001all right welcome to the November 1st regular meeting of the annor Planning Commission for detailed information on the meeting procedures please review the full printed meeting agenda as provided M Kelly will you please call the role commissioner Lee here commissioner aons here commissioner W here commissioner Mills here commissioner hamers Schmid has noted she will be absent this evening council member dish here commissioner sa here commissioner Clark commissioner Weatherby here you have a quorum thank you uh moving on to approval of the agenda may I have a motion to approve uh commissioner hammer or I'm sorry Mills seconded by commissioner white all those in favor please say I I I any opposed the motion carries um minutes of the previous meeting May I have a motion to approve the minutes of the October 17th commissioner uh
002Mills and council member dish uh is there any discussion of the minutes all those in favor of the motion please say I I I any opposed seeing no one the motion carries next up by the reports of the Planning Commission and written communication council member dish I'm going to start with you no report because Council hasn't met since the last time we did oh thank you m Kelly do you have any report I do I would uh first of all like to introduce the person who is sitting to my right um first day for our new planning Services intern Jonathan artson so uh please give a welcome to Jonathan uh they will be shadowing uh stuff and learning about the Planning Commission through the meeting this evening uh you also have a comprehensive Plan update
003from planning manager Leonard he is scheduling a subcommittee meeting to develop recommendations to finalize your steering committee and also the consultant team is reviewing um past surveys and uh still doing uh a bit of existing conditions review the tc1 resident participation meeting for the rezoning of 63 Parcels along Wasa Corridor will be held Thursday in person November 16th uh at 6:30 p.m. at Pittsfield Elementary School the that location is 2543 Pittsfield Boulevard in the 48104 zip code and your work session next week I'd like to point out that that is also on a Wednesday and at that meeting you will receive a overview of the capital Improvement plan process from Kayla Coleman who is the capital projects asset manager thank you do other commissioner officers or lean have anything to report all right moving forward
004written Communications are included in today's packet we're going to move on to public comment this is an opportunity for persons to speak up to three minutes about an issue that's not listed as a public hearing on this agenda we'll first call on individuals present to address the commission then remote participants to speak during this public hearing remotely please press star9 if listening by phone or use the raised hand feature if viewing through the web link for phone access please call 877 85352 47 and enter meeting ID 1226 City staff will select callers who've raised their hand using the last three digits of their phone number or by name if available for those accessing through the web link and you will hear an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak when speaking please
005do move to a quiet area and mute any television or background sound so that we may hear you clearly for either method of participation please state your name and your address at the beginning of your comments is there anyone here present that would like to speak at this time Mr Garber yeah thank you chair Lee Ken Garber 28 H Hill Court um I'd like to speak on 3874 Research Park Drive I noticed there's no public hearing so now is the time right uh I believe there is a public hearing for Research Park Drive that's okay oh then wait thank you thank you anybody else here that would like to speak on a matter that's not listed on the agenda seeing no one is there anyone that would like to address the commission remotely there is
006one hand raised phone number ending in 534 you have permission to address the Planning Commission for three minutes good evening this is Tom stallord calling from lowertown in an arbor uh later on tonight we're going to talk about one of several City initiated Mass uh res zonings or other zoning Law changes um so we'll talk about the details about that one later but I would like to thank you all for the increased wealth that you have created through other zoning changes for people like myself uh people uh like me and my investors that already own property that will'll be able to get a greater yield on uh what it does for us is it immediately makes us unconditionally wealthier it increases the value of our properties unconditionally and then we can uh we don't even
007have to develop to make that money I know people talk about well you know you should you should make a profit for development no we don't have to uh we can go to the bank and borrow against that money and we could develop in the township create commuters if we want we could buy a boat anything we want to do so it's that unconditional aspect of some of the city initiated actions that kind of triggers that and I'd also like to mention that one of the other things it does is by increasing the cost of the land it increases one of the primary inputs to new development so if we're looking for modest price housing the first thing we do apparently is to increase the cost of one of the primary input into that housing
008so uh I'm not sure if that's the wisest thing to do but I just wanted to make sure that I personally thank all of you uh and I'm sure there's other land holders and land speculators out there that are very grateful for the uh the wealth that you are creating for us with some of these City initiated uh zoning changes um thank you very much thank you any other callers there are no other hands raised Mr chair thank you uh we'll move on to public hearings for the next business meeting and I will defer to staff a public hearing on the following items will be held by the an arbor Planning Commission on Tuesday November 14 2023 at 7 p.m. uh the first of which 28:45 South State Street which is a request to vacate
009three areas of roadway rights fronting 2845 South State Street the owner of the property at 2845 South State requests that the roadway wres over a 50t by 229 ft and a 50t x 51 ft area adjacent to South State and a 27t x 310t area adjacent to Eisenhower Parkway are vacated this action will remove these previously acquired roadway rights over the property and result in a uniform right of way Edge along the east side of South State Street between Eisenhower Parkway and Oakbrook Drive and along the north side of Eisenhower Parkway between South State Street and Boardwalk Drive the second public hearing will be 312 East yon Street this is located at the southeast corner of East uran in South fth Avenue Zone D1 downtown core District it's a proposal to construct an approximately 77,000
010ft² six-story Hotel building on two Parcels totaling 045 Acres access is proposed off South Fifth Avenue and leads to nine surface parking spaces with storm water detention located below the parking lot no regulated natural features will be impacted from this proposal thank you we're going to move on to section 8A unfinished business this is regarding the 3520 Green Court this is the plan unit development text Amendment for city council approval the proposed amended supplemental regulations will expand the permitted principal uses of the Pud the permitted unit development or planed unit development excuse me the permitted principal uses would include medical dental offices which are currently prohibited would expand the definition of hotel which would currently um which currently restricts Hotel developments to Extended stays with 100 room Max Capacity would permit the development of multif
011family residential housing which is currently excluded and the Pud District includes 35.262781 uh that is correct and the reason for this postponement to the second regular session in January or that request is because this petitioner later in your agenda is asking um to be included in the city initiated uh resoning to tc1 along the Plymouth Road area and they would like to postpone um their prior interest uh in um in One Direction toward tc1 and they await the outcome of this meeting and city council proceedings thank you so we're going to go to public hearing and then motion is that correct that is correct all right we're going to move to public hearing this is an opportunity for persons to speak up to three minutes about the proposed PE amendments we will first call on
012individuals to pres uh present to address the commission then remote participants to speak during this public hearing remotely please press star 9 if listening by phone or use the raised hand feature if viewing through the web link for phone access please call call 877 853 5247 and enter meeting ID 977 66 34226 City staff will select callers that have raised your hands 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 allow saying that the host is allowing you to speak and when speaking please move to a quiet area and mute any television sounds so that we can hear you clearly uh again for either method of participation please state your name name and your address at the beginning
013of your comments is there anyone present that would like to speak about this matter at this time yes but can I wait or I I need to speak first is this regarding the 3520 Green Road PUD oh no I'm I'm from Plymouth Road Plymouth Road if this is regarding the tc1 this is not quite that time okay it it'll be later in the agenda thank you seeing no one um is there anyone that would like to address the commission remotely the proposed motion is to postpone to the January 16th regular session moved by commissioner white seconded by commissioner a discussion of the proposed motions I'm sorry uh Voice vote without objection that motion passes any objections the motion passes all right we'll move on to section 8B which is 3874 Research Park Drive this is
014sorious phase two site plan for Planning Commission approval this is where the site plan is actually approved phase two proposal to construct 11,800 ft building addition onto the existing building 77 new parking spaces with two new curb cuts off Research Park driver also proposed the staff recommendation is approval and we will move on to petitioner presentation Miss Brier all right good evening everybody I'm Candace Brier with Midwestern Consulting I'm here tonight with um um Cameron mccoslin the applicant as well as Peter Mertens from Sartorius Tom Phillips from Hops and black Architects and Joe Vic the contractor for this project so um just for context um this is phase two of the project so you may remember from a year maybe two ago um seeing phase one these are the central properties of the research Park
015Drive Industrial Park area um south of I94 East of State Street north of Ellsworth um the site's just under 17 Acres it is zoned re o RL which allows for the um the use um as I mentioned phase one of this site plan was approved in February of 2022 um and is currently under construction um this phase includes a proposed building addition which would expand the uses that were um um proposed for phase one uh many elements of phase one will be utilized as part of this expansion including the parking lots the drive aisles the solid waste enclosures storm water management system and many of the utility connections um the proposed Phase 2 improvements do include a small parking lot expansion um the associated lighting some underground utilities and Landscaping um this site plan also
016does include removal of one Landmark tree with six mitigation trees provided um so as I mentioned the project is is primarily a proposed building Edition it's 110,00 ft one-story building Edition on the north side of the phase 1 building um there's also a proposed parking lot with 77 parking spaces including 9 evi and 32 EVC spaces um which would bring the total parking on site to 376 um vehicle spaces we're also proposing 26 additional bicycle parking spaces for a total of 58 on site um access to the parking lot will be provided from the existing phase one driveway so we won't need a new driveway for the parking lot but we are proposing two new access points um along the north side of the building for truck loading and unloading and for fire access um
017we're also proposing a new um crosswalk connection to the AATA bus stop that's on the east side of Research Park Drive as far as utility service it's pretty minimal um there will be a new sanitary sewer lead on the west side of the building um connecting into Research Park Drive and um a new hydrant that's being constructed on the north side of the building um there are no new domestic water or fire service leads um The Phase 2 building will be serviced internally um from the phase one water Network um we will use the existing infiltration Basin that was constructed in phase one that was sized to accommodate the runoff from this phase as well so um nothing needs to be done with that as far as storm water is concerned and then franchise utilities
018will utilize the connections that were that were put in for phase one um at this point I can turn it over to Tom if he wants to come talk about the new building evening uh Tom Phillips with Hobson black Architects here at an aror um the building is very much in character with uh the existing building that's under construction now it's made of a a sophisticated uh metal panel insulated metal Panel System uh very similar interlocking that uh exceeds all the current energy code requirements and this phase will not have as much Glass by percentage but the the glass that is there is is also High Performance Glass uh intended to block some of the heat coming in from the Sun um and then the the roof as well is is a white uh membrane
019roof that um is not only reflective but the insulation of the envelope also exceeds the uh the energy code requirements so it's very much uh in character with the the first phase of the building show you a couple pictures of it um the trucking area is kind of tucked into the back of the building along the north Edge as can is mentioned and we tried to you know offer some variation uh to the C generate some interest in the building going around the perimeter and uh continue to um Express kind of the high-tech nature of the of the client in the building itself and that's where we're at so you want to okay I'll thanks Tom um cam did you want to mention and some of the sustainability features of the project cam moslin with
020Portage Capital so uh you know the sustainability issues that we we really went through quite a bit you know on the phase one would continue um on this phase which would be full implementation of the lead gold status that we are achieving in uh in this phase plan to do full solar to the extent we can we can get on the roof that's I think the one of the the pictures I don't think are necessarily representative because we've got a pretty sizable solar array on the first phase that will be implemented obviously everything related to you know the code with uh with EV and um and any other uh you know things that we were were looking at you know through the phase one we will continue on with phase two which been has been
021a pretty exhaustive effort you know both by uh sorus as a company with their initiatives on sustainability and you know in and in kind with the uh an arbor with what we were trying to achieve with this project thanks with that uh we're happy to answer any questions perfect thank you then with that I think we go to staff presentation Mr CH yeah I think the petitioner did a good job of making an overall presentation on the site the only thing I think I would add is there is the Malex Creek that runs along the north portion of the site that's a 25 foot natural features buffer that they have met um there are two additional curb cuts that are placed along Research Park Drive on the East and the West that again does me
022code and with that uh planning departments recommends approval for this project thank you with that we'll move on to public hearing uh this is an opportunity for persons to speak up to three minutes about the proposed site plan we'll first call on individuals present to address the commission than remote participants to speak during this public hearing remotely please press star N9 if lifing by phone or use the rais hand feature if viewing through the web link for phone access please call 87 7 853 5247 and enter meeting ID 977 63 uh 66 341 1226 City staff will call uh select on callers that have raised her hands using the last three digits of your phone number or by name if available you'll hear an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak and
023when speaking please move to a quiet area and mute any television or background size uh sound so that we can hear you clearly for either method of participation please state your name an address at the beginning of your comments is there anyone present that would like to speak at this time as previously advertised Ken Garber again [Music] um so this is hard for me because Sartorius is part of my professional world I write for scientific journals about the life sciences including some of the applications that sartoria specializes in so I should be thrilled there here in an arbor but actually it's the opposite why because they'll add to the city's carbon footprint in a big way for decades to come if the energy use intensity of this building is the same as what Sartorius disclosed
