Ann Arbor Planning Commission Meeting 6/21/23

001okay we are back in session uh I'd like to recognize commissioner Clark is joining uh in attendance and now we're moving on to uh uh motion to approve the agenda do I have someone to make a motion commissioner white uh seconded by commissioner Mills is there any discussion on the motion see none all those in favor uh please say aye aye a new post motion carries uh may have a motion to approve the minutes of June 6 2023 moved by commissioner Mills concept seconded by commissioner Abrams any discussion of the minutes uh all those in favor of the motion please say aye any opposed and Carries next up are reports to the playing commission uh first we will start with city council uh council member Dash do you have anything to report I am very

002pleased to report that the 721 South Forest PUD past unanimously on second reading I'm also pleased to report that the Amendment to the conditional Zoning for Beekman on Broadway went just fine on first reading which you would expect and then also an interesting thing that we did through the consent agenda was to remove racial restrictions from the deed for almondinger Park and I mean there were some other great things on that agenda but nothing of specific interest to the land use domain thank you for that uh mix Kelly do you have anything to report yes uh without objection staff recommend canceling the July 5th meeting this is due to the proximity to the July 4th holiday as well as there are no petitions ready to act on and we would recommend to consolidate administrative items

003such as your organizational meeting to the following regular session and that is at the discretion of the chair would so we don't need to move a motion for this that I can just call just without objection we'll proceed to cancel any objection no we proceed to cancel thank you thank you secondly the ordinance revisions committee at the um at your next ordinance revisions committee we will be focusing on an update request by the city's Transportation team to the UDC so please look for that and if you are not on the orc but are curious in the discussion please tune in and then there was a question at a recent Planning Commission meeting about the possibility of alternate member appointments there was a late add to your packet and there's also a printout in front of

004you with a memorandum from planning manager Leonard um in short there is not a basis in city law to allow alternates it is specifically called uh allowed for in the Michigan zoning enabling act but for some reason it does not have a companion or equivalent provision in the planning Act so the proposal by the planning manager is that if the primary basis for the request related to absences and recusals there could be a you could set in motion and request to update city code this is not a UDC Amendment this would actually require a modification of Title 1 chapter 8 of citicode to do something for example such as indicate a different standard than six members like a majority of members present or some other to be determined measure thank you okay um do any

005other Planning Commission officers or committee Liaisons have anything to report nope okay uh we'll move on to public comment this is an opportunity for persons to speak up to three minutes on an issue that is not listed as a public hearing on this agenda we will first call individuals present to address the commission and then remote participants uh to speak during the public hearing remotely plus star nine if listening by phone 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 have raised their hand using the last three digits of the phone number or by name if available for those accessing through the web link you will hear an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to

006speak when speaking please move to a quiet area and mute any television or background sounds we may hear you clearly for either method of participation please state your name and address at the beginning of the comments during our technical difficulties delay my understanding is that anybody calling in remotely may have difficulty hearing other remote comments we ensure that within the room we can hear all of those digital comments but I just want to you know let anybody listening in that there might be tough technical difficulties and you may have a hard time hearing other public comments um so starting with that is there anyone present that would like to speak at this time seeing no one uh is there anyone that would like to address the commission remotely caller ending in 534 you have permission

007to address the commission meetings it's a lower town in Ann Arbor I'd like to chat with Dr prep about decisions from last night we've got a ped at 721 South Florida [Music] and then it has um affordable housing included in that they have some sustainability [Music] um a couple of thoughts on that there's extended further south allowing certain height development by this soul donated discretionary which project is evaluated out songs does create an at least laying person's terms uh the proper process started this we are not necessarily for or against that height at that location um to move a little bit further south than what it's currently called for maybe that is a good thing but there's a proper process when we have that discussion and all those people that were there last night moving

008out from public comments did a for or against and you and me we won't be part of this process and that's the complex land relationship so right as we're about to enter the comprehension process that's where we have the community conversation about the refill that moving that line of that height of building uh there's appropriate amount we're skipping that file so I know people say create that crisis we had affordable housing prices we've got a sustainable device and yes I recognize all that but essentially we're declining the equivalent of Martial law and those prices are going away anytime there's not a year or two or several years so how long do we operate into the idea to do whatever we want outside of the proper process because we're operating in the crisis and then learning

009is discretionary which can't be arbitrary so when we do one thing or one developer that really is again not legal passport terms and practice but hey that's the main person return s and so looking at the other item which was the removal of welding conditions for the third thing we have to regression there we remove those so we can ask that those would be built okay we're not asking them to do that and I also people ask the developer extreme arrogantly added Authority and follow this book is not expose in the asset of one and not another thank you do we have any other callers there are no other callers at this time and I neglected to hit record so there will be a small noise recording in progress okay uh and with that we're

010gonna move to public hearings for next business meeting which I believe we just cancel that's correct there are no public hearings scheduled great thank you um and so now we'll move on to unfinished business and at this time I will be recusing myself and handing off the chair to commissioner Abrams thank you okay so um to introduce the petition we are this is a continued public hearing for 1601 South State Street this is the South Town rezoning site plan and Street vacation a project with three petitions to redevelop the block bounded by South State Street White Street Henry Street and Stimson Street there are three parts to this petition one to rezone a block of ten Parcels from r4c to c1a slash R zoning with conditions to another site plan for city council approval to

011construct a 220 000 square foot mixed-use building and three a petition to vacate the public alley in the block the staff recommendation is approval so we'll begin with a presentation from the petitioner all right thank you commissioner Abrams um I'm Adam Smith I'm the director of design for synecd key here in Ann Arbor I have with us our studio director Sydney philippus and also the owners of the project margin howdy posher are here as well our civil engineer can't make it tonight because his wife is currently having a baby so hi Brandon over at the hospital hopefully everything's going well watching if you're watching I don't know if you are I hope you're not wild uh okay so since the last time since this is continuing since the last time we presented uh we made

012some changes to I think conditions and the three things that we're doing the rezoning to see when AR the LA vacation and the site plan so the change conditions we removed the open space condition and replaced it with um making it primarily residential with a Max of 30 percent short-term rentals and then we also um we also added no gas can no gas connection except for emergency backup so there'd be no gas connection to the site um with the rezoning and we've proposed that there's no gas connection at all if we're using different type of fuel for emergency generators um we've also resolved all the outstanding staff comments and uh had the zba variants approved in that time as well so I'll do a quick refresher of what the project is uh still in the

013same spot first off uh it's located at uh you know the center of four unique quadrants of of Ann Arbor where you have um the South State industrial commercial with food and entertainment the athletic campus residential neighborhoods and the campus District looking to the north um the context there is it's near the campus business district only a five minute bike ride and 20 minute walk up South State Street along with multiple other facilities of the campus and then to the South um we have the the South State Street area plan and the land use the area five of the 2009 Land Use plan located in these two highlighted areas which call for having mixed use along this Corridor and encouraging multimodal Transportation encouraging um uh residential and Commercial usage along the stimston street in south

