Ann Arbor Planning Commission Meeting 4/18/2023

001so welcome to the April 18th regular meeting of the Ann Arbor Planning Commission for detailed information on meeting procedures please review the full printed meeting agenda provided mix Kelly can you call the roll yes noting that uh give Randall Abrams and Mills have indicated that they will be absent for this meeting uh commissioner salve here commissioner Hammerschmidt here commissioner dish here commissioner Lee here commissioner clerk here commissioner Weiss here you have a quorum thank you next we'll move to uh the agenda so may have a motion to approve the agenda approved by commissioner Witch seconded by commissioner dish uh any discussion all those in favor approved motion carries um may I have a motion to prove the previous minutes uh from April 14 2023. uh commissioner Lee commissioner dish is seconded um any discussion on

002the minutes no all those in favor please say yay any opposed no no motion carries um so I want to uh pause here and I've been requested by commissioner Clark to take a moment to say some words so I want to open up the mic to commissioner Clark um so I'm Gonna Keep it pretty brief because it's still recent but I just wanted to acknowledge um Public Service of Jude Walton who we lost recently and it's hit a lot of us in the community really hard and it's very difficult to say anything about at the moment but um Jude had an enormous impact on different areas the city public service um with her work with igpoc with the work at Avalon housing um and I just again I'm a bit short on where it's a

003bit difficult right now but um I just wanted to acknowledge that in her public service to community and requests that you know uh if you have a moment to show some extra love and appreciation I know the people in um that she worked with in all of her functions and capacities are really hurting right now so that's all for that okay uh next up are reports to the clan Planning Commission council member dish do you have anything to report Oh indeed I do so 415 West Washington has been the concept plan and the rezoning from PL to PUD received its final approval last night with one um I think not not to burdensome amendment that um that at a minimum whatever comes out of whatever process moves forward from here is net zero ready and

004I think that that the spirit of that is really to give progress okay uh it's to send a signal that we care about it but that we also trust staff and we entrust staff with the flexibility to do what they can because we really want to succeed with this project this time we've gone on for a long time and it it feels it feels urgent to get that cleaned up and do it in a way that doesn't cost money or it doesn't cost money that feels like money right you know general fund money so um I don't remember anything else that you would be interested in but perhaps I am overlooking something Mr Leonard um I have two uh uh two items first one additional item on the agenda last evening was the city council

005approved a contract to hire interface Studios to draft a new comprehensive plan for the city um I think commissioner dish is probably so excited about it she's just wrapped up in optimism as opposed to remembering that procedural detail um so um roll up your sleeves we've got a couple we've got a busy uh 18 to 24 months ahead of you as the Planning Commission and then um another another item that on the manager report I'm going to take a moment to go in a little bit more in depth here um I've provided two documents to you uh as the as at the Planning Commission um one is a letter um from the petitioners of 2929 Plymouth who are here I'm sure to happy to address any questions that you might have requesting reconsideration of the

006denial of their project they've proposed a petition that's been shared with you that to summarize they would they would like the opportunity to continue uh submittal of their site plan not the special special exception use with the intention of removing drive-through Lanes from their proposed project and adding some additional sustainability features the motion has been decided however under the Planning Commission bylaws they can request and it's up to the Planning Commission at your discretion whether or not you are interested in reconsidering that motion to that end I've proposed three motions for your consideration it seems like uh a lot of a lot of steps for for this but that's the nature of this process there are three motions that I propose one would be a motion to amend the agenda this evening in order to

007add reconsideration of the 2929 Plymouth site plan approval not the special exception use approval to your agenda if you as the Planning Commission by a majority present elect to do so then another motion is presented um a motion that would reconsider that motion as I've summarized this would in effect uh undo the denial only of the site plan it would not undo the denial of the special exception use allowing the petitioner to submit revised plans that would come back to City staff for review and evaluation as that site plan changes to make sure it is consistent with city regulations and then the last motion would be if you determined that that is something you're interested in to postpone consideration of that until the June 21st Planning Commission agenda as I note in the memo this