024for phase one 250 kobus per square foot per year I calculate that this new building will emit over 3500 metric tons CO2 equivalent emissions a year every year that's the same as putting 650 gasoline field motor vehic on the road for the life of this building uh I refer you to the June 23rd letter to Soria signed by 40 prominent an arbor residents some of whom you probably know and the company's response Sartorius did not address any of our suggestions for reducing the energy demand of this building and thus the requirement for constant air exchange mostly from F fum Hood use adopting these Innovations as others have should make full electrification possible although the company received almost $7 million in city tax breaks and state grants to locate here um Sartorius at least their executive
025team uh still acts as if they're doing us a favor uh I spoke with Mr mland who you just heard from uh before the meeting for a little bit and he mentioned to me that it's still uncertain what this new 110,000 F foot building or addition will contain um Company still hasn't decided apparently um it's his guess based on what he told me that there won't be Labs there that they'll consolidate the labs in phase one which is now under the construction and they'll put other stuff in this addition um so um while the building should be all electric regardless if there are no Labs here there's certainly no excuse for gas um I was confused by Mr mowen's statement on solar he referred to um solar on this building but it's not clear to
026me whether there would be additional solar in beyond what is planned for phase one um so that's a question I would have maybe I just wasn't listening closely um if solar were placed on half the0 the square footage of this roof that would be over 1.2 megaw enough to power about homes um the staff report mentions that OSI asked artorius to include onsite solar with storage achieve full building electrification and other things going further to say that quote it does not recommend approval of this project um I ask that you postpone the site plan vote to allow sorus to meet with OSI and with concerned citizens about adopting measures that will allow full building electrification thank you sir anyone else present that would like to speak at this time seeing none is there anybody that's
027electing to comment remotely there are no hands raised Mr chair okay thank you uh the proposed motion is that the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission approves the sorious site plan located at 3874 Research Park Drive moved by commissioner Mills seconded by council member dish we are in discussion anyone like to kick us off commissioner Mills I'll do the quick one um that follows on nicely to asking about solar panels my computer was making sounds because I was control effing to see if I missed it in the site plan so that that was one thing that I was curious about and trying to um hear the presentation and and see osi's report too what are the plans for Soler on this large roof that is being added so so you're currently in the first phase we
028we do have solar I would be a Miss to tell you what what the St stats are but it's to the extent we can get panels on the roof it's basically fully covered this building is a laboratory building a lot of uh air handling equipment so you know we are taking up a vast amount of space with air handling equipment that's on the roof so obviously you have to be you know you have to some loading issues with the roof and also with uh you know AIS around uh you know those those units so to the extent that we have solar though it's it's pretty much the roof is covered either with mechanical equipment or solar panels when when this the first phase is done you wouldn't see that today's version it's not that far
029along yet M we anticipate the same thing will happen with Phase 2 you know we we've got uh lead to to be able to that standard to be able to keep up with so that in itself between all the other uh you know building envelope uh insulation and the vast other things that we're doing would almost dictate that we have to get that much solar on the roof to begin with so so I'm this is a question for staff I guess I'm not seeing it in the site plan necessarily and and it if it's there then OSI doesn't know that plan because they also did not indicate anything in phase one so am are we missing something I don't believe so uh I don't think it's shown on the site plan either on the roof
030unless somebody Wass to confirm that I'm I'm missing on the site plan is it something that's going to be added in the future is that the The Phase 2 solar yes um it's on the roof it's not on anywhere other than the roof it's not we don't have enough room on the site to even put any additional on the site if you look at the you know the plan from the standpoint of it's either building parking lot or or water management storm water management there's not a whole lot to put anything anywhere else but yes we I mean they anticipate the solar the solar is almost a little bit of a design build thing as as you go you know to understand where we can actually put those things when we have so we would
031and plan that in in in this this plan approval we anticipate to put it in on though so by the way OSI we we had it on a we we were discussed this at length during during phase one I don't think that met any requirement that they were looking for you know as as aide and I I would just say it's not there right now when I look at this see that as a huge opportunity um particularly if there's not as much lab space in this side of the building we don't know that 100% that was a that was that was I would prefer you to ask me related to the use of the building all right we don't know 100% what what we're what we're doing at the building right now there's several business
032opportunities in front of sorus that they're they're trying to really ascertain what what happens obviously they've got facilities all over the world and all in in the country here as well so that's a moving Target a little bit you know one of the things that we you know that that we as we sit here today uh Candace and I were actually just looking you know this process from the start of it is almost a year as we go through this so much changes in that amount of time from a business aspect you know that's even been a moving Target to be perfectly honest you know from what we started this out to be and where we're at right now could be could be lab could be you know office space could be research could be
033a lot of things I think that the I from the standpoint of solar I think that we would make that commitment you know if if we wanted to uh amend anything from that standpoint to to that we are putting solar the lead requirement that we are uh trying to ascertain is going to put us there regardless we have to get there with with with solar and I if that's a commitment that you're willing to make that's something that I would love to see in part just because I think I just think this the spec would be a little you know out there right now you don't haven't designed what your roof space is but something that suggests there's lots of different things that could happen on a roof right so and and there's Play Between
034all of these whether it's white roof to be reflective sure for cooling you know helping with cooling whether it's a green roof to help be insulative or putting solar panels on the roof I mean those are those but those are design choices and I'm not an architect but I would S I would imagine that those change how you're design has how you're thinking about designing that it does especially with what's inside the building and where it goes as well certainly what I would suggest is that particularly to in presenting and talking about we're thinking specifically about this phase tonight and so thinking what's on this phase and and this is what I've been trying to sort out is what we're seeing vers what we're hearing is is not in keeping so something if if this
035is to include solar having that commitment to maximize solar to the extent possible on the roof would certainly make me feel um much more comfortable about this moving towards sustainability again don't know all of the details of lead but there's lots of things being in a in a city like an arbor earned you some points on lead from the get-go so I think that having um some addition commitment there would would make me feel a whole lot better otherwise I think that this is um in keeping with this area I mean I think that the when I look at the building and the plans what I see is huge opportunity sitting there to help Advance sustainability goals and um and UNM opportunity and so that's that's my comment but I would um turn it back
036to the chair yeah I would just just I would invite at at a certain point when I think this first phase is is along I'm and I'm sure that uh sir toris would love to have everyone out to see this building because I would tell you outside of a municipal building or a university building that's probably the most one of the most sustainable buildings that's ever been built in an arbor I can tell you and the guy back there who's paying for it all would tell you that because we're spending a lot of money on uh on things that they want to achieve it's really not been driven by Ann Arbor it's really more their company initiative that's got us there but we are we are investing a ton in sustainability efforts in this building
037if you really uh would like to examine some of the sartorious initiatives you would see that that this a huge Global goal for them as as they produce more real estate around the world thank you commissioner white thank you chair Lee um question first for staff um where would where are the brownfields uh noted with this development is it in Steam at all or is it completely outside because I just I heard 7 million from Mr Garber but um is that a 15y year or 30 years is that the total amount I'm not prepared to answer that question I I don't I I don't really I don't know if somebody from staff knows well I'll I'll turn to mix uh Kelly so uh so the meeting that I missed uh where we talked about getting
038answers or bringing in uh folks because one of the things that I'm concerned about is the taxpayers are paying um a significant burden because they're getting a tax deferment for 15 30 years and we aren't getting sort of the sustainability objectives that OSI have requested and I I know that those two things sit in separate spaces but I think they should come into the same space so that we understand that a part of what we are approving because our code hasn't caught up to our objectives right now is that we're actually paying them to pollute uh in our community in a way that they would not be able to if they were building this development uh in the headquartered um location of this company so how could like how do we get to that information
039um so that we are both as a community better informed about how we're carrying the tax burden of this pollution MH uh we can certainly incorporate that information into staff reports moving forward so that they're in an integrated location for the planning commissions consideration um if Mr changen does not have the information before him right now uh I do not I could attempt to get more details to circulate before the end of tonight's meeting or to share uh via follow-up I don't I don't know that it is particularly necessary for uh for you to do that for tonight's meeting but it's just um it's a huge part of how these things come to the table and I know the state has also granted Monies to bring them here but given that we're not getting the
040OSI recommendations of all electrification solar um then really we're just we're deferring this tax base uh to allow them to bring in you know this natural gas uh to this development uh until we can catch up with our objectives and so I just want to make sure that that is also noted uh as we continue to talk about this devel vment I uh certainly concur that having um project details to give a rounded context is helpful I will uh however note that in order to approve a petition before the body it is most important that it meet the criteria of the city code and that is what is before you this evening and yes and I've had some objections with the impact to our health and well-being and that phrase when we go about our
041approval but we don't have to have that conversation again tonight just to be clear Brownfield I'm not addressing you sir thank you well the Brownfield appr nothing to do with face Lee can you please instruct the petitioner not to address the commission I believe that commissioner wh would like to finish thank you thanks no problem yeah so I I appreciate it and it's it's just but I think it's a totality I think we are now at a point where scientists have said we are clearly going to hit the 1.5 you know degree number and it's whether we get to 1.6 and so you know our climate crisis is real and that's going to affect all of us it's going to infect uh the the Water waste it's going to hit storm water all of those
042things as storms we have more 100 500 and thousand year storms but we don't have a means to say no because that sort of phrase about the impact that it would have on the the well-being of the community isn't enforcable uh in this in this way so at least having this information about how we're you know deferring the tax revenue that we would need to fight the climate change that this pollution is going to affect in our community is something that I think is important for us to consider so I'll I'll leave it there thanks Charlie thank you any other Commissioners council member dish um okay so I I have a question but um the what I see as the total for the Brownfield was 2.7 million and um there is a million going into
043the affordable housing fund by virtue of there being a Brownfield agreement but I am not clear on that and so um I was hoping that if Mr delort is anywhere within the range of my voice he would come and speak to us uh so it may be a little less than uh at least the Brownfield agreement may be less than what Mr Garber mentioned um there's significant cleanup uh that happened on this site for phase one and um but nonetheless what we have in front of us is phase two and so what I wanted to ask was would it be possible to specify what you need to do to meet lead gold because I think there might be people listening for whom that that's not an obvious um those components are not obvious and it
044might be helpful to hear them it's uh you know that that a lead consultant which is not in the room with us tonight would probably be better and explaining that or okay somebody that that has a much more I'd love to be able to tell you all the details of it but you know it's it's obviously it's it's related to energy efficiency of the building for the most part we were actually trying to attain Platinum which is the highest standard you can get but it's unfortunately you wouldn't you can't get it even with this type of a building you can't get that so we we actually went to the highest level excuse me of the U of the lead status that we could obtain for a building of this nature and it's for both of
045the buildings right pH one and two for sure if you don't have it on both then you don't have it on either basically right so and then I'm sure that there's construction and demolition um a component of construction and demolition in that as well that you have to went what in the in the existing first phase for sure there was yeah demolish there was a there was an existing 50 60 year old building that we demolished phase two is Greenfield site right okay um I would I can tell you the Brownfield the way the uh the affordable housing gets that's that's by internal uh an arbor um you know by by by virtue of the the N which they changed several years ago yeah that that allows that to be uh subsidized into the affordable
046housing part Brown understanding that that's not an extra thing that you're putting in but it is an effect of the Brownfield agreement can allocate they can allocate part of the Brownfield to the to the Housing Initiative right exactly so uh we have to put that on the plus side um okay so I uh so I I I feel as though and I if I'm misreading the room let me know folks but I feel as though there's just a little bit of a question of how what we're seeing on the site plan corresponds to the lead gold certification and so there's a little no you're not you're you're feeling like that's not true lead gold wouldn't wouldn't appear on a site plan well it's more of a building standard than a site plan uh well if
047it requires you to achieve a certain amount of electrical offset we would be able to see that on the site plan no uh no so that okay so again we're in a position where we know you'll do it and we don't have to worry that we don't know the details the the the amount of investment that went into the first phase it would be criminal for us to not continue that to to obtain that lead gold status no I'm sure you're obviously um okay so I wish that that I am actually no let me frame this differently it is terrific that you are doing an infill project on this land and you are intensifying a use you are giving us greater efficiency of land use through what you were doing there really appreciate the work
