Ann Arbor Planning Commission Meeting 7/18/2023

00118 2023 regular meeting of the Ann Arbor Planning Commission for detailed information on meeting procedures please review the full printed meeting agenda provided mix Kelly will you please call the roll commissioner Weiss here commissioner Clark commissioner Lee here council member dish present commissioner Hammerschmidt here commissioner Mills here commissioner Abrams here you have a quorum noting that commissioner Salve noted her absence in advance thank you we move on to item number three approval of the agenda may I please have a motion to approve the agenda moved by commissioner Lee second about commissioner weish is there any discussion on the motion okay all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed the motion carries agenda item number four minutes of the previous meeting may have a motion to approve the minutes of the June 21st 2023

002meeting moved by commissioner Mills seconded by commissioner dish is there any discussion of the minutes all those in favor of the motion please say aye aye any opposed the motion carries all right number five reports from City Administration City Council planning manager Planning Commission officers and committees and written Communications councilmember dish anything to report yes last night um both the 9.99 um Maiden Lane thank you is it Broadway is it where is it both that that project was the the conditional rezoning was approved and the site plan was approved and the annexation of the 11 Township Parcels to r1d was approved oh I'm sorry yes on first reading yeah I'm sorry and is there anything else that I'm forgetting nope that's it excellent mix Kelly anything to report yes and the interest of keeping the

003commission informed about the comprehensive plan process we want to let you know that the contract with our consultant team is executed and we've started to do initial data Gathering toward um a first phase which is typically an existing conditions uh to just gather GIS layers past plans other things along those same lines and additionally I wanted to foreshadow the content for these July 25th ordinance revisions committee meeting which will include a discussion of the commission work plan not to circumvent the consideration of the work plan by the entire body but just to revisit it to get a sense of priorities and also to understand which of the work plan items do fall under the realm of ordinance revisions to the to the name and to the point of the committee so we will be walking

004through that as a refresher to foreshadow bringing that again before the entire body and we will also be starting a discussion um which hopefully will be timely given your agenda this evening of drive-throughs uh getting advice on where the Planning Commission would like to see those if they would like to see them at all and walking through some other cities that have recently or in recent history approach this subject and how they've approached it if I could just jump in I want to I wanna point out two of those items for update the comprehensive plan and your work plan and I just want to uh I guess raise a flag that I think we need to be very careful in setting our expectations for our work plan over the coming year we're going to have

005a lot of work at this table and as staff and as a community going through the comprehensive plan process so I want to um I'm gonna I guess I just want to be clear that it's probably going to be a less perhaps aggressive work plan than years past while we are concurrently carrying on that comprehensive plan so I don't know what that means or how successful I'll be in reigning your desires in in that regard but I wanna I wanna um preface that thank you any other commissioner officers or committee Liaisons I can report that the ordinance revisions committee met on June 27th and discussed a number of things related to Transportation impact analysis requirements in standards um and that material will be coming to a work session near you soon I believe I'm actually

006forgetting now if it's coming back to orc before it comes to the to our position we agreed on some content to come to a regular session and there were some items that were larger picture that will have a longer discussion that are TBD okay yep great thanks for reminding me um any other officers or committee Liaisons okay uh and then there are a number of written Communications included in today's packet so we are at uh agenda item number six public comment uh so this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about an issue that is not listed as a public hearing on this agenda will first call on individuals present to address the commission and then remote participants to speak during this public hearing remotely press star 9 if listening

007by phone or use the raise hand feature if viewing through the web link for phone access call 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-6634-1226 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 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 thank you chair Abrams I'm Ken Garber 28 Haverhill Court maybe I'm stretching the limits of what you're allowed to talk about at

008these public comment sessions but I'd like to just uh review some climate news this week um Phoenix hit 110 degrees for the 19th straight day a record for a U.S city um Canadian wildfires have burned 25 million acres by far a record and we're still in mid-july floods and Pakistan killed 15. and that the country still trying to recover from last year's flooding that killed over 1700 people all right uh heat wave in Mexico City uh killed at least 100 people last week 122 degrees Fahrenheit this is a city with a year-round temperate climate um these are really our missions doing this the average per capita emissions of an Indian or a Mexican is a fraction of ours um what else scientists at Harvard Brown and Duke published a paper this week in environmental science

009letter showing that burning fossil gas is no better than coal in terms of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions over 20 and 100 Year time frames based on well-documented methane extraction and supply chain leakage rates meanwhile closer to home as of last night the city has approved 27 gas burning projects residential commercial and hotel since June 1st 2020 that's the night council adopted the 820 climate action plan which excludes such new construction long before now we were supposed to be done with that and on to the hard stuff namely retrofits on the modeling plus side the Village of Oak Park Illinois last month approved an ordinance Banning fossil gas connections and mandating heat pumps for all new commercial and residential constructions beginning January 1st 2024 joining over 80 other cities and counties and the state of

010New York thank you is there anybody else present who would like to address the commission is there anyone who would like to address this remotely to the chair there are no hands raised thank you we'll move on to agenda item 7A public hearings scheduled for the following meeting so a public hearing on oh that's you of public hearing on the following items will be held by the Ann Arbor Planning Commission on Tuesday August 1st 2023 at 7 pm the first is 1800 Washington Avenue Evan's house for Scholars it is a special exception used for Planning Commission approval a a request to increase occupancy from 65 to 85. no proposed changes to exterior of house located on this .85 acre parcel which is zoned r2b to family dwelling the second public hearing is for 2805 Burton

011Road and that will be for the Brighton Village site plan Amendment it is for Planning Commission approval it is a proposal to reduce the size of the indoor Gathering building by approximately 2 000 square feet adjust sidewalks and utility leads relocate barrier-free parking and make electric vehicle charging updates per the current edition of the unified development code on an eight Acre Site zoned r4b for multi-family residential thank you item 8 unfinished business so we have one item here uh 3945-3957 South State this is a continued public hearing for that site includes a site plan and special exception use a proposal to reduce the size of the existing building at 3949-3957 South State by 1384 square feet and add a drive-through Lane along the rear of the building the staff recommendation is approval so we'll begin

012with uh petitioner presentation followed by a staff presentation and then a public hearing good evening Brad Moore with Jay Bradley Moore Associates architects representing the owners who I have with me here today who will probably speak after me here's a aerial photograph of the place that you are discussing tonight it is at the extreme periphery of the city limits it is in an area predominated by vehicular use it is not in an area where there's any walkability there's no residential neighborhoods anywhere nearby people will come to and through this Corridor via Vehicles whether they're gas powered or electric and you can tell by the other businesses that are in this Corridor that that's the nature no one's walking to Costco certainly um we are asking to allow the owners to reconfigure the building at a

013substantial cost to add a drive-through which our leasing agent tells us is the one thing that they can do to change the history of the leasing efforts of the building as commissioner Juan Lee put it out this has been on the market for a long time but no takers and there would have been takers if a drive-through had been available the city does permit drive-throughs and this is critical to lots of different businesses whether they're pharmacies or financial institutions coffee shops many of them rely on the drive-through for a significant portion of their business if you want to click the next slide Matt we can look at the existing site which is comprised of two buildings there's a Jimmy Jimmy John's with the drive through on the western or front side of the building and

014then there is an unused building a shell of the building on the east side go ahead this is how the drive-through would be configured it would go along the north side of the building after removal of about 10 to 12 feet of the building go ahead this is just a diagram showing that we have plenty of room to stack cars in line waiting for a service at the window as I'm sure everybody knows cars nowadays even if they are gas powered seats operating when they're standing still um this will allow the stacking of the cars and exiting back out onto State Street go ahead this is the South elevation which remains basically unchanged on the side elevations you can see that the building is getting narrower getting skinnier but the length over the length of

