Ann Arbor Planning Commission Meeting 6/6/23

001all right welcome to the June 6 2023 regular meeting some AV test nope I'm still on that I'm on somebody's check I'm just gonna keep waiting till I Echo do you want me to keep going I can hear myself okay welcome to the June 6 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 call the roll certainly noting that this evening commissioner Gib Randall commissioner Abrams and commissioner Mills have uh noted their absence commissioner weish here commissioner clerk here commissioner Lee here council member dish here commissioner Hammerschmidt here commissioner solving here you have a quorum thank you um I do want to note though you have six members so that means it would require an affirmative vote

002of all of you to a pass a positive recommendation on any item great all right moving on to approval of agenda may I have a motion to approve the agenda uh moved by commissioner white seconded by a commissioner dish any discussion on the motion [Music] see none all those in favor of the motion please say yay uh any opposed motion carries uh may I have a motion to improve the minutes of May 16th 2023. uh moved by commissioner Lee seconded by commissioner dish uh discussion on the minutes seeing none uh all those in favor of the motion please say aye any opposed and the motion carries next up are reports to the Planning Commission including City Council plane commissioner officers committees and we're in Communications so council member dish do you have anything to report

003do Council unanimously passed the prioritization of rezonings along Plymouth and Washington so rezoning to tc1 so that will come back to us and we can do it without extensive hand ringing over its imperfections because it is better than the current zoning uh and we also passed a resolution that might or might not affect this body that has to do with seeking incentives to Foster green development and those are incentives possibly in the nature of fees but also in the nature of process because we're hearing a lot about that and we passed something that I don't know if it would interest you all but we did repeal a portion of the building code that requires landlords to provide voter registration information and I bet I forgot something Mr Leonard I'll just add one thing there was

004an amendment to the development agreement for 2111 Packard this is a project that was approved by the Planning Commission a while ago the petitioner asked and and received an amendment to reduce the solar requirement from 175 kilowatt hours a kilowatt system to a 120 or 115 kilowatt system so that was one other change is that a consent agenda item it was indeed I did not study carefully still uh great that uh the petitioner is continuing to commit to a large amount of solar um outside of any regulatory requirements of our code okay do we have any other reports from planning manager mix Kelly uh yes at your 613 working session you will hear two pre to pre-pud conferences one for 120 Packard and another for 2935 Birch Hollow Drive and in response to action by

005Council last night there will be a preview of a rezoning proposal for the Plymouth and Washington corridors to tc1 great thank you any other commissioner officers or committee layers have anything to report commissioner Hamilton the one time and I have to talk um mayorman I've seen this last month the Council of Commons voted to disband and then that was approved by console last night so the work will be taken up by Parks I believe and with City staff support thank you for your service on that board that's the important thing well not bad but we had a liaison to the Council of the commons and so no we no longer we'll need that so I'm all in on the comp plan we'll find you something else today I'll solve the housing crisis note that in

006the minutes uh okay anyone else great uh now we're moving on to public comment we do have um some written Communications as well but this is an opportunity for persons to speak up to three minutes about an issue that is not listed on the public hearing of this agenda we will first call an individual's present to address the commission and then remote participants to to speak during public hearing remotely press star nine if listening by phone or use the raised hand feature when 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 last three digits of their phone number or by name if available for those accessing through the web link you will hear an automated announcement that the

007host is allowing you to speak when speaking please move to a quiet area and mute any television or background sound 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 seeing no one is there anyone that would like to address the commission remotely there's one hand raised Adam yescovich you have permission to address a commission hi this is Adam Jessica 1430 Las Vegas drive in the fourth ward and I noticed on your agenda tonight I'm not going to speak to the specific item right now there's yet another proposal for a drive-through and I'm just I'm just wishing that um that you could get it on your work plan to eliminate

008the special exception use for drive-throughs and just make it blanket no drive-throughs in Ann Arbor um I think it's just kind of a waste of time for people to have to keep calling in and um and saying you know please don't approve yet another drive through whether it's a bank or a restaurant or whatever it goes against our stated bills as a city in a20 as well as moving together toward division zero um so please um eliminate that use entirely and also don't approve any more drive-throughs thank you Madam chair there are no other callers at this time thank you so we'll move on to public hearings for the next business meeting a public hearing on the following items will be held by the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission on Wednesday June 21st 2023 at

0097 pm 2670 to 2690 Ann Arbor Saline Road 2670 and 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 being proposed and secondly a continued public hearing for 1601 South State Street Southtown project rezoning site plan and Street vacation for city council approval a project with three petitions to redevelop the block bounded by South State Street White Street Henry Street and stimpson Street one petition to rezone a block of 10 Parcels from r4c to C1 AR zoning with conditions another site plan for city council approval to construct a 220 000 square foot mixed-use building and a petition to vacate the public alley in the block thank you and as before

010I will be recusing myself of the second hearing for the next meeting Now we move on to regular business and so the first on the agenda we are going to look at the petition proposed amendments to chapter 55 unified development code section 5.15 permitted uses to Define and allow Banquet Hall use in mixed use zoning District uh uh commissioner Lee I will be recusing myself from this particular hearing simply because the petitioner is my employer thank you thank you all right hand to staff so now is a fine time um this just means that the uh any motion this will fail however it can still be forwarded to city council for their consideration okay and you have a quorum to continue conducting business okay thank you we're getting ready no thank you this is a

011these two screens I'll survive um before you this evening is a um a petition that is part petition and part staff Rec staff recommendations to amend chapter 55 the unified development code the petition was to add event space it asked that event spaces be allowed in the office District it um describe them the desire was a place for celebrations ceremonies weddings receptions and similar functions and the benefits are to include it's a complementary use to other o District uses it will increase the Adaptive reuse of existing offense buildings and strengthen our local economy and sense of community but when the planners got a hold of this um we agree that there is a need for a distinct land use type event these type of event spaces are currently permitted wherever there is a restaurant it

012is a it can be considered a temporary restaurant if you will but um it is not specifically defined in the ordinance we field a lot of phone calls and there is clear a clear need for a distinct land use type for this sort of assembly use um but the staff would like to think more comprehensively about this petition it should not be exclusive to the office District this is something that is appropriate for all of the mixed use districts and we'd like to think more consistently using common common language to get our point and our land use clearly across so therefore staff we recommend that the zoning ordinance be amended to add a banquet hall use this is a definition that is used in most other zoning ordinances as opposed to event space event space

013and a similar term event venue have um a more haven't have other common definitions which I don't think are quite right for the city of Ann Arbor banquet hall is also mentioned in the building code and I think there is um there's a desire by some to sort of more align the zoning ordinance with the building code I one aspect of that is using common commonly defined terms will greatly will greatly help um all parties involved have that shared understanding we are proposing to Define banquet hall as a building or portion of a building made available for temporary assembly or gathering of people such as a conference or meeting party wedding reception fundraiser display or other similar occasion which may or may not have food and beverage service this is where a restaurant can host

014a banquet but a banquet hall is not necessarily a restaurant it does not you do not always have to have food as part of your meetings and conferences and so forth The Zone the zoning ordinance the unified development code actually has has three sort of land use categories now these are informal groupings but this term is used throughout the throughout the um throughout the UDC and that is residential circled on the screen mixed use and non-residential special purpose we um and so we with these amendments we're suggesting that the that by including Banquet Hall use in the office District as well as all of the mixed-use districts we'll bring them all sort of more closer closer in alignment the intent statement of the office District does talk about how it should be a buffer um

015between the non-residential and special use purpose District uses and residential uses but it is but it is just but one of the mixed-use districts and we believe that all of the mixed-use districts can function as this type of buffer and by adding a banquet hall to mix mixed use in general and office specifically we are not diminishing its ability to act as that buffer if you read closely we believe that it doesn't say that office should buffer residential that residential needs to be encapsulated by the office District rather one of the mixed-use districts should encapsulate the non-residential districts if they are in close proximity to the residential and while we're at it we are proposing some additional amendments again to bring the office District more in line with the other mixed use districts we are