048you're doing to improve Tech uh connectivity and bicycles uh bicycle uh Transit and you know you're doing a lot especially in phase one we saw all the work that you were doing to make this less of an island and all of that is very much appreciated um it is great that Sartorius generally has a commitment to carbon neutrality be by 2045 but there is a sense of urgency that 204 5 is a little bit of a late Target and so I think that some of the concerns that you're hearing expressed are merely genuine responses out of that sense of urgency and I think that uh it's clear that you're an ally in our in our climate mitigation goals um and it it is also clear that that we don't have any stand standards you know
049we can we can have the feedback from OSI but that's not written in any of our building standards and so I understand that but I would really hope that as you build as you go as you exper you know as you figure things out with the second building um you would seek the maximum efficiency for that building so that the solar you put on that roof offsets as significant a portion of your energy use as possible and I look forward to as this project proceeds hearing more details about how much you can offset so but thank you for the work you're doing thank you any other Commissioners I just wanted to State briefly that I was able to locate the uh proceedings of the approval of the Brownfield plan in March and uh circulated that
050to Commissioners by email if you'd like to take a look thank you Mr mclen um there was a moment where you did want to give some um information regarding the Brownfield did you want to add on to that at all no other than it was it was approved in phase one when we did uh demolish the uh the uh existing building that was there there was uh you know between uh it was deemed functionally obsolescent by the City Assessor here and also there was some environmental contamination that was mitigated at that point as well sure so that was all related to phase one Brownfield was approved as part of that phase one so just wanted to be clear that the phase two has got no bearing on that on on that on that brown field
051but there's no more mitigation efforts that need to take place on the site we did it all within the phase one gotcha thank thank you thank you for the clarification Mr CH yeah I just wanted to also interject that uh you know from the planning staff's uh perspective of the recommendation of approval it does meet at least for the Planning and Zoning Cod along with the other departments which may include whether it's the fire barall or engineering or or Transportation Etc uh it also you know meets with the uh the comprehensive plan recommendation for the uses at this site so that's how we you know determined uh an approval recommendation I do appreciate that yes OSI still has concerns on this project uh and those still remain thank you I'm sorry um council member dish
052yeah indeed looking at this document uh it is it looks like it is six million in Brownfield Tiff funds at least from the document that mix Kelly just shared with us thank you just to say that I was not correct thank you for the clarification any other comments if not I will uh add my two cents which is simply that um given the UniFi development code standards it's meeting setback um as well as Wasa County's Water Resource commissioner standards um the Bank full first flush requirements are met um from the permitted use standpoint uh office laboratory research um the use fits so um as much as I I know that clim climate change is obviously an emergency that we do face and we appreciate your commitment to being uh Net Zero oh fully sustainable by
0532045 we do urge to do everything that you can um but I also know that you guys are taking a scientific approach to saying what benchmarks can we reasonably meet so um with that uh I I believe this is compliant with all required standards of the UDC that's really what we can judge this Merit by so with that do we have any other Commissioners that would like to add any other comments all right uh rereading the proposed motion the an arbor City Planning Commission approves the sartorious site plan located at 3874 Research Park Drive we'll be doing a voice vote M Kelly yes I'm sorry commissioner Lee Yes commissioner abon yes commissioner W yes commissioner svi yes council member dish yes commissioner Clark yes commissioner Mills yes commissioner Weatherby yes that motion carries thank you
054and good luck right thank you all right we are moving on to section 10A other business tc1 Plymouth Road area resoning I will intro actually at this point in time I will be recusing myself from this particular petition thank you very much as my employer has submitted a petition to include one of their properties to this tc1 thank you what you almost this one I almost yeah yeah one he was like I want to add it okay well I am out thank you commissioner Lee okay so I will introduce the petition this is the Plymouth Road area resoning to tc1 Transit Corridor district and Transit Corridor Street type designation a city initiated rezoning petition this is a petition to rezone 45 Parcels in three areas along Plymouth Road from current zoning designation to the tc1
055zoning designation and to designate the segments of Plymouth Road Green Road and Nixon Road proposed to be tc1 zoning as Transit Corridor Street type the total area is 12 7 Acres the staff recommendation is approval and we will have a staff presentation from planner to Leo welcome thank you all right uh thank you uh we have um prepared a staff report and in the interest of time and efficiency I'll really um I won't hit on it all I'm happy to answer any questions but um this is the third rezoning that we have um that we have proposed Ed for the same purpose to reone areas of the city to tc1 the staff report goes over some background including the when the tc1 district was created um some of its uh intents objectives its um goals
056it goes over some of the history of our zoning map changes um it details the public engagement that we did specific to this project um and then um it goes into the actual proposed resoning my presentation here tonight will focus on two things the areas that are proposed to be rezoned and some facts and data about those and then um the area height and placement standard and development standards of the tc1 district itself um so you get an idea of what the new rules would be and a little bit of comparison um to underlying zoning districts so the um proposed resoning is as mentioned 45 Parcels that cover about 27 Acres there are 99 unique addresses in the resoning area and these come from 42 individual lots and three condominium which have um and then
057both some of the individual lots have multiple addresses as well as the Condominiums have a lot of individual individual owners um we I have broken down the area into three sub areas just for discussion purposes they are not connected um we have a East Central and West West or West Central East depending on which way you like to read the page the East sub area has 19 Parcels about 53 Acres it includes 2000 2001 Commonwealth 2,000 Green Road and between 3250 and 3650 Plymouth Road mostly on the north side of Plymouth a little bit on the south side of Plymouth also as part of this we will be designating some streets speciic specifically Plymouth and Green as um Transit Corridor streets then the tc1 district the front setbacks are different depending on if you are
058on a Transit Corridor or if you are not um I should say that this is a proposed scheme that is going before city council for first reading on Monday um if it is not passed then the regular standards uh for front setback there will be only be one setback standard for the tc1 but as shown green and Plymouth Road will be designated as Transit Corridor streets and again as I mentioned the front set back standards are different depending on if you what front lot line you are um this is a map of the underlying zoning districts in the East sub area they include o office two PUD zoning districts C1 local business c1b Community Convenience Center C3 Fringe commercial as well as re research and R5 Hotel the Central Area excuse me the central area
059has 17 Parcels covers about 60 Acres um it spans um um it's sort of centered at the um Plymouth Road Mall and the traverwood shopping center um it includes 2,000 traverwood drive and two 2301 to 3055 Plymouth Road the proposed uh Transit Corridor Street designations in this area are Plymouth and Nixon um and those would get the designation of Transit corridors uh there's also um some Frontage on Hon Parkway and traverwood those do not get transit Corridor Street frontages the underlying zoning in this uh sub area includes orl which is office research light industrial office o and C3 Fringe commercial in the west sub area there are nine Parcels it's a little more than 13 acres it includes 1812 Upland Drive 1635 to 1800 Plymouth Road and this one again includes both a lot on
060the North a little bit on the south side of Plymouth the Plymouth Road is the only designated Transit Corridor um for this sub area uh Upland um does not get a Transit Corridor designation the underlying zoning in the west sub area includes one PUD C1 local business again c1b Community Convenience Center C3 Fringe commercial and P Parking I feel like this is a repeated slide am I going backwards maybe um yeah um a for a zoning District uh floor area ratio um or density and height comparison I got to move a little window here make it a little bit smaller there we go um overall I would describe this as the tc1 district um does allow a lot more density um than the underlying zoning districts as the top row indicates the C1 district has
061100% floor area ratio that means that um whatever the square feet of the site is that's the square feet of the building um the most total building that you can have um um now that building um because of setbacks you can't really build lot line to lot line to lot line um so if you want to generally build exactly equal amount building is probably going to have to have some portions of two stories or more but this is what it means 100% means whatever the square foot of the site is that is the maximum square feet square footage of the building in the c1b district it's 150% C3 is 200% the office District 75 orl and re also 75 the R5 Hotel district little hard to compare apples to oranges there's no maximum building size
062but you need at least 900 ft of lot area per hotel room the parking district has no density no building size um ratio and neither does the tc1 district but all the districts do have a height limit the um c1b has the shortest at 35 c1b 50 and C3 is 55 the o o RL and re all have a maximum height of 55 ft or none I'll explain in a moment hotel motel has a um either 50 or 80 50 is normal 80 is when you put parking underneath the building the p district requires an equal height limit to the adjacent zoning designation and the tc1 also has a variable height limit between starting at 55 working your way up to 300 I'll explain in a minute front setbacks are are pretty much are quite
063in line most minimums are either 10 or 15 fet some are 25 most maximum uh front setbacks are 25 they push up to 40 or 50 in some areas the tc1 requires a minimum of either 0o feet um or 18 ft but the 18 is measured from the back of the curb so it could be just a few feet from the property line and the maximum in the tc1 district um is either 15 20 or 28 depending again on if you're on a Transit Corridor or not not um and what kind of building it is um so you can see that the minimum setbacks uh are in line uh the maximums are a little bit less I said I would get to those height limit the uh o o and re District the maximum height
064is 55 ft when you're within 300 ft of a residential zoning District beyond that there is no maximum height limit I do say this with a grain of salt because if you recall with the 75% floor area ratio um you would have to have an exceptionally large site to then have enough square footage to go up that High um if your buildings can only get so small and then they're structurally like a pencil and you can't fit anything on each floor so it does have quite a high height limit it's none that may be a little bit unrealistic you need a tremendous a enormous site to actually get something extremely tall with the size and the floor area limitation the tc1 height um has four ranges um when you're between Z and 80 fet it's
065a maximum of 55 so when you're pretty close to a residential district and then when you're between 80 and 300 you are a maximum of 75 ft you'll notice the similarities 300 ft is a common boundary line um lower height 555 or 75 F feet when you're within 300 ft of residential so that's a commonality that was not a coincidence um the tc1 was modeled after some of the best elements of our current zoning districts it's when you get Beyond 300 fet um in the o o and re theoretically you can go unlimited in the tc1 district there's two more levels one is 120 ft and then even further when you're a, ft away you could be um 300t tall um there's a front setback note explain explaining what I said those are proposed setbacks
066um I have a colorful graphic it is a graph but I it's one way to visually represent how the height is broken down in the tc1 um District compared to the other districts the first row is purple and that is 30 ft which represents um single family residential all of the single family residential districts have a 30-ft height limit and some of the multifamilies do as well so compared to that purle line all the way do I have a pointer I will not stop to find out um the C1 District um allows a little bit more height if you remember it was 35 ft a little bit more height all the way across everywhere in the C1 District the c1b C3 um the beginning part of o o RL r e all of those um
067they have a 55t height limit c1b and C3 the whole District No Vari no variation just that's what it is straight back in the o o and re once you get to that 300t line they go up this chart shows them at 300 feet just so they don't run off the page but remember the height limit is actually none the R5 um it has the two uh uh the two limits both 55 50 ft and 80 ft parking is equal to residential that's why it's all purple and all the same there in the T one District there's four levels the first two are within the 300 ft same as o and orl very close it's 55 ft a little bit farther away it's the green at 75 ft then when you get to that 300t
068Mark instead of just being none as some other districts are it's either 120t which is the yellow or it's 300 feet and that's a true 300t with the red we have on our website an interactive zoning an interactive mapping tool and when you go you'll see this I realize the buffers are covering what's underneath and you can't even see the roads but bear with us it's better than nothing um this shows the East sub area and the the purple outline of the proposed zoning the orange which you'll only see on the far left side of the page there's a little swath of Orange right that that spot is a limit of 55 ft then the Blue Area um that area is between 80 and 300 ft of residential zoning so in the blue area that
069height limit is 75 ft the yellow area means that they are more than uh 300 ft away from residential that height limit in that area is 120 ft and the clear that's where you can have up to 300 feet in height if you so choose in the central sub area um this area um again the proposed boundary is outlined in purple the orange has a 55t height limit the blue has a 75t height limit the bulk of the the bulk of the middle is the yellow and that has 120 foot height limit and I believe technically there is a tiny tiny spot that could have a 300t building I don't know how you would engineer this building but there you go and then on the west sub area um you can see here there's no
070clear there's no spot in the west sub area where you could have up to 300 ft um up to 300 foot building you can only have 55 as shown in the orange area 75 in the blue area or 120 ft maximum height in the yellow area the tc1 district also has some additional development standards that none of the current zoning designations have the tc1 district um says no more than two curb cuts um currently curb cuts are regulated by how many feet of Frontage you have the more feet of Frontage you have the more num the more curb Cuts you can have it's just a simple formula the tc1 district says doesn't matter what the formula says you have two uh the tc1 district also says that parking lots must be behind or next to
071buildings they must be surrounded by the buildings I will mention that this is a current standard on the books for all districts however every other District except the tc1 says if you're on a corner lot it you only need to be behind or to the side of one of the sides so depends on the perspective just an example I'll say the corner of uh main inhon the building needs to go at the corner of Main and hon but from the Main Street side there's no parking the parking's in the back but if you approach it from the hon side the parking might be on the side in the tc1 district it's say you have to have some sort of L-shaped building or something you have to make that parking not the dominant feature and it