014south industrial commercial area that's from the 2009 Land Use and then also the State Street court ordered plan promote mixed-use land uses residential in office along the corridor tc1 located just down South State Street around Briarwood Mall so looking at the rezoning what we've chosen to use the c1ar because it's still compatible with the surrounding Parcels that include several zoning districts from high density residential to to mixed use to the east is r4c the north is a PUD of Malta multiple family affordable residential r4c around that as well and then commercial to the South so most of it is denser denser area and this District of C1 area is described as encouraged the orderly clustering of placement of high density residential and complementary commercial development near the campus business district [Applause] um which it is

015so to review the conditions that we were proposing with this um we propose a Max height of 100 feet on this on z1ar max parking of 0.25 spaces per dwelling unit principal use is multi-family residential and a maximum of 30 of that would um could be short-term rentals and then there are no natural gas connections except for emergency backup comparing to other residential land uses um that are in the UDC um we took a look at the Heights and what and also how many allowed units you could do within that so this tries to illustrate where the conditions lie on c1ar for for this project and um how it compares to you know what we hear from the community that we you know to have housing um to get to our proposed 216 units this

016is the best Zoning for that there's also the LA vacation just wanted to clarify where that's at on the site plan in the middle on the North side this would be this is what we're counting in the far calculation of the overall site and this breaks down what the far is since there's a few things that are added onto it and excluded from it um so the 8 000 square feet of additional premium is from the plaza that we've designed around the building and then we have a zba variance for um at grade parking at grade enclosed parking only at grade and so that you can see in blue is the is how much we're actually using so we're at we're allowed to be at 311 far this is proposed at 308 far for the

017project existing is 38 dwelling units on this site and 10 non-conforming r4c structures and you can see as it changes there um fits in with the the scale of the neighborhood quite well with all with more density um and it's also located along really robust for really robust Transit lines from the ride and along with plans for all ages and abilities networks along South State Street and the tree line Trail along the railroad in the future foreign so getting into the site plan we're working this this area this is a view from um what would be the uh the parking lot of uh Salvation Army so looking from the south this is the tallest side of the building along State Street it's really open and and meant to be a good neighbor in that in

018that area and when we get into where it's placed on the site we we can get into more detail on this but we're using um an exception in the zoning to to have five foot setback on one side and 10 we meet the 10 foot setbacks everywhere else no parking is required but through hearing from the community and knowing you know there's some parking constraints in this area we've provided uh this much parking so it's necessary to reflect the feedback from the neighbors and the zebia approved it just for ground floor and nothing nothing above um 53 spots all are EV capable um bike parking is similar to the last time same amount of spaces all of the Class A bikes are on the ground floor they're not we're not counting ones in units everything

019is accessible there um this is the you're part of the zba approval where we had the the issue we wanted to illustrate what's going on underneath the building uh the parking is we couldn't push the parking below grade because we had the storm water detention below the parking uh and if we push that down into the water table it would be bringing water up out of the water table and putting into the city's storm water system which is not a best practice so this is the the space where it could be is underneath underneath the building um so you can see also we have geothermal Wells these are the blue dots in here uh 62 of them planned that go 400 feet deep and crane roads that have to also access these areas um any

020other questions I can add later outdoor space is the same we have this second level uh outdoor Garden space that's accessible to all its publicly accessible accessible from stairways and an elevator on the White Street side I just want to note that you have uh just a little over a minute left in your presentation thank you um sustainability wise everything is still the same it's a fully electrified building we have solar solar on the roof uh green roofs around uh building it with mass Timber as a tall Mass Timber building where we've been working with the building department to to work out variances to do that we've been working closely with them and they've been very helpful wall insulation is more than double the required amount STC ratings on windows are higher because of the

021train that's very close by and it's also you know since it is built with modular construction we're aiming for a quicker and quieter construction than typical um one comparison and and point about the mass Timber is how much carbon it sequesters so this chart here shows that it would the embodied carbon of the building is already less than two and a half times 2.2 times what a typical concrete building would be and then almost a third of that would be sequestered in the actual wood of the building I have multiple plans of of all the levels the unit plans and the rest of the supporting documents as well as for any other clarification in questions so thank you thank you um now your staff presentation from Alexis de Leo thanks thank you very much um

022feel the tables are reverse I feel that Adam did a very good job on presenting what has changed I'll just um give a very brief recap um and maybe hit a point or two that were not as not covered as well so this is the South Town project it has three petitions there are three motions in the staff report I did change the order of the Motions from the previous meeting but the emotions are largely the same the motion for the rezoning has been updated to reflect the changed conditions that have been offered there is also the document in the packet the for the conditional zoning statement of conditions which does need a better name um Steph is recommending approval of all three um of all three as mentioned I will not go into it

023the offer of conditions has changed I feel it's fairly well articulated but I'm happy to answer any follow-up questions um as noted the um the zoning board of appeals on May 24th granted a variance to exclude the floor area used for at grade parking from the far calculation for the South Town if one was to calculate the floor area of this building it it is not changed but the far which is the floor area ratio that will use a different Base number and That Base number will not include the space the floor area used for the at grade parking so it meets the far requirement of the c1a r District including the use of the or the bonus from the premiums that it earned so it is it complies with the zoning district for which

024it has requested [Applause] um I've also gone through in the staff report what the outstanding comments were and how they were addressed at the previous public hearing and meeting the transportation staff had not completed their review of the multimodal transportation impact analysis mtia um very high level that multimodal Transportation impact analysis concluded that there are acceptable operations for all modes of travel it has a few recommendations it recommended um some things for a safety review including providing a protected bike lane painting bike boxes and so forth it also recommended converting Henry Street between white and South State to two-way operations revising the on-street parking on Henry Street to accommodate the proposed uses sort of specifically the um daycare if one is opened and providing a high visibility crosswalk across Stimson at White and then to

025recap our recommendations for approval staff recommends that the rezoning to c1a slash RB approved and the conditions be accepted and we recommend approval of the street vacation and the site plan both meet the standards of approval for those types of projects I think myself and Adam are probably here to answer any additional questions but I turned it over to you and the public hearing thank you 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 petition we'll call First on individuals present to address the commission than remote participants speak during this public hearing remotely press star nine if listening by phone or use the raised hand feature if viewing through the web link for phone access call 877-853-5247 and enter meeting

026ID 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 if available for those accessing the web link you hear an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak when speaking please move to a quiet area mute any 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 and just as a reminder as commissioner sovay mentioned earlier we're having a technical difficulty with zoom where remote participants we can hear you in the chamber but you may not be able to hear other remote participants when they speak is there anybody present that would like to speak at this time okay seeing no one is