016recommending that the personal services category um have its limitation to just the beauty salon portion of it be removed and that personal services be allowed in the O District also the um fraternity sororities student cooperatives Club headquarters communities community centers religious assembly private K-12 schools and indoor Recreation be sort of promoted in the office district from special exception uses to primary uses we are also proposing that the um broad term of Veterinary kennels and animal boarding be split up and a new use beep um split up into veterinary offices and kennels and animal boarding the veterinary office a definition is proposed and it is proposed to be allowed in mixed-use districts just as Medical Dental or um uh just as a people Healthcare pet Healthcare would go in there and then kennels and animal boarding

017would remain as currently regulated no changes to that although we had to separate out that definition and finally recommending that trade and industrial schools also be included in the O District um I um staff is recommending approval of it happy to answer any follow-up questions but I think I covered it thanks great uh thank you so now we will open up the public hearing for this petition item this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about the proposed UDC amendments we will first call on individuals present to address the commission than remote participants to speak during the public hearing remotely plus star nine if listening by phone or use the raised hand feature viewing through the web link for phone access call 877-853-5247 and meeting ID 977-6634-1226 City staff will

018select callers who have raised their hand using the last three digits of the number or by name if available if 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 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 comments is there anyone present that would like to speak at this time seeing no one is there anyone who would like to address the commission remotely there are no hands raised at this time okay well we will close the public hearing and I will read the motion uh the city the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve the

019following amendments in chapter 55 the unified development code section 5.1 5.1 primary uses to permit or amend Banquet Hall Restaurant Bar Food Service fraternities sororities student Cooperative housing Club headquarters Community Center religious assembly private K-12 School indoor Recreation Veterinary kennel animal boarding and trade industrial schools section 5.15.2 accessory uses to eliminate restaurant bar food services and accessory use in the office District section 5.16.3 M to eliminate use specific standards for personal services and section 5.37.2 specific definitions to Define banquet hall and redefine Veterinary kennel and animal boarding moved by commissioner white seconded by commissioner Hammerschmidt we are in discussion is anyone pleasure dish I just have a couple of clarification questions where my understanding was Fuzzy so is it sorry about that um is it the case that these kinds of event spaces are not

020currently permitted in all mixed-use districts but only currently permitted where there's a restaurant is that right um yes all there are eight nine the restaurants are permitted in let me be factual one two three four five six seven eight nine ten there are ten mixed use districts restaurants are permitted in nine of them therefore these event spaces can occur in nine of the ten this would this would make it ten for ten and O being the tenth oh being the tenth okay so they're already permitted so the other so the thing is I was just trying to tease out already permitted people don't understand that no it's not apparently it and by the plethora of evidence it is not intuitive yes okay so that's great so so what is happening is uh by by introducing

021this new name we are flagging that this is and has been permitted in all the mixed in nine of the ten mixed uses and we're extending it to the 10th which is office and that's where we get the big gain in adaptive reuse right um along with maybe a bowling alley or something that will go into these defunct office spaces I was delighted to see the indoor I do not know how to make that step other than turn off my phone do you yeah is it that the silent mode will do it sorry okay uh okay so and then there was I think no that's the only thing I wanted to know okay sure okay that's cool I got it anyone else okay I'm gonna take a quick left turn and talk about parking um

022there's no parking requirements for restaurants now and so what I didn't see is the parking table amended to include these new categories how would staff interpret if something came about like there's no minimum or maximum so we wouldn't have to refer to the table correct we'd currently we'd use the closest good point currently we'd use this the closest analogous one um if it is located in a shopping center then the maximum for the shopping center would apply the office District well office uses have a parking maximum as well um I would consider adding it to the parking table or perhaps another generation of of changes to the parking table would further consolidate or simplify the the lack of parking requirements and the parking maximums okay okay um and then maybe this is because I don't

023have too much because right now as we changed our parking uh we don't have parking maximums for restaurants and all the other districts so it wouldn't happen here in the office as well but this is a very nuanced one I don't know how often but the veterinary kennel has a parking maximum 100 one for 250 square feet so would you still interpret it that way even though those definitions are split up that a Veterinary Clinic would have a parking maximum of one space per 250 square feet even though that table is still combined if not in the CDC edit I'm thinking um well the the kennel component of it is not is not functionally changing right so that would still apply um but would you become like would you be comparing it to like more

024of a medical office because that's more comparative instead of comparing it back to a kennel when we're looking at what part the the veterinary office portion yeah it would be it would fall under the um either the medical dental or just general office it would be it it is becoming a subset of office okay so I guess those are just kind of things that either I guess I'm curious from staff if that's something that we could either make sure to mat well this so maybe a couple process questions we're going to technically deny this tonight but it moves forward Council has to actually make the final decision to adopt this yeah and so they may see whatever vote number and then move forward um and I'm curious relative to this parking it's just a few

025lines um I don't know if it's we should be updating it here or if it should move on but I just see I think it's up to the will of the uh Commission because if you want to share that as a suggestion you can pass the amendment and the entire motion would still fail but the information would be carried forward okay um so it's um up to you whether you want it to be reflected in your discussion or if you'd like to memorialize it as an amended motion I guess I'm conservatively sorting out the actual math at the table versus like making a recommendation for staff to review it prior to going to city council as the other path forward I wouldn't say staff report I would say just in your discussion be clear if

026you are looking for a very specific Amendment like just for discussion you know veterinary offices should have a maximum of two parking spaces just for discussions or if you are just looking for those uses to be mentioned and clarified in the parking standards and then we can Implement whatever that consensus is okay so I I would like I would just like staff to review um the vet Veterinary like include changes before it goes to city council that the Veterinary Clinic has a line item in our parking table um and that matches to our office if that doesn't have a maximum where it does that those two match um if you know if once you reconcile that that actually makes sense I trust staff to review and make a healthy recommendation to our goals about parking

027and then the same for the banquet hall to match restaurant to be added as a line item which currently has no parking maximum um but just so that those are clearly included in the Amendments so that our use table and our parking use table match is that as noted just I don't know if it's an amendment because I really want to make sure that you get the numbers right like from a staff perspective instead of like digging into those details at the table here yeah I don't know I think it's I think you're bringing up bigger questions probably one of the things that we really need to think about is restructuring our parking we did when we were eliminated minimum we sort of went in we pulled out a column and as you're I think

028these are great points we I don't know that we I didn't spend a lot of time I guess I'd want to speak for uh Alexis and Hank but we I what this tells me is we might want to evolve to our parking table to instead of trying to articulate all the uses have an answer to that it morphs into the only you only the uses that are listed there have some standard Beyond no minimum parking is required and we're not there yet so yeah I I understand where you're coming from I want to be honest um we didn't notice the changes to the parking section so it's conceivable I might come back to you and say hey I think it's worthwhile for us to actually present these to you but um yeah I I think

029it's a great observation yeah it's the only kind of hesitation I have is that a banquet hall is can be a lot of parking but in very small chunks and I would hate for our our land use to change significantly like a Black Friday parking lot uh if we don't have parking actually I just want to be clear we're not we're not proposing to add any minimum parking requirements yeah but yeah but if we don't have maximums a developer may decide to build a giant parking lot to support a large event space I I get that but again that's another conversation we have a lot of uses that don't have maximum parking I I think I see where you're coming from this one might be more prone to that yeah yeah a bigger assembly of

030more cars than a lot of our other uses on the table so it this might just come up from a commission proposed business because I don't I would be concerned with keeping a higher intensity use without a parking maximum for very long on our UDC but I think that this is hopefully it will really help I think it's a great incremental change for that adaptive reuse that I keep talking about so already covered in tc1 for a vote you roll call uh commissioner White commissioner clerk yes councilmember dish yes Venture Hammersmith yes commissioner survey yes this motion fails [Laughter] because six votes are required to move any action forward to the city council however this item will advance to city council for their consideration I trust commissioner dish to relay for regular business the petition

031which includes proposed amendments oh yes back commissioner Lee proposed amendments to chapter 55 unified development code section 5.20 Landscaping screening and buffers to amend the requirements for conflicting land use buffers and reorganize for improved consistency so we'll start with staff report Mr Leo all right thank you as mentioned these are Amendments of chapter 55 section 520 Landscaping screening and buffers foreign there we go I am purposely going to make this presentation out of order of the out of numerical order in the ordinance and the staff report which follows the numerical order um first I'm going to talk about section 520.4 conflicting land use buffers current title then 520.3 vehicular use area landscaping and screening and finally 520.6 refuse and recycling container screening we start with Section 520.4 conflicting land use buffers they are required in