072has to go behind to the rear um the tc1 district limits the surface area of the parking lot to be either the same as or just slightly larger than the building footprint if you want additional spaces they've got to be in parking structures or underneath the building and parking garage so forth the tc1 district says if you have a site that's about over about an acre and a half you must design it in blocks your building can only be so big and you have to have multiple buildings can't have one giant building and it says the building Frontage must be 70% of the lot width or the block width meaning your building has to be wide and has to go along the sidewalk um spaning the whole lot um and the final set of additional
073development standards sort of as mentioned the maximum building size is 250 ft wide and 360 ft on the diagonal if you want a bigger building than that fine you have to propose two buildings the buildings have to have a functional entrance on the sidewalk um sidewalks on all sides of the building dwelling units are not permitted within 100 ft of a signalized intersection and buildings except for town houses or apartment buildings must meet the downtown building design requirements for minimum first story height which is 15 ft street level transparency which means how much of your building has is Windows and then there are some rules about the windows themselves then my final slide about um the development standards of the tc1 District compared to others um parking is not done by parking is mostly not
074done by zoning District it's done by land use and of the dozens of land uses in our table some of them have already have a maximum parking limit and that's mostly one space for three 265 or 250 sare ft phased another way it's about four spaces per thousand but it's about uh one spa or it is one space per 265 or or 250 um and notable land uses that have that maximum are your average size retail um or general offices sometimes for some specifics the uh Financial or medical offices they have a maximum parking limit of one space per 180 Square ft the tc1 um doesn't go by land use it has just a districtwide maximum of one space per 333 Square ft so when you compare the tc1 to U most parking maximums um
075they do you're allowed to have or you're required to have 25% less than what you would get otherwise but when you compare the tc1 district to Banks or medical dental offices it can actually be 40% more um now that would be a development that is exclusively that type of use but the tc1 district relies on a its proximity to transit to um not uh to reduce those maximums and B it requires on mixed or it relies on mixed uses and mixing time of mixing types of uses mixing time of day requirements you know if you have um non-residential and residential sharing the same parking lot um you can share you can use those spaces um 247 because the offices might be there during the day Apartments might be there um apartment Parkers might be there
076overnight and the two may not meet um but that is a high level over VI um as I oh I will say that also the um staff report goes through some of our analysis of the benefits and pros and cons as well of the tc1 district um those include how it does achieve um many of our um comprehensive and um uh many of our variety of goals um that are across documents in the transportation plan in the non-motorized plan in our Parks plan in our master plan in our land use plan um the tc1 also is an opportunity to uh unify the zoning along corridors right now you saw in the zoning map it's a lot of different zoning um rules it's a lot to keep track of for residents um what can what is
077permitted on this property and then what is permitted right next door it's a lot to keep track for developers um this is a more unified approach to um Corridor zoning um um there are some um there are some cons to this though um admit there's always and those include the many of the existing structures will become non-conforming because of their size if they're more than 250 ft wide that's too big in the tc1 district um or maybe for front setback they're setback too far now we those zoning distri districts already have maximum setback so they might already be non-conforming for front setback this would just be changing the flavor of the non-conformity um and we have seen that rezoning might slow the pace of new development we have there has been no new or infield
078development in uh any existing tc1 District to date um and then I will wrap up by pointing out and as you know we don't normally po point out individual correspondents that have been received um um for any particular topic but um we have three pieces of Correspondence uh one of which is mentioned in the staff report and was in the packet and two of which came after the packet was published and those are not so General those are very specific pieces and so I'll Point those out that one of them was from Oxford companies asking for two lots to be included in the proposed resoning and then the other pieces of Correspondence one is from first Martin Corporation that came on um Monday o October 30th and another from Orchard Hills Maplewood homeowners association that
079c which is oh mha that came today on November 1st and they are asking for three pieces three lots to be excluded um from the the proposed resoning and again as you know we don't normally mention these things but this is very specific um not it's not a general support not a gen not a general um uh opposition but they were asking for a on the motion um staff is recommending approval I know I glossed over some of the background so as always happy to answer any background questions also happy to answer any more details thank you uh we'll now move to the public hearing this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to 3 minutes about the proposed resoning we'll first call on individuals present to address the commission than remote participants
080to speak during this public hearing remotely press star n of listening by phone or 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 television or background sounds so that we may 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 speak at this time you can approach the podium
081thank you good evening I'm Elizabeth gallamore address 3139 Plymouth Road and what I wanted to talk about is two things one is I'm in the section between Georgetown and and Commonwealth there are five homes they are zoned residential there are four out of the five that are now rentals what is zoning my other concern is um in the 1990s I spoke before city council about the need for a street light at the end of Georgetown and Plymouth Road for the number of people who had to cross Plymouth Road to get to the bus stop um and they said there would not be a light put there because commuters wouldn't like it in the early 2000s when Steve rapundalo was the mayor I came back to city council and reported on the number of accidents that
082occur at that corner and how dangerous it is with five lanes and you've got a whole neighborhood trying to to get out of that section he said it would be put in sooner rather than later and city council agreed with him it is not there yet it is 2023 um city council approved a crosswalk it is not at the corner it is down the street on Plymouth Road the problem is if you like me own a minivan you you can't fit your car in that turn lane past that little Gadget they built in the middle of the road to make that left hand turn without worrying about getting hit in the behind aide drivers refuse to make that turn they like I drive the wrong way into the road it's a one-way Street at that
083point there needs to be a light at Georgetown and Plymouth Road and then I would also like like you to check the zoning on those homes thank you thank you is there anybody else present who would like to address the commission you can approach the podium good evening everyone uh my name is Ena Lee um I'm the um um owner of um um 2765 plos Road um um we have a business there um I opened it up um it's called in Bri bonics um I open it up from scratch in um November 2019 right before Co um so um so now it's um it's four years and my business um is finally you know uh have a really good start finally and then uh up and running so um I just uh read about this
084resoning activity on anab news and uh it draw my attention because on the one hand I understand that this could be a really great thing to happen to allow um the increase of the uh residential density to um to be close to the north campus area um because uh apparently you know uh I'm actually also um uh a resident um in the uh like at the north campus area so I understand housing can be like very very tight there so um I do understand the need of to increase the density of the um the residential housing there um on the other hand um by looking at the U maps for all these three um three parts along the pral road uh as a tenant not really as a property owner um I just it it
085wasn't clear to me as far as What's um what the future development of these um corridors or the zones or resoning uh activity will impact my business because um even though I wasn't I wasn't there at the November 26 public meeting uh held at the Trevor wood uh library but um I did read the article and then I I I believe there was another uh resident um named Donna she did bring up she did bring up the concerns about um some similar um resoning and uh Redevelopment of um some downtown areas had already happened and then unfortunately um while the residential Parts fill up like um the uh Redevelopment um the the hope for bringing back the um business uh has not happened and I'm just afraid uh if that's going to happen uh what's
086going to really like negatively impact um you know a small business like mine and there is a lot of us um in these three parts along pus Road and that's from uh a business P perspective and also as um like um I as I mentioned I'm also a resident uh leaving very close to the north campus five five seconds left okay yeah so then um I I I'm also interested to know like uh are there any plans for like the infrastructure for example the schools all these other things that has to come along to really support the increased residential density there thank thank you is there anybody else present who would like to address the commission thanks Commissioner abon of course I have to have my say k Garber again um first of all I
087want to say I appreciate all Mr Leo's work on this zoning District in Plymouth Road area in particular um and for her you know clear explanations of the implications I support tc1 Zoning for Plymouth Road um The increased density along the transit Corridor the setback and especially the parking restrictions um I think are really great um but I have an idiosyncratic um kind of comment about the district or tc1 in general as as you know by now I view everything in the world in terms of greenhouse gas emissions it's a depressing way to live but I can't help myself um let me walk you through a thought experiment let's assume that with tc1 zoning we convert a current commuter to an anabor resident that's what we want right um further assume that this person gives
088up their car completely and walks and bikes everywhere zero driving even for vacation let's even assume no Transit emissions at the average annual missig vehicle mileage of 14,300 M A year driving we will prevent 5.4 metric ton CO2 equivalent emissions annually from this person driving their vehicle great outcome right yes but let's assume that this person will live in a new 1,150 ft apartment or condo heated with fossil gas Consumer Energy cites um this figure 52.9 k BTU per square foot for gas consumption um in new Mid Michigan lowrise multif Family buildings for our hypothetical apartment or condo that comes to 7.9 metric tons CO2 equivalent emissions a year from gas combustion alone that's 2.5 tons more than the 5.4 tons we save by eliminating a motor vehicle so even in the best case scenario
089we have done nothing for the climate since that person's former residence will still be emitting CO2 in fact we're adding to emissions a lot that's why to make a positive climate impact we have to couple tc1 with building electrification and Net Zero Energy new construction tc1 and higher density by themselves are great but they dig us deeper into a hole when it comes to emissions we can't just build our way out of the climate crisis um in short tc1 can help if it's part of a comprehensive solution unfortunately I see no such Solution on the table so tonight um I support a yes vote on tc1 but I think there has to be the recognition that this is a very very partial solution to any kind of climate uh change mitigation thank you thank you
090hi would you like to address the commission yes my name is LEF gallamore and I live at 3139 pouth Road and um I've listened to the presentations tonight in terms of uh the resultant of the pouth road area the one concern that I have is what happens to those five houses that's located along Plymouth Road across from the the water tower if you're familiar with that area because um not CL I'm not quite sure uh clear in terms of what uh is being proposed for that particular area with a resoning request that you're making so is there some way that I can get some clarification on that I would appreciate it thank you thank you is there anybody else present who would like to address the commission okay mix Kelly is there anybody online there
091are there five hands raised right now the first caller is phone number ending in 348 you have permission to address the commission for three minutes hi my name is Jane Kingston I serve on the board of Orchard Hills Maplewood homeowners association and I also have a residence at 750 uh Georgetown and 3347 Alor Court um well thank you very much for considering removing the three properties that were mentioned earlier uh I would also like to make you aware that all the Lots in Plymouth Park from 21 uh 20001 all the way up to Michigan house 2301 are deed restricted from being reson pc1 uh 31 pets also I believe is uh DED restricted in campus Heights and uh there are two others on green that I heard are being added uh 2500 Plymouth and the
092parel split on have land use uh restrictions inconsistent with dc1 including height and footprint uh you might want to also consider re recheck all the PS aren't also deed restricted also any additions for recent petitions to be included would reset the process uh for uh due process notification should go to all persons with property interests uh instead of just the ones uh listed on the properties the owners so please make sure everyone is included uh and I also ask why is Planning Commission rezoning PS to tc1 it's a setback for planning uh city planning to seek uh sorry it's a setback for City Planning because uh the state law already gives planning a great deal of influence on the design and land use on pugs for urban planning including for more housing um but the
093flexibility isn't permitted in tc1 also puds are deed restricted to their site plans resoning reopens their site plans and development agreements and any with condom and projects how just been tracked with the city attorneys in the past they have seated and withdrawn resoning from PUD parcel to p on green while I support urban planning and War housing inol ful appropriate locations please consider dropping these properties or tbling them to be uh sure they're lawfully compliance to State Property law the Michigan zoning enabling act s of property owners indeed restrictions on land and land use and zoning as does the Michigan courts please by abide by them please also consider tling properties with Frontage on green without direct driveway access to pet Road as inconsistent to dc1 Green Road isn't a Transit Corridor the area north
094of Green Road post office is exclusiv mid density mid multif family and PUD housing parks and schools the residental area is largely deed restricted and inconsistent with pc1 unlike smth Road and other tc1 corri is not M do classified and doesn't permit commercial Transit on Green Road I don't know if that was my time warning but thank you very much for the consideration I hope that out of time thank you our next caller is Libby Benton you have permission to address Planning Commission for three minutes great hello hi my name is hi my name is Libby Benton I live at 2359 Prairie Street and I'm calling uh to support the tc1 resoning um this uh would reone properties that are just at the end of our street and I strongly support it our neighborhood we
095move to the neighborhood because it is such a nice walkable Community we can get to schools uh my son's daycare grocery stores raid restaurants bars uh it's really libraries it's really a lovely place um and we'd really like to see the neighborhood move in the direction of being more walkable and more Transit oriented and having more development um and that and more housing and that final point is really what's most important to me because it's um you know a neighborhood that has a lot of sense of community and a lot of opportunities and I really want more families of all income levels to be able to live in a neighborhood like this one our next door neighbor who is one of the original owners in this subdivision shared with me that when the development was