015the building doesn't change and there's some existing photos of the building you can see on each end there's a there's a brick expansion Joiner control joint that's about where that removal would take place the rest of the site is going to remain largely unchanged it has permeable pavers one of the additions that will be part of this project is the addition of electric vehicle Chargers which there are none now so the city gains significant opportunity for charging electric vehicles I think Matt you can speak to the fact that there's we're proposing to put in more than is required um and I think that's everything other than the detailed civil engineering drawings that are there if anybody wants to review them but that's my presentation and I'll turn it over to uh Jack or Gary [Applause]

016good evening my name is Gary Schwartz uh 25971 Rain Street in Oak Park Michigan my family has been seeking approval from the city of Ann Arbor for a drive through for around two years we have been advised by our professional advisors that absent drive through this building will be almost impossible to lease we've applied out of necessity as you know this building has been unable to lease for five years when we started the process we were informed by the city that if you can get approval from the nearly dozen departments you can reasonably expect to have a drive-through a few departments made requests of us ignoring the fact that we already have site plan approval and asked that we make changes that simply have nothing to do with the drive-through we even agreed to place

017as Brad said new EV charges on our site we worked out the requests one by one to satisfy the city it was not easy it was not cheap it took us two years and cost us around forty thousand dollars in professional fees there are a few items I would like to note that may not have been discussed one the property is set far back from the street so it will not interfere with State Street whatsoever second we are asking for more than a 20 reduction in the footprint of the building in theory this will likely result in less traffic at the intersection than already approved under our current site plan as far as environmental concerns we are not a destination location the traffic to our site will be from the nearly 40 to 50 000

018cars that go past the property every single day we are kitty corner to an airport whose environmental impact far outweighs any minimal effect our proposed drive-through could possibly have I drive an electric car every day more and more cars are electric many new cars have automatic shutoffs when they're stopped most importantly I'd like to note a few facts we are not near any residential neighborhoods this is exclusively a commercial area our proposed use is compatible with the surrounding properties and the current zoning a Costco is less than a quarter of a mile away from us which was approved by the city a few years ago the average Costco has 500 customers an hour the Ann Arbor Costco is more than average then I filled at my wife's car this past Sunday at a Costco at

0199 00 A.M before the store even opened it was an hour before the store opened there were 40 cars in line um trying to fill up I cannot predict the future for our location but our location may not have may may have less than 40 cards even in a given day we don't know what it's going to be but we're not going to have 40 cars there at one point in time like Costco finally the city has been approving hotels right next to our property unlike our location the hotels are destination locations these properties are bringing new cars to the area that would not otherwise be there these properties are bringing new exhausts to the area which our property will not we relied on the city's representation that if we went through the two years

020of hurdles and satisfied each City department at Great expense to us we could reasonably expect approval from the city the Ann Arbor law allies for drive-throughs we really do not want to board up this building if the commission does not want to grant us approval I would ask the commission tell us what we can do what we can provide at the site to receive approval simply tell us what else would you like us to do thank you um so now we'll move to the staff presentation Mr Kowalski oh I'm sorry I didn't realize they had to hit me to wake me up I'm sorry I'm Jim Chacon as I run the collagers commercial real estate company in Ann Arbor I've been doing it for 35 years we're working on this site for many years with

021the owners trying to get anybody in there it's kind of a hidden sight back in there so we've tried office we don't have enough parking plus our office business right now is kind of in the tank so we've tried retail it's just it's just we've tried everything lower the price incentives build out whatever we can do so it's just a vacant building down there we think a drive-through would be great you see the Tim Hortons next door does well it doesn't create a lot of backup traffic plus we can stack more cars than any other ones down there so I think the best use is kind of a retail drive-through and I don't see any traffic problems because we can stack enough I know what some of the drive-throughs help they stack into the street

022but we have more cars so we can try and watch that one thank you thank you hi good evening my name is Jack Schwartz 4779 Collins Avenue Miami Schwartz's brother and I we want to thank you for the opportunity to to speak to the Planning Commission my father started this company 50 years ago my brother and I joined this company 35 years ago we are both proud graduates of the University of Michigan we're a small family-owned business and have been developing property in Ann Arbor for the past 30 years we are very pleased and have loved being a part of the Ann Arbor landscape we have worked with the Ann Arbor building department for all these years and take great pride in following the rules and regulations and the guidance that the Departments give us

023we approached the building department approximately two years ago to convert our vacant building into a drive-through we have no choice we have no choice we have worked through this with all the various billing departments to meet their requests and have successfully done so and received approval from every single Department to convert our building to a drive-through it's been a very labor-intensive undertaking many hours much cost as Gary mentioned our building has been vacant for five years this is going to be a reduction in the size of our building and it's going to be at Great cost to us but due to the high automobile traffic of this area it is our only viable option the building is located in close proximity to two new hotels and the third large hotel is going to be next

024to us and is in planning we are kitty corner to the city of Ann Arbor Airport [Music] is that me okay anyways there's no residential areas guys and we we really just want to do what we can do we're happy to work with the city there's garbage being dumped there's cars being left we're having vandalism problems so they can building okay thank you okay thank you guys thank you guys now we'll move to staff presentation Mr Kowalski okay good evening everybody um again just okay I think we're good is it my time up yeah okay um okay that was easy okay well assuming I asked you to be efficient that's the maximum efficiency right there but assuming you might want to hear a little bit more I'll go on um if you guys remember this

025was a proposal that was before most of you were probably here back in early June um we had a couple less members at that time so uh what's before you today as mentioned again is a special exception use as well as a landscape modification so there's two motions that are on your staff report that would both need to be voted on um I won't go through a lot of the details because you've already seen them through the petitioner's presentation um regarding obviously what's the modif the amount of modifications that are being done to the existing building um there's a slight reduction of parking spaces overall on the site about three less um as one of the applicants mentioned they are adding EV parking uh two more EV ready spaces that are required by yeah EV

026ready spaces that are required by code um and again so as part of the special exception use I did want to read through some of the special exception use standards briefly these are the these are also in the staff report of course um but just to re-highlight them for a planet commission as well as anybody in the audience and listening online um so through special exception use there's a series of criteria that um you have to address basically to Grant the special exception use um first one will be consistent with the general objectives of the city master plan again a staff's opinion the master plan land resettlement recommends commercial for the site well actually that's not Steph's opinion that's fact um the second criteria will be designed constructed operated and maintained in a manner that

027is compatible with the existing and planned character of the general vicinity again we look at the surrounding land uses of what uh immediately adjacent as well as in the State Street corridor um we'll be consistent with the general character of the neighborhood considering the population density design scale and bulk and the intensity and character of the activity um again if you look at the surrounding uses around there it's a pretty high intensity vehicle-oriented area again with obviously it's been mentioned no residential uses directly adjacent to this uh use will not be detrimental to the use peaceful enjoyment economic value or development of neighboring property or the neighborhood area in general um again the drive-throughs you know it's kind of hidden behind the building uh the building itself is set back from the street significantly uh

028it will not have a detrimental effect on that natural environment um the replacing a building with actually with pervious pavers so uh again that that although there is a slight overall increase in impervious surface on the site um stormwater detention system is uh we'll be able to handle that there's the modifications that are needed um are very minor and again with the addition of the porous pavers that are used throughout the site that is something that has been working on the site um because in the past we've had some concerns on that but it does appear to be working on the site so they're going to continue using those uh so that would have some impact again to the natural environment uh we're looking at again so it's what's before you regarding the landscape modification

029is that the code requires obviously Street trees to be uh placed within the right-of-way to count as tree trees um these trees are already in there they are in there as part of the previous uh proof site plan but code does require because the whole site is brought up to code right now because this is all one site so we as planning staff look at it as one site um so the code would again kick those Street tree requirement in there but it used to be a variance now it's a landscape modification so again that is supported by staff the the right-of-way is extremely narrow there between the curb and sidewalk there's utilities it's it's just impossible to put them in that area but again that's a separate motion that you need to approve uh