032five cases and there's a lot going on on this slide and it's to really engage your brain and also make sure you pay attention to me um there the applicability requirements for a conflicting land use buffer which we sometimes call a club c-l-u-b they are required when you have a vehicular use area adjacent to a public park or land principally used or zoned for residential purposes they are also required when you have a refuse recycling container adjacent to the same they are required for the portion of a parcel zoned o r e orl any of the C's or any of the M's a budding the same public park or parcel principally used or zone for residential they are required fourth for the portion of a parcel zoned R3 or R4 which are multi-family zoning districts

033when they are adjacent to land used or zoned for residential purposes and finally they're required in the tc-1 or any of the TC districts when you abut a residential zoning District or the pl District and conceptually what we're doing is this for one and two no real changes we are just moving those circled in red this is what we're actually talking about and changing we are talking about eliminating the requirement for a conflicting land use buffer when a budding land principally used for residential the requirement to have a buffer from land that is zoned for residential purposes remains and we are talking about eliminating the requirement to buffer a parcel zoned R3 or R4 from land that is zoned or used for residential purposes the fifth um when TC won zoning a butts residential zoning

034or PL that is being combined with number um combined with number three so the changes look like or I didn't mean that so in terms of Club applicability I mentioned uh one of the requirements is a club be provided for most of the mixed-use zoning districts and some of the non-residential special purpose ones when you are um a budding a park or land used or zoned for residential this makes it very dependent on outside variables a project in a commercial District um might introduce might introduce mixed uses residential on the second or third floor or something like that switch over to Adaptive reuse that means that the parcels next to it automatically become non-conforming because they did not provide a conflicting language buffer similar it goes both ways opposite it also requires mixed-use developments to

035be buffered from mixed-use developments I think for the most part if you go with percentages you might have um office I'm sorry commercial retail on the first floor in the ideal scenario a floor of commercial one or two floors of office and then upper stories of residential in the ideal classic mixed-use Model but in terms of percentages that's a resident that's principally used residential you'd have all your mixed-use buildings up and down your corridors buffered from each other and also when you are requiring a when we are currently requiring a buffer between R3 and R4 that means that you require a buffer between identical uses and our a single lot in that R4 District which around the campus area the whole neighborhoods are zoned r4c they sometimes get redeveloped and each one of them would

036need to provide a conflicting land use buffer and in that case that buffer would be 30 feet wide 30 feet minimum because 15 feet on one parcel 15 feet on another and that seems to diminish the neighborhood character rather than actually promote it I think that maybe the intentions were good but the way this is written it seems that there was a desire to prioritize one land use perhaps single family and buffer that from multi-family but the way it is written the way it is applied the way it is used we are just buffering all the same from all the same foreign is the key for moving deleting and combining the moving things are in Gray the deleting things are struck out and the combining things are circled in terms of combining we are taking

037three and five and we have combined them into a and since there's one left I'm not going to number one so we are just making Section 5 20.4 say a conflicting land use buffer is required where a parcel or portion thereof in a mixed use special purpose or non-residential zoning District a bus a public park or a parcel in a residential zoning District and then the same exact conflicting land use buffer standards apply the same with the same planting requirements the same screening the one thing we did though is change the title it's not really a conflicting land use buffer anymore it's a conflicting District buffer so we change the the heading there and then I like I mentioned we're doing it out of order then remember the parts that we said we were moving

038so in section 520.3 which is currently vehicular use area landscaping and screening this will become vehicular use area screening landscaping and buffering adding buffer The Mention Of buffering and then changing the order so it follows the actual order of the standards it has a it currently has a section A right-of-way screening no changes there section B is the interior landscape Islands we've added headings and reordered this section but no changes there and then we've added C conflicting use buffer and no changes from the club requirements except for the new place the new home for them same width same screening planting materials and same screening and then moving or continuing the theme in section 520.6 I think there's a type over the top of the slide refuse recycling container screening same added the added the mention

039of buffering in the title The a component does not change it is right-of-way screening we've added a section B for conflicting use buffer these have some slight changes from the club standards specifically to be consistent with the right-of-way screening a hedge or landform berm are not permitted the only screening you can do is the fence the solid fence or wall otherwise it's the same it's the same stuff and so um I am happy to answer any follow-up questions or clarification questions um but this concludes my presentation and staff recommend approval thank you uh now I'll open up the public hearing this is an opportunity for peers and persons to speak up to three minutes about the proposed UDC amendments we'll first call an individuals present to address the commission then remote participants to speak during

040the public hearing remotely press star nine if listening by phone and use the raise hand feature if viewing through the web link for phone access call 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-66341226 City staff will select callers who have raised their hand using the last three digits of your phone or by name if available 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 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 so anyone present who would like to speak at this time hi my name is um did you push the button on it I can learn how to do that

041thank you Mr Leonard um as I was saying Ken Garber 28 hamric Hill Court I wasn't going to speak on this one but um I'm pardon the pun I'm conflicted about this particular change I I really get Mr Leo's point that um in residential districts where we're looking at [Music] um redeveloping for higher density in the R4 districts around campus and near downtown you know kind of a 30-foot buffer total doesn't make a lot of sense it's kind of an anachronism but I disagree with their statement that we're currently buffering all the same from all the same this is just based on my personal experience up in here on Highlands neighborhood up on Pontiac Trail um this uh neighborhood is you know small single-family ranches mostly working class and in 2017 it was faced with

042um The Cottages at Barton green student housing development you know the most hated student housing development in town not just by the neighbors but by its own residence if you you can if you don't believe me check the Google Yelp um and other reviews and my neighbors on Sky Dale former neighbors I no longer live there um have to deal with the floodlights the noise the partying the garbage and if they didn't have that conflicting land use buffer and the developer had chosen to build right up against their backyards I just feel real bad for them um so I guess my point is that we're not always buffering all the same from all the same these are two very different are for a um well actually the obviously here in Highlands it was single family

043but you know we're not talking about rich people um and the the one is r4a this city this Planning Commission rejected this proposal by a 72 vote back in 2018 city council rejected it unanimously they ended up suing the city and the city ended up settling with them on very favorable terms to the developer so it got built um and uh you know I think it's a net negative for the city and for the neighborhood next to it and for its own residence terrible management anyway this is getting off the subject I guess I don't oppose this particular change but um I think we should acknowledge that it's a little bit more complex than maybe staff presented thank you thank you anyone else is there anyone that would like to address the commission remotely there

044are no hands raised at this time okay with that I'll close the public hearing and read the motion the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve the amendments to chapter 55 unified development code section 5.20.3 vehicular use area landscaping and screening section 5.20.4 conflicting land use buffers and section 5.20.6 refuse recycling container screening to amend the applicability and conflicting land use buffers and reorganize the section for improved consistency moved by commissioner white second number by commissioner dish uh discussion commissioner dish I would like to follow up on Mr garber's statement and just ask if I am misunderstanding something but the case that you described is a multi-family development up against an area that's zoned residential so a club would be required today a club is required if we

045because I believe if that development is zoned R3 or R4 and I understand it is r4a then it and it seems to abut if I understand correctly it seems to abut R1 something but R then the that development should have um should have I assume it does have a conflicting land use buffer and if we make the change it still would have to have it would not it would not have to have R would not have to buffer from r r would not have to buffer from r m to for in that case um number line um four if you will from the presentation I can pull it up um in order to what it says now is the portion of a parcel zoned R3 or R4 adjacent to a parcel principally used or zoned

046for residential purposes all encompassing so that means that yes a multi-family would need to provide a conflicting land use buffer from a single family but also a multi-family would need to provide a conflicting land use buffer adjacent to multi-family so we have proposed to eliminate that requirement entirely and not require residential to buffer from residential it could be discussed the chain there could be changed so that it'd be more clear that multi-family must buffer from single family zoning but that's not what it says right now it's all encompassing and all-inclusive and we are proposing that we do not require residential to buffer from residential so could I ask the commission to deliberate for a moment on the implications of moving forward with the proposed change or restoring a buffer between single family and multi-family in

047light of our density goals and other things Mr Hampshire I'll try to be quick because I don't like that idea for reasons that you're probably going to articulate better than me but I don't like the idea of requiring a buffer between single family and multi-family a I'm hoping that single-family zoning we can sort out through the comp plan but B I just I feel like that's a really extreme example and that's that sucks that you know they're they're having these issues but I feel like it causes a lot of potential Equity issues and exclusionary issues saying like we don't want single-family homes to be too close to multi-family I just feel like it sends the opposite message from what we're trying to do just as a city foreign since our goal is to um and