096built though there are no restrictive covidence that the developer had a policy of not selling to African-Americans um and so I know that this you know rezoning can't write that wrong um in in no way but I do think that we need to be cognizant of the way that these neighborhoods were built as they currently are were very exclusive um and it's not distant history you know it's not theoretical you know many of those families that were able to purchase homes are still living here um and are still you know got to live in nice houses for 60 years and are selling them now and making $ 4400 $500,000 so um I just think that that is an aspect to think about too and supporting this and making our neighborhoods um in an arbor more
097open to all so thank you and please vote yes thank you our next caller is Adam Goodman you have permission to address the commission hi good evening my name is Adam Goodman I'm calling from 400 Virginia Avenue which is on the west side of Van Arbor so not particularly close to Plymouth Road but I I am close to West Stadium which is one of the corridors that is already been reson to tc1 and you know one of I'm I'm here to say a few things but first of all the sky has not Fallen uh West Stadium looks much as it did before so as Mr Leo pointed out tc1 is maybe if anything had had the effect of slowing development which you know that's that's not what I think a lot of us ultimately want
098to see however I think in in the near term at least it's okay because for me TC 1 is as much about what it prevents as what it allows what it prevents is the the sort of um cycle of car dependent sprawl development that we've locked ourselves into for the last you know at least 50 years probably more like 70 years uh what was getting proposed along West Stadium before was things like drive through banks just one after another driveth through in fact tc1 Reon didn't happen soon enough there is another yet another drive-through Bank under construction right now um however there was one that was stopped that is on 2060 West Stadium that site had previously been considered for drive- through banks and self storage facilities things that our community on this side of
099town clearly did not want um what has been most recently proposed on that site is affordable housing uh and I don't know if that proposal is actually going to you know get all the way through get built but just the fact that this is the conversation we're having now instead of a drive-through Bank feels like real substantial progress to me and so I want to see all of the corridor you know Plymouth and Wast not rezoned you know as as soon as they can be and if anything my only complaint about this whole process has been that it has taken so long to get to where we are now and we're still not done um so I hope you will advance this rezoning tonight without delay thank you thank you our next caller is phone
100number ending in 675 you've permission to address the commission phone number ending in 675 are you with us uh perhaps we can Circle back to uh this caller at the end of the queue uh Kirk Westfall you have permission to address the commission for 3 minutes thank you uh good evening Kirk West Fall 355 Charter Place approximately one mile from the nearest uh proposed tc1 resoning uh just calling to voice my strong support for the city initiated resoning as soon as possible um as articulated by a a prior caller I'm particularly in favor um in that once it's applied it will it will stop the corridor from retrenching further into Suburban uses and autod dominated development uh and it will also ensure that any future development whenever that comes will meaningfully meet our sustainab uh
101sustainability Transit walkability and mixed use goals um my only regret about this item um um other than it hasn't happened sooner is that uh it's not being applied more broadly um for example just looking at the western part of it um I'm curious why the the U-Haul uh I think site wasn't included or for that matter why it didn't go all the way down into Lower Town um I am uh happy that the Green Court folks um are looking to ask for tc1 inclusion um I I highly recommend that um once this this zoning is applied and goes through the process um I think that would be a great addition that part of Green Road is a a very frequent Transit Corridor not just the triple ATA you know with that park and ride there
102and northward but also all the blue buses that um go through that part of town um I'm I I would struggle to think of what commercial properties in the city that we actually wouldn't want tc1 given how it tapers down to residential um even shorter than um the 55 ft once you get closer to residential as outlined in the in the ordinance um and lastly I just ask you please not to postpone this item because of uh legal matters between private parties this shouldn't impact the city's uh pace of business and can be dealt with between those parties um at a later date thank you for your consideration and uh I support thank you thank you our next caller is Michelle Hughes you have permission to address the commission hi um I'm also in support
103of this I'm in support of um anything that gets people walking and biking and stuff like that not needing a car is basically the reason that I've lived in an arbor for 20 years I um I was going to college in 1998 and I grew up in um uh in the East Lancing area so I was familiar with the Michigan State campus but then when I came to U ofm I really liked how um it was a lot less sprawling and you could go from places to live to places to do business to places to go to school and I want more people to have that experience so um we should um we should do this I I I've heard it said before like the reason that the reason that a lot of people have
104um the reason that a lot of people have such fond memories of their college Years is because that's the only time they spent living in a walkable Community um we should let people live in a walkable Community all the time um not just when they're college students uh so yeah TC won this let's do it um oh also you know I I've got another story um I've got a girlfriend that lives up in that area um on Green Road and um she lives in she has no car um and she lives in an apartment building and I think a lot of the people in that apartment building have no cars the bike rack is always just jam-packed full and there's always tons of parking there that is jam-packed empty um and um so yeah I'd
105like to see more people more more housing for people less housing for cars because that's what people actually want um thank you thank you and uh we are back with caller ending in 675 you can press star six to unmute yourself you do have permission to speak if you would like to try addressing the commission I'm just confirming that the caller is unmuted should have permission to speak um sorry technical problem are you hearing me now yeah we can hear you ah sorry i' unmute twice uh Brad Brit's calling 3030 Lexington so I live about a mile and a half north of Plymouth off Nixon Road um first let me commend all the planning staff uh from everything I've seen um M and others are doing very very thorough work and I can't say enough
106good things about that so I appreciate that um all of this said I really want to like tc1 I really do we need more affordability we need sustainability density can help us get there but there's some devils in the details and I have three I'd like to touch on two I've already mentioned in a written correspondents so I won't belabor them the first there's a lot of moving parts to make this thing work and particularly Transit well if Transit is key let's get the transit people involved um and we won't get rid of auto transportation so I believe in our system we need the engineering department involved sustainability depends on building codes uh zoning can't address any of those but we have a comprehensive plan let's do that why the rush as was mentioned no
107projects on Stadium have been done yet to my knowledge none down on the uh near the the briwood area um let's take our time a second Point um I attended a resident meeting a few weeks ago at the library there's a mention in the staff report that uh summary is included as an attachment I didn't see that I hope that others did I my observation was about 3 to one folks opposing this so please pay attention to the residents a third is a personal point my wife and I both have reduced Mobility um we're still able to get around but we're we're not going to be riding bikes ever sadly that's done and 15minute walks are not really realistic either so tc1 has carrots and sticks for drivers let's keep the carrots the get rid
108of the sticks please I I I wanted to come up with a satire song on from The Music Man to say you got trouble right here you got trouble in an armor City you got a drivethru in your community please it's not that big a deal all right so I thank you for your consideration and I will relinquish byebye thank you uh there are no other callers um Vice chair if I may the last caller mentioned uh a summary of the 1012 Outreach meeting that was referenced in the staff report it is correct that that was um fortunately omitted from the packet we're going to try to correct that issue right now and as we've been sitting here we do have one more caller it is posted online I'm hearing on the website uh for
109the tc1 project page thank you mix Kelly and planner Leo we have one more caller who wants to speak great we do just one moment uh there are actually two more callers Brian Chambers you have permission to address the commission thank you um I am calling in in support of tc1 for Plymouth Road as well as watch on when you get to it um I support it for all of the reasons other callers have already mentioned but I want to add an additional Dimension um the University of Michigan has uh grown at a compounded growth rate over the past 20 years um just around uh 2% per year uh the student enrollment increased another 2% between 22 and 23 for the start of the fall semester and when I went to the land use um
110planning session uh for 2050 that the university is now conducting um one of the leads on the Sasaki team uh said that they're also running scenarios of continued growth and and including that 2% um growth metric um compounded year-over-year so um over the past 20 years at 2% compounded growth uh the Anarbor campus students and employment increased by [Music] 35,600 if that growth continues to 2050 um one of the scenarios it's not a commitment by the U it'll increase by another 73,000 on campus that's student enrollment increases of 25,000 and employment of um just over 50,000 so we need density we need walkable City adjacent to Transit adjacent to the university um otherwise we're going to inundate be inundated with traffic congestion so I'm very much in support of this uh even if they grow
111at only half that rate uh there's still going to be an increase of 32,000 um which is roughly equivalent to the past 20 years so we're going to have continued pressure on home prices in man Arbor um it's still a go-to address that people want um and building out increased density in all of these tc1 areas is vitally important I'd also like to make a plug however for the downtown core we've got two Regional Transit centers AAA and amtr and um I know the comprehensive plan is on going and hopefully will address the downtown core um if it's not part of that assignment I would encourage you to make it one for Regional Transit centers to have two of them um in close proximity to each other you would actually want inv best practices for
112uh sustainability and so on purposes a population of about 10,000 within a quarter to half mile area um there's other properties being considered for hotels I I'd suggest they they don't count for residential housing um but we need to really increase housing in the downtown core to make a complete Transit oriented development capacity especially with the University's projected uh growth rates we have to change structurally what and how aror operates we can't ignore the University thank you thank you our finer final caller is Eric Zer you have permission to address the commission hello uh this is Eric zacher you pronounce it perfectly thank you very much I'm a neighbor to the north of this uh tc1 resoning I live on Prairie 2435 Prairie if I have to be exact and I live just a Stones
113Throw north of Plymouth Road here next to an elementary school and I just wanted to talk a little bit about the historic area here this area was historically developed in the 1960s uh planning departments at that time thought Urban revitalization was using Urban freeways and more car traffic and Easy in Easy Out access to strip malls uh this area very much reflects that in the single mile between the freeway and the area by trawood there there's like seven banks with drive-throughs there's three fast foods uh there's all the shopping in the area in single use strip malls with poor bike and pedestrian infrastructure and despite all of that uh this area is still quite walkable a lot of the people that live in the area that are lucky enough to live in homes or apartments
114or town houses uh use the amenities quite frequently and we don't have everything we want up here we don't have an ice cream parlor anymore uh but we have a lot and the things that we don't have are mixed use areas we don't have uh affordable housing in the area anymore I was lucky enough to buy in when I could afford it I couldn't afford it now I think that's wrong and I think this area of town deserves better uh it's my home and I love being able to B the walk to where I need to go but other people should be able to afford that too I heard another caller earlier say why the rush uh I think about the most recent developments in this Corridor a Big Boy Restaurant was turned into a
115drive-through Panera Wendy's is turning into a Taco uh an office building at the end of my street is turning into a Credit Union so why the rush I would say we can do better that's why the rush uh people are already redeveloping things we might as well tell them what we want in the area and we know from Community input that we don't want more Banks we don't want more drive-throughs we want more livable area we want a better walkable peaceful area up here more of what we already have uh so I really do encourage you to continue on this path with tc1 uh reone the area don't listen to restrictive covenant between two private parties because that is not the city's business uh we should just rezone as our planning staff has designed this
116thank you very much thank you all right seeing no other callers or speakers we will close the public hearing I will read the proposed motion the Anarbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve amendments to the zoning map a part of chapter 55 UniFi development code to designate the zoning classification of parcels in the Plymouth Road area as tc1 and designate certain lengths of Plymouth Road as Transit Corridor Street type as shown on the attached ordinance moved by commissioner survey seconded by commissioner will Mill excuse me uh we're in discussion is there anybody who would like to kick off our discussion commissioner W all right uh well thanks so much for the staff presentation as well as for the comments I think regarding the five houses that the inhouse uh
117commenter spoke about they are not under consideration for the tc1 zoning is that correct that is correct they their current zoning will remain as it is they are not part of the rezoning I don't have an answer uh for you on what might happen to a retailer who decides to um take advantage of tc1 and transform the uh tenant space that you own because they'd have to meet the criteria of the zoning which I believe would be a two-story if they were doing a sub ative remodel not just a like a facade change but if they were changing square footage or for plan or something that would require the the second story and then that would have a direct impact but that could happen today uh it's not um a factor of tc1 it could
118happen depending on what the owner of your um your space would want to do with that space so there's not a real clean answer for that but thank you for uh bringing the comment uh for our consideration ation I have two questions uh for you misso uh one is will your slides which are not your staff report be available uh yes they will be I was just waiting for the to actually present them tonight and then tomorrow morning I will post them online thank you so much and then um the I don't think you spoke about the affordable housing premium in your height limits I did not okay did you is there a reason why you did that that you would like to share with us just brevity and complexity okay um that would but