030one of the questions from follow-up uh last we had some concerns regarding the uh traffic of course and transportation I did follow up with the transportation engineer that reviewed this um she the study overall that they were required to contribute did it did not have the traffic concept the intersections within the roundabout um that was a question that was asked last time uh I asked to follow up on that that she just didn't those were not required by the trip generation here so it's not something that she would have um uh and that's something she felt was necessary for analyzing this her concerns uh regarding this were um initially just some of the pedestrian traffic that goes from if they're for whatever there may be from the sidewalk there is a and maybe I'm showing

031on some of the photos there is a delineated walkway that goes from the public sidewalk back well it goes past the Jimmy Johnson back to the building um they're going to also enhance the striping along that and that's really what um high intensity reflective striping is what the transportation engineer suggested just so again it minimizes any potential for conflict with the two driveways exiting in that area but um asking again through traffic generation uh one of the reasons that again she didn't request a more robust or require more robust traffic studies because she did not feel it was going to be a destination it was going to uh kind of just pull off the existing traffic in that general area um so we covered the Motions I think that it dresses and uh planning staff

032is recommending approval of the landscape modification as well as the special exception use and I believe I covered everything I have highlighted so I think that does conclude my report I didn't even need to be buzzed out thank you very much we'll move now to the public hearing so this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about the proposed um petition item will first call on individuals present to address the commission then remote participants to speak during this public hearing remotely pressed star nine of listening my phone or use the raised hand feature if viewing through the web link for phone access call 877-853-5247 enter meeting ID 977-6634-1226 City staff will select callers who have raised their hand using the last three digits of their phone number or by name

033if 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 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 during this public hearing no we provide an extended time for the petitioner during the 10 minutes this would be for other commenters on it but during discussion though if we have questions then we can discuss thank you is there anyone else present who would like to speak at the time at this time thank you Garber again um first of all this special exception use is not

034a big deal tiny project um I spoke against it in June but if you approve it tonight that's fine it fits most of the UDC um criteria for approval with the exception in my opinion of 529 d1c they had a quote will not have a detrimental effect on the natural environment end quote I disagree with Mr Kowalski on this I think that adding pavement specifically for a drive-through will increase vehicle emissions from vehicle idling um Mr Moore is correct we many new cars do have stop start ignition systems but many people disable them or buy vehicles without them and there's a lot of older vehicles also um but I have to admit right now drive throughs are all the rage for restaurants Banks some retailers I live near a Starbucks that just remodeled to accommodate

035more drive-through customers Panera recently vacated its buildings on both Plymouth and Jackson roads in order to build new nearby Paneras with drive-throughs after you deny the U of M Credit Union seu in April which was the right call I spoke to Credit Union president Tiffany Ford who told me that something like 40 percent of customers of the Credit Union's Jackson Road branch do use the drive-through there in fact back when I drove a car I used that drive through my ATM several times myself um people hate to get out of their vehicles so yes drive-through approval will help the petitioner lease their building and get a better Roi so go ahead and vote Yes it's okay but consider this the city has twice rezoned this property and petitioned a request first in 2003 from research

036to office to enable more possible uses and then again in 2013 from office to C3 to accommodate their site plan they chose to build speculative retail on a sliver of property that has no visibility from State Street and next to no visibility and zero access from Ellsworth why did they do this on the Schwartz's can tell you if you're interested I'd be interested um but uh the question here tonight is should we should you help them out yet again um I suppose if you decide the seu proposal substantially meets UDC criteria if so I personally won't lose any sleep on nor should you but it's incredibly depressing to know that people are getting more and more wedded to their vehicles you can't really call them cars because they're mostly SUVs instead of less which is

037what we need is which is what the climate needs I don't know what to do about this frankly but Banning new drive-throughs in Ann Arbor as Minneapolis did would be one small step thank you is there anyone that would like to address the commission remotely there are no hands raised at this time thank you currently the proposed motions are it's proposed to take the proposed motions together is there anybody who would like to discuss that or be in favor of taking them separately okay so we're going to take the Motions together I'll read them now the first motion reads the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission after hearing all interested persons and reviewing all relevant information finds the petition to substantially meet the standards in chapter 55 unified development code section 5.29.5 special exceptions approves the

0383949-3957 South State Street special exception use 3945-3957 South State Street for a drive-through facility this approval is based on the following findings it will be consistent with the general objectives of the city comprehensive plan of commercial uses in the area and the proposed use will not adversely impact traffic pedestrians bicyclists circulation or Road intersections based on the location the proposed use is consistent with other surrounding uses and traffic traffic impact am I seeing a typo sorry no okay um oh uses apostrophe traffic impact pardon me the second motion reads the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby approves the 3949-3957 South State Street site plan at 3945-3957 South State Street including a landscape modification that allows existing trees just outside the right-of-way to be counted as required Street trees uh commute by commissioner Mills seconded by

039commissioner Lee we are now in discussion is there anybody who'd like to begin discussion of this motion these motions commissioner Hammerschmidt thank you I know we have feelings about drive-throughs at this table um I don't really have those feelings about drive-throughs I I will say I I mean hopefully you know Mr Moore mentioned it's not really a walkable area it's not pedestrian friendly very true hopefully eventually this area will be more walkable however I mean I think for me just hearing everything that we've heard tonight seeing where this is located I wouldn't want to see the building boarded up I wouldn't want to see it demolished to rebuild anything new that that's definitely not sustainable um it's been five years that you've been I'm assuming actively trying to lease this I'm I'm fine with this

040um and I will support this I do have a question though and I don't know who whose purview this would be under but would you consider if it's the petitioner allowing bikes to go through the drive-through because I feel like there are a lot of drive-throughs that you can't do that I don't know if that's a city thing I don't know oftentimes it's a condition of the underwriter of the insurance of the tenant because they have to insure that property and they and so if you find an underwriter that will do that that's fine but many won't because they don't want a bicyclist between two vehicles and someone's scrunching them yeah so it's really an insurance underwriting issue okay [Applause] well the answer is yes okay underwrite that apparently I'm just I'm just trying to

041think forward you know like and as more people die because the city gets more bike Lanes like depending on what what Lisa's here if it's something that you might want to ride a bike to being able to just like you know pick up a prescription at a pharmacy drive-through window could be you know without having to park your bike and lock your bike um might be something people want to do I don't know um okay well I'm sorry that it took you two years to get through approvals but I'm I'm supportive of this so I hope that something useful to the community will lease the space for you largely with what commissioner hammerschman had has to say I think oftentimes the scrutiny that I that I really pick up on for drive-throughs is the impact

042that it would have on pedestrian safety and where this is it's very unlikely to have that there would be queuing kind of at the at the sidewalk or that it would impact that at all senses place for drive-throughs within our city boundaries this is it um and I know similar could commissioner I'm curious what other people have to say I mean and I think that this is I'm glad that we are um contemplating again kind of our status on drive-throughs I would also add I think that a vacant building is not um a great neighbor and we have approved a number of hotels nearby and being able to walk um from the hotel to a place to dine um and well my children in the back will know that Mommy doesn't like Jimmy John's necessarily

043having another option um uh I I think that that would I think that that is a benefit um uh to the surrounding uses so um I uh I think that this is something that I'm able to support as well so anyone else who'd like to speak commissioner Lee uh sure um taking a look at this literally um again under the UDC is it consistent with the general objectives with the city master plan or comprehensive plan yes design constructed operated in a manner compatible with the existing and planned character of the general vincidity I believe so um again Belle Tire Quick Lube Zippy's Auto Wash Speedway um I took it the kind of uses here and it is consistent with that character uh this is Zone C3 Fringe commercial District um it does indicate very specifically