008is I think it is a reasonable approach this would shift the criteria to measuring this as a site plan against the UDC typical to any other site plan um and um but there are no specific criteria this is really a procedural item at again at the discretion of the Planning Commission and that motion could be made for reconsideration by any anybody present here as all of you were on the prevailing side of that motion I'm happy to answer any questions I know that's sort of some convoluted steps um um I think I understand what the procedures are I don't understand why we would need to do it it wouldn't it be wouldn't it just default back to a buy right and wouldn't they just submit a site plan um it could have the future they

009could do that they could that that decision could stand and the petitioners could just elect to start the process over again that would result in them filing a new application paying a new application fee starting that process over again if this was granted reconsideration they would pick up their existing project mid-stream if you will afford them the opportunity to sort of just not to sort of to submit a revised plan staff would continue to review it under the current application and then represent it back to the Planning Commission the ultimate consideration would be the same in either circumstance it would be measured by the UDC so it's a it just if you could help me I'll I'll do a commissioner dish statement here struggling to make this make sense so this is just for filing

010uh and fees so this would save them so if we took this up and followed the motion the way that you have outlined it they wouldn't have to start over correct but we would still see a new site plan correct we would not be making a decision based on the previously submitted site plan correct so it's just a cost differential I time would tell I would anticipate the site plan will look very similar to what was presented before Sans drive-through lanes and some additional sustainability measures that I don't think would impact the site plan layout yes you are correct in either in either step the process internally would look very similar to the petitioner of the process would be more costly in one and I don't I don't know the time and timing would probably

011also be longer in one too because submittal deadlines are once a month so it might also create a lag before a new sipeline could be submitted under our typical review Cycles and then one more question around so could you outline with the feast like what are the the steps so there's this well you know what the steps are and I won't try to stake them it would be a new uh citizen participation uh notices out to all Property Owners within 500 feet I think based on the scale of this project uh it would be a pre pre-submission meeting with City staff that's a required step in this case I wouldn't anticipate that that meeting would be very long because much of that kind has been already identified then it would go through uh this typical

012review process where it's going to be distributed to All City departments based on whatever changes to the layout are are happening I would anticipate that layout is going to be pretty efficient again because um it's probably removing aspects of the site that add complications rather than being additive and then and the June 21st day was an estimate of giving us some time frame to go through that and get it back onto agenda noticed okay I was wrong I have one more question so because you just said something which is it sounds like if we take this action we remove a public comment period with the petitioner in the community you would you would remove a notification of postcards to all Property Owners within 500 feet you would not remove a public hearing public hearing no

013no I'm sorry can I I know there will be a public hearing at the table but usually the notice has a petitioner neighborhood engagement not for the scale project because the size of this project it's only a notification okay so it wouldn't require that correct so it would have required that previously with the special exception use permit because they wouldn't be considering that it would strictly be a notification that they have applied for a site plan to the city and then I'm sorry okay thank you um have you in your consideration did you weigh that against the feedback that has come in because we've received some 20 Communications from community members who have asked us not to reconsider this and to deny the reconsideration so I just yeah most of those comments came in after

014my recommendation and my recommendation would stand the conditions would be very similar in either circumstance we're going to end up with a site plan that is being measured against the unified development code um uh again there's no criteria here that says you at you as the Planning Commission have to do that if you if the Planning Commission chooses not to that would be the only Avenue for the petitioner to to continue or they could elect to just say nope had enough but in either event we get to the same result or excuse me the same decision points I'll let that go yeah thank you good um any other Commissioners officers or liaison have anything to report so uh okay you're good um at this time uh this is an opportunity for persons to speak for

015up to three minutes moving on to public comment about an issue that is not listed as public hearing on this agenda since we have not amended the motion the agenda with what was discussed currently this would not the current thing would not be part of the agenda um the request for Plymouth Road so any persons wishing to speak on that would be fit in here as well um so we will first call an individuals present to address the commission then remote participants to speak during this public hearing remotely plus star nine 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 977-6634-1226 City staff will let callers that have raised their hand using the last three digits of your phone number