119it applies to every single zoning District so um there is an exception to the height limits and any project in any zoning District um can increase their height by 30% if they meet one of two criteria their choice one if they are an affordable housing project um and there's a definition for that or if they are a sustainable development and there's a definition for that a sustainable development generally is one that is fully electrified um and has solar panels on the roofs um and so but because it applies to every single zoning District already the the same Graphics applies just add just change the top numbers but the proportionality Remains the Same great thank you so much commissioner Mills um I have a couple of questions first I wanted to just address one other thing
120which is to be clear that zoning and occupancy are separate so zoning just says kind of what uses how whether that space is rented or owner occupied is is not tied to the zoning itself so that's one of the things to know kind of within our zoning code um the other thing that I think the rest of questions about changes to the map or like things in things out so deed restrictions are how can you help me understand how that isra is not tied to zoning uh zoning views deed restrictions as something that you do outside and separate the zoning is the city regulating the land and a deed restriction um unless the city puts it there but a deed restriction is something that a private property owner puts on their own land or somehow
121negotiates agrees to put on others and so that is a uh for an owner of that property that I assume they would need to comply with both but the city stays in our lane of zoning and Zoning we do not um enforce seed restrictions we don't um require them generally require them so this would be something from a the property owner perspective it would be above and beyond but we view them as a self um self-created self-imposed and and if they would like to continue to abide by them that is fine so one of the things that's in my mind is like that they have that agreement that they entered into I'm I'm trying to think through if we do reone it does it pose any additional burden or hardship like or is it going
122to lead to some unintended consequence of because of non-conformities that are created I'm I I can't really say I don't know exactly what the deed res restrictions say um it may make it it may make it very hard for someone with a deed restriction on their property to to then redevelop per the tc1 standards um and so maybe they can't redevelop um as maybe they'll have to address that um we have run across some they're not deed restrictions but we've run across in our workings with tc1 and rezonings some Property Owners um commercial property owners saying I have signed leases where I have promised I would not have such and such a tenant or I promised I would not develop put a building in front of this building and the Planning Commission and City council's
123response has been okay we'll wait them out then um we'll wait out those leases so again with these deed restrictions I don't know what they exactly say I don't know if there'll be an unattended consequence but it's a private that's a deed restriction that that they agree to and they put on and if they would it can remain there and I think the consequence is they may find it hard hard to redevelop under the tc1 standards can you would it be possible for you to bring up the map because we're talking about so that we can talk the deed restriction make sure that I'm right is linked to the first Martin email saying we don't want to be rezoned um right and if you can point out which Parcels it is that we're talking about
124and also while you've got East up I think all of my other questions are about East too okay uh yeah give me a second I'm going to pull up just our our our map not the one from the presentation but this has all the layers parcel information zoning so forth I was going to say I've got the zoning map up on my computer too cuz that's yeah but I couldn't 100% figure out which Parcels we were talking about yeah all right so the first one I'm going to call I'm going to focus in I guess on 2000 Commonwealth because it's right next door to I'm going to pull it up and then I'm going to screen share because that's probably what everyone wants right I do talk to myself after 9 o' I don't give
125myself a time limit I just do it all day long sorry I'll fill this space like and just be vulnerable there if I can um oops nope I got one more thing to click on here okay um if I move it it will go away but uh here is 2000 you see the 2,000 is this visible at all y there's a 2,000 so here it is I can take off the Zoning for a minute and it's this Orange um color that indicates PUD but here's a um uh here it is just with it's got a building there and it's um gray I can even make it um nope wrong button I can make I can do that uh but so here is 2,000 Commonwealth um and I think that this is is the one to
126the west of it yeah I got the parcels are gone somehow there're no the parcels are there um no I think it's up here maybe it's here yeah yeah it's here there is 2001 Commonwealth so it's Carson's beastro and the bank so part of this is PUD but it's not the entirety of the Pud it's currently Zone PUD but the rest of that corner is all PUD y too and then the other part is the frontage along Plymouth but that is currently zoned according to the zoning map re e right 2001 is owned re 2000 is owned PUD got it so that it is at a tail is better to me than it was in the middle but I'm still I welcome other people's thoughts on that part um kind of how to handle that
127actually related to this though a question about puds and in our and your encyclopedic knowledge of all of the tc1 rezonings that we've done so far how common is it that we have rezoned puds well it's not super common at all there was one uh PUD in the West Stadium area that we did rezone and there was I think there was one in state and Eisenhower um generally it's not common but I would say this it's not common to do a city initiated resoning either okay but in but I mean there are effective we're not rezoning residential that's one that's part of our like tc1 we have not been rezoning resid so I was just trying to think about like which are the districts that we tend to incl like as eligible for rezoning and
128so that's what I'm trying to understand here yeah um my encyclopedic knowledge is failing me at this exact moment but the intent of the p tc1 district talks about it is for districts it is for land that is already zoned for commercial or mixed use or non-residential purposes okay and that was our line that we chose to self-impose that this is this is a um renovation or a transformation of our mixed use districts this is not to expand our non-residential footprint in the city um this was just to transform um what we will be getting in these districts in those in what are currently non-resident they could be allowed like residentials allowed in them now in most many of them now we're just not getting it and this is to help us correct all of
129our mixed juice districts already allow residential right okay great so I'm I'm on the fence of like not excluding them I'll be honest like I would just say keep them in and their deed restriction is going to do their deed restriction thing now that you've got the map though if you can move a little bit to the East and to the north I want to talk about the there's two more things on my list and then I'll stop but one is the the petition to in include property which when I'm actually and I'm glad that you're looking at the zoning map because the inclusion is all currently office or what is what the petitioner or what somebody who wrote To Us wants to include his his currently office but what I found weird is that
130creates a little donut around a credit union which I don't think that we should have a donut around a credit union and then it leaves just the um the post office kind of hanging out there as the only office in this stretch so I would just say I I am not opposed to extending that especially since they are sharing the parking lot poent that they're already connected at least according to the letter but I'm not comfortable leaning a donut that is not unz that is that has that has not been that is on the corridor that is not part of this so can you think can you talk us through like the process or does that make sense to you too or think about why these were not included yeah um I I'll help you
131with two parts but I can't help you with a third okay um tell in terms of the process um you have a motion before you that states um words words words um as shown on the attached ordinance and so to include you would make amend that motion to say something along the lines of plus parcel or parcel was street address 2350 Green Road or whatever address you'd like to add or you can amend the mo and or you can amend the Motions to say accept strike line number something something out of the ordinance so that's the process that you would use um in terms of why it wasn't included um we took our um most educated best guess about what the and hearing the feedback from other tc1 petitions about and where the boundaries ultimately
132landed for those and we tried to apply that experience to this um proposal and it is a proposal and we chose Parcels that front or are somehow connected maybe through a parking lot to Plymouth Road and we didn't go many Parcels deep past the corridor um now there is no necessar necessarily right or wrong answer but this was our the petition that we assembled on behalf of the Planning Commission um and presented and we received feedback from the public hearings uh I didn't mean that I meant public meetings um and some working sessions and um and that's why we did or didn't I think these um Parcels up on Green Road um I think you can work your way back through uh parking they they North on Green Road and I think they they are
133interconnected but they don't have a direct connection to Plymouth they have a connection to green and that was our logic like I said it's not to say that that is the the only answer that can be arrived the third part which I will just have to turn back to the planning to the Planning Commission as a whole body whatever you re this is your recommendation for rezoning to city council and so you can use that procedure mechanism to add or remove addresses from the ordinance has there been any discussion or any we didn't we got a letter from Oxford about the what's shown in it's in the in the letter in Orange I'm thinking of is the orange Edition um has there been any discussion with the community or the credit union that that it
134creates the donut around well I have not called the credit union myself and they have not called in okay so again I I welcome others thoughts on that on the on the parcels North on Green Road but personally I don't think we should do it with the donut so um then finally go south on Green Road to Green Court because now I'm confused from the postponement earlier and I didn't necessarily see that in the packet maybe I missed it so similarly can you explain to us the Green Court the rationale for the postponement and how that links to this it's AB budding this but I didn't see anything that was like a formal proposal to be included um perhaps there has been a communication snafu um to my knowledge the planning department uh or myself
135or the planning manager have not received a letter that said to the effect dear Planning Commission please include us I understand there's been talk um and I wasn't I I missed the first 10 minutes of the meeting was there any any talk so I don't know if there's been a formal request or not formal request um you don't necessarily need a formal request the Planning Commission as a body is free to amend the motion as they see fit I may have misspoke I did state that uh earlier in the meeting um but misso would have the most up-to-date specifics or manager Leonard yeah my understanding is that they uh essentially intend to ask for that parcel to be included they have not we had been striving to get that written request from them uh by
136this meeting we that has not been received that I've seen to date um it could happen after the Planning Commission before this progresses to city council and I think based on that that was part of the reason for the postponement that if this were to be included in reone to tc1 they might very well then end that PUD petition if for some reason the the city council once they do request again we wanted to raise it um if it's included here or not or if it's included at city council or not that could have an outcome um I think it is important to pause that I would I would suggest that it's this is a really unique circumstance because the city's initiating the rezoning it's frankly relatively easy to add it into that process um
137that is distinct from what I would never bring to competing rezoning petitions to the Planning Commission on a parcel but um because of this direction from the council and from this being City initiated it seem warranted to raise the possibility for this site when we discussed the Pud a couple weeks ago I don't even know how many whatever um I think that the tc1 makes a whole lot more sense rather than locking into a PUD that that than yeah so I'm supportive of that I'm curious if it if notice wise for the process like if it if it Flags anything else at all in terms of who was mailed postcards and what happens going forward in this because we did mail we did mail that things um well yeah um the plls are on the
138table so in including the Commonwealth properties from first Martin and excluding the properties on Green from op Oxford to the north and whatever it is to the so um that that was um public hearing notices were sent out to everyone uh within 300 ft with that list attached that exact list attached to it um they are mailed to both property owners and Resident occupant tenants um and that was factual at the time that was uh correct as to what is was proposed here for this public hearing um the city council and their sta staff and the clerks office mails out public hearing notices for public hearings at the city council and if they are not the same as the Planning Commission then par they'll be picked up before picked up or dropped yes okay great
139so if there's a process to include that then that makes me feel a whole bot more comfortable going both north and south on Green Road and I would strongly I would very much support if there's any other interest in an amendment that would add on the all of the green court stuff but again I don't want to create a donut I would want to rezone I would want to extend tc1 to the entirety of the orange block that we are seeing on the screen right now which I think is all the Pud right or whatever is currently the orange block on the screen um on the E east side of Green Road is the PE yeah and so I know what was before us before was part of it or I think I can't remember
140anyway the whole thing the whole thing is I think I would be amenable to extending resoning to all of that and similarly going north I'm that just seems sensible to me the then I'm I just have one more question and that is we don't have anything that has been we'd haven't had anything built in tc1 but what are you hearing what is Staff hearing like are there proposals working their way through are people saying we don't like it like here's what's wrong with tc1 and we're not going to build anything like what's it takes a while to get through the process so what's do we think that this is a workable zoning District uh I certainly think it's a workable zoning District we're hearing a lot of calls sort of the I want to double
141check the standards uh do I have my concept do I have my sketch right we we're getting more of those compared to other districts but the other districts have been around for a lot longer um it's my personal opinion that um it's very much Corridor by Corridor I think the stadium Corridor as an example um there's not a lot of vacancies on Stadium Boulevard um it's pretty strong and strong commercial Corridor so I don't think there's I don't think the reason matter there wasn't much pressure or incentive to redevelop it's doing well it's probably making money for its businesses and land owners um and you need that trigger when things are going well everybody's happy with the status quo and um and I think also we we've had actually more inquiries about those concept I
142have got a sketch am do I have my standards correct for state and Eisenhower I think there's more vacant land or more undeveloped land in state in Eisenhower um pouth Road the area it's pretty strong there are AR too many vacancies either I would imagine it also would be slow to see development because it's slow now it there's only been a handful of of Redevelopment um proposals under the current zoning designations because it's pretty strong so I think it I think it will take time I I'm just saying this is my gut this is not because I have a whole slew of fact or figures or a crystal ball but you're not hearing we there's something there's some requirement in tc1 that is actually hindering development cuz we are requiring I mean yeah right now
143they could under current zoning they could do a twostory building they could do a four-story building but they but I'm not hearing the two-story building part I'm hearing a little bit of the lot width um lot withth might be a little difficult and then the the block the the block size especially from some people who are trying to design a very large block and they're saying um I'm going to break myself down into say maybe four or five blocks two or three of them probably can be 250 but I'm left with this piece that's like too big or too small um I think there there's some desire for a little bit of uh flexibility a little bit of averaging but that's what I'm not I'm not hearing much about the two-story requirement um and I'm