044here there's little interdependence of activities establishment can be a disturbed dispersed over considerable areas um good automotable accessibility is essential to the districts so um the use is permitted because of their lack of intense pedestrian activity the required contact with auto access would be incompatible in the downtown area I do think that it substantially meets the UDC prescribed special exception use will also be in support of this and then can just contextually speaking for those listening let's just I was running some very rough math here they are voluntarily saying that they're going to reduce their building by about 1500 square feet so if we have 15 triple net per square foot let's just look at it that way and they use an eight and a half percent cap rate they're literally saying I'm going to

045reduce the value of my building by three hundred thousand dollars so that that's basically saying I will I don't think this is going to lease for the next three years of rent um just from a valuation standpoint so this is not an easy decision for anybody to make so I did just want to kind of reiterate from a financial standpoint um this is because this is kind of a necessity given that it fits the UDC criteria both literally and contextually um yeah I will be in support of this thank you commissioner I was reviewing our notes from the last time this came up even though we didn't fully and exhaustively discuss it and um it is just simply a fact that approving this drive-through will not or well not approving this drive through will not

046make this a walkable area of town and it is not desirable to have a boarded up building if we if Ann Arbor wants to ban drive-throughs Ann Arbor should ban them but so long as they are in seu that suggests that there are contexts in which we think that they are not they do not pose a significant problem and those contexts are like this one contexts where there there will be very little conflict point with pedestrians so I think to be consistent with the way we currently treat drive-throughs which is that sometimes they are okay and other times they are not this would be the one that where it is which is what you said already commissioner Mills so I will stop talking any other comments okay I think we're ready to take a vote

047on the two motions taken together for 39.45 to 39 57 South State Street commissioner Abrams yes commissioner Hammerschmidt yes councilmember dish yes commissioner Lee yes commissioner Clark yes commissioner Mills yes commissioner Weiss yes those motions carry all right thank you thank you we'll move now to agenda item number nine regular business the Mosley Street vacation thank you I know a different I just want to say thank you we appreciate it and we'll work very closely with what the city's uh best interests are thank you thank you guys thank you uh the petition East Mosley Street vacation addressed 202 and 214 East Madison this is a staff initiated proposal to vacate one block of East Mosley Street between the Ann Arbor railroad tracks and South Fifth Avenue the road exists only on paper and bisects the

048parcels at 202 and 214 East Madison Street meaning it has not was never built or constructed the stop recommendation is approval and since this is a staff initiated proposal will move directly to staff presentation Mr Leonard I will be less successful city planner Jill Thatcher this evening whose petition this is but uh thank you for the introduction this is as indicated a proposed Street vacation my apologies there are a couple references in the staff report to an alley vacation it is a street the process is the same this is the first incident so I'm going to highlight the second the second instance of me getting caught in cupping and pasting previous step performance but this site uh is uh has was originally planted as a street as you can see from uh it is following

049my cursor mostly Street has was planted and improved for the portion and running a west from the railroad line to Main Street it was planted for the portion running East from the railroad tracks to fifth however it was never constructed you can see here from 1947 it was already being used as part of the lumberyard unsurprisingly that continued until 1979. until 2002. until 2018. and new today uh as noted uh this property has been acquired by the University of Michigan my understanding is their plans are to construct a new elbow field practice marching band practice facility at this site which is always fun to hear and as part of that we're trying to assist with some clean above land ownership records uh as noted it's never been used as a public right in a way

050there are no utilities it doesn't serve a significant pedestrian vehicular throughway in any regards there's no passage of the railroad tracks at that point upon vacation the property would revert to the ownership on either side of it it'd be split down the middle normally but in this case both sides that are owned by the University of Michigan so they would assume ownership of IT staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of vacation it will progress to city council for final consideration thank you Mr Leonard so now we'll move to the public hearing this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about the proposed motion we will first call an individuals present to address the commission then remote participants to speak during this public hearing remotely pressed star nine if

051listening by phone or use the raised hand feature if viewing through the web link for phone access call 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-6634-1226 City staff will select callers that have raised their hand using the last three digits of your phone number or by name if available for those accessing through the web link you'll hear an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak when speaking please move to a quiet area and mute any television or background sounds so that we may hear you clearly for either method of participation please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments is there anyone present that would like to speak at this time thank you seeing no one is there anyone that would like to address the commission remotely okay we're being told

052no so I will now read the proposed motion the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve the East Mosley Street vacation moved by commissioner Mills seconded by commissioner dish discussion of the proposed motion is there anybody who would like to begin our discussion commissioner dish I can't think of any reason not to say yes to this but I want to know if when an unbuilt Street goes on a vacation is it a paved vacation or an unpaved vacation how long did you Workshop that material [Applause] um I guess I have a question which is more just informational and curiosity which is what if this city said no well if this whole said no then um I suspect that there would probably be a lot of research probably by

053lawyers and to do what has been the history and use of that property um but I would not get that I can confess for a hundred years of history or 100 plus years of history but it appears that there never was any intention to build it out there could have even been some action that formalized the use of it for some other use than a street at this point trying to put together the title and deeds for the property we have not been able to locate that so if for some reason the city decided not to vacate it um at this point I think it's more of probably a tidy cleaning up of title search but I don't know but I think that a lot of lawyers would probably get involved to say what the

054traditional use of it has been what does that mean and so fingerly Lumber used that and the properties without any Lumber forever great thanks yeah commissioner Hammersmith sort of a follow-up to that that I was thinking of as we were going through this do you think because of that City on land said from a title perspective it appears to be a city street appears so there's no compensation to the city for vacating the city the city is uh when the city vacates property it typically does that it relinquishes the property to the surrounding Property Owners so it's an unpaid vacation okay it would be nice if we if the city could earn some money for that any other questions minimum we will be paid with the beautiful Dolphins mounds of the Michigan marching band great

055yeah the university could cover the staff time required to deal with the vacation any other comments or questions you made this last longer I'm sorry I think we're ready for a roll call vote that's Kelly thank you um the motion to vacate mostly Street commissioner White yes commissioner Mills yes commissioner clerk yes commissioner Lee Yes councilmember dish yes commissioner Hammerschmidt yes commissioner Abrams yes the motion carries thank you we're now moving on to item 10A Planning Commission annual organizational meeting actions the anniversary Planning Commission is directed to undertake a series of organizational measures on an annual basis to comply with provisions of our bylaws we'll begin with a staff presentation by Mr Leonard yes um this is an annual uh series of actions of the Planning Commission considers many of you probably recall it the

056first of which is there are three aspects to this one is the election of officers two is uh annual review of the bylaws and three is updating our appointments or Liaisons to various subcommittees or other boards and commissions uh all of that is articulated in the memo that has provided to you which features the second example of my lack of attention to detail um you will know before the nomination section that there is a line that says no current members are eligible for how many nomination to their existing officer position that's not true all the existing officers are in the first year have completed the first year of their position so they could be renominated for their position my apologies for that error uh there are three officers uh to the Planning Commission there's the

057chair the vice chair the secretary the process to do so is to accept nominations uh from the four often it is done in sort of a slate of officers it doesn't have to be that way in the event that there were multiple nominations we would um we will make sure that all opportunities for nominations for our slave officers have been exhausted and then we would start a voting process on those and likely the order that they were originally nominated and accepted for consideration if they're in the event that there are multiple slates of officers nominated um after uh nomination ideally those members will acknowledge and accept that they are willing to take that role and then we will take a vote after that to actually elect those people to those office offices in arcades because

058of the resignation of commissioner Gib Randall um we definitely need a new officer somewhere in there and so maybe we can go through that and then after a completion of that I can walk through action on the bylaws uh okay thank you Mr Leonard sure um I would like to nominate um or make a nomination I would like to nominate Lisa sovay for chair myself for vice chair and Donna weish for secretary are there any other nominations from the floor okay Mr Leonard that is soul nomination any any other nominations from the floor councilmember dish can I nominate people who I forgot to ask their permission I think um as long as they um they would need to affirm right now that they are willing to be nominated okay okay um I would like to