027there anyone that would like to address the commission remotely there are no hands raised all right then I will move to breed at the proposed motion and there are three so the first one Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve the South Town rezoning petition to c1ar campus business residential district and accept the conditions to limit the maximum height to 100 feet limit the maximum number of parking spaces to 0.25 per dwelling unit limit limit the principal used to be multiple family residential and no more than 30 percent short-term rentals and limit natural gas connection to emergency backup power only subject to executing a statement of conditions second motion reads the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council vacate the unimproved platted

028alley in Lock 3 of The Hamilton Rose and Sheen's addition to the city and town of Ann Arbor admission 3 reads the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve the South Town site plan at 1601 South State Street and development agreement does anybody who'd like to move this motion move by commissioner seconded by commissioner dish we are now in discussion is there anybody who'd like to kick us off foreign Hammerschmidt thank you um how do I start I have some comments and then I think I have a couple questions um I'll start with my questions so I noticed first of all I'm sorry that I was not here when you guys were here before but I did listen to the whole meeting so I think I'm caught up

029um so you were moved to open space condition before there actually changes made to the open space on site no they have not okay um I love that staircase off of Henry it's off of Hunter stamps it I don't actually know three so that's awesome yeah stem Stimson has won a large one that goes up through the plaza and then there's one off uh White Street and off Henry Street they're all accessible up to the uh Podium and it seems like the internal stairwells also are daylight for the most part most of them yeah the only ones that are not are in the the taller this the eight-story building that's separated because it's in the middle so we could get as many units around the perimeter as possible but uh every other staircase does have

030Windows in it yeah I mean that's I'm sure you know this that's like I've said this to other developers too it's like that's how you get people to take stairs like if you live on the second or third floor you don't want to have to right take an elevator but stairwells are always often so like you don't they're scary you don't want to take them so having the windows makes a huge difference I also I noticed on um the site plan the reference to the well-building standard you're not seeking well certification correct you're just using the standard correct yes I'm just using the standard the guidelines and the standard that also contribute to glazing in each unit the minimum glazing and I think the stairwells putting behind the stairwells making the stairwells like nice is

031part of it so well so I'm glad that you're like using the standard but not going so far as to actually get certified because I think it's just like a really expensive process that doesn't always seem worth it but using the standard I think is awesome um I love this project I'm very excited about this project this might be more of a question for for staff on process the transportation recommendations or maybe this is a question to the positioner the recommendations from transportation and the mtia do thoughts on those are there like are they things that you guys are willing to consider do they they don't have to do those things correct they're just a recommended like for us to approve the project you're not saying that or for your approval is not contingent on

032doing those where do we sit with those um if I may but correct me if I'm wrong um our tune in to the ordinance revisions committee discussion next Tuesday um our standards of approval and review criteria for transportation impact studies is um a little bit outdated but the gist is in the Do no harm sort of model and so we take the recommendations from the traffic impact study and we say you'll need to do those recommendations in order to sort of maintain that Do no harm now the code language talks about levels of service and so forth but the gist would be Do no harm and so they have um my understanding is they have agreed with the recommendations of their own traffic impact study it will be incorporated into the development agreement because those

033things are off-site or they don't show up well on the site plan but um they they kind of do need to do those things in order to meet the standard of the criteria for site plan approval and the standard for reviewing a traffic impact study maintaining the levels of service um supporting the all the codes and policies of the city which include our transportation plans and policies our and those sorts of Standards when you say they it's not the developer because how the like converting Henry Street to 2i that's a city thing um yeah there are some of those items within their control and there are some that are that are not now converting this the city I would imagine I am using my experience working with the transportation Engineers but I am not a

034transportation engineer I would assume that this city would handle all of the proper resolutions and motions and approvals for that traffic control orders but perhaps they may bear the cost of signage changing the signs changing the paint changing the stripes a lot of that will be torn up anyway and so this will go into the Civil plans about how to restore the street and where to put which pavement markings where to restore which um signs okay yeah and I can follow up with sure uh we worked closely with our transportation engineer to come up with these recommendations too so it wasn't as much as like you have to do these but we brought up these ideas and were we're very happy to do these uh the recommendations that they've come up with for better pedestrian

035safety and better function especially for White Street for for bikes to to turn on it and use it um or Henry Street I mean and as you can see on this site plan shown here how much of this dark area would be the torn up area that Alexis mentioned um including the crosswalker across through the ride and we talked to people at the ride for what type of crosswalk would be needed so that it doesn't impact the bus stop that's there awesome um so I'm comfortable with the zoning change I mean campus business district I think like that definition has changed significantly like everywhere is campus now it seems like um and I think my more General comment like there's so many things in this project you guys have brought us so much of what

036we basically beg other petitioners for I mean I noticed when you're flipping through like bird safe glass like just all kinds of these little details that are so important um be like this project in particular was postponed for over a month and I think you know in part because staff reviews weren't completed before the first time that you were here and this isn't a comment to you guys at all but like I think we've talked about this before like it would really behoove us as a city to offer some sort of expedited approvals staff reviews process two projects that are helping us meet like these specific things that we want like kind of that carrot approach that hopefully we get other developers to consider similar things until we can require them because it's just too

037bad that this had to be postponed for over a month so I'm looking forward to voting yes on this project commissioner dish were you next in line the questions that I was going to ask were precisely about the traffic things because I did not see how the petitioner could do some of them but it would be interesting if private developers could change the directions of streets um so I I do not think that I have no I really don't and thank you for bringing it back with the answering some of the concerns that emerged any other commissioner Mills thank you I'm excited about this site plan just as much as I was a month ago um in retrospect and particularly to the comment about postponement in retrospect separating the things would have satisfied what we

038could have done like I I would I think I tried to channel then that I was very happy about the site plan I want this built this alley vacation um similarly no concerns it's it was the rezoning um not again for this project it's thinking about the long term and so the conditions I think totally absolutely move in that direction um I'll just for everybody else to know um well first of all I think this wasn't the condition necessarily that I um I was really focused on the sustainability elements so I think having you know offering the um the full electrification satisfies that I just so people know they're not tied you guys aren't tied nobody in the future is tied to geothermal there right and so um it so that so long as everybody

039knows that similarly to solar on the roof or mass Timber right like that's nobody is tied to that um and so I'm okay with that I'm okay with that the other elements that the other part of the condition that changed about kind of uses right this is very much um at least my read of the condition is there's lots of expansive uses that are allowed in c1ar this is effectively like um very much restricting that and actually that's my question either to the petitioners or to staff the condition reads that it would be primarily multi-family residential with allowances up to 30 percent for short-term rentals are there any other non-residential based on that condition would there be other non-residential uses that would be allowed well primarily means 51 percent so a good portion of the

040building could be devoted to non-residential uses um I think what we usually see in mixed juice developments are actually primarily residential It's usually the first floor maybe the second floor is used for commercial and then sometimes you get a few floors of office and then the upper stories are residential so if you're going by square foot or by percentage-wise most buildings are primarily residential I my opinion is that in terms of limit like real true limitations this building could not be a hotel because that is a commercial use and you don't a hotel would be probably the primary use but otherwise I feel that most development scenario or mix mixed-use scenarios that you can think of would probably still be permitted okay so and actually you in your presentation you had a table that kind