048council's goal is to enable uh the missing middle in our residential districts if I understand this correctly if we put a conflicting land use buffer between R3 and R4 but we permit those in all the our districts now we've put in this 15 foot on both sides in order to protect single-family homes and um yeah I would not be in favor of that also added to the lot size while there might be contiguous Lots assembled for larger developments a lot of these conditions are smaller lots and we're taking up a lot of buildable footprint when applying this so even in those multi-family requiring it in a large parcel may be negligible but when we look at our city as a whole requiring a 15-foot buffer on our smaller Parcels many of our multi-family Parcels are

049already non-conforming to our current lot size standards it becomes very difficult to create a feasible footprint within so further restricts our ability to create multi-family development and instead we see our multi-family turn into single family but as I would understand it if we looked at it just to kind of maybe finish this thought a single family home can be built on a multi-family parcel and if we made sure the club buffered a multi-family to a single family that single family on a multi-family parcel would still need to build a club correct so because it's not by use it's still just by zoning so even a single so we could end up with just single family because we're going to get a mcmansion because it's about square footage more than units sometimes and who can afford

050to create that landscape buffer instead of getting enough units on the site so I would not support also we still have setbacks so we're not going lot a lot with some of these buildings anyone else other comments okay I have one more sorry maybe I just public park versus Zone PL uh I believe in the final edits we're just down to public park and Zone PL parcel is no longer part of any of the language within everything that we've seen can Steph speak to why we're leaning towards public parks as the language instead of PL yes I can um right now only one of the applicability standards the fifth one where it says portion of a parcel Zone TC a budding residentials and or the pl um again I think this is actually and then

051the other four is just talk about public park I think PL is too broad too encompassing we use the pl district for any publicly owned land um and 99 of it would be owned by the city of Ann Arbor the University of Michigan or the Ann Arbor Public Schools and I don't think that we are um intending correct me if I'm wrong please but I don't think we're intending to require a buffer um affiliating language buffer adjacent to schools or to the land owned by the University of Michigan I think or even um maybe another city of Ann Arbor facility I the other four applicability requirements specifically say public park and I went with the I'm proposing to be consistent with those um obviously could be amended but that is my rationale behind I felt

052that the pl District was actually a little bit too too broad you could have a lot of uses within a lot of distinct and different uses within that zoning category any is there any like hardship to be able to figure out if it's a public park and maybe more specifically I think about like puds that often like donate portions of land those get rezones like um and because like do those become public park or like what is a public park versus The Greenway or something else do those all fall under public park do we have an official definition of it um the unofficial official definition is if it shows up in the pros the parks restoration open space plan there is a official list of city parks parks and natural areas are included and but

053that is our definition of um a of a park okay um so staff has a document to yes okay that's all everyone good ready for a vote commissioner Salve yes commissioner Hammerschmidt yes councilmember dish yes commissioner Lee yes commissioner Clark yes commissioner Weiss yes motion carries thank you all right moving on to item number 8C uh petition 2195 East Ellsworth Lockwood planned unit development PUD text Amendment proposal to adjust the East Side setback by four feet from 144 feet to 140 feet and the South Side set back from 4 feet to 68 from by four feet from 68 feet to 64 feet no new construction is proposed we will start with a petitioner presentation of up to 10 minutes um sorry the petitioner is online with the let the last four numbers of their no

054it says zero now it says smart Lockwood sorry it was just a phone number before they've been promoted to panelists Mr Lockwood our you there he was on I just saw them rejoin as panelists Mr Lockwood you can unmute yourself and and address the Planning Commission thank you sorry for the delay there good evening Commissioners uh thank you for for the time this evening purpose of our request uh repetition here today is to essentially clean up a conflict between the approved site plan for the planned unit development on Ellsworth uh with the text of the planning and development as approved previously essentially the setback measurement was done from the the midpoint of the building on the front and and side wings and upon a revision survey or progress construction progress survey we realized that the

055nearest points of the building were about between a foot and a half and two and a half feet depending on the corner uh closer to the setback as as written and that that's really the approved site plan was was measured and translated to the text about two two and a half feet off and so we're looking to clean up that uh that conflict between the proof site plan and the text of the Pud and that is what we're representing today foreign thank you and now we'll move on to a step presentation okay good evening everybody um so on your screen I'll go through you see you see some images I apologize obviously the first one's pretty well zoomed out but that shows the Ulta survey how this was kind of discovered is that the petitioner

056is doing a an altar survey during construction so um then obviously that survey revealed that that Foundation is a um as Mr Lockwood said about a foot and a half or so over on the two corners uh would there'd be the southeast corner and just the South edge of it along the front area there um so you can see here on a zoomed in an image obviously the yellow areas are the ones that are kind of just over that that setback line uh this obviously much farther zoomed out shows how it would comply with the the proposed setbacks is how we're modifying if you can see the yellow area here those setbacks move back uh it's about four feet there so you can see it's well within that setback there um within the the front

057and within the side area here and this is due we we try to when we're initially doing the planning are the puds as you all know they have their own Set uh setbacks defined specifically in there we try to give a little bit of wiggle room when we're building those because things like this could happen but unfortunately this is again something obviously staff can't change because it's in the zoning of the uh of the project this will ultimately have to go to City Council for final approval um so we did while it's not we've given four feet there it's really only about two feet over it's it's unlikely to change again because the foundation is set if you see the I mean if you've been out there lately you see the aerial photo it's not

058going anywhere now um so but we still just just in case we enable that little bit so that's really basically what it is there's no other change to the land use no change to parking any other thing within the um uh the project as as uh that was originally approved back in I believe it was 2020 yes so um that's basically it I'm here for any questions and staff is recommending approval thank you now I'll open up to public hearing this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes but proposed text Amendment at 2195 East Ellsworth we'll first call an individual's present to address the commission than remote participants to speak during the public hearing remotely press star nine if you're listening by phone and use the raise hand feature if

059viewing through the web link phone access call 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-6634-1226 City staff was like 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'll 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 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 please come forward yes my name is Richard D Hart and I live at 2250 East Ellsworth Road which is directly across the street from this building I've lived at my home for as

060far back as 1959. so I've kind of seen how all of this is developed um several years ago when Lockwood was being proposed the residents surrounding the project were asked for input after looking at the preliminary site plan I suggested to move the building back about 50 feet and keep as many of the trees as possible obviously none of that happened in essence the property was erased of everything it it turned into a hilly landscape into a flat rectangle um I guess I have several questions one is who is accountable for the mistake in the location um second why didn't the city inspection process catch the mistake before it was too late to fix it um and I guess what is the point in having setback rules if they aren't going to be followed and

061what is the the compensation for the adjacent Property Owners because a variance from the initial proposal was not put out there um and that didn't happen and it appears that this is going to happen anyway because I don't think they're going to move the building um but as an adjacent property owner I'll be basically living with this mistake for as long as I live in my home and if you've been out to that site that building is right up in your face it's three stories high um and it's it's huge thank you thank you is there anyone else that wishes to speak there's one caller virtually I'm sorry thank you again commissioner Salve Ken Garber um yes I don't really have an opinion on the setback adjustment I think you as Mr de Hart said

062you pretty much have to Grant it um I agree with him that it's unfortunate that there should be some accountability but I want to since we have Mr Lockwood um here if I were sitting in your chair I would have a question unrelated um and Lockwood committed to an all-electric building with the exception of the commercial kitchen um actually a small correction the building was approved in February 2021 and a few days before city council approved it um Steve gabras vice president of development confirmed that in a letter to Mr Kowalski that Lockwood's committed to doing an all-electric Heat um so this wasn't written into these supplemental regulations and I'm just curious how's that going um and what kind of HVAC system uh is being put in because the building is pretty far along um

063so um are we talking about air source vrf individual unit heat pumps geothermal perhaps um maybe one of you shares my curiosity and will take advantage of Mr Lockwood's presence online to ask the question um that's all I have to say about that thank you again for your Indulgence thank you anyone else can I make a comment to that you do have do it I don't know we have you still have a minute left in your time from what I saw is that it's I think maybe up to the discretion of the chair but you've when you step away from the podium relinquish your time your public comment period and my opinion would be over but it could be at your discretion Madam chair I just simply want to State enough sir and and that