059nominate Sarah Hammerschmidt for a chair yeah okay you're welcome um Vice chairman to know White River secretary okay are there any other nominations let's vote these can be voice votes well don't we first need to get people's consent to be oh yes to have been nominated um thank you um yes we should get consent of all those people willing to serve and then we will take votes on those nominations okay so commissioner white do you accept the nomination as presented yes uh commissioner Hammerschmidt to accept the nomination as presented I'll accept it but I want to vote for myself do I we can't make you vote okay in any way you don't have to do anything um I also accept my nominated self-nomination so they did indicate that she would be willing to accept chair

060so um I would so um with that everybody would be willing to step up or maintain in their roles so the first nomination slave officers is commissioner uh survey for chair Abrams for meister and wage for secretary if the chair could conduct a Voice vote of all those approving that slate of nominated officers and just to be clear we're going to vote on both slates yep okay so it's definitely clear about the voting process here okay um you can't vote for both so in order for in order for a slave officers to be nominated the Planning Commission has to approve that vote to nominate them for that so if a majority vote in favor of the first slate then we will go to the next slate on sort of Newton new territory for me here

061but how I would suggest is that the Planning Commission is clear in approving the first nomination we take a vote Yes we as a Planning Commission would accept these candidates we would take a similar vote on the second and then if the if one of those is affirmative and one of those is not affirmative the affirmative one is going to proceed to a vote if they were both affirmative then I'm going to go in the order of that they were nominated and we would vote on the first slate of officers and the first time we get to a majority vote of a slate of officers that would be selected commissioner can I just make this easier on us I really appreciate your nomination um I think the only difference here is me and commissioner Soviet

062for chair correct if she is happy to do it I feel like I'm doing a lot um and maybe like the next term I could be something but I'm maybe I should withdraw my nomination just make it easier on us and just let's vote on the first it's late does that make sense so you will not accept in our nation I guess because I would vote against myself anyway so and I don't want to feel like I'm in high school okay well in that case may I nominate a difference like I need guidance here in terms of the procedure given that we close the nominations the intention is to provide a wide open opportunity for officers so I would suggest that we want to exhaust everything if all of you have a distinct a distinct

063candidate pool if you will before that opportunity for them to be raised okay are there any other nominations from the floor okay so um I would like to nominate Sarah Mills as chair Ellie Abrams as a vice chair and Donnell wedge as secretary are there any other nominations from the floor okay questions yes that's great um and we're doing this by slates because that is the you don't have to do a phenomenal way that we have done it so we could um we could move to individual nominations and then move the chair to the end so that it seems like we have agreement with our nominees or nominators that uh Vice chair and secretary have been accepted and so if possible could I suggests that we vote on those two offices and then vote on

064the chair that's acceptable to me is there anybody opposed to taking them individually Mr Lena you're making a expression so that would progress to a motion to elect commissioner Abrams to the role of Vice chair and commissioner whitech to the role of secretary correct and we are still accepting nominations for the role of chair yeah and also getting people's acceptance of their nomination so is there anybody else who would like to nominate anybody for chair Mr Lee so if we voted you guys that I can't nominate for example you for sharing I think you could yeah right I mean I think it was an excellent job moderating um so I don't mean to make this one no I I think you I think nominations are open I think anybody can nominate anybody for any role

065that they would like to commissionally I nominate Ellie Abrams per chair okay so we currently have three nominees for chair myself Lisa sove and Sarah Mills are there any other nominations um so I will say that I'm going to ask you if you accept they're not a digital question well I thought you were maybe anxious that I was moving on without getting your consent first commissioner Mills thank you commissioner's question maybe think of a slate that I would like to nominate if that's all right I know I would like to nominate commissioner Abrams for a chair commissioner Lee for vice chair and commissioner white for secretary I will make this more simple by letting you all know that I am going to decline the nomination for chair I'm I'm at capacity and already considered that

066and decided against it so thank you very much so commissioner Mills would you like to accept the nomination for chair Coke one more one more possibility one more possibility could we nominate commissioner Lee for chair commissioner Adrians for vice chair and commissioner white for secretary so then we would just be adding we would still be taking them individually and adding commissioner leave or chair we have three nominees for chair potentially I will ask for your consent in a minute um Lisa sobey Sarah Mills and commissioner Lee are there any other nominations for chair okay commissioner Lee do you accept this nomination up yes commissioner Mills do you accept this nomination I similarly have a whole lot on my plate um and so I would I'm honored it was my pleasure to chair during covid I

067I someday I wouldn't I I love being on Planning Commission to be honest it's weird but um someday again I'm interpreting that as they know thank you thank you thank you thank you for that was a no thank you and thank you for the comments I also will share that I have a someday like Sarah Hammerschmidt and Sarah Mills um but not today so so I would suggest we have two nominees for chair both have accepted commissioner sovay and commissioner Lee correct conditioner so they was uh uh nominated first I would suggest that uh we take action first on commissioner survey a vote of the Planning Commission um commissioner Soviet has been nominated commissioner sobey has accepted that role we'll have a vote on that if it's successful commissioner Sobe would become chair if not

068we would progressed to commissioner Lee the reason I am the reason for that order and in my mind is that commissary was nominated first also commissioner Soviet is a current officer of the Planning Commission I don't I'm not saying that I'm reading that from Robert's Rules but if if you would like more of that research I would need more time to determine that would anyone like to discuss or make comment on the voting procedure at this time okay let's proceed to a vote please okay so let's do an uh the motion would be to elect uh commissioner Solvay as chair all right the motion is to elect Lisa survey as chair of the Planning Commission moved by yeah yeah moved by commissioner white seconded by commissioner dish um all in favor raise a hand and

069say I I all opposed do you say um I I'm seeing that the motion failed that's about four Nays three threes that's correct uh so the motion fails okay so then I would suggest a new motion for uh to elect commissioner Elite as chair of the Planning Commission okay motion to elect commissioner Lee as the chair of the Planning Commission moved by commissioner white seconded by commissioner Mills sorry I'm confused both could fail and then what what situation are we in and then we would have to nominate someone else yeah we'd never denominate someone else a nominated Hank okay okay um okay all in favor please raise your hand and say all right sorry we need a motion and I yes did you get that next Kelly okay all those sorry the voice all those

070in favor say aye aye MC six eyes yeah please leave them raised the motion carries congratulations commissioner Lee traditionally you may assume the chair right now and I take my script with me [Laughter] um do we need to vote on myself as Vice chair and Kushner weish as secretary uh given the previous discussion my understanding is there seems to be agreement I think a motion to name both of those positions together they're like a mini slate okay so there's now a motion uh for myself Ellie Abrams is vice chair and Donna weish as secretary moved by commissioner dish seconded by commissioner Lee all those in favor say aye aye aye the motion carries we're now on to 10B thank you sorry for any confusion I added to that uh the next regular organization meeting is

071a regular review of the bylaws um you can take the Planning Commission in short can take two actions one is to propose changes to the bylaws and they if those changes are if any changes are proposed what staff will do is from this time and direction we will work with the city attorney's office to complete review of those present them back to you for adoption at which time you can take action on them for them to the city council for approval or you can say we're good we think the bylaws are perfectly okay in their current fashion um I'm going to run through some proposed changes that staff is proposing to the bylaws my apologies I think that these were added to your packet late due to some legislar lack of knowledge on my part

072so I have attached a set of draft bylaws with some proposed changes the first change is on page three which would add section 4.10 this was a new language that has been was adopted by city council I believe under Council rules commissioner correct me if I'm wrong um and it's being added to a series of bylaws where a border commission has a council liaison it provides for that council member and a representatives from the Planning Commission to review applicants for a position on the board and forward those recommendations to the mayor and Council for consideration it is still the mayor and council's action of course but it provides a administrative review process for feedback for those boards where a council member is a member or liaison as council member dishes sitting here we are that