041of laid out uh you know what table I'm talking about maybe if you can read my mind no you mean the Dua it was early on in the presentation this that one that one right and thank you so what I'm hearing is that um what this allows this rezoning allows for 216 units what I mean there's multiple ways of doing this but more or less like at least half of those have to be multi-family residential right like at least half of half of that would have to be multi-family and so at least 108 would need to be rental or um multi-family residential thank you the rest of that um square footage could be used for other things but what I'm trying to say is like we are going to get some res like we talk

042about housing right and hotel is not quite housing um and so I think that that's really helpful um as a point of comparison it's um in my mind at least and I didn't write down the numbers fast enough so thank you for coming back to this I think that that's really um that helps me kind of put that in context and thanks for defining primarily for us knowing that that I want to make sure actually that there is some flexibility like um within this zoning District I mean that's one of the benefits of this zoning District it's not only residential it allows for mixed use and so I think that regard I wanted to make sure that we're not I like the flexibility of that um did you want it did you have anything else

043yet okay super one final question that I have report to us you said that there were your recommendation that this is the appropriate District was contingent on two things and one was the sauce and I gotta go back and pull up the staff report one was associated with the what went to zba right like does it actually meet the appropriate far for the district and that zba determination moves with the land the question the other one was about the 19 foot setback from the back of the curb in all of the areas and I think my question to you is is that is um is that only is that because of the site like we're seeing that on the site plan that we have but is there is there a chance that if that site

044plan doesn't get built that that stipulation isn't met in the future like are there places where they would no no setback is required on the sides in the rear and would would they run or is that too close would it be would it lead to less than 19 feet uh thanks um um staff felt that the 19 feet from the back of the curb to building face which is a which is a different it's a little bit of an apples to oranges compared to setbacks right um was important was almost a mitigation for the up zoning um we actually we would have recommended approval of the rezoning without any further conditions we felt that the c1a slash our district was appropriate for this location for this this setting met the goals of the master plan

045comprehensive plan many of the the the collective goals of the city um but when the site plan proposed because even if it's Zone c1a R the building doesn't necessarily need to be 200 and some thousand square feet right but it was and so therefore with that density it should have that downtown level of of space to provide whatever pedestrian amenities and non-motorized amenities multimodal amenities are needed I think we would Reserve judgment and again take it on a case-by-case basis should this project not should it be rezone the project not be built it would depend then on what is proposed if a less dense project is proposed maybe we don't need that 19 feet maybe maybe whatever space is there would would be appropriate for that development so that's I think if I'm answering the

046question or if I'm trying to answer yes it would be a key feature if the next iteration was exactly this size but I have confidence in our development review staff and our Planning Commission and our city council that we would make sure that whatever is proposed is the right thing just like we got now if that makes sense I'm saying yeah don't I don't feel that we I don't feel very very strongly that we need to safeguard the 19 feet the 19 feet because I feel it's sort of circumstantial depending on what's proposed and it's hard to predict the future so I feel confident in our processes and and our site plan review process okay I was I appreciate that it gives me a little bit of discomfort not gonna lie in part because many

047times uh well this was this this was early on Planning Commission we've had developer we've had developer attorneys stand at the podium and say once it's when it's not a rezoning when it's the site plan say you shall approve it it meets the standards and that and and so I'm not sure what kind of teeth we have to require more um that face that back um again I want this I like I want everything in here and I can clarify uh two things yeah that um one the c1a slash our district does require a 10-foot setback now you can Flex that 10 feet down to five feet if you if the if there's compensation there's increased setbacks or something on on a different side but there there are setback requirements okay in the c1a slash

048our district it requires a minimum of 10 feet from the front there's no side no rear but this site has no side no rear now because the entire thing is front yes yeah that okay that makes sense yeah so so there are some amounts so there's the existing right-of-way there's the existing sidewalk space now and there is a required 10 foot setback um that can be flexed to five feet and as the Planning Commission knows we are in we do incrementally change our standards I think as the city identifies we are going to be looking at maybe codifying some of these standards for pedestrian amenity zones and so forth so that's why I'm I'm I would be have some concern but I would not my recommendation is I would not hold up what is on

049the table for those future concerns okay um understood and I can clarify too yeah how we're using what Alexis described as that five foot uh setback and how we're using the nine feet and uh on this uh this side here you can see we have over 19 feet from the building face to the curb so that 10 foot setback already it already does push push this uh this back pretty far and then this is where in this case this overhang is the only thing encroaching into the five feet so that's how those 10 foot setbacks really does push you beyond the 19 feet already okay I was gonna say that's helpful it's just like not if 19 feet was the the thing like how close are we like are there places where because we as

050we have discussed in other on other streets like sometimes the curb to um to property line is very small okay and so we don't have that situation here so much great then that then my only like question mark there has been ticked off I'm super excited I'm sorry if I did not suggest that last time um but I I really am excited for this I hope this slide plan is what gets built on this property I do think that there's um uh yeah so thank you commissioner Clark did you comments or did I mistaken did I mistake your hand I think we're discussing all three motions together yeah okay so I just had a quick question um I'm just curious um the green roof um can you just like clarify what materials will be used

051for that and what your um General plan for making sure that space is activated yes uh I mean there's two there are two levels of this so there's that second level Podium which uh let me find the right slide here the second level one is what the one you're referring to or the sixth level The Higher One uh both But whichever one is public is one of the one I'm more interested in okay uh so yeah this is the this is the view on that second public uh second level public one we have areas of artificial turf so it's a it's a raised paver system that's uh across this area so portions of it are concrete tiles and portions of our wood and then portions are uh actually artificial turf where you can put some

052flexible furniture out so it doesn't need any additional um uh irrigation which would be appropriate and then we also have these these large areas that are along the side that are planted uh here to buffer both the residential spaces and each residential space on the second floor has a little outdoor Terrace so that buffers that space so when you're in the middle here you're separated from people that are living there so there's a little bit of privacy there same thing along the north side here as well that's also planted the same way it's screening some mechanical equipment so It's a larger planted area and then this is a wood deck along here so a lot of open space to have flexible furniture and amenity spaces um that isn't so so fixed and it allows people

053to to really use it the way they would like um yeah commissioner Lee uh thank you um just to recap I think the rezoning is probably the element that we are kind of honing in on and um the just always recapping kind of what are the criteria by which we rezone um it's going to be to establish maintain sound stable desirable development within the territorial limits of the city um and it won't be changed unless it's an error changes in Municipal policy or changing conditions in the particular area or in the municipality generally so to me I think this hits all three so sound stable desirable development I do believe that it satisfies those three as well as the changing conditions in the municipalities so I think there's a heightened need for housing I do