144not hearing of all the development standards what I'm hearing more is um some of the standards people seem to wish that there was an average and not a hard line and that's something that can be talked about in the future okay thank you commissioner dish thank you first I want to say this is an amazing staff report and I thank you very much um the work that staff has been doing on everything related to tc1 the step backs and this has really been beautiful and I want to thank you um also thank you very much um uh neighborhood people who have come to ask us questions so um I want I I want to take a stab at addressing M Lee's questions um and yeah I see you good you're you're I can barely see
145you over the podium but I thought you stayed so I want to underscore something that Miss Deo just said which is that development along this Corridor is likely to be slow because it is slow now and I want to reaffirm that um the the building that you are in parts of the building itself uh currently if your landlord wanted to sell that building or develop it themselves they could build a 55 foot structure so that's like a four story is right if if they wanted to do that they could already do it so the reason zoning will make parts of that building possible it it'll give an extra twostory two stories probably for parts of that building um and then parts of the parking lot could go as high as 120 ft and so I
146think sometimes it's an assumption that when we permit greater height we are creating wealth and we are adding value now if if there were a desire to maximize value through greater height like I said 55 ft is already permitted and we're not seeing your landlord selling the building and wanting to develop it in those terms rezoning at tc1 what effect does it have well it does permit greater height but it but it makes some in some ways it makes development more expensive than currently because of the parking restrictions right um it does not allow for the kind of surface parking that's there and so if you were going to have a taller building you are going to need more parking especially if it's mixed use and that means that you are going to have to
147build parking structured parking either underneath or somehow inside your building and that's expensive so we are adding height which possibly adds wealth but we are then taking some of that wealth back by making the parking more expensive so I don't have a crystal ball I know that that uh building if I'm remembering what right was built in ' 62 I think so from the list of properties and if I'm wrong correct me and if I'm wrong I'm Wrong by a decade it'd be 70 but I think it's 62 so it's not the youngest building in the world but it is working very well it has a number of very vibrant small businesses and so I do not know what the calculus your landlord might be making I don't know what that would be um and
148so I understand your concerns about what could happen if that if the building that if the structure that you are in were sold and redeveloped the other thing to know is that just as is has happened at the very front edge of Plymouth where the Starbucks and the Apothecare shop are this is something that tc1 makes easier that you can develop in a space without demolishing what's already there there's a lot of parking lot there that if someone wanted to develop uh they could use it without destroying the current mall with all the buildings that are there um it's a little odd it would be a little odd because it's sort of parking between the bank and the and those other shops but nonetheless I'm just trying to run with you all the scenarios that
149are possible and there's absolutely nothing I can say to reassure you that you have nothing to worry about but my sense too is that Redevelopment that might involve displacing all of those buildings would not happen overnight immediately you know but it's some it's also a discussion that yall could try to have with your landlord but again if that person were interested in developing to a greater height they already could and they haven't made that move so um I'm sorry I'm repeating myself but I want to be clear um okay I'm really glad commissioner Mills asked the questions about the inclusions and the exclusions in terms of the inclusions the the inclusion on green that would create the doughnut if we did it exactly as it were asked for would involve repurposing office space correct am
150I am I correct in that is it currently zoned office and occupied by office well we want to encourage that so I feel like I'd like to have us include that and again correct me if I'm misunderstanding something but my understanding of tc1 is is that it is a district that we are applying and fixing in place in some parts of the city but can also be done by request so if we have a request at the same time as we are fixing that applying that area um why don't we just incorporate it rather than making somebody go through a cumbersome request process you know somebody who has a a it sounded like from the way Mr Chang was talking about it a sort of um historically very curious and unique PUD but I don't
151know that we want to just keep it because it's it's historically very interesting and curious why don't we give it an available zoning decision which is uh zoning designation which is what we prefer we don't prefer to have puds when we have a zoning designation that that can accomplish the same purposes so I would be happy with those in clusions from M deo's response about deed uh deed restrictions and stuff it doesn't it doesn't sound like we're hurting anything by resoning to tc1 we may not get anything out of it but it doesn't sound like we are we kind of don't have any business in those deed restrictions and so it doesn't sound like our action affects them and if I am missing something that's more nuanced which is very often the case please add
152Nuance I always appreciate that commissioner s finally we're here thank you for bringing this um I guess relative to the in out how I kind of maybe filter a little differently is things as asking to be in donut or not it reduces the burden on a property owner relative to requesting resoning so if we do not include it they could still request rezoning to tc1 and create a donut well requiring a lot more front-end process and cost that gets rolled up into the tenants so I'm actually okay with donut because it's less cost directed then to the end user um so in thumbs up how requested uh the out I will read the first two Clauses of the um the deed restriction because they're specific about these two Parcels the owner's land on the east
153side of the Commonwealth Boulevard shall be rezoned to office except for the first lot off of Plymouth which shall be rezoned to P there's a little bit more and then the other says the only property the owner the only property of the owner to be rezoned on the west side Commonwealth be the first lot which will be rezoned to office so the only thing I read in there that can create sticky points is that the deed restriction requires the owner to Zone these things PUD in office which means we may see these things come back for request to re Zone them from tc1 back into P like so like that's just a condition that we may see that I guess similar to the in if if there's potential for development still within those cool like
154to get more stuff out of them as they're zoned but it sounds like there's no potential for development if they get rezoned at least on my par learn reading of this thing so I I'm really kind of looking at it and like what is site plan like when are right which is like pre rezoning or not on some of these things to reduce steps in a development process and so that's just kind of my filter um I it helps that there's a couple more steps in this process uh when it goes to city council for all of these uh Property Owners to have further discussions because it does feel like all of these came within the last week um and so in all letters if they were included or excluded at this time conversations can
155continue so I'm not going to lose sleep over where it lands in either case here um but that would just be kind of my filter of the reading uh and where the opportunities and the hardships lie for each of those properties um but overall I look forward to welcoming hopefully more residents with new development here maybe they be renters or owners because both are part of our community and both are residents commissioner Weatherby so I wasn't here for the previous tc1 and I don't want to make this wicked stick year but um when I look at some of these spaces like all of Commonwealth is there a reason that all of Commonwealth isn't tc1 and then there's um if we go back to the center Central like where the Google building is is there a
156reason that I'm looking at the map and pointing you can't see what I'm pointing but um you know we already have like where there's office or Park parking and they're ringed by residential or streets is there a reason that they I think you explained that because they connected to the Main Street um but like it it seems like we're leaving little bits of office or that that actually is going to be more confusing moving forward because it's not tc1 but it's like the one building or there are three buildings that aren't but most of them are or everything across the street is tc1 but these are office and it seems like in all of these places there's a pretty distinct cut off which is either residential or the main road that we could kind of
157instead of having a line it would be more of a blob and and I'm just like I think my preference because I think it gets confusing when it's there's office for one building and then the next building is tc1 and then the building after that is parking or like that that having some sort of more distinct areas it seemed like the east side on green North and South Commonwealth and then the little strip between um hon Parkway and traverwood down to Plymouth that that they're pretty distinct areas that could all be tc1 in my opinion but I don't know if that just makes this more complicated and as we move forward but but I would be very comfortable including more things in the tc1 designation any other comments um oh sorry were you flagging me
158I missed your subtle Q um commissioner Weiss notice I unmuted myself um it's just a point of a clarification um I had said that the um public meeting summary was uh posted online and that was wrong the frequently asked questions document is on the website the Planning Commission if I have this correct we have since posted the meeting summary to the p pet and it the been refreshed so and I believe you've been emailed a link so to anyone watching if you go use our agenda service you'll see that document as well um and it may or may not have been also while I'm talking published to the website but no matter um first thing tomorrow morning the slide deck and if needed the public meeting summary will be posted to the project website um
159and the like I said the packet links have already been refreshed thank you are there any other comments for discussion so uh I'm trying to read the table in terms of this inclusion exclusion question it seems like there are a couple proposals on the table maybe a follow-up question to what you were saying commissioner s um my understanding is that what commissioner Mills was proposing would be to include the two Parcels that Oxford has requested on Green Road and also include the parcel that we did not receive a request for so I think that would meet your desires commissioner so to include Oxford's Parcels as a way of making it e making the burden making it less burdensome for them to rezone by including it in the city initiated zoning okay so that um are
160there any objections to including those three Parcels then and Mr Leo you're confirming that there's no con nothing out of sorts in terms of process and notification to include this third parcel on green that we did not receive a formal request for inclusion right that's the the public hearing and the deliberation process is that you are not bound by what is exactly in front of you you are free to um uh amend the motion any motion great maybe while I'm talking somebody could track down the address for that so that if we when it comes time to do it you oh oh oh can you let me know what that is uh yep uh the address for that um piece up on Green Road is 2400 Green Road okay um and I've got the parcel
161ID number um do you think I need to read that out loud officially I don't think so okay so I'm going to read the three Street when it comes time the three street addresses yes okay okay and then in terms of Green Court uh is there anybody who wants to discuss further or is opposed to including the property on Green Court commissioner Mills so I just pulled up the UDC again and just want to make sure in our intent statement or our purpose statement it just want to be clear it doesn't list puds it says say this District may replace o r e o l CB1 cb3 whatever it should only replace other zoning designations in unique and rare circumstances when another zoning district is entirely surrounded by the specifically mentioned districts so to your
162point um commissioner Weatherby like that's what caused me to look this up like what were our stipulations because what we said before was the and then the second the second thing is that all parcel Zone tc1 should be no more than a half a mile from a Transit stop and and on the South Side this those Parcels totally meet that it's right across the street from a parking ride like it's great um I don't know about the Google partial that you're talking about in particular I think so I mean every there's a it's hard to be more than a half a mile from transit stop in an arbor um but I just thought I would bring that up I think that tc1 is the best District that we got for this what is currently a
163PUD that wants to be a new kind of PUD like I will say that I just want to remind us of the purpose statement that we have and I don't think that this is going to surround it it doesn't make sense to go beyond it maybe this is a rare circumstance in that it is initiated like self or city initiated I don't know I I don't know if staff has any guidance that we were specifically talking about the Pud on the south like yeah yeah so um if if you are interested in extending that for those reasons I would recommend that you add the parcels um again the geography being proposed here was in response to the Council direction we we discussed the geography with the planning commission based on uh um an emphasis on
164the Plymouth Road Corridor in this in this sense um you know we have had other property for example we've had one other property in the stadium area that was off of the corridor and applying some of the um Transit Centric uh design standards of that seemed less applicable when it was sort of an island parcel in that area of sort of between Maple and stadium that didn't have Frontage on either of those corers I think the other uh setback ordinance that you've already put forth the council will help address some of that so I have frankly less concern about that for these personels um and to some of the other discussion it continues the conversation on them I would however suggest that you omit the alterum property that is being purchased by the University of
165Michigan and recommend that be own PL okay like right now wouldn't that be a separate motion well either like I would just suggest maybe omitting it or making that recommendation as a rezoning of that PUD because um longterm that is traditionally the the treatment of University own property is Zone PL and so while we're at it maybe that's a cleanup we could do while we're looking at that PUD District or we can ask the university to come before us and request that you could ask them they will not they don't have to I I would need some assist right now I only have one address for this whole four part thing 3520 Green Court so maybe we need to um Define that further so that we could exclude the alterum building um the you the
166parcel from alter that U ofm is person is that the vacant one no the one south of that okay got it um uh that's you'll have to I think it's 3520 green is the property that they're purchasing okay the four address the four Parcels that make green Court are an unaddressed Green Court and I do have a the partiel ID number ending in 008 and then it includes 3520 3600 and 3550 green cord so of those four one is um partial ID number ending in0 008 and then 1600 and 3550 but it sounds that we will be excluding 3520 in in in that PUD Square it's not 100% a square but in it is the we're talking about the southwest corner that is being excluded now is that right that's correct okay so everything around
