figure three um I do believe you have in yellow the property lines they're the thin yellow line uh that runs through and since this is Zone tc1 could this development come all the way up to that property line or is there a required setback um Eisenhower and both Eisenhower and State Street have been designated as Transit Corridor streets and so development um along those this is testing my
022memory but 28 I was say development along those streets will be taken from the curb so not from the property line right so we already have a built-in set back because of how much Frontage there is already there you know you've got the public sidewalk and then you have another easement before you even get to the roadway right okay and so again just for my edification let's imagine we're on Stadium okay with the changes we made okay how how does it change there does it change at all because we we're setting the we set the the uh sending it back from Council to planning to get more space for future right of way would change it because that one would be subject to the property lines or is it still subject to the 18 uh
023Stadium Boulevard has also been designated as a Transit Corridor so the setbacks on Stadium Boulevard will be taken from the curb so not from the property lines okay what this does here is as you can see um the dark blue has a jog yep in it and so um but the curb does not yep so the curb the setback measurements would would would go back northward uniformly but then you'd run into the property line and so the building may have to be pushed back even farther right now on the western half of this property okay because you wouldn't you can't build in the right way so so this is making the right this is making the um property line uniform to parallel the curb line okay I I think I understood that and then I
024have another question so I went to the the um citizen participation meeting that they have for the development and they indicated that they have the gas station now inside their portfolio Okay so then this line this blue line that you drew may change if they brought that proper if they did a parcel assemblage and brought that that parcel into the development right so now now it would just come straight down and go across so it'll be a perfect square Y and then we have because it's tc1 and we made the change to the setbacks it's now the curb not the property line so they wouldn't be able to come straight to that thin yellow line there they'd have to start their account at the curb either on state or Eisenhower and go somewhere between 18
025and 28 and 28 yeah okay yeah so that's going to be a lot of setback then well because you already again this is just for edification no criticism as far as I can tell yeah for this property for 28 um for 2845 State Street whether it does or doesn't include then the gas station if it they were to do a lot land combination but for this property their setbacks are going to be taken from this red line which is the curb okay um and not the yellow line orange line um which is the um the property prop line what we're with with these pieces of RightWay release return vacation um we are removing the jogs yep um and we're making the orange line which is the property line straight across right um that doesn't have
026a a direct impact now on setbacks because we've um broken the link between property line and setback and front setback but it does make for um a little bit larger site square footage um and it do make for a uniform lot line yep and then buildings don't have to have a weird jog in them mhm no I can see all of that and I don't have any objections to the vacation I was just interested okay in how this would look Visa the changes we've made uh to uh tc1 cuz it looks like it's going to be in some places it could be very significant the setback like we don't have um measurements or scale here to figure out like yeah you know fing finger's width is like 7 feet and so now we're looking at
02721t I think currently from Curb line to where the property line is now is about 45 ft yeah so what this does is actually makes it possible cuz right now the building can't be closer than 45 ft right and so what this would do is contingent upon working out some utility and public sidewalk issues enable the ability to maybe meet that 18 to 28 get it closer to the curb in this circum this really like where it is right now it's way set back you know and so what they're trying to do in this development and activate this space it would be nice to bring it all the way as much forward to the sidewalk which is why I was asking about the thin yellow line which I assumed was the property line but the
028setbacks actually start at the red and then go from there so thank you any other comments items for discussion all right I think we're ready for a vote then okay this is the recommendation to vacate the sections as indicated uh commissioner abon yes commissioner white yes commissioner Mills yes commissioner hamers Schmid yes commissioner dish yes commissioner Clark yes commissioner Weatherby yes recommendation carries let me see if I can find thank you we'll pause for a moment to find commissioner Lee thank you all right sure a if I could get that get that script back yeah thank you you have your own I do oh you know what I do never mind sorry it's been that kind of a day it's okay uh moving on to regular business this is or I'm sorry this is unfinished
029business you can have my papers too if you want could I thank you um we're moving on to uh item number 8B um I do see that this is postponed I will note that um this is 3520 green uh Court plan unit development text amendments for city council approval proposed amendment uh supplemental regulations will expand the permitted use of the principal uses of the Pud permitted principal uses would include medical dental offices which are currently prohibited and would expand the definition of hotel which currently restricts Hotel developments to Extended stays with 100 room Max Capacity would permit the development of multif family residential housing which is currently excluded pey District includes 35.262781 is postponement uh staff so this is uh as you indicated this was postponed from a previous item and I am sorry to