016or 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 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 seeing no one is there anyone that would like to address the commission remotely we have one hand raised at this time praveena ramaswamy you have permission to speak and address the commission hello my name is hello my name is pravina ramasami I live in Bromley neighborhood which backs on to this proposal I did speak at the last meeting I asked the commission to not

017reconsider this proposal at the last meeting the majority of the Commissioners voted against it not just for zoning but they brought up some very valid points regarding the future of our city the future of Plymouth Road thinking about multi-use spaces rather than a single story building that has a cookie cutter bank I know the community has really spoke we had over 50 people email multiple people come to that meeting and even from the asking not to reconsider we've had a lot of people in the community speak on this I know we've had a little bit of time but in that short time people have come out to really oppose this and I think it's because we want to see the space be a space where we can have multiple use we're not saying no to

018UMC but we're asking UMC to consider building a space that has multiple spaces with retail housing whatnot and with a bank not a there could be cutter brand building when we say it's not vehicle specific well in my eyes it is even without the teller Bank the current location is very accessible for bus walking biking well this proposed space is not if you'd have to go past the Speedway bank and walk quite a bit you'd have to cross a busy road without a crosswalk with the bus so this doesn't make sense to me it still sounds like people would have to come by car I'm not seeing the benefit moving it from where it is to to this new proposed location especially without a teller space I'd really like you to consider you know a

01915-minute neighborhood this is your grand opportunity to create something special down Plymouth Road and to really think about this main Corridor where people come into our great City what will it look like what services can we have and where can people live so I asked permission to please not be considered the proposal as it stands today as the single story cookie cutter branded sloped building regardless of the environmental pieces they're adding to it I think from a long-term 25 50 years from now even maybe you issue now we will be not be using the banks and Standalone buildings we're in a digital world so let's forward think let's think about the Innovations of space usage of our city thank you thank you one more caller has raised their hand Alex Lowe you have permission to

020speak hi this is Alex calling in from South Southeast East Ann Arbor and I just want a stage from umcu when you come back with your new plan please take the communities feedback into account you're not Bank of America you're not Chase plopping down identical uh buildings all over our country you're you're the University of Michigan Credit Union your community owned your focused on Ann Arbor thing here we know that the site is good is going to be tc1 at at some point why don't you get ahead of that make it a make it a fully TC one as a show people what uh what uh what TC what one can look like and show people that the uncu is Forward Thinking and not stuck in the 1950s thank you thanks Kelly do you have

021anyone else uh two other callers have raised their hands Brandon dimshup you have permission to address the Planning Commission larrytown in Ward four um I um also would very much like to see this um not be um just a simple bank and a building that would actually have multi-use and stuff I worry that we are kind of too late for that at this point um and I think like this really emphasizes why we need to consider applying tc1 to these corridors as quickly as possible so we don't have all these uses that I think many of us agree are undesirable showing up in areas that we are soon going to um disallow this sort of use so we'd like to encourage Planning Commission to um you know really really think about trying to get that

022um the rest of the the corridors rezoned it as soon as possible and I think you can thank you our next caller is Christina Watkins you've permission to address the commission thank you my name is Christina Watkins I reside at 2960 Sheffield Court approximately a quarter mile from the proposed site um I would just like to reiterate what other callers and what other residents letters have already stated which is we'd really hope that University of Michigan Credit Union does take into account Ann Arbor's zero initiatives and the fact that we are aiming to create a 15-minute neighborhood we want multi-use buildings we do not want single-use single-story buildings especially so close to a community pool and school so we do hope to see a better proposal next time thank you there are no other hands

023raised at this time thank you next we move on to public hearings next business meeting makes Kelly do we have public hearings scheduled for next business meeting yes at the Tuesday May 2nd Planning Commission meeting which will be at 7 pm there will be a public hearing for 999 Maiden Lane a site plan and rezoning for city council approval this project includes a rezoning petition to amend the conditions of the C1 AR campus business residential with conditions zoning designation by removing the condition that the property shall only be developed as the 1140 Broadway planned project site plan as may be administratively amended end quote because two of the three approved buildings have been constructed and a site plan application to construct a 180 200 square foot seven story residential building on the building b side