064is that I the the natural gas pipeline goes right in front of my house just inside the right-of-way easement and I do know that they did an excavation across the road and hooked that building into the natural gas pipeline thank you is there anyone else in the room all right is there anyone uh who would like to address the commission remotely there's one hand raised Adam yes you have permission to speak hi this is Adam justkovich 1430 Las Vegas Drive these setbacks are already quite deep such that a few feet barely registers as a rounding error or in the parlance of our times a nothing Burger I find the idea that this would be objectionable to be risible thank you there are no other hands raised at this time you closing public comments I will

065read the motion Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approved Lockwood of Ann Arbor development of 91 or sorry 2195 East Ellsworth planned unit development PUD zoning text Amendment moved by commissioner Hammerschmidt second by commissioner Lee we are now in discussion commissioner dish I'm sorry so I I would like to ask the questions who so the mistake occurred because the site plan was improperly translated into the text of the Pud is that that's what I heard said is that correct well I I don't know exactly we have a set of site plans that we review initially that have a number on it and then that that number like I said we give a little bit of wiggle room versus what they propose we're not intimately involved with the surveying

066process and all that of course of laying it out so we we build our our number of setback that we get in the Pud regulations based on the site plan that they present at that time so I I I'm not the survey I don't I don't know how who like we wouldn't have gone out there and surveyed it ourselves um we don't the city does not do that um so I think during their process of financing and whatnot they need to update their Ultra survey so that's how it was discovered so I don't I don't know if the initial survey was just off or if I mean the like I said the set packs that are in the Pud regulations are not exactly based on a number that we gave a range and it just

067happened to fall just but not enough of a range like only a foot and it just fell outside of that range so I don't know whether the initial survey was off the setbacks again it's not like we said an exact number in there so translating the survey to the setbacks doesn't it's not really a direct correlation initially okay so you're saying that the statement that I think I heard which was that the approved site plan was translated into the text of the Pud incorrectly is not a correct description of what happened no because the the approved site plan fits within the approved PUD regulations so yes the so right I don't know exactly what was meant but I mean I think that was yeah might have been a little bit did I did I miss

068here or so we do still have Mr Lockwood on the line and um I think what planner kwalski was uh saying during his initial presentation is that there are allowances made for certain types of technical discrepancies that may happen throughout later surveying but that this nevertheless did um uh move yet outside of that wiggle room that was initially uh allowed for but perhaps the um petitioner can assist in this question Mr Lockwood would you mind sure sure I think I think that's an accurate description I think that my my understanding and this may be more of a question for our civil engineering team is that the measurements provided on the the site plan that that was approved based on on the initial survey were not uh we're not dementia from the nearest point of the

069building and the building appears to be square to to Ellsworth Road in just a visual review but it's it's actually offset by well across the span of the building by about a foot and a half and that's that's my understanding of where the discrepancy came in into play and then when we went through the process of having an interim survey done by our uh as as in accordance with our our lender which is the state of Michigan um we discovered that that issue that we were that the the um the building is as I understand it on the approved site plan was slightly outside of the the setbacks prescribed in the Pud and at that point we initiated the process of making sure that everything uh matched up okay so I think the question that

070the re that concerned the resident uh is concerns then the measurements who did the measurements that were off Mr Lockwood I'm sorry I should be be more clear um you're saying that the measurements were done incorrectly that they were whatever your reference point was it actually set the building slightly off from where it was meant to be who would have been responsible for those measurements I think is the question that the resident would like to know sure that would be the the surveyor and uh civil engineer who let out the site plan so I think the the measurement was from the middle of the building and and not the the nearest corner is my understanding mm-hmm yes and the plan like I mean I can verify when you look at the original approved plan it

071scales correctly to that those Dimensions based on that survey that was provided at that time so again I think there's a it was possibly a surveying area of where they centered that is we're kind of and I I know Mr Lock when I were trying to talk to survey survey talk but again that's where that uh that's where that error came in and then when they re-surveyed it I believe they probably used a slightly different centering point I mean we're not talking about a lot on a big site here but I did go back to scale the plan to say well okay well this the site plan it was that really because obviously you can scale of our site plans was that exactly like was the site plan number off just an error on that

072thing but it scales correctly on that based on the survey that was submitted and that site plan was built upon that survey and then we made the setbacks with a little bit of wiggle room upon that site plan that was based on the survey that was submitted so that's kind of a convoluted way so I guess we don't know exactly where ultimately I would believe it would be the civil engineer or the surveyor that would have to Define define exactly where that error occurred and what they were basing their measurements upon yeah and I I don't think we actually need to do a whole forensic analysis but I uh there there was um I wanted to just make sure that there wasn't an implication that the city was at fault and in the end we

073are talking about um a foot or two so um it doesn't seem all that distressing then um I would like to again give voice to another residence question which is so um I wonder uh Mr Lockwood if you could tell us how you are actually going to be heating the building were you unable to fulfill your intention to make it all electric heating or were you so to to address that right now uh where the the building is is primarily heated via a high efficiency natural gas boiler system which is I think that what what was discussed at the time of approval is that we would submit a waiver to the design standards of Michigan State Housing Development Authority which in their design standards man at the time at least mandated that gas and hot

074water be supplied via Natural Gas heat and that that waiver request was submitted and and was not approved are you good commissioner dish anybody else I have procedural questions um as I understand PUD if it's not written in the Pud it falls back to our base UDC text correct well for what what what kind of so I um because we removed planned projects and created a language about averaging a setback a front setback just as part of our base UDC and our base UDC also has minimum or maximum setbacks I'm curious why that part of our UDC that allows that setback averaging didn't apply to this project well I think we would have to probably specifically because we wrote like if it's excluded you're saying it would if we don't write it in there then

075it's automatic but we address the steps back specifically here I think it'd be different if we didn't address the setbacks then that maybe that would kick in that qualifications but we we do address the setbacks here and we don't allow for averaging specifically in these puds so I think if it was if we weren't noting a setback specifically here is the range then it would fall back to um that that underlying zoning District so in a PUD outlines a setback it's a firm number it doesn't adopt the same flexibility as the rest of our EDC we look yes that's correct because again I looked not to not to avoid coming to a board but it was a relatively minor issue and rather than driving you know the this project affordable housing project through these Rings

076again we but there's simply no way correct we exhausted that it's a zoning it's set in there it has to be by Council and there's no other way to very give uh like if we would have written that in there initially that might have been a good idea and now we've learned from this as well as giving maybe a little bit of extra flexibility within our Zone like I said I thought I built in a little bit but you know there may be some ways of looking at that kind of thing in the future to give the planet commission or staff well a little bit of uh that we judge judgment maybe at that when things like that fall into play that goes to my second question is if this was a buy right let's

077just say it was approved and met all the standards would this and it had other than the variants would this have been an administrative Amendment if this was a buy right project instead of coming back through no I think so because we've got that scale now I'd have to pull up the code it's shifting it would be adjusting the setback slightly it would at least be an admin I think it would just be administrative I'll have to pull up the code to it wouldn't if it's still fell within the approved like the required setbacks then it would it wouldn't have to go all the way back to council I know that so it's but I'd have to look at the code really quickly to see whether it be administrative or Planning Commission but to like

078re-review the site Planet Planning Commission exactly because it would be a minor change and we built in some things with our last revisions to allow buildings to shift slightly for exactly this reasonable buy right project if it comes in a foot and a half over we don't have to go through all of them if there's so we did build that in but again I don't Mr Leonard's looking it up but let me I can yeah I'm curious I'm curious I guess you know as you're digging I'll explain like the uh the the burden of the Pud the burden or benefit of the Pud and if those actually balance out or not um relative to uh what we're asking for in a public benefit like I know we have affordable uh housing in this we're not

079getting the electrification unfortunately um but going through this entire process again like PUD does not have a clear second step and right now we have a I'm a little excited for that comp plan because what we see is peop pushing petitioners into puds because the discomfort of zoning and then not only is there the hurdle of the Pud there's the continued hurdle of a PUD um so that's what I'm like what would this look like if we were actually could rezone things or site you know this is where tc1 or any other Progressive rezoning will help more birray projects to hit our goals so commissioner Andrew Leonard to your question you have uh the this would fall under a revision it would likely fall under the revision of moving a building placement either more or