054appreciate the fact that they address the 30 short-term rentals um running quick math still 151 units is pretty much if you max out strs at 65. you got 151 units this is still a net gain of 113 units over what we have currently so I think it's uh it's good meaningful uh Place making uh I think it's very challenging to have a development not feel like it's turned its back on something right what's what's the front what's the back I think it does a very good job of kind of really having all dimensions of this feel a pretty welcoming so um overall matches with the sustainability element improves the built environment and increases sustainability especially on a life cycle assessment basis meets the intent of the current land plan even though it's 2009. um yeah

055so overall I'm in support I think this match is pretty much everything that we have been asking for the question that I was going to ask us about the mtia recommendations I do think that the municipality also need to pull our own weight as far as right-of-way improvements because Transportation Planning needs to be in in tandem with land use so if there's anything I just want to make sure that we are fully uh committed to making sure that we have right-of-way improvements that match with the land use so overall I'm in support I do believe this meets with the UDC requirements for rezoning I do believe that this will further our comprehensive plan matches with the land use element and the sustainability element so I will be voting in favor of this thank you any

056other comments okay I just had one quick question about the parking maximum um I'm wondering about parking for non-residential uses and whether So currently we don't have a minimum but we also there is no parking maximum for many commercial uses and I'm just wondering about I don't know whether that's something that we should be thinking about or if that's a concern or something that you've discussed I mean we haven't dedicated specific spaces to commercial uses in here or who can use them but the current sorry the current parking number accounts for one spot for every four is there additional parking in here that's allotted for other the ground floor commercial the daycare Etc so we're uh we have drawn on here so that would allow for 54 spaces and this is 53 spaces drawn and

057there's no room for anything else yeah I mean again I that in my mind would be uh rise to the level of holding up this petition by any means but I think it leaves open the possibility that a different development on this site could be um I don't know like a TGI Fridays with apartments up above and a big and a big parking lot right because I mean we don't currently in the city have a parking maximum for restaurants right um but yeah this goes towards you know the only like the amount of far that you could do and how much you could actually actually fit on this space you couldn't do actually more than that 0.25 with the amount of far that exists so I guess you're saying like just a lot allotted square

058footage for parking stalls limited by that yeah yeah okay any other comments or discussion [Applause] all right mix Kelly I believe we are ready for a roll call vote on the first motion to approve the South Town rezoning petition to c1ar and accept conditions [Applause] commissioner Abrams yes commissioner Hammerschmidt yes councilmember dish yes commissioner Lee yes commissioner Clark yes commissioner Mills yes commissioner Weiss yes that motion carries on the second motion to recommend that the mayor and city council vacate the unimproved platted alley in block three of the Hamilton roads and she in addition to the city and town of Ann Arbor commissioner Abrams yes commissioner Hammerschmidt yes councilmember dish yes Metro League yes commissioner Clark yes commissioner Mills yeshner white yes and on the third motion to recommend that the mayor and city council

059approved the South Town site plan and development agreement commissioner Abrams yes Professor Hammerschmidt yes councilmember dish yes commissioner Lee yes commissioner clerk yes Fisher Mills yes commissioner white yes all three motions carried can I clarify the address I think you had stated 1601 State Street I'm sorry did I uh should be 16-1 white stream I believe is what we were using correct did we change it yeah um in what aspect in terms of the naming convention okay I think this could be corrected I wouldn't stress too much about it we can resolve this in between now and city council congratulations thank you we're going to take a brief one minute recess and just allow commissioner sovietime to rejoin us here in the chamber this yeah it was in the last presentation yeah um foreign thank

060you very much [Applause] um any questions [Applause] thank you commissioner Abrams for cheering we are back with the next agenda item which is 2670 to 2690 Ann Arbor Saline Road for city council approval a request to rezone these two Parcels totaling approximately 1.6 acres from r1c single family residential zoning to O office District zoning no new development is proposed and staff recommendation is approval first we will start with petitioner presentation you have 10 minutes okay thank you good evening my name is Scott monsell I'm an attorney with Deaver EB Issa my address is 301 North Main Street Suite 200 also with me is Andy Rife he's the owner of the property just came from his son's Little League game so he's you know go t-ball and this is Andy's request to rezone 2670 and 2690

061from r1c to office just a couple of uh background facts on how we got here uh Andy's families own these two Parcels since about the 1970s there's two lots as you can see from the aerial one has a house on it which is a small very small house close to Ann Arbor Saline Road the second lot has a house and then some storage buildings in the back um over these were had been used for residential purposes over time they were rentals but they became less and less desirable for rentals due to the increased traffic on Ann Arbor Saline Road and just the uh the additional development in that area and so they became harder and harder to rent so in 20 about 2019 Andy moved his office into the 2670 small building he runs a

062commercial cleaning business there are normally two to three employees at the in that house with two or three cars during the day he uses the larger storage building for equipment supplies Etc he was doing that and then about 2020 in 2022 the zoning administrator stopped by and said hey this is zoned residential you can't have an office there and so uh Andy was trying to figure out what to do but one of the solutions would be to rezone the site to office he does not want to move his office he wants to keep using that location for his office he does not plan any changes for the site for the foreseeable future he just wants to use it for his commercial cleaning business office and use the storage building at the back for just the

063way he's been doing it without objection from anybody um so uh you know again the important thing for the the driver of why we're here is because the zoning administrator uh said you've got an issue um he doesn't again otherwise we wouldn't be here he doesn't plan any changes now of course if he's rezoning to office that has to be something that you would consider but um just so you know there's no nothing contemplated at this time as far as the various land uses to the east you can just see it in the corner is a gas station at the corner of Ann Arbor Saline Road and Eisenhower that has gotten increasingly more active it now has a very active convenience store it now has a liquor license uh it now has a burger kind

064of a joint so that particular location immediately across the street really has an impact on the ability ability to use the site for single-family residential purposes farther to the east You've Got the Whole Foods REI complex there's just and then of course to the South West you've got Pittsfield Township and the target Myers area out there has just exploded with housing there's just a tremendous increase of traffic on Ann Arbor Saline Road that has an impact on those two sites I mentioned you know just to the South is the I-94 and then Target Etc to the West is multi-family and immediately to the south of the site is actually the access drive to that multi-family those multi-family purposes and then to the north you've got single-family residential that all enter not on Ann Arbor Saline

065Road but to the north the zoning of the area to the east you've got commercial some PUD to the South you've got I-94 and then the township to the West it's zoned I think it's r4c but it's for multi-family and then to the north it is single family zoned so the justification for changing to office there's really two reasons one there has been a change in conditions so that single family there is no longer really appropriate and coupled with that the sustainability element of the master plan really does it really does meet the goals of that in a way that would justify the rezoning to office regarding the changing conditions the uniform development code 5.29.10 point a refers to a change in conditions I've already outlined how there's been just a uh quite a bit