073the second proposed changes on page four it is to fix a advanced agenda neutral terminology in section 5.10 the next change is a question not so much change and 7.9 this is also referenced also in 9.1 sub 3. recently there have been some conversations about we have a pretty professionally engaged Planning Commission a lot of members are active in the development community in various ways we have Architects we have developers and oftentimes when those individuals are being are recusing themselves appropriately from a conflict of interest we can be challenged to meet the minimum six vote requirements I raised the question here we because of other code in the city not your bylaws other code in the city requires in the establishment of the Planning Commission that that sixth vote six vote majority is required to

074pass any decision on a site plan or a recommendation to city council one of the things that we could consider is modifying that to a majority of five votes that would be reducing that threshold in order to do that it would not only take an amendment to the bylaws but in order for those bylaws to be amended required ordinance change to the city code that also reflects that ability at that location as well um I raised that if it's something that the Planning Commission is interested in pursuing we could follow up with the steps to request that ordinance of the city council the city that would be the city council to determine it would be a request of the Planning Commission it is not part of the UDC but rather the administrative sections of the

075city code and the establishment of the Planning Commission on page eight I propose adding uh the timing of the extended at the destruction discretion of the chair for the 10-minute petitioner presentation we have that for public I think it's appropriate to add that discretion for petitioners as well um I embarrassingly thought we had already struck this provision but I would propose that we eliminate the five minute for neighborhood organizations uh speak we typically don't have that I can't remember the last time it's been invoked I think three minutes is adequate across the board for lad reports and commissions to provide adequate commentary on a petition except writing e-commat and public comment so eliminating that so it's just consistent and simple across the board again on page nine if the Planning Commission was interested in that

076we could pursue that a uh of five Commissioners what would be necessary for approval rather than six finally on page 11 a couple of I would say administerial proposed changes one is the most current version of Robert's Rules of Order that's something our attorney's office has already suggested I don't know why it makes a big difference but I don't have an objection to it and some softening frankly of amendment to our bylaws and review of the bylaws that say that the Planning Commission should review them on an annual basis but doesn't create any sort of I don't know expectation that we're not doing our duty if we choose not to those are changes that I proposed you could consider some of them you could consider none of them you could add additional changes for you

077as I said you could determine that the bylaws are appropriate in their current format and no adjustments necessary thank you Mr Leonard yeah commissioner Mills and then commissioner watch I actually was going to ask the question about what happens if we changed the sixes to fives and Council doesn't do anything but actually your um your change your proposed change to 14.1 yes makes clear that no matter what we change in this Council approve this this is not just an internal to us so um I I like this I think I like most of the change is the only one and I'm speaking for commissioner or like putting myself back in the chair seat once upon a time like it's nice that the chair has discretion and I think it's also nice to say you've had

078your 10 minutes like and we almost always defer like come back to them so I don't actually know that we need to add that in I think we're pretty nice and the way that we do this now is ample time so that would be the only of the proposed changes that I might not change I might not add in the explosive thing that the chair has discretion to extend the petitioner's time but I like I think the other ones clean it up um yeah thank you commissioner watch uh my questions are about what have not been proposed by Mr Leonard so is this an appropriate time to ask those questions great so I'm in section five uh ethics and conflicts of interest I am interested and I think I have made some note of this

079with you Mr Leonard in passing um a a little I think I I think I'd like us to vote on the recusals as opposed to the self recusal and part of the reason for that is related to why we are potentially proposing to go from six to five is because often now chair Lee has to recuse himself because his employer is a substantial real estate holder in the city and may be impacted by a zoning change and I know you all have conversation around that but at the council table the the council member acknowledges the um potential conflict and then the table votes on that conflict and then after a successful vote they are recused in our practice it's just a self-recuse one then they walk away from the table and there have been conversations

080where the expertise of the sitting commissioner would have helped substantially with the conversation but the sitting member recused themselves automatically and is by the bylaws so I don't know obviously this is on the floor right now I'm not asking anybody for answers but I do want to raise that as we come to these bylaw changes so that there is a a little more input from the from the table around that recusal and then it takes I think the burden off of the individual member from having to shoulder the weight of whether or not they think that recusal is necessary it did did I communicate clearly okay yeah that's and that's appropriate feedback if if it's desire to pursue these changes we can um I appreciate the reference to the city it's a council method that's

081something I would probably talk to the attorney's office about that sample language I don't know if there's reasons why this is better in the circumstances versus that but um we can definitely explore that to see if it's possible I personally would support that I don't know if anybody else wants to comment or ask a question about this commissioner Mills yeah I don't because my employer is not subject to zoning um like it does it rarely would put me in a weird position unless it's like my neighbor you know like that so but I'm curious like if it I absolutely agree with where you're coming from but if it also puts people who and there's multiple people who've had this being been in this situation but it sounds in a weird situation with their employer um

082which I don't know and and I think that so I'm not in that situation I'm just trying to imagine like both sides I can see like you not wanting to seem um suede one way or the other but I also like I don't want to force someone into um a situation that puts them in a really awkward position with their job that's actually paid well let me I I don't think commissioner Weiss is probably looking at that either I think what you're saying is if if I'm under you wouldn't want to be in a position where the planning person say no you should vote on this but the individual doesn't agree with that is that okay but let me so let me let me just bring both of those and continue to look at it

083when if we're going to present some revised by us to see if that if there's a way to address that I think that's fair because personal integrity might have a different threshold than your colleague at the table on it sure I I believe we could resolve that with an abstention so they could still participate in the substance of the discussion and then abstain from the vote because then they don't have the conflict and recently uh the chair of the independent police oversight committee resigned that position because their employer prohibits them from participating in any City based organizations and so they had to resign in order to do that so I would say we have a tool the tool is abstention but we don't use that tool at this table the person just leaves the table

084and I think your expertise I think the ex the gathered expertise of who sits at the table is what is helpful even if you choose not to vote in favor or against having you at the table to tell us or maybe let's be more selfish to tell me what I do not know is really valuable and and I am making this plea selfishly thank you this is not a tool that we use and I I like exploring that a lot yeah I will my yeah I don't know why it hasn't been used I I think that I have I don't have I I always thought that abstentions were challenging because if if there is a question of whether or not you should vote on it even participating in the discussion has a sphere of influence

085and so but they exist so I don't know the appropriate ways in which that but I that's a question that we can definitely discuss I will say that it's always been my understanding that we are discouraged from abstaining outside of this potential situation with the conflict of interest and instead actually voting no or asking for the information we would need so that we could make an informed vote Yes or no but so I think that's often why it hasn't been used here at the table um any other discussion about the um question around recusal I guess um I'd be interested in what kind of language uh would exist just because um is it something to the effect of notwithstanding the foregoing um in the event that planning Commissioners deem you know through a majority of

086votes uh just because there's you know I'm thinking practically right um let's talk tc1 for example my employer owns a property in tc1 that would benefit from a discussion it does say at 5.1 it's a member of the commission show abstain from discussion voting or otherwise acting in any manner where that member is involved in a conflict of interest so I'm just trying to think about like what language helps to override so I guess I'm interested to see how that like mechanically Works um and and really conflict of interest is not only the actual conflict but it's also the perception thereof so it gets very tricky um and it does like as a majority you compel me to talk about tc1 because of my again like and I have plenty of opinions about tc1 sure

087I live it um I want to make sure that the the public knows that I'm here as a civil servant not as anything to serve so it I am just kind of interested just because it does exceed more than just the actual conflict itself but the perception thereof so um I'd love to see the language this is kind of a complex topic so um and just how it would kind of negate some of the other elements of 5.1 and um really the entire section right so and in my world it's just I got to be better safe than sorry right and I just want to make sure that the public knows I'm really here just as a public servant so and not not really acting in a manner that sways one way or the other