080less than 10 feet um in this case I think it would be less than 10 feet if I'm understanding that so that would be a site plan for planning manager approval it would that would not require um but but because as you said the Pud when the Pud is used to specify we recently had another example of this with um Beekman on Broadway where yes the the more that a PUD constrains that project at the outset the less flexibility it's going to have going forward so this is if it was by just to kind of play out the whole scenario if this was by right it would be a planning manager review versus a Planning Commission first reading second reading city council three public hearings yes that's correct okay sorry two public hearings but three

081meetings yeah I think that's it I mean as I have the mic it's really disappointing not to see um a building the size especially on a clear and blank slate being able to capture a lot more renewable um resources to make this all electric it is possible and technology has really moved forward and I would love to see the denial reasoning of the housing not allowing disconnection from gas so that's added to our conversation about electrification um do you have any other comments all right we'll move to a vote on the motion is presented commissioner survey yes commissioner Hammerschmidt yes council member dish yes commissioner Lee yes commissioner clerk yes commissioner wise yes that motion carries two all right remove to item 8D petition 3945 to 3957 South State site plan and special exception use

082a proposal to reduce the size of the existing building at 3949 to 3957 South State by 1 384 square feet and to add a drive-through Lane along the rear of the building we will start with petitioner presentation of up to 10 minutes representing the owners um we'd like to ask for our postponement tonight for several reasons um number one several members of our team aren't available tonight so we don't have our civil engineers or our traffic consultant with us number two because of an error in the process the postcards that were mailed out for the public hearing a contained an image of Beekman on Broadway on the postcard instead of our project um and number three we'd like to make a presentation before the full board so in light of our request for the postponement

083I'm I can certainly go ahead with my presentation or we could call off whichever you prefer I say proceed for conversation if you want any early feedback all right so Matt if you're going to drive those slides the first slide is a general area plan kind of showing the overall context the site you'll see probably the biggest reference there is the Costco off to the left this is an area On The Fringe of the city where it borders the Pittsfield Township my sense is that there's an agreement between the township and the city that City will will no longer be gobbling up the township so these boundaries are lucky to stay the way they are but therefore serial future you can see the circle around the existing building which has been built in my clients

084been unable to lease it for about five years now it's right behind the Jimmy John's people will probably know the Jimmy John's because you can see that when you drive up and down the street next slide I just it's all right spinning okay sorry uh so this is just the existing site plan it shows the way the buildings are constructed and laid out on the site with an area that's highlighted where the where the proposed change would be next slide this is uh a slide that shows the removal of about eight feet of the north side of the building and by removing that eight feet of the existing building that would facilitate putting a lane through this north side of the building from the east side of the parking lot to the middle of the

085parking lot next slide there's an enlargement of the new proposed new footprint was showing the stacking for about a dozen cars or Vehicles as they Loop their way around the north side of the building Which is far more than any time that I've ever been there even at lunchtime at Jimmy John's I don't get that much stacking at the Jimmy John's because it's a much shallower turn I understand that there are many days that Jimmy John's doesn't even have indoor seating because they can't find the staff so they're relegated to most of the time having drive-through service only uh you'll see here on the site plan we're putting in electric vehicle charging stations which there are currently none on the site but we would be adding those both at the East and the West ends

086of the modified building okay some 2D elevations with a eight feet excised off the north not proposing any changes to this to the South next should be some some visual representations um of the south side and the two ends you can see in those two ends there's there's a construction joint at about the place where we would be removing that Northern side of the building that I believe the rest of them are just the civil engineering submission for the for the project okay so um happy to answer any questions thank you now we'll move to staff presentation that's too cool sure um again as Mr Moore said the petition here before you it's a site plan as well as a special exception use they are also um they also do require landscape modification uh that's

087something that was recently uh it used to be a variance request but one of your res or changes within the last year or so I moved into a landscape modification that's due to uh and it's fully supported by all staff and they have existing trees and they're uh just out of the right-of-way at the front of the site in front of Jimmy John's but this is all on site so we're looking at everything but those trees can't be placed in the right-of-way Street trees because of the the distance the width and the utility line running through there so there is a landscape modification that would also be requested with this a special exception use obviously for approval of the drive-through and it is a site plan for uh planning city council approval but it should

088be Planning Commission approval um and um oh yeah sorry we have that on here um and so really again the main concerns we looked at this they did submit an updated traffic study with this a traffic impact obviously the nature of the site was changing the use it it that back building was not obviously designed for a drive-through so they had to do a new study to look at that our traffic engineer did examine that um a couple of comments back and forth um really uh the only concerns that she ended up with was just increasing the uh the visibility striping you can see actually in the on the right picture here of the top right picture they do have uh the site was done with porous papers which seemed to be working very well

089um so and that's a good thing we've had some problems with other sites but um so you can see that the striping there is just delineated by different colored of pavers but our our transportation engineer uh recommended that obviously that that be painted with some high visibility striping as well as increased signage for both of the drive-through exits that will be um or sorry well one will be the drive-through entrance for the Jimmy John's and they exit around the front and then this one would be exiting around um towards the closest side of State Street that you're looking at so increased signage in there and increase pedestrian Crossings uh rather the visibility of those and that was that was her concerns regarding the um access to the site there are no vehicular concerns regarding access

090and um get a landscape modification they are again they are installing EV spaces as you as you saw Mr Moore pointed out those were not required at the original time of uh of approval for the Jimmy John's business in the front and uh again there's a very slight increase to the impervious surface on the site uh but however the they obviously did submit a revised calculations for that and the system they have in place is more than adequate to you uh to detain for that extra area and um other than that there's no changes there's no other required landscaping or other elements that are being uh removed on the site and obviously this is adjacent to another commercial or well it's a hotel as well as the research district there so no buffering would be

091required along the back of the building anyway um and that concludes our presentation oh staff was recommending approval of the special exception use uh landscape modification and the site plan concludes my presentation thank you thank you now we move on to public hearing so this is an opportunity for persons to speak up to three minutes about the proposed project at 3945-3957 South State we will first call on individuals present to address the commission than remote participants please to speak during this public hearing remotely press star 9 if listening by phone or use the raise hand feature viewing through the web link for phone access call 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-663-41226 City staff will select callers who have raised their hand using the last three digits of your phone number or by name if available

092through accessing 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 at the beginning of your comments is there anyone present that would like to speak at this time thank you commissioner Salve I'm getting my Toastmasters attendance score up tonight um Ken Garber again as I see it here the petitioner basically wants to rip away three sides of a brand new building removing a quarter of it 1 384 square feet and then replace it with pavement not just any pavement pavement for idling vehicles is this a public benefit worth a special exception use Grant by this body

093um yeah I love how the site plan that you just saw shows 13 Vehicles waiting in line I think that's probably an unfortunate visual but it's kind of a nightmare scenario for me I agree with Mr yes kevich who called in earlier about the undesirability of any drive-through going forward in the city um uh yeah State and Ellsworth is probably the most car Centric part of Ann Arbor but do we have to make it even more so more idling cars more exhaust fumes more emissions this building is already assigned 22 parking spaces I think the petitioner can live with that back in April you rejected the U of M Credit Union's request for a special accepting use for its Plymouth Road drive through quite properly I spoke against that drive through um let's be consistent

094and reject this plan as well um I know in the great scheme of things you know we've got Wars gun violence racism climate change this special exception use is not such a big deal I I recognize that but it's something that we can control it's one minor atrocity we can reject so I urge you to do that thank you thank you anyone else present would like to speak Miss Kelly do we have anyone cleaning remotely there is uh one speaker Madam chair Adam yes you have permission to address the commission hi again 1430 Las Vegas Drive as I mentioned earlier in a more General sense I am opposed to any new drive-throughs in Ann Arbor but this is about the specific proposal before you tonight I might be becoming the Ken Garber of drive-throughs but

095yet again we have a petitioner bringing forward a proposal to build yet another new drive-through as this is a special exception use it is up to the petitioner to show you why you should approve this drive through tonight what is so special about it why should they be given a special exception looking at the site plans I'm not seeing it it's just another Suburban style drive-through like all the rest of them if we're serious about our goals as a city we need to do better we are in a climate crisis we have pledged to cut vehicle miles traveled in half a20 we are in a traffic violence crisis we have pledged to eliminate KSI crashes Vision zero we won't get there if we keep building car Centric developments like this we won't get there if