030say we don't have a lot of additional information the petitioner has requested an additional postponement to February 22nd uh they are still continue to work I think with some of the neighboring property owners and refining their proposed amendment requests based on some of the first feedback that you the commission gave them um I do want to note that this particular propos proposal was also um included originally in changes to the tc1 on Plymouth Road um I gave you some bad advice that you could add that at the table and the council um took action on that bad advice and pulled those properties out of the table out of the recommended zoning so um uh I have a question has been raised about sort of Our intention to um sort of reconsider that and from my
031perspective I really want to see that this petitioner application is resolved before uh another rezoning petition is put forward um by staff um that could change but that's I just wanted to share just sort of daylight that's my current take on it why you are this is still an an ongoing agenda um you will also note that the petitioners are not supportive of that tc1 zoning and so I think it is appropriate to give them sort of the um opportunity to present uh eventually in this case on the 22nd a proposed um Amendment for the Pud regulations so it is on the agenda I would recommend that you hold the public hearing but um you don't have to but it is typical for us to honor such requests to give petitioners time and would recommend
032uh postponement to the 22nd at the conclusion of the public hearing sounds good thank you so we will uh go to public hearing this is an opportunity for persons to speak up to 3 minutes about the 3520 Green Court PUD Amendment for city council approval we'll first call on individuals present to address the commission then remote participants to speak during the public hearing remotely please press star9 if listening by phone or use a raised hand feature if viewing through the web link for phone access please call 877- 85352 47 and enter meeting ID 977 66 341 1226 City staff will select callers that have raised their hand using the last three digit of the phone number or by name if available um you'll hear an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak
033and when speaking please move to a quiet area mute any television or background sound so that we can hear you clearly for either method of participation please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments is there anyone present that would like to address the commission thanks CH Lee Ken Garber again um knowing that every public hearing might be my last I have to take the opportunity um although it's not clear to me that staff is recommending that rezoning um public hearings be canceled just by right developments it's not clear from the um the economic development report um anyway um not seeing the Pud amendments I don't have much to say about this tonight just a reminder that in previous discussions as I remember um the developer did agree in principle that new
034buildings um on this site um would be all electric or at least agreed to strongly consider that um so I hope we see that with the PE amendments that come back in February so um I'll have more to say then assuming there's a public hearing and thank you for your consideration thank you Mr Garber um seeing no one else in the audience are there any remote participants no there are not got it um with that close public hearing and I will move to postpone unless people would like to have discussion um do I see any objections to I will propose and I will move to um postpone this item uh to a vote do I have a second um commissioner I want to be clear we're postponing to February 22nd yes to postponing to February
03522nd um seconded by commissioner W uh for a vote um if all in favor say I I any objections if not this is uh the motion passes and this is postponed to February uh 22nd all right uh we are now moving on to um other regular business um let give me one second and other business so are there other uh moving on to section n other business are there any other um business that so I don't see anything on the agenda public comment okay we'll move on to section number 10 thank you um this is an opportunity for persons to speak up to 3 minutes about any issues that's not listed as a public hearing on this agenda we'll F first call on individuals present to address the commission um then remote participants to speak
036during this public hearing remotely please press star 9 if by phone or raise hand feature if viewing through the web link for phone access please call 877- 85352 47 and enter meeting ID 9776 63 41226 City staff will select callers that have raised their hand using the last three digs of the phone number or by name if available you'll hear an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak and when speaking please move to a quiet area and mute any background signs so that we can hear you clearly for either method of participation please state your name and address uh at the beginning of your comments is there anyone present that would like to speak at this time seeing none are there anybody else uh looking to um speak remotely let me just
037give it one moment and the moment has passed no speakers with that I will close public comment we're going to move on to commission proposed business is there any commission proposed business yes commissioner W I just wanted to pick up Mr garber's comment I too read uh the deputy City administrators uh Economic Development report that he delivered to council uh entitled a new approach to Economic Development and I wondered um about the changes because I thought the rules for public hearings were set at the state level they're not set at this table and so could you clarify that for me Mr Leonard yeah the state does set some public hearing requirements but here in the city we have um added to those so any legislative action which is a uh rezoning or um uh PUD
038um requires a public hearing uh to be held that's dictated by state law um it has required notice requirements where we notify um Property Owners within a certain radius of that that's all stipulated by state law state law does not stipulate that the same is required for administrative functions such as site plan review and and so um our local ordinance however does require that whenever some item comes before this body it requires a public hearing when it's those types of applications so that's that's a case where our local um requirements have gone above uh State uh requirements a followup so uh that means that on a byrite development that we've added a public hearing that's correct and the deputy City administrator is suggesting that that is removed because it also requires a notice so it