167it that makes sense I'm sorry Planet Leo so um included we are in theing including there are three Parcels no there are five Parcels total that make up this block I see five one four um yep there there are five thank you oh because there's three on the North side we are excluding 3520 Green Court and we are including of adding 3535 we are adding 3600 and the parcel ID ending in 008 maybe I'll just look for give you a minute and then maybe ask for confirmation of that you want me to tell you again or did you were [Music] you um well it sounds to me do you want all of them or just Green Court I I just want the four in Green Court that we are including all right um we are
168including 3535 Green Court 3550 Green Court and 3600 Green Court court and Green Court parcel ID number 099 23100 d008 so I'm just going to say ending in 008 thank you so much that I have that app yeah are there any other amendments to the motion that I missed commissioner surve maybe just for a point of clarification are we EX including in the rezoning the U ofm property are we including but adding a zoning District to the rezoning package we are the amendment on the table we can amend the amendment the amendment on the table would be to include the four Parcels in that block that are not owned by U ofm and to exclude the U ofm parcel which we assume will be reone to public land at some future date yeah that'd be
169fine you could you could also add an additional um amendment to also recommend rezoning of 3520 Green Court to public land but we have some other cleanup that we have to do in that regard so I think we could include that I will follow the the the the body's lead but for me that seems out of place with tc1 motion so I would just recommend excluding that address I does that make sense commissioner okay commissioner Mills all this talk of public land makes me wonder about the post office if we can go back up Green Road for just a hot minute because now that is the only office left on Green Road and I don't it's Federal so how does that work well um are they subject to zoning so the federal government is not
170um and we are we have proposed OS the rezoning of another Federal property in this to tc1 um I'm trying to I I can't speculate of the likelihood of a federal property being made available for redevelopment at a pace relative to the University of Michigan um but I might actually guess that it's more likely I so it's it's ferally owned it could it whatever you Zone they're not subject to however um if you wanted to rezone that to tc1 as is being proposed the EPA laboratory along this Corridor um that would restrict it should that ever change hands I would vote for its inclusion okay so if we can get the address for the for that to um I'll look that one up I would was just said our um habits our long-standing habits have
171regarding the pl zoning is land owned by the city whe um whether it be a um a city facility like the water treatment plant or Parks um land owned by the county and land owned um by the state in the form of the University of Michigan and land owned by the schools has been Zone pl we don't historically for whatever ever reason uh Zone land that is owned by the federal government and there is some US post offices are some the EPA labs are some we Zone them a traditional zoning District they are not subject to zoning but it is sort of the message that we send on the zoning map and that that's what we we' like the zoning map to be clear about what is subject to zoning and what is not and
172so even though it's not Zone PL it's the zoning applicability is based on ownership super I'll get that address for you and for the zoning nerds out there like this is like planning law in terms of lower levels of government regulating higher levels of government we don't get to talk about that very much but it's fun it's also like yeah any other amendments to know about before I formally propose these Mr Leonard no ask who brought the chocolate commissioner DH brought the chocolate thank you for the chocolate your off 3,000 thank you so Alexis do you have my understanding is we are I just want to make sure that I am clear adding Oxford properties as requested adding the credit union adding four parcels on Green Court adding the post office and the post office
173parcel number 0991 14100 d436 also known as 3,000 Green Road doesn't say that but okay um so I'm going to move then formally oh commissioner mels Sor I'm just going back in it's it's been a while it's been a minute since we did like other tc1 all this bench and it's the it's the petitioner asking to be excluded I don't I can't think of this in the past and again particularly if we know if we have in our packet stuff that suggests to us that in order to uphold their think they're going to have to come back and ask to be reasoned it it seems to me like it's a like if they a if they said don't reone me and we know why they're saying this it seems like maybe we should exclude the
174properties that are that asked to not be included the first Martin properties I understand what you're saying and also it seems like the deed restriction is illegal or I don't know if that's the right word uh you can't have a deed restriction that requires you to Zone something a certain way because it's not up to the property owner to do so right so I so so I don't know it's OB also odd for us to comply with an improper DED true restriction or reciprocal Covenant but because also if they come back to us they can't say I mean if they come back to us to ask for resoning but they literally don't have any control over it so how can they sign a contract saying that they will do it they can only say that
175they will try yeah I don't okay commissioner S I didn't know if your intention in calling our your intention and calling our attention to that was that you thought we should act on that or you just wanted us to know it I mean I it has consequences in either direction it is all I kind of point out and so it's trying to measure the lesser of the two either of like what our options are um I think this when we have some kind of legal binding additional stuff that we can reference I would be very hesitant relative to removing a request because the plan could be imp planning a drive-thru or something else um it doesn't seem like that's the case and within the Pud or office it would be a special exception which could
176easily be denied for drive-through specifically um but it does leave a weird extra parcel also to the South um but I think in the end I'm I'm also just measuring it on process and cost and then if we do include it we may add processing cost even if there it's not granted that cost will get rolled up somewhere in a future development of that project um and we know where that cost goes and it's it's to who occupies these properties and so the objective for housing is to maybe reduce some of those costs and hope that it reduces the overall cost of housing um so I mean I I'm again I'm open to both this is not the end table I just kind of raise it more than anything so I'm I'm comfortable in either
177direction thank you those are good points although it can't be developed into housing as it currently St the deed restriction restricts it from being housing all anyway it restricts it from not being zoned office or beauty and a certain size there's nothing in the de restriction says it can't be housing that's my okay zoned office not used yeah there's zoning and there's use commissioner W uh Miss Doo could you remind me uh didn't we have a petitioner in stadium who requested exclusion wasn't it uh bickmore and Maple Village uh yes and we brickmore um asked to be excluded and but they were included but we included them even though they asked to be excluded yeah and there was also a property I feel like on Callingwood yep that has to be included Y and they
178were not included okay uh so I move to amend our motion right now it says as last phrase as shown on the attached ordinance I move that we amend that to say as shown on the attached ordinance and the following Parcels 3,000 Green Road 2350 Green Road 2400 Green Road and 2500 2600 Green Road and 3535 Green Court 3550 Green Court 3600 Green Court and the parcel ID ending in 008 which is also on Green Court and currently undeveloped can I get anybody to second that motion seconded by commissioner wh is there a discussion of the amendment mix Kelly would you like us to do a roll call vote on the amendment to the amend to the motion or a Voice vote I think either would be appropriate all right uh we'll do a Voice
179vote on the amendment to the motion all those in favor say I I all opposed the motion carries so we're back in discussion of the amended motion any further comments all right I believe we're ready for a roll call vote on the amended motion commissioner abens yes commissioner wh yes commissioner Sal yes council member dish yes commissioner Clark yes commissioner Mills yes commissioner Weatherby yes that carries thank you uh we will give a moment to commissioner Lee to rejoin the body should we take a two-minute break the three minute break okay uh we'll reconvene at 9:55 all right calling us back to order thanks guys we're moving on to section 11 public comment this is a second opportunity for persons to speak up to 3 minutes about any issue that is not listed as a
180public hearing on this agenda we'll first call on individuals present to address the commission then remote participants so to speak during the public hearing remotely please press star N9 if listening by phone please use the raiseed hand feature if viewing through the web link for phone access please call 877 85352 47 and entered meeting ID 9776 6341 1226 City staff will select callers that have raised their hand and using the last three jits of the phone number or by name if available you'll hear an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak so when speaking please move to a quiet area mute any background noises so that we can hear you clearly and and for either method please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments is there anyone present
181that would like to speak at this time um actually um I have a few random comments uh thanks commissioner Lee yeah um so the 3520 Green Road um additions to the tc1 district you know I understand why you did it it's much cleaner um but uh we were on the verge of getting an electrification commitment in this new PUD and now that's off the table so I'm disappointed um and it gets to my issues with tc1 to begin with and the lack of any kind of comprehensive approach to climate on the part of the city um it reminds me on the international level of the Paris climate agreement you know everyone makes these commitments but none of them um are required so everyone ignores them we have an a20 plan but it's clearly failing um
182for the same reason uh so yeah I mean the whole world is failing at climate so why should we be different well maybe I'm naive but I thought maybe we would be um but now I've pretty much lost hope um I'm not blaming you guys you've got to do what you've got to do regarding uh enforcing the UDC and those are your criteria but something has to happen here um on the um you're not timing me are you giving me unlimited time here oh okay yeah gotch you okay anyway um on sorus on 30 uh yeah just to clarify my comments about the public subsidy um my understanding was that the Brownfield plan was 2.7 million and that 2.6 million of that was for non-environmental costs so I was counting that 2.6 million I was
183counting um the city's 12E 50% tax abatement which was never Quantified but looking at the tax tables to me I was guessing around 3 million and then the state uh gave them a 1.2 million Grant so I think that comes to like 6.8 million um but I I'm not I could be wrong about the three million that's just my best guess but to commissioner Weiss comment that maybe this should be included in staff reports I agree um for context I mean we keep hearing from developers like the one tonight about all the extra things they're doing on top of the city requirements well we should hear about what extra things the city is doing for them um but we don't see that in the staff report we have you know you depend on amateurs like
184me to bring you up to date on that we saw that also with the Roberts and brothers development where I don't know how many times U Mr lungren claimed credit for the electrification of the 164 single family homes on that well in fact the city's paying for that through the Brownfield plan um 2.9 Million for Combined for those heat pumps plus uh solar panels on the clubhouse and the um solar uh street lights so that should have been in the staff report so we can call the bluff of some of these developers who are claiming extra credit for things that we the taxpayers are footing the bill for so those are my comments thank you for all your work and for um tolerating my um constant presence here thank you thank you Mr Garber is
185there anyone that would like to address the commission remotely thank you and for what it's worth thank you for your Civic service anding your engagement moving on to section 12 is there any commission proposed business commissioner W okay I didn't have this when we were talking about the um Research Drive uh in front of me I knew it was in the UDC I just didn't know where it was so I have um potentially two requests I guess I'll start with a request and then you all can um tell me what the result of that request is 5.3.4 re research District subsection B5 lists emissions as a health um consideration when approving site plans that are in that District what does that mean if not the contribution uh to our climate change and then it's repeated
186in 5.3.5 O RL office and research subsection b. so I would love to know does do those two statements um have meaning and if they have meaning what how should we consider that meaning also in the ud DC so this is in the same request it says that uh site plans that come before the uh Planning Commission the development will not have a detrimental impact or effect on the public health safety or welfare of our community again my question is does that statement have meaning so and if it does how then should we consider that and and I you you were not here Mr leard when uh mix Kelly and I had this conversation because I I mentioned that I've brought this up before and you have um you and I have exchanged words about
187it but we don't have to do it tonight but I would like to understand how these three points that sit within the UDC would be able or how we should interpret them as we're approving site plans and if they don't act actually mean what they what it uh appears that it means on its plain reading then there should be some clarification of how we should apply it or we should cue it up for removal because I think to me it just feels disingenuous to approve something that I know is going to have a detrimental impact on the climate and say that it does not so so that those are my requests based on and I didn't have it at the time that we were in the discussion um but if had I had it I
188could have raised it and asked for a postponement so public health safety and Welfare is a basis for police power laws um that is also police zoning is a police power law the way you define what public health safety and Welfare is is by the adoption of ordinance standards and applying development to meet those standards it is not a um tagline that can be invoked to say that I don't think it meets these standards and therefore I think this is inappropriate public health safety and Welfare is the way that is the reason that we create laws to govern how development happens we we answer what that means by the adoption of the standards in our UDC and other codes throughout the city so um in the past um there have been communities in in the
189past we have invoked that as a finding that is not a finding the FI that is the basis why we enact ordinances and standards and measure developments to those standards um as for your first question um I don't know what that's intended be air quality I can we can work on trying to answer that um my initial thought is that is language that is probably existed in this code since the 50s and and it's been pulled forward so um but I can try to do our best to answer what that means so and specifically for me it's the emissions of air pollution that's what we have written in our code in those two districts and they're in the two districts and they were in the two districts that we were considering tonight so it was
190an appropriate set of questions that we had for this petitioner except I don't know how you know when you say it's a it's the way that we do the police Powers then my expectation then would be there's a city Department that makes a judgment on the emissions of the air pollution and then that comes to us and says it meets this standard so it can go forward if you're saying that we don't have the ability at the table to restrict something otherwise we should put it on our work plan to have it remove if it doesn't have an enforceability uh in the code thank you thank you for bringing that up and I do think that there's actually some reasonable basis to take a look at that one um you're absolutely right B5 emissions of
191air pollution shall not be detrimental to Public Welfare so um I think that's definitely something that we should um discuss further um aside from that do we have any other commission proposed business seeing none I'm going to move to adjourn uh second did by council member dish this meeting is Jed thank you no discussion