066of congestion and activity particularly particularly into the evening you know that gas station is very active which would have an impact on your ability to have successful single-family residential there um again the traffic on Ann Arbor Saline Road um you know the and again I noted the single family to the north does not face on to Ann Arbor Saline Road nor does it really and part of it does face the um the Whole Foods but there's burming there's a tree buffer along the way so it really is in a way is not impacted by the the commercial development to the extent that these two Parcels would be um so office use is really designed to be a buffer between intense commercial uses and adjoining residential purposes so the office designation would make sense it allows

067a mix of uses it could be office it could be residential or a mixed use but in the long run the single-family residential if it remained that way is would just be underutilized Urban Land the sustainability element related to the master plan as it says is the new way to think about the master plan and trying to use land use in the context of creating more sustainable development patterns creating less pollution creating a better integration of living in workplaces stronger Transit corridors and encouraging compact development and the office designation would Advance all of these goals it would either have greater residential density which could decrease the vehicle miles traveled even if it were an office type use those uses would be closer to the residential and it would encourage the potential work live relationship I'm

068sorry just about two and a half minutes left okay thank you it's on a Transit Corridor so there would be the potential of using the bus line and basically you know it is really an office designation would encourage a more compact development pattern that would be a better use of scarce Urban Land so the office designation would seem to be compatible with the sustainability element of the master plan we held a Citizens participation meeting two people showed up the questions really related to what might happen in the future really if there were to be a change in the future there would need to be a new site plan it would have to comply with all the city regulations it would have to go through the regular process and so concerns of neighbors would be addressed

069via the site plan process and and so that's really it we we think that the rezoning to office is appropriate uh due to the change in conditions um affecting the site and that um the office designation would be consistent with um the sustainability elements of the master plan so happy to answer any questions thanks thank you at the end thank you and I think Mr Manzell did a very nice job of describing what's happening at that site as far as the history uh it is 2670 and 26.90 the 2670 site is the the northernmost site uh with the existing 630 square foot home there that kind of prompted when the it was actually I think the housing inspector went out there because it previously was registered as a rental and that's what kind of triggered

070the domino effect of hold on this is an office not a residential rental any longer and then it got passed along to the zoning coordinator for enforcement and the 2690 site is just to the South and maybe we can and I think Mr Manziel did a great job if it's just in the Northwest Quadrant of I-94 there at Ann Arbor Saline Road uh he described all of the surrounding uses this is a blow up uh the one thing is there's about a 3 500 square foot storage structure that we could tell was built around the 1980s mid 80s I think from the city permits that were issued you know it's an interesting uh building because it did come in for a variance like in 1998 I believe in the staff report and it went to

071the zba to be used as some type of you know Self Storage but it just the trail ended like it was heard got tabled never came back so expect it really has been used for self storage for at least 40 years I think as far as I can tell from from the archival research uh again I think Mr Menzel described the zoning it is Zone r1c to the north is all r1c uh single family residential but to the West is the apartment complex r4a which is multi-family residential across the street PUD restaurants service station convenience stores uh also c1b which is community convenience also kind of a strip mall there so it has in also doing a lot of research since probably about 1990 this area really has developed quite a bit especially in the

072Pittsfield Township area if you've ever been over there with the with the Myers and and the uh the residential that's been expanded a survey the petitioner did ask for a waiver of a site plan it was granted by our planning manager since there's nothing being proposed at this site at this time although as was previously mentioned if there is any changes to this site it will require a site plan for Planning Commission at minimum and that includes whether it's a small addition or parking lot Edition expansion it'll have to come in you'll be hearing it again if there's any changes to the site and we can use this slide for any future reference if you'd like to take a look at what's existing on site this is the view looking Western from Ann Arbor Saline

073Road so this is kind of if you were looking across the street from the service station that's there the house and question that's being now used is an office I'll just put my cursor over it and then to the South it's really tough to get pictures over there because it is screened by a lot of landscaping there is a house I believe it's vacant actually I don't think there was anybody in there when I walked back there that's behind the trees and that storage structure is more in the account the the Southwest section of the site again looking Northbound as you're coming into the city that's the service station drive through restaurants and you know behind that you'll also see the the strip mall in that area and you can just see the house there

074to the left uh Steph does recommend uh approval of the rezoning to office from the r1c the petitioner also brought up elements of the master plan of the sustainability plan I would also probably emphasize that it does recommend back in 1990 so it's more than 30 years old that it be zoned r1c and that came from the south area plan that was integrated into the master plan you know back in like 2007 so there's a lot of other elements in the master plan the comprehensive plan the sustainability plan that would recommend um you know that this actually is appropriate for the office use and staff comments there weren't a whole lot of comments because there are no changes out there so if this does come in for development it may change everything as far as

075access traffic counts Etc so at this time I haven't opened any questions you may have thank you opened a public hearing this is an opportunity need for persons to speak for up to three minutes about the proposed the proposed site for rezoning uh we will first call an individuals present to address the commission than remote participants to speak during this public hearing remotely press star nine if listening by 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 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 will hear an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak

076when speaking please move to a quiet area and mute any television or background sounds 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 seen no one present is there anyone that would like to address the commission remotely because there are no hands raised all right so we'll close the public hearing and I'll read the motion we'll take both together uh the anniversary Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve 2670 and 2690 annivers Lane Road for rezoning from r1c single family residential district 2-0 office District and the anniversary Planning Commission hereby waves the area plan requirement as no new construction is proposed for the site and a

077survey of the existing improvements on the site has been provided moved by commissioner Lee seconded by Fisher white discussion of the proposed motion commission wage just have a a few questions um one the and this is mainly for staff so um the the rezoning is going to make the site non-conforming in a number of ways uh what um what should we think of that I'll start there okay so there's a couple of questions there the first one is the office would be into conformance but the Self Storage would not it's still not allowed in the office District we as staff met and discussed this and decided since it's been self storage or at least for personal storage use for 40 years that it's a non-conforming use so whether the issue is it doesn't get rezoned

078or it does get result it's a non-conforming use for 40 years as far as the setbacks yes if it does if the office if it does get rezoned to office there are a couple of side setbacks that are adjacent to residential because that requires a 30-foot setback in the in when it's adjacent to residential so it would be a couple of sides I think it's possible the readers are going to meet because it's 30 feet but the sides may not meet but again we would address that when it comes into the site plan stage I assume because it's allows 75 percent far these houses probably would go away and if the the ordinance still stands we would have conflicting land use buffers and that 30 what setback Okay so you're saying that because we haven't

079enforced the rules for 40 years it doesn't make sense to start now well I wouldn't say that I think we could have a real uphill climb because they've got permits for all this at some point the city is we have issued permits for all of this okay and done inspections so I think we would have a very difficult time um you know I I would leave that up to the attorneys if they wanted to get into it but we've for the most part condoned it so I mean they do have documentation that they pull building permits and what it's been used for okay and then in your staff report uh or somewhere it mentioned their the citizen participation meeting and that the minutes were attached did I not have a link to that they should