024of the Beekman Broadway development replacing the previously approved building with similar dimensions in this location the zoning district and development site are 6.4 acres and Building B site is 1.4 acres thank you all right moving on there's no unfinished business and less at this time anyone wants to move for previous agenda items yeah you could make that motion now it would uh it it could happen at any point in the agenda prior to commission proposed business the bylaws would not permit you to take action on any petition during commission proposed business but this would be an appropriate time if if the Planning Commission desires would it be appropriate for us to at least have a discussion in this period of time would you guys be open to having a discussion um I would propose that

025you make the motion to add it Amendment to the agenda that would be a forum for the discussion and then if based on that discussion you choose not to that vote would be the outcome of that okay then they'll all make that motion so this would be a motion to add um I guess item call it 9B potentially other business uh uh reconsideration of 2929 Plymouth yep yes so moved by commissioner Lee second by commissioner White your questions about reconsideration oh yeah so I it's always open for discussion or okay okay um I just want to better understand because because I I hear everybody um and I'm we're obviously getting a lot of public comment about this as well so um to be clear this is currently zoned office am I correct correct so the

026kind of use we would have far limitations we wouldn't be constrained by uh height but we'd be constrained by far if they were to proceed to try and redesign for a tc1 type development correct office is far regulated and not high regulated okay so in essence what we are asking them to do is to say or at least what what I heard the last commenter ask for specifically was please try to redesign for tc1 which is not currently the zone would that be an accurate statement so I there was a lot of discussion I've what I heard from the commission as part of the findings of denial of the special exception use was that the special exception use requires consistency with the city's comprehensive plan and I think commissioner Soviet sort of actually during that

027deliberation kicked it off kicked off this this item and other commissioners it resonated from from my recollection that granting the special exception used for drive through lanes that was inconsistent with our goals for evolving this as a Transit Corridor the use of tc1 other items um there's a lot of other discussion about sustainability about questions about the site development but for my lens I thought that was particularly relevant to the special exception use standards and the denial of that of course came hand in hand then with the site plan that reflected drive-through lanes that once that special access exception use standards are not found then that site plan was no longer compliant with with those standards so um that's those are the findings I considered of course now the petitioner is requesting not reconsideration and

028special exception the site plan for more time to amend the site plan to be reflective our current codes specifically removing drive-throughs of course and then also the letter indicates uh uh heating the building without Natural Gas but um alternatively they could seek tc1 zoning they could redesign something else under the office District too much or answering your question oh no I think that answers my question um thank you uh I I want to speak from a practical standpoint kind of following up on commissioner weisha's line of at least questioning and inquiring about this particular topic let's say that again postulating that we don't hear this or it gets voted down essentially the reconsideration thereof would it just be a hindrance an annoyance for the petitioner would they bring it back basically just having paid the

029fees again so I just I'm trying to better understand from a practical standpoint what are our options here so I just try to understand yeah again practically what what decision we're faced with yeah I want to be clear I haven't gone to that depth of understanding with the petitioners of the commission would like to discuss that you're welcome to I think practically speaking again I think that um I I feel like the petitioner has heard some of the concerns that were raised by the Planning Commission I recognize that not all of the concerns that were raised at Planning Commission nor all of the concerns that have been raised by the comments subsequent to that in any in either circumstance considering this plan devoid of a special exception use is going to be a permitted use

030in the office District subject to those regulations if it is not reconsidered and the petitioner chooses to file a new site plan that same condition will apply so from my lens the petitioner has offer is offering some sustainability Provisions that are above and beyond for example what the minimum requirements are of the code um so I I haven't gone to the depth to say that those would go away if we started over or from from that perspective but that's my premise that I think it's reasonable to continue evaluation of this site plan for some of those reasons gotcha so this might be an opportunity to try and I I don't want to use the word leverage but to say that we better understand their commitments to sustainability I think that's that's what they're saying in