088so um this is probably getting too complex but in other organizations that I have participated in or on the boards of um one way that we deal with conflict of interest is that you you name your you name it and you also declare your strategy for mitigating it um which is to say that you would find some way you know it just as a way of dealing with a with public perception which would be to be very transparent about your understanding of that conflict and what you plan to do to mitigate it and that allows a lot of flexibility Beyond just recusal so that might be some option although it's a little squishy I understand um commissioner White yeah and I think the the and not to put you in the cro the the focal

089point of this part of the conversation commissioner Lee but uh that is where we are I after doing the MSU Extension training on uh planning and participating on a board we had a whole section on recusals and they walked through scenarios and the best practice that the instructors gave was that the the planning board vote on there was a disclosure and then there was a vote and as I sit at the table we just declare and then withdraw and so I just wanted to come somewhere between those and a lot of the language in 5.1 is about individual not employer the employer one is in 0.5 and it's acting as an applicant or has a direct interest in the outcome and indirectly we might all have to recuse ourselves as zoning changes property values because

090we have it in you know or this as a direct interest in the outcome so it's just trying to clean up the language for the the point of you being on the board which is you bring in expertise to some of these conversations that we don't have or at least I don't have and I feel like that is missing now we could mitigate that in another way by knowing that there's going to be something where you're going to recuse yourself and we have a subject matter expert who is available to answer those kinds of questions but often at the table your lived experiences change how I perceive something I take almost to a person you all have said something that I hadn't considered and I I appreciated that and I think that makes me a

091better commissioner and it helps move our objectives forward so that that's my ethos I'm not trying to force you to participate in meetings that you don't think you should participate in thank you Mr Leonard do you feel like you have what you need to come back to us with a yeah some more information or a proposal yeah I yeah I think I'm gonna start a little bit um clean sleep with the attorney's office like how how can we sort of elevate this how can we provide more opportunities to get the expertise of our appointees without creating concerns I think that's the net goal that we're trying to achieve here yeah thank you I have a quick matter on the bottom of page three there's another instance of the use of gendered thank you language that

092we could change any other comments commissioner Hammerschmidt I have the if we okay so article 14 section 14.1 the first sentence talks about a vote of six members if we change the other sixes to fives does that one also need to change to five or does that stay at six um this one that one you could change uh I will add that oh no I'll I'll add that on my association bylaws um I'm the president of my Association uh there's like a higher standard I think of votes for amending bylaws so um I I don't know that but that this is just specifically to the amendment of bylaws so I'm just throwing that as an anecdote I just know if we wanted to be consistent if we were going to change it everything else has

093changed I'm just that would be good to discuss the five versus six yeah it has a topic before we do that generally also just say I I would all I mean it I would also be fine with just leaving out the 10-minute discretion of the chair thing I don't think we've ever I don't know I don't I don't think I've ever seen an instance where I'd want a petitioner to go longer and I'm wondering about the three-minute public participation discretion of the chair just to make them consistent like you wanted to do we want to delete the chair make send an individual speaking time I don't think it issue it does provide some flexibility if like if the Planning Commission wants to hear from another aspect or a follow-up question or something in that regard

094that otherwise you might be limited to but it's a fair question I I would my my initial reaction is I don't think that's broke okay not that I think the developer one is I was just trying to add some consistency I'll also add that I would be in favor of leaving discretion for public speakers but not adding discretion for petitioners agreeing with commissioner Mills essentially yeah yeah um does anybody want to discuss or make a comment on changing affirmative vote of six to five commissioner Mills just while we're at it there's one more place that hasn't been flagged that has six and this is about when you um uh let's see then it's 7.15 and this is closed sessions but I think that that may be linked to state law and so I just wanted

095like but I thought I'd flag it that's the only other one that I saw I will check that but that is my that I didn't find that I think that is a state law requirement to go into a closed session it is a higher threshold but I'll double check that okay councilmember dish I just wondered if staff either mixed Kelly or Mr Leonard had any thoughts about the implications of us reducing from um yeah six to five I was going to say five to six which wouldn't be a reduction I don't personally have any concerns with it a lot of very important actions are taken across the city with a majority vote at some point this was established to be a higher threshold presumably because of concerns about development activities um your discretion at this

096table is to say things meet or don't meet our ordinance it's not a it's not a discretionary PUD approval or the like um maybe the council would feel better knowing that when recommendations are coming they are coming with a higher and a super majority I don't know if that is a super majority but a higher majority of the Planning Commission than a simple majority I it for the sake of conducting business it's it seems reasonable that a nine-member commission um could forward or take an action with five of its members but I I am I'm not sure what my planning forefathers envisioned for for parents four four parents um commissioner should you have a follow-up or can I move to yeah so the only thing that I am the only thing that is sticking for

097me on this is that Planning Commission is now the final approval body for things that it didn't used to be or that it used to be and then that was changed and then we changed it we the council changed it back so Planning Commission once more is final approval on site plans where the you know proposal Accords with the existing zoning is there anything else special exception uses which we love um I yeah I it's it's hard for me to see why six versus five makes any difference commissioner White so thank you for actually making these changes because I feel like a lot of these changes are related to the things I've been raising at the table around the size and when we have recusals so I think they're all sort of interconnected which is

098we've had to send to council a couple um somewhat technical failures that were actual approvals at the table because they didn't meet the threshold and given we haven't changed our recusal rules we could have at any meeting up to two Commissioners who have to recuse themselves and I feel like that could having it have to be at six it puts a lot of pressure at the table um so that so I I think going to five is actually helpful given that we can't have alternates so this I started this conversation with could we have alternates because of the recusals we can't have alternates and the recusal policy hasn't changed so anyone can self-recuse which then has an impact both on petitioners has an impact on what we sent to council has an impact on our

099work schedule because things may get postpone and delayed so I just feel like it's all these Cascades because we're tight into this structure so the five actually feels like it provides space for us to get all of the work that is before us done and to do it in a reasonable way um at the table without postponement delay or sending technical denials which are our approvals to council it doesn't seem like it's hurt anything but it in the community there has been some manipulation of the failures at the table and talking about sort of projects that then go on to council because people aren't in the weeds with us on even though we voted five two or whatever the vote was a majority at the table but it still fails and so goes there as

100a failure so I think the five helps us with that and it feels like a good compromise since we can't have Alternatives and we haven't yet changed our recusal policy so if we changed our recusal policy then we might not need the five and we could stay at the six because more people could sit at the table so those are some of my thoughts of why I think it is helpful thank you any other comments for discussion commissioner Mills so just in terms of practical next steps like uh does it make sense Steph if we were to change it from six to five uh uh we could do that tonight forward should we do it tonight forward it on to council knowing that council's got to change something else but they have to actually approve

101this before any of this goes into action anyway does that make sense or should we how so that's one question and then I'm going to say the other one because I think that they're related my uh how long do you think it's going to take to get back information about um recusals like um and I know we have to review our bylaws now but is there anything that says that we can't come I don't I didn't read that we can't come back yeah so currently the bylaws require you review them once a year one of the proposed changes here basically says you should but you don't have to you shall not be slapped on the hand if if you don't if you forget yeah yeah um so as but so you you could you could

102always come back to it to your first question um it would not be appropriate to adopt new bylaws tonight wait the decision before you tonight is they're good as it is or we would like to pursue these changes and what I am hearing so far is sort of a combination of the changes that I proposed uh the one striking the discretion for developers seems to have some common support across the table to not include that potential change um I'm going to explore uh a revamping of the ethics and conflicts of interest to provide to explore a required Vote or action by the commission for a recusal how that might relate when that vote is at odds about what an individual commissioner is feeling or concerned about and I'm going to explore how and when abstentions

103are appropriate versus recusal all towards the goal of trying to bring as much expertise of our members to the applicable discussions as is appropriate so that's not changes that I'm going to present those are changes that I'm going to go to the attorney's office I'm going to say how can we explore this what are the examples let's look at the council rules how they do it what's appropriate what's not appropriate the motion I'm presenting to you would um task us with trying to accomplish that and bring back revised bylaws to you on August 15th then you would adopt them and recom that would be the action to recommend them to city council at that point if what I I am hearing support for shifting to from six to five what that means is I'm gonna