080be if not you can go because I'm looking at what's in our packet and they're not election is not linked it is and I went into these and none of these had them click on the survey and Report okay okay because I think it's all attached is it just control yup I'll scroll all the way down and you're I'm sorry you're going to see the minutes the survey and the application all together all right so I didn't yep I'm sorry it's confusing because it's all we tied them all together okay so um just coming back to the um non-conforming uh structure the other question I think I had was they so one didn't we make an ordinance revision change that'll permit it small businesses in residential and why doesn't this fit this is not the

081same you may be referring to like a home occupation so you live there and have your office there but the applicant does not live there the need for it but if the applicant were to move in then it could remain r1c it could okay yeah it could be a home occupation okay and then my other question is the what's the trigger for a site plan so could the petitioner make changes as long as they didn't change the footprints of what is already on the site it would once he starts I mean it depends on what they're proposing because there's certain levels you know is it is it a site plan for planning manager that might be something like oh no yeah they keep everything in the same configuration but now they can go up to

08255 feet because it's a summary zone so that's because of the floor area you're raising the height floor area right now to make sure that they're if the applicant were to come in and let's say they want to fix their Plumbing they're doing interior Renovations they pull the proper trade permit that's not going to trigger right any type of site plan but any type of parking lot expansion uh increase in floor area that would then we'd have to look at it is it a cycle time for planning manager as a site plan for Planning Commission I doubt the rezoning's got to go to City Council for approval but the site plan probably doesn't but it all depends on what's being proposed okay all right I think those are my questions any further uh commissioner dish

083I'm just this is I'm really asking this because I feel like I must be misreading something this is not a I'm not raising an issue but I too became obsessed with the non-conformities and so I'm looking at um I'm looking at the sides and you have two asterisks for the 2670 building for the 20.7 foot east side which makes sense because that's supposed to be 30 foot minimum but the 75 foot west side also has two asterisks and I can't figure out why that would be I was hoping you wouldn't catch that good that is we'll be that will be corrected before it goes into city council as you can see I highlighted all the little asterisks down there with the setbacks so it will be corrected you're correct you're not seeing things okay I

084just was like okay do I not am I reading the wrong column okay good and then it's just the 2690 then is really quite a bit closer than it should be to a residential yes yes um but 2690 is the personal storage area yes yeah so it doesn't make any noise it doesn't have parties yeah they're for 40 years and I don't believe we had any complaints on that so any push early theory if it is zoned off it's not saying that this is going to occur but in theory uh a hotel or a short-term rental is a permitted use within the office District So in theory if you wanted to convert the current existing storage into a short-term rental that would then be a permitted use I'm just asking yes if so but just

085remember it's still going to have to be building and housing codes they would have to come in then and register it and it's going to probably have to have upgrades to it because it's an office use right now so any you know I don't know what the housing and building codes are but it would have to come in for a review and approval and as a condition if this does get approval they're going to need new certificate of occupancy so they're still going to go in and look at this to make sure that it's certified gotcha I'm just trying to look at it again all possibilities uh I mean contextually speaking I think um petitioner did a great job of uh we just talked about the conditions and criteria by which rezoning makes sense um

086just try to think about what are all the possibilities that uh you know that could happen and so the hotel permitted use was just one that uh contextually to me on this particular intersection um you know I think about cleaning company um one of the questions I had was just a type of products that you might use that may have an adverse impact you know that being said there's a gas station across the street right so I mean again but that being said the gas station still has you know reasonable proximity a lot of the water water tables are generally going from north to south uh west to east so you know when I kind of take a look at this you know and I obviously need to look at the actual where the actual

087detention um from the site is you know really kind of going but can I ask you just um intensity of kind of products being used just out of almost all of our products or drop ship directly to the site okay I'm not gonna say we don't have some products on site but none of them go in the drains they're there to be stored taken to a site yeah yeah gotcha besides us maybe cleaning a little bit ourselves but right right it's minimal but mostly the the current primary use is just like administrative dispatch and something wrong that's why we I was there at the office I thought we complied with a home base because we don't have 12 visitors a day and all sure that's why we're kind of taken back we didn't understand this

088obviously we're correct I should hired somebody like that yeah you know if but we didn't know that we had to live there to do it so but yeah there's no chemicals or anything else used and like I said the traffic is very low it's yeah some days it's just me yeah uh got it thank you thank you for the clarification um again contextually speaking it's an intersection of a highway so I tend to agree with staff's um assessment now the challenge for me is that the master plan or the comprehensive plans land use element does specify this as a single family detached but again the changing conditions is really what the petitioner is citing at so um and then now again the challenge is there's a new comp plan underway but you know that's like

08918 months I mean you have an active business so I of again contextually makes sense I'm not um again so the to me the most kind of concerning element would be the the wide array of permitted uses that this is this could be converted to um in the event that this passes uh that being settled contextually this makes sense to me so that's kind of where I stand I'd love to hear other people's thoughts saw this on the agenda for tonight and like before I looked at it I was like moving from a residential district to an office District it sounds like an interesting move um I think I understand why um and as the petitioner noted and I pulled up the use table right single family is allowed here as is all of the

090other kinds of residential uses so um I don't think it's necessarily moving us away from residential uses um one that's something that I had to like internalize myself I think that the um I understand I I appreciate staff's recommendation here um and I mean if I don't know what the the comprehensive plan would turn up and actually whether it's going to go through that level specificity I don't know what like how how much detail it's going to get in here just looking at it I mean the I was surprised honestly that it wasn't a commercial classification but then I also understand like the conversation that would need to happen um in that area um just given its location it's it speaks to like intensification of use makes a lot of sense um and thinking about

091you know that is a major Corridor um in the city um and so uh higher and better uses for this property makes a whole lot of sense I think actually under an O classification there's not as much of a risk of like very quick Redevelopment um I think that maybe maybe if it were something else that there might be quicker development and that's not the intention here so in some ways that that gives me more Comfort um in thinking thinking that through this is like a temporary use and not hindering if someone does want to live there um that development and actually having duplexes like this became duplexes that's totally possible um too so um all that is long rambling way of saying I'm also in support of this I think it makes I think

092it makes sense uh uh for all of the reasons that commissioner Lee said as well commission early uh thank you um one of the interesting things I thought was you know I don't want necessarily just when you look at the lands it's a commercial as opposed it's red on the map and so it's like you just have this one little blip of red kind of on the corner so it's like a part of me is like does that stretch need to be you know kind of up Zone to office or something that allows more does this fit in TC well I'm just literally spit pulling does it look like tc1 I don't know um I'm just throwing those ideas out there uh as of right now um actionably to me I mean it does make