031their letter that they're interested in presenting more of that commitment as part of a project could is it appropriate for me to ask the commit uh the petitioner to give me an idea of is that an okay question to ask at this time I just want to hear from them essentially what they're thinking yeah I'm fine with that this time oh God so what are you guys thinking from like again practically if if this doesn't get reconsidered you guys just gonna submit another site plan saying hey I'm going buy right so it's just gonna cost me more time and money but this is gonna happen or like I guess I'm trying to better understand sure uh thank you for that so yes we we would are still interested in building on the um property that

032we own um so we probably would submit a new application if that's the the direction we need to go we had a long conversation with your staff as well as our team for options and just to save everyone in time and we just felt like it might be more appropriate to go this route um we are we did hear the Commissioners we are listening to the the members of the community of which is why we have elected to um remove the special use that we were attempted for even though we felt it was part of our business model and witness system of our members with either handicaps or other other needs that they have for wanting to choose a drive-through in addition to evaluating other sustainability options in addition to the one that was pointed

033out as far as heating it without Natural Gas does that answer it it does it seems like you guys would bring forth if this was not a reconsideration you guys would just simply bring it back under another application is that accurate summation yes that would be accurate yes okay gotcha um and I guess I I would like to just kind of um hone in on one one of the things you had said here which was we've listened to the community and one of the things that they just spoke about I think you know what five ten minutes ago was a 15-minute neighborhood additional benefits you know again from access of magnetization of neighborhood and and connectivity and porosity so just um I want to better understand you know other than the drive-throughs whether those kinds

034of comments um what what you would say to the commenter that just spoke Alex and one of the things we had discussed just to give an example and of course we haven't gone through um actually we're looking at we have regular design meetings so as a group we haven't completely fully talked about this and designed it but what would it look like if we added you know any sort of bench or kind of Park area on our space somewhere we did that at our Carpenter Road location we added because they were trying to do more walkability and they have bus stops a lot of people commute via vehicular means and so we added bench benches and kind of a a nice resting place for people that they could just kind of sit and watch if

035you're a people Watcher or I just want to rest and wait for the the bus it's a little bit further away so we were looking at some of those discussing some of those options as well gotcha understood um and please remind me what is the current use of the site and the utilization of that office building right now as it stands as you guys are the owner um as far as like square footage is that what you're oh yeah what's a building being used for right now is it occupied is it yeah the Carpenter Road or I'm sorry the 29th 29 29th yeah it is it is currently um empty space it is empty it's fake and it is parking lot okay yeah gotcha understood um just wanted to again better understand kind of what

036decision we're faced with whether um all we're doing is delaying um I guess what you guys will bring forth again for a buy right consideration I think I set up this in in the last meeting or when we revised this review this the first time um from stormwater retention uh coming bringing that up to standards I saw as a public benefit electrification would be a public benefit and I think consideration of even maybe a triangular dedication of a cut through path with some greeneries that would allow for better connectivity to the bus stop would be something that I I would find more comfort in doing but I think it was just helpful for me to hear because I I haven't made up my mind yet about the way this is going I know I think

037I'm looking at you know the rest of the Commissioners I think I have an understanding of where they're likely going to go with this but I wanted to at least give due process and listen to all of the parties involved so thank you oh yeah of course uh I I'll yield my time because I think I have an understanding of what's happening so I'll defer to my other Commissioners thanks commissioner white um just a clarification of the site plan would the with this the new site plan also include the division of the property and does that stop at the planning table or does that go to a council I was trying to look it up in the UDC but I couldn't find it could be a condition of site plan approval so effectively uh the