039require the notice of a public hearing um because a public hearing is required it has to meet that notice requirements and so it has to be published in the lot I don't want to speak for him no no no I'm just thinking of it as it impacts the table so because there is a public hearing on an administrative site plan that by right should go forward if unless it doesn't meet the criteria correct um that then has a cascading effect because it requires a 10day notice or some some kind of notice yeah it's actually about um it's about a 3 week plus because what it means is we have to publish um and so we have to send that publication ES be published 2 weeks in advance unfortunately with the frequency of printed papers here
040we that doesn't happen with a lot of frequency so um we are typically um you know today I just shared with you we were today was sort of our final deadline to determine what we would be publishing for the February 6th agenda and so what what that means is between that time frame we have to have a project ready and it doesn't give us the flexibility to necessarily w wrap up something and get that onto that February 6th agenda so that's kind of an example of it and I think one of the things that you know I've definitely had some conversations with um the Deputy Administrator and you know I think part of it is is where we want to put that time you know do because we spend a lot of time organizationally at
041Planning Commission at City Council in the past with site plans um would that time be better spent with public hearings on ordinance updat and code and updates and policy updates that are setting those rules for the administrative function so um so you know lots of you know I don't I don't I don't sit here and say that there's a right or wrong but I think those are some of the balances that are being contemplated but it again uh but it wouldn't deny a member of the public like Mr Garber from still speaking at a site plan administrative because there are two opportunities in every meeting at the beginning and at the end that's correct so it it wouldn't prevent that the the only change would be the notice correct so Mr Garber wouldn't get a
0423-week notice that a byright site plan was coming but Mr Garber would still be able to speak twice depending how any change was considered there might be other changes that are considered but yeah that's correct cool thank you Charle I don't want to get ahead of things and so if I am just tell me to be quiet but um I think the bigger piece that this report identifies is that we overburden our site plans um his point the point that Mr forer makes in the report is that we require a lot of engineering to have happened at the site plan stage and I think I'm paraphrasing uh the site plan is supposed to be a conceptual plan you answer basic questions such as allowable use under zoning and according to it uh and according to
043development review it's not until the Civil plan that you get into solid waste and utilities and more and so a bigger change that he is suggesting and again I don't I think this plan is supposed to or this report is supposed to issue in a committee that's supposed to then recommend changes so it's the usual way that governments work but but I think that the bigger thing is that site plan review itself would be simpler than what we have it now and less hung up and contingent on other pieces of the city responding and so right now some of what it feels like there is to talk about in sight plans those things might not be in the site plans that we see if if I'm understanding you're nodding or maybe you're nodding I shouldn't
044have let you talk no no I you know I think that is a part of the report just as as an example there are other communities who actually require every site plan to go through two stages they have to do a preliminary site plan approval and they have to do a final site plan approval and that what that does is it does sort of bifurcate some of the detailed um analysis detailed work and frankly cost associated with that site plan before somebody has a sense of improvement or entitlement um here in the city our policies H have flipped that on this ear to say like hey we want to provide a one-step thing which is good but what that then requires is a lot of upfront detailed cost and Analysis that is pretty significant and
045it also I don't I don't want to say it's a barrier of Entry but it is costly and it might um impact the types of uh developers that might be able to approach that if they're not really well resourced um in order to be able to accomplish that versus somebody who might be able to get to a stage of approval that opens up the opportunity for additional investment and detail analysis so um I think that is an important part of the study and and I I also just want to point out part of it is just how the city thinks about Economic Development we have as a city um I don't think it's been something that I've seen that we invest in very specifically like some other communities do um with you know dedicated uh
046resources towards that end um maybe it's because there's a been a sense that we don't need to um whether that's true or not I think it's a question about whether what kind of um what kind of outcomes did we get and what kind of outcomes would change if we did make some of those Investments so I think that's a big part of the report as well um if those uh for those of you who haven't seen it has anybody not seen it I'm happy to I'll get that shared with everybody so you can see that as well I mean I read it when it came out but as it hasn't been part of our packet as commissioner dis says I'm a municipal nerd so you read these things when they when they hit and it
047hit like 3 days before Christmas commissioner W Light reading thank you for the uh conversation regarding the economic development plan I appreciate the comments are there any other commission proposed business that people would like to discuss seeing nothing else I will move to section 12 which is adjournment move by commissioner white seconded by commiss council member dish all those in favor say I I we are a journ thank you