093sense simply because right across the street it is commercial the extension there of still contextually makes sense so I just wanted to respond to commissioner Mills comment that residential still can be used and the protections are still in place in the event that this turns into you know or uh you know petitioner tries to turn this into a short-term rental or hotel use um that it would have to still go through the proper permitting process um inspections Etc so so by those virtues the thing that I would actually say is like hey well let's should we take a look at the rest of the corridor almost but um that's that's that's a different conversation altogether but um overall to me conceptually makes sense thanks any further comments maybe I'll just add s with other projects

094uh maybe pulling play in the worst case scenario or alternative scenario I don't think it's the worst case scenario um that shed could turn into uh Banquet Hall which we just kind of went through you know the ordinance changes for internally and that would that may not require a site plan review but uh because it could increase the intensity of use what typically triggers that is a parking cone and we don't have parking accounts anymore but I do think that staff has discretion to measure the intensity of use of non-conforming buildings when they change a use and so uh if there was a condition where the petitioner came back tried to hold a building permit for a banquet hall in that shed and it still has to go through zoning compliance review that higher intensity

095use within a non-conforming structure would probably trigger staff to say you need to you cannot be more non-conforming and even though it's an existing physical non-conforming thing the use would be more non-conforming relative to its intensity so that's kind of the scenario that I play out and what I've understood and experienced with staff kind of measuring the evaluation of the process that it might go through and so I I trust and understands that staff would also realize this and and request that It Go for either planning manager review or to Planning Commission to understand that kind of higher intensity change of use so I'm just it was asked kind of what kind of scenarios might we look at and that's kind of one I would understand but I don't have concerns about um relative to

096different ways sites are evaluated during the permitting process commissioner Abrams um just to underline that I think it's actually not even discretionary uh in the UDC 5.32.1 non-conforming use says that it shall not be expanded or increased in intensity of use so it's it's written there very clearly so I don't think we any of us should hold on to any worry about that further discussion all right I'll ask staff to take a roll call vote on the first motion to recommend to Marin city council to approve 2670 and 2690 Ann Arbor Saline Road rezoning from r1c20 Office District commissioner Salve yes commissioner Abrams yes Professor Hammerschmidt yes councilmember dish yes commissioner Clark yes pressure Mills yes commissioner wise yes that motion carries on the second motion to wave the area plan requirement as no new

097construction is proposed for this site and a survey of existing improvements on site has been provided commissioner Salve yes commissioner Abrams yes Professor Hammerschmidt yes council member dish yes professionally yes commissioner Clark yes commissioner Mills yes commissioner weish yes that motion also carries thank you thank you uh at this time we moved to public comment this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about any issue as the public agenda item or not um we will first call an individual's present to address the commission and then remote participants to speak during this public hearing remotely press star nine if listening by phone or use the raised hand feature viewing through the web link for our phone access call 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-6634-1226 City staff will select callers as they

098have 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 will 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 we may hear you clearly for either method of participation please state your name and address the beginning of your comments is there anyways seeing no one in the chambers uh looking to speak is there anyone who would like to address the commission remotely makes Kelly there are no hands raised all right at this time I'll close the public hearing and move on to commission proposed business is there any commission proposed business commissioner weiche so I just uh wanted to draw our attention

099to the memo that we received from planning manager Mr Leonard and I wondered uh how we could facilitate a conversation whether it's at the table or in another space I think we might have a retreat being planned at some point so it might be a topic for that agenda as opposed to tonight but more conversation here so and and just to give people some thinking points at least from my mind as we might reduce our city council to reduce our size from nine to seven and then use the reduction to create two alternates so the composition like the folks who are appointed would stay but it would just change the composition because it doesn't appear that there would be a way to do the alternates and with so many of you being active in the

100development community in one way or another recusals are happening a lot and I think I've been on for two years and I feel like in the last six months we've had more recusals than we had in the previous 18 months and so how do we address that because that does Deuce I think it it creates some amount of harm to petitioners because they come expecting um a full committee to hear and then there isn't and and so then that puts pressure on you to be here or to figure all of this out so so how do we uh sort of address that because we want your expertise at the table but then your expertise often creates conflicts and so then you have to leave the table and then we have to send denials technical denials

101to city council so I I would just love to figure out like do we have that conversation at the table during a conversation like this is this something that we propose for a retreat conversation do we ask our city council person to Advocate like how do we go forward ask uh would this be something we're talking about city transportation with the UBC uh and or the orc meeting would this be something that could roll into that agenda first or maybe staff or commission proposed business to add to the executive committee's next meeting planning the retreat I think there are a lot of appropriate avenues that this could be brought up um my recommendation would be to discuss in a forum where all of the Planning Commission is present because in order to uh kind of

102uh request via a um a resolution or a memo or any other type of communication to council to make a change you'll want to make sure that that request reflects the majority of this body so you could put it on an agenda for a working session try to reach a consensus and then add a regular session um if there is a consensus reach vote to move forward some type of communication to city council because of course it is there it is not within the UDC or the purview of the Planning Commission to Workshop the exact changes although you could make some suggestions for for what you would like after you come to agreement okay so I'll just I see council member dishes do you want to add to no I just wanted to ask so

103um so what you've suggested commission or what commissioner weich has suggested sounds complicated whereas there is a suggestion on this page that we reduce um we could reduce our standard for enacting a land use decision to the majority of the members present which seems easier so I will just say to um uh planning manager Kelly's Point like to this is a time for commission proposed business to make this a business item for a future rather than workshopping details at this time right and so we can just request yep correct I request a briefing though from staff on like what would be the implications yeah and I think doing this alternative yeah I would I would like to hear from them the pros and cons of the of the alternative thing here we can certainly find

104a time and an upcoming working session to discuss and consider what's what changes might accommodate the um the modifications that would allow for a vote however I I don't think that um lowering the number of uh votes required for approval would necessarily bring more voices to the table so it doesn't it doesn't make up for the re the recusals and and yes we we can discuss this further but I think that it is perhaps worth considering with nuance thank you I don't want this to bump anything that's on the work plan I just didn't want this to be the final word so that that was what I was really saying so if we're trying to find where we put this we put it onto the work plan and then we move it up because if

105we get something done and it's like look we have a meeting that we don't have anything scheduled for this is the thing we talk about at that meeting as opposed to not having that meeting and then it sort of gets discussed and goes away but I'm not suggesting that we bump our work plan uh to do this I just recognize that we're already down a commissioner and with um some of what's coming there's the potential for there to be more recusals and so then that's going to impact petitioners and I I just don't know what the Horizon of that looks like so that's why I want to raise it during this period I appreciate that and I think relative to our work plan what we've seen is things that are easier for staff to prepare

106like memos already we may see come ahead of other things that are actually on our work plan because of gaps in our scheduling time um any other commission proposed business at this time no uh with that we'll move on to adjournment do we have someone to move commissioner witch and seconded by commissioner Mills all those in favor say aye aye and we are adjourned foreign