038Planning Commission would be adding that condition land divisions actually can be approved administratively in this case it would be a condition of any site plan approval based on the arrangement of the site and what's the Collision of that in the conflicting land use buffer um isn't that going to lock that site time will tell the ordinance revisions committee will be looking at conflicting land use buffer language but currently if that lot is split and residential uses would become present next to it then the conflicting land use buffer would in that case apply both to the north and to the West so it would make the parcel very challenging to develop on so it would like almost force it into a PUD probably not as much as Club impacts r4c development but it would it would

039remove some some buildable area okay so this is a problem of the um of the UDC and where we sit not necessarily an issue with the petitioner so they they bought the land the land is zoned how we've zoned it they they're bringing a site plan that matches the zoning and we are realizing oh that's not really what we would love to have there but we haven't done the work to say what we want there so we're in this I think someone adequately called it an inflection point where we are running into the age of our UDC or the comprehensive land use which informs the UDC however we mince those terms and and that's really what we're kind of struggling with because otherwise this is just by right so we all we're really deciding is

040do we want them to start over or not and just personally if that's all we're deciding I I don't think it makes sense to force them to start over um personally but I think um this gets to a larger issue which is the The Neighbors in a very agreeable way don't want a single story single-use development here they have communicated that to us um do we have a tool to remedy that and how would that intersect with this petition so I I think the way that you summarized it I would I agree with I think that that's a that's a great overview to the question um that's a question that I just want to be honest I'm wrestling with and we are wrestling with there are a lot of there's a lot of um aspects

041to that obviously we have rezoned some corridors to tc1 we have not yet had development proposals on those subsequent to that city council has specifically directed us to make some modifications to the tc1 that is we've had some conversations at this table about making those changes and modifications so that as that District expands to other areas of the city we have addressed those concerns there was some concerns at at the rezoning of the stadium corridor there was concern at the council level about whether to rezone that but for these directives that they've that the city council has now directed The Planning Commission to look at you're seeing the first of those this evening there's another piece of that which is the right-of-way um so we are attempting to from my perspective we need to address

042those changes so that when the tc1 district starts getting added to other quarters in the city it is done with the confidence of both this body and the city council that it is an appropriate district for those areas and so I think that the frustrations from The Neighbors in this case is that that work has not gone fast enough to be at a position where that's done today yeah okay all right commissioner dish yeah that's right so but I I really liked your question commissioner white which was do we have any tools to get something closer to what we wish it would be or not we so we have an obligation under this case to consider this site plan well we don't have any obligation to consider this site plan but if a new site

043plan comes in we have an obligation to measure that against the UDC so I would say in short we don't have tools we cannot force this applicant to apply to rezone their property to tc1 the city council or the Planning Commission could elect to rezone initiate a rezoning of that Corridor or this property but again the messaging that I have heard from our policy makers in the direction that you have received as the Planning Commission is that we want to see changes to that District before it goes forward and and I am emphasizing that that came out of some uncertainty at the application of that District to the stadium Road Corridor and so replicating that uncertainty before those questions are answered from My Lens doesn't seem like the appropriate path I understand that that doesn't

044satisfy all urgency and there might be differing perspectives on that for sure but that's how I am approaching it as as the planning manager so I guess what I would say is that I appreciate that the petitioner is listening to the sustainability to the Energy Efficiency concerns that were raised in our last discussion um and at base I think the objection to this project beyond the drive-through which was a significant element that was because it is trip intensive I believe was the term we used last time it's very much at odds uh with the desire for a more walkable City picture of a more walkable City or one other key feature of a more walkable City is dense efficient use of land and this is not that and so if you really wanted to hear

045us in my fantasy what would come back is a two-story project because you want to have a bank and you want to have a conference center and you want to have a place where you can counsel people on how to get loans these were things that if I'm remembering you talked about which I thought were laudable can't that be done in two stories and with a less of a footprint and with less you know with not so large of a setback that's one of our concerns is that the more things that we get on this Corridor that are that have large setbacks the harder it is for it to be a place where people genuinely want to walk because it just feels weird even if you're not walking in front of a huge parking lot