096we don't get serious about Transforming Our scrotes into livable spaces usable by people with all modes of transportation yes the existing site is already car Centric to be fair but there's no reason to make it worse another drive-through does not get us there you have the discretion to decide whether or not to allow drive-throughs please deny the special exception use for this drive-through thank you there are no other hands raised at this time thank you we'll close the public hearing and I will read both motions together um the university Planning Commission after hearing all interested persons and reviewing all relevant information finds a petition to substantially meet the standards of chapter 55 unified development code section 5.29.5 special exceptions approves the 3949-3957 South State Street special exception use for a drive-through facility this Pro this

097approval is based on the following findings one it will be consistent with the general objectives of the city comprehensive plan of commercial uses in the area and two 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 traffic impact in motion number two the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby approves the 3949 to 3957 South State Street site plan including a landscape modification that allows existing trees just outside the right-of-way to be counted as required Street trees moved by commissioner white seconded by commissioner dish discussion commission Outreach so uh to the petitioner I just want to check a couple things when you in this proposal you are proposing to deconstruct the building that sits behind the Jimmy John's

098that's currently unoccupied or are you like can you just explain that I I looked at the the site plan and I I looked at the renderings but I just wanted a little more clarity yeah so the the whole building isn't being deconstructed just the northern eight feet of the building would be removed so the temporary supports would be put in place to maintain their balance of the roof structure and then that Northern eight feet would be deconstructed and then a new Northern bearing wall would be built okay so not the whole thing is being considered just that eight feet and that's so that rather than having a vacant building there we could lease the building and and certainly um if we postpone tonight I can bring at the next hearing the leasing agent who's been

099trying to lease it for the last five years and she can tell you that they've had pharmacies and financial institutions and Bakers and coffee shops who would all at least there if they had a drive-through but no one will least there without it okay and then uh the the egress and you know the the movement of cars is that uh primarily going to come in through state or is it also on Ellsworth no the only entrance to the property is on state okay so that's supposing to change that okay so then that is sitting in that traffic circle so maybe to staff in the traffic analysis that traffic circle is like the number one accident spot in Southeastern Michigan now so like how did that come into this conversation because potentially there will be more

100Commerce there which will be pushing people into that site both egress and you know trying to get in and out of the spice and I know coming from Costco people don't know how to what a yield sign means so as you make that Michigan left onto State um people are trying to get over so that they can get into the far right lane so that they can get on 94 so they can exit the city so I'm just surprised that the only feedback we got from traffic was striping uh to make it easier for car storage foreign detailed in the traffic study but that's one thing I I didn't notice today whether was whether or not it took into account that the traffic within the roundabout I I can't answer that right now I do

101I can open the file and see if I can get that answer right now but um I know again so if it is postponed I can come back for sure and get that answer for you and get that answered uh if I can't find it right now and I can certainly tell you that I can have the traffic engineer here that traffic engineer works just west of that roundabout and so I'm sure he's intimately familiar with the functionality and the trip generation that the business would require yeah there's a lot of trip generally I mean there's just a lot of cars that are you know moving through that intersection all of the time it seems uh so did I hear you correctly saying that um as best and this has been a five year so

102five years you have it you've built it you haven't been able to lease it and it is your belief that the only way that you would be able to lease it is by having a drive-through yeah that is the that is the belief of a leasing agent who's been trying to lease it for the past five years he could have leased it several times over if it had the drive and so then since it's a special exception use what is what is the exception here like why is it because well I I don't want to give you answers I'd like to hear what your answers are for well I think it's certainly it's in the best interest of the city not to have vacant disused buildings it's better to have viable businesses and better tax

103revenue and just a better overall uh effect of the city rather than having vacant empty buildings okay [Applause] commissioner Hammerschmidt um I have a few questions some of them might be better answered when the whole team is here if we postpone but one question I had um which I noticed that there seem to be three distinct units I guess like within that building um that's what it looked like from the map is that is it is it more than one like so it was built um the shell was built with three entrance doors along that Southeast in anticipation that it could have been three different tendencies But whichever whenever there's a tenant that signs a lease that can be reconfigured those doors don't necessarily have to stay where they are so the police by a

104single they would take out two doors or they may take out the middle door and keep each end it's flexible but the drive-through would if there were three the drive-through would only serve us one of those the drive yeah the drive through all its servers uh the window for the drive through will be at the Western end of the building yeah and we don't know that there'll ever be 13 cars in a row we just wanted to produce a document that was evidence that there's plenty of room to stack without interfering with the traffic in the parking aisles okay and I'll point out that um cars for about a decade now even if they're not electric they don't idle they stop and they don't produce fumes while you're waiting yeah I would I would be

105curious to hear from the leasing agent and from you maybe um just like what specific challenges are I'm also going to miss maybe this is a question for staff but when I was looking at the seu application in the citizen participation it's dated 2021. did it really take this long to bring this yeah uh the position yes if this it's it's been a long journey of revisions and and a little bit of pausing on the behalf multiple kinds of traffic studies okay so yeah is that date wrong no no it's the last it's our last project in our old Software System too so hopefully we're gonna get this moved up one way or another yeah I'll just know like I I don't find the answers in like the special exception use application to be all

106that compelling for a drive-through um but I would I would love to hear more from people with more experience in leasing retail as to whether or not a drive-through would actually enhance the uh releasability of this building I don't know if that's Segways commissioner Lee uh sure I'm looking at the co-star current listing it has been listed for 66 months and one days so constructed in 2018 this has set vacant for the entire time um doing retail leasing I will say that the um the actual presence of a drive-through does improve the leasability it's not a guarantee but it does improve the likelihood um tenants like Chipotle Starbucks they have opted towards really focusing on drive-throughs especially during covid obviously it is antithetical to some of the values that we have pronounced at this particular

107table but I will say that it will likely increase the probability I don't imagine that a building owner wants to say I'm just going to chop the back half of my building off it is only after five years of sitting vacant paying taxes and probably appealing taxes I haven't looked at the tax records but my guess is uh this isn't quite the dark boxed Theory it's not a big enough one but my guess is that after certain level or you continue to appeal simply on the basis that you have no income all you're doing is incurring expenses so I would urge kind of on a contextual basis when you look at this there's a Bell Tire there's a Tim Hortons with a drive-through Taco Bell I'm certainly and I think that um the part that

108I'm somewhat my feedback for you guys would be to say what is the pronounced um public benefit arising from this contextually and and so I I will say to answer your question that the feedback or would be uh the presence of a drive-through would likely increase um leasability for certain retail tenants possibly not others but that this decision to undertake such a renovation would not be the top choice for a landlord right they'd rather put the money into you know tenant Improvement allowances and say you know if I could just financially incentivize the tenant to go in there in its current building footprint so um from the standpoint of understanding you know what is the highest and best use what is the you know from even I will also say this that there is um

109carbon emissions that come from undertaking such construction right the transport of the Demolition and so looking at it holistically it can be somewhat challenging so I I would Challenge and encourage you guys to really say hey this is the public benefit um this is how much tax revenue that you may receive I am certainly sympathetic to the idea that that it sat vacant for five years that that is not an easy thing to basically absorb um and looking at this even it looks like they've been through a few different listing agents at least too so um that would be my feedback I understand how we have looked at this in the past for drive-throughs this is probably a last resort of saying guys like you know I've been trying it's it's way embedded in the

110back it's a very awkward looking parcel there's no Ingress from the Ellsworth side um this is something that I need to be able to put the parcel to productive use so that that would be my feedback it would just really behoove the petitioner to really I think articulate that public benefit so hopefully that feedback is helpful thanks if I could add to the discussion one from the perspective staff the noticing error alone we would encourage this to be postponed on that basis it's unfortunate that it was overlooked sometimes it happens uh with with postcards that do go out so that uh does seem like a good enough reason in addition to having a Fuller body to consider that but I would also like to draw the commission's attention to page 207 of the UDC where