104pres on the 15th I intend would intend to present bylaws with that change to you but that is going to have to be a sort of staggered conditional action before those bylaws then progress to city council there's going to be a request from the Planning Commission to amend the applicable section of the administrative code to modify that so that these bylaws then may be forwarded is that bureaucratic enough so yes enough okay all right um I have two con two quick comments um one is did did we or staff consider uh majority of members present as opposed to a fixed number of Commissioners I did and I thought that taking an action it seemed to me like a five majority of the Planning Commission versus those present was appropriate we do have some boards that

105are present we recently for example had a Planning Commission or a historic district commission action that I think was like a group of three and it was a majority vote of three um I did think about that I thought going from six uh for whatever reason that was established when it was established to five was a reasonable um Improvement to some of the challenges that we've had lately without going to a position where if you had five people present that'd be a quorum for meeting and only three affirmative votes if that's something the commissioner was interested in I thought about it that seemed to just be a more extreme step I thought that the five was reasonable thank you um personally I also think that that's reasonable I think um acquiring a certain quantity of

106affirmative votes makes more sense than than the majority but I I wanted to make a couple comments just for the record I would support the change to five but I also think probably um 90 of the time we vote unanimously so um and which is maybe something to talk about another time maybe we need some more diversity of opinion up here but um so I think that this so I think this comes up when there are actually those very rare items that are difficult that we're really grappling with and I actually think in those moments the shift from six to five is very significant like to only have to convince five of us as opposed to six of us so I don't I I don't oppose the change I also uh note that at any

107time we can also change it back we don't have to wait till July we can at any time if we wanted to change it back so we shouldn't feel like it's too risky to do it but even if that ordinance were changed the bylaws could establish a higher level but because that ordinance that is a barrier from going the other direction right um I forgot the other thing okay so but we're actually going to make a motion to postpone we're not going to vote on whether to change the bylaws you are going to make emotion uh that is the first motion in the bylaws stanza of your staff report all right I would propose that the motion reads something to the effect of I move that the following changes are referred to the City attorney

108for review the proposed amendment included in the draft bylaws presented at this meeting with the following modifications foreign of alternative ethics conflicts of interest and recusal language as discussed and directed the modification of section 5.21 from him or herself to themselves the the removal of the proposed change to section 8.3 at the time for a developer petition at the discretion of the chair and [Music] modification of all votes from six to five where appropriate by law I would keep the amendment to the bylaws at a super majority okay personally following commissioner lease Okay so so to the extent what about closed session I do think that that's regulated by law but if if that were possible keep at it at a higher threshold as well I would okay so it would only be for the

109decisions and actions on site plans and recommendations to the city council and those are the two that were already yep I'm called out okay so those are my notes and if those are accurate somebody could move that second it and a Voice vote and what that would put task staff with is going to work on um refining these working with the attorney's office on the questions about recusal abstention and that balance and we would present a revised draft to you in on August 15th and likely again that would also be accompanied by resolution for the Planning Commission asking the city council to modify the boards and commission chapter of the ordinance okay moved by commissioner white just seconded by commissioner Mills all those in favor say aye hi any opposed was whites and Mills yes

110okay thank you okay so we're on to 10B the commission will vote on a meeting change for second regular session you've got one more item on the organizational meeting we got a update oh committees and appointments I'm sorry committees and appointments [Music] I think it was unanimous on the motion for the bylaws it was a Voice vote unanimous Voice vote no one opposed Okay the third opportunity for organizational Excellence is your designation to uh committee assignments and Liaisons uh I have put together a proposed but it's largely just uh what is existing assignments are um the comprehensive plan committee is Commissioners clarkish Hammerschmidt Lee sovay and weich the ordinance revisions committee is Commissioners Abrams hammerschmitt Mills and sovay the executive committee with the recent um uh uh election of officers would be Commissioners Abrams Lee

111and weich we have uh additional designees uh two committees no longer want you or exist thank you commissioner Hammerschmidt for your service both the center of the city initiating committee and the DDA affordability and economic development development committee have been dissolved so there is no longer a need for a Planning Commission liaison uh commissioner dish um continues to serve violently a double duty of liaison to the city council to the environmental as a city council member to the commercial environmental commission and the Planning Commission and maybe was willing to continue in that role commissioner Lee is liaison to the Transportation Commission and not appointed by the City Planning Commission but I do note that state law allows a single member of the Planning Commission to also serve on the zoning board of appeals for some

112continuity of those related petitions and commissioner Clark has applied to the zoning board of appeals I'm waiting on the decisions of those above as to where that goes so this would be an opportunity to make any adjustments to this uh things that jump out to me are um commissioner Lee if you want to continue in your role as liaison of the Transportation Commission given your new role as chair um if you do then I would welcome any changes or it could be adopted in its current form commissioner Lee uh yeah I recall that commissioner weich at some point expressed some interest in the Transportation Commission is okay okay legitimately thought I did not I was I was wondering why you were making eye contact with me yeah behind me okay never mind okay um no

113no I I like serving on the Transportation Commission it was my sub area of concentration in planning school so yeah is is the I do have to ask just like the executive committee um just as far I'm new to it so I have no idea what is like the additional time commitment to I think we meet once or twice a year perhaps sometimes not at all okay got it understood yeah I know yeah fair question most recently we have met to discuss um The Retreat a Planning Commission Retreat okay cool but it's very on vacation yeah [Laughter] that's really Gonna Keep on giving are there any other comments or proposed revisions to the committee assignments as proposed [Music] put on that I move the commissioner appointments reflected on the attachment as modified during discussion be

114approved moved by commissioner white seconded by commissioner Mills all in favor say aye the motion carries Now we move on to the meeting change for our second regular session in August from Wednesday August 16th to regular meeting day of Tuesday August 15th without objection that change will be made are there any objections we'll pause for clarification we often can schedule a round anticipated election dates we have confirmed that there will be no August elections so we can move from our uh flexed Wednesday date back to our typical Tuesday date I'm sorry to the chair could you is your microphone on it's hard to hear you um that also did happen oh there was a previous also we moved the previous week's working session from the 8th to the 9th Okay so so we are currently

115scheduled to meet Wednesday the 9th as a working session and and now Tuesday the 15th as a regular meeting yes and this is odd I'm just looking at a piece of paper that only has the move of the of the ninth meeting to the eighth I think that's from a previous huh or I don't know what you're looking at but it's the one that I found on the agenda but oh okay I'm sorry yeah that's what you have too right that's what it looks like okay yeah that's what it looks like it's moving but you have something else moving chair Abrams give us one minute you're right so the meetings the revised meeting schedule that was attached to this agenda item shows a move from August 9th to August 8th commissioner dish is correct so

116that's incorrect but actually that's more in line with when the election usually is there's no election usually the week of August in the mid-august teens August 15th is already on our calendars too as a regular meeting correct thank you commissioner dish for catching that yeah I think it's correct in the agenda it's just incorrect in my script so I think I just misspoke so can I start over please may I please start again this is why I'm not chair yeah I just think it's the work session not the 15th right got it all right starting over 10B a revised City Planning Commission meeting calendar the commission will vote on a meeting change for our working session in August from Wednesday August 9th to the regular meeting day of Tuesday August 8th without objection that change

117will be made are there any objections all right that change is approved we're on to agenda item 11 public comment I don't see anyone present in the room with us is there anybody who has been joining the meeting who is joining the meeting remotely okay seeing no one then I will skip the long script for remote participants to speak to us on to number 12 commission proposed business is there any commission proposed business yeah all right seeing none we'll move to 13 which is adjournment moved by commissioner white seconded by commissioner Lee all those in favor say aye we are adjourned