111we outline the criteria for approval of seus of these special exception uses and public benefit is not an explicit requirement to be articulated there is a kind of five-point test that was also laid out in the staff report for this item and those include to be consistent with the general objectives of the city master plan to be designed constructed operated maintained in a manner that's compatible with the existing and planned character of the general vicinity consistent with the general character of the neighborhood considering population density design scale bulk intensity and character of activity not detrimental to the use peaceful enjoyment economic value or development of neighboring property or the neighborhood area in general and not have a detrimental effect on the natural environment so I would I would just greatly encourage discussion to revolve around

112the outline criteria that's in the city code go ahead commissioner Lee thank you for that I was actually looking frantically there's 6 uh eight no problems I was like oh no what's the criteria um into uh again that's very helpful again our job is to apply the UDC as as written and for um the the folks that spoke Ken Garber for example talking about the the credit union for example um and I do think that the distinction might be that we have I believe others at the table brought up Plymouth is uh future designation as a potential uh TC one in fact we do have that legislative text here from city council directing us to begin that process so I I would say that that's probably the contextual uh distinguishing Factor um but that it's

113very helpful again generally I'm trying to be the one deferring to the actual uh text of the UDC so thank you again for that reminder no problem and this is um allowed in half of our mixed-use zoning districts as a special exception use if I'm not mistaken took a look at that earlier so although there may be intentions of the commission to move in a different direction it is available for people within the code and I I think in the spirit of fairness it's good to just remember that that has not been removed by policy thank you further discussion just just to I'm not sure if they're points or questions but um I think I remember from the last time we talked about a special exception use I think I remember having it explained that

114actually I think we were talking about whether or not to make certain things in tc1 a special exception use or not I remember that so and I remember having it explained that the idea of a special exception use is that it's a use that you think is okay in some contexts but not others is that okay so um the point about consistency was raised and that we denied one of these on Plymouth but I think that whatever whenever we make our decision on this one we we might think about what's different about this context because I want to be clear that it is not inconsistent of us to approve them sometimes and to approve a drive-through sometimes and not others because it's in the nature of a special exception use that you approve them sometimes

115but not others otherwise you would simply ban them and if we want to Simply ban them we could do that but we haven't yet so um and I mean if Council would go on so it is it is possible for us to say yes to one and no to another or whatever else uh the the one Criterion that I think has been brought up by us in the past and this evening by a couple of callers is the um would fit under the question of the detrimental effect on the natural environment so we can think about that too because we have some time to think um and um yep okay I think that's a that those are my two points further discussion Commission I would motion to postpone this particular proposal at this time is

116that appropriate I don't know if there's further discussion staff would recommend July 18th as a proposed date for postponement I would motion to postpone this until July 18th seconded by commissioner dish discussion about postponement commissioner wage uh just a process question so the motion to postpone sits at the table so it only needs a majority not all six votes to uh postpone so a majority of the commission so that would be four so half plus one um you my understanding is you would need five people to postpone oh you're saying it's five we can check the bylaws but uh I just want to know uh I'm whipping votes no I think I think it would be a majority of presence this is not on a petition right so you have a quorum of members you

117have more than five members here um so it would be the majority of uh present you are not this would not be the definitive action on a petition so um so it yeah that's how I would interpret it would be the majority of those presents which would require four types okay which staff would recommend as to be a manager Kelly articulated further discussion on motion okay vote on the amendment on the motion to postpone the present petition to July 18th commissioner weish or Clark yes commissioner Lee yes councilmember dish yes commissioner Hammer Schmidt yeah yes commissioner Soviet yes the motion carries okay back to the right to the no we're done that's it it's postponed all right we don't have to go back oh gosh yeah great yes both were taken together and now we

118move to public comments this is an opportunity for persons to speak up to three minutes about any issue that is not listed on the public hearing any issue um I at all I'm just gonna and that sentence there uh we'll first call on individuals present to address the commission than remote participants to speak during the public hearing remotely press star nine if listening by phone or use the raise hand feature viewing through the web rank for phone access call 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-663-4-1226 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 will hear an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak when speaking please move to a

119quiet area and 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 so anyone present that would like to speak at this time beg your Indulgence for the fourth time tonight um unlock with electrification you have to understand where we were at at the end of January 2021 at city council this was a very controversial development there was a lot of neighborhood opposition it was a very different city council that was much more skeptical of development and one of the key um promises as the developer made that pushed this over the edge to approval what's the electrification promise and I'm going to read you part of the letter from the vice president of development of Lockwood's

120companies that was sent to Mr Kowalski just five days before that vote please below please find Lockwood com Mr Kowalski below please find Lockwood company's responsible request made by the city council regarding electrical heat on the Lockwood Ann Arbor project the electric heat issue is brought up at the planning meeting that's here and Lockwood at that time committed to all electric stoves and to investigate with mishta the steps required to provide all-electric Heat following our investigation Lockwood is committed to doing all electric heat and there's some more about the Mr requirements but it sounds like they checked with mishta and mishta was okay this is plausible to me because we have a Housing Commission that also depends on Mr funding heavily and they're going forward I believe with several all-electric developments I see commissioner dish

121nodding her head they've gotten waivers from mishta what's with Lockwood apparently I mean to me this is just a bald bait and switch I'm really pissed off and I feel total futility on this point because this wasn't electrification wasn't written in to the supplemental regulations on this project I don't know what to do about it um but uh you know except Raise Hell at city council um I I just really really feel betrayed um and maybe there are maybe there is something going on with Mr that I'm not aware of here that would provide extenuating circumstances for the developer but um you know short of that uh this is this is just unacceptable um so I don't know I've gotten that off my chest along with everything else tonight so thank you for providing me

122a psychological audience comfort and an audience for my rantings again but this one is really you know off the pit out of the pale this is this is behavior that I've never seen before um you know in front of this body I'm just really upset thank you thank you Mr Garber see no one in the room uh is there anyone who would like to address remotely there are no hands all right closing public hearing we'll move on to commission proposed business is there any commissioner Lee uh I'll be quick I just wanted to add um that I want I'm very sympathetic to Mr de Hart's um discussions that he's been living there since 1959 and so the depth of history and the sense of place that you build is um I wanted to say that

123I'm very sympathetic to that and and certainly uh and wanted to clarify also that where I saw this was that this beauty was almost clerical in nature given that Bulma standards that that we use for measurements are within a two percent tolerance and so you could have an architect with the same training they might get two very small different measurements and so this kind of um measurement again it almost seems like a technicality I agree with you um I have to obviously look into the email Mr Garber um it so I certainly share your frustration I also just wanted to mention that the um that Mr de Hart's comments did not go unheard um that I that I truly felt again sympathetic about somebody who is it's their home it's their lifelong home so just

124wanted to say that um I'll be trying to look more into this email train that you just raised thanks professional wage I think I raised this uh before but if I haven't I'd like to raise it again or now which is I think we as a commission should consider figuring out if we can um ask Council to approve alternates for Planning Commission because because a majority of the Commissioners work in the field and often find themselves in need of recusal as well as a travel family all those other kinds of things and it is not I think it's inside our purview to elect alternates who would potentially just be available to serve when we don't have a a full majority and I think it takes pressure off of petitioners it takes pressure off of the

125commission and it activates maybe a handful of additional people who won't have to serve at every meeting but can allow us to move business forward so I don't know the procedure for doing that whether that is a conversation with staff that comes to the commission as a amendment to our bylaws or if it's something that we discuss with the chair and a recommendation to council or directly to the mayor but I would strongly recommend that we consider having alternates and it is not unheard of for a Planning Commission to have alternate members we acknowledge the comment and manager Leonard is happy to bring that up with our City attorney to see what could be discovered in terms of language if it doesn't exist in your bylaws or should be added to address that that comment

126so thank you okay I have one I'm gonna just for the record I don't have a immediate urgency for this relative to a lot of our housing and sustainability goals but I think it does relate which is vehicular use to parking maximums how we allocate them and drive-throughs so um I think we just need to start looking back at car storage and movement in our city uh in private land so a proposal to look at cars begrudgingly also acknowledge the comments parking maximums um are if they're not on your your official work plan they are definitely on a list maintained by by staff there are some uh as you know large projects that we are front loading our attention onto including the rezoning of um the Plymouth and Washington quarters which has been um repeatedly

127requested by the same body I just want to add another tick to it it is continue to be acknowledged thank you um anything else all right I think we go to adjournment move by commissioner white seconded by uh council member dish all those in favor say aye we are adjourned foreign