046it feels weird to walk in front of a huge field of grass um so that and obviously I can't all I can say is that that's what I think is laying at the base of this is this desire for denser more efficient use of land and that desire makes sense to me because we are a very built out city and we are a very expensive city and we don't want to be an expensive city because an expensive city is an exclusionary City and so you're asking to use a lot of land to do not very much in the neighbor's eyes right it's one thing it's one thing that they see a lot of on the corridor so um I take your point commissioner watch that it seems um the words that are coming to mind

047are so judgmental that I don't want to use any of them but that that pointless is good okay it seems pointless merely to refuse to reconsider so that this might take a month or six weeks longer and the petitioner has to pay another fee well that doesn't seem very um but on the other hand I don't know that I want to make it easier to build something that isn't a dense and efficient use of land in a place that is very built up and where the building up where the that condition that we are all working under is really having significant consequences for people's principles so I am torn more discussion on the motion about many agenda commissioner wait so I just want to come back to the tool question that I think I asked

048or maybe commissioner dish took it over so we'll don't know who to give who to give credit to so um it um I think the challenge I agree that the motion to reconsider probably makes sense because it doesn't make a lot of sense to just force it back into the piece the the question that I was asking about the tool is not exclusive to um making a zoning change right because we could propose a zoning change and then go through the process of a zoning change but that might be spot zoning so I don't know what the rules are around that type of apparatus but do we have incentives at this point are there fees that could be waived are there things that could be expedited that incentivize the petitioner to realize what we are

049hearing from the community and what some sense at the table is um indicating so it's office and residential is permitted in office I I couldn't find out other than the far how much residential they could do are there things where if the petitioner were were agreeable to consider we have inside the city to make their development and the work that they're doing easier for them and it helps the neighborhood because I I think what I'm just trying to assess is is there a win-win uh here the petitioner already has the property it's already zoned they they have every right to build what we have told them is permitted there period and are there tools where we can say if you build this this might go better there are things that are coming in the development

050that if you were to consider we could um move around I don't know that's what I meant by a tool not just a UDC change because I understand we we can't affect the UDC change in the midst of this because that would probably open us up to some legal challenges ah in short I'm not aware of that tool but I I would say that the petitioners here asking for an accommodation they've already provided some um Beyond minimum standard modifications um I feel I I can't I I wish I could be confident and promise you that I could guarantee you but some outcome here in either circumstance but I I do think that by continuing our relationship with this petitioner on this site plan I just feel that it is a a better position for us

051as the community to to sit with them at the table maybe we could explore um a reducing the footprint overall of the site potentially in the absence of drive-throughs to still accomplish their goals and sort of try to make the development as compact as as it might possibly be but again at the end of the day I want to be clear we we have to respond to the application that's in front of us but I I I think that the best tool with this case is saying thank you for your thank you for listening we have a couple other things that we'd like to explore with you another way that we could do that frankly is we could instead of postponing this to a date Stern as you could table this to make sure that

052we have the space with the project team to come to work towards the best project we can I want to be clear I don't I don't I wouldn't intend for that to mean it's going to be a year but rather than being constrained by that specific date if there are some um some modifications that we're exploring with them that we that staff thinks is receptive to some of the concerns that either the neighbors have raised or the Planning Commission is raised that might give us a little bit more space to address those um but at the end of the day whether it's I want to be clear if the Planning Commission does it does do this and at some point staff says hey it would be great if you eliminated this parking space so it'd

053be great if you considered this additional non-motorize if those aren't required standards um ultimately um they would have the ability to say thanks for your advice but no thanks come on Shirley for again procedural basis how many votes does it take to would all six have to basically no in the case and in the case of this it would be a majority of those presents so in that if you um based on the motion here would require four affirmative votes to amend the agenda and then it would require four affirmative votes for a reconsideration and the corresponding table and gotcha understood and I I do want to clarify kind of again my position on this the reason I asked what's the current utilization of the site is that it's vacant it is a vacant office

054building um to me what's important is the health safety and general welfare of the community right I want this to be a healthier Community I want this to be a safer community and to me the concern I have is there being a bus stop right now um so let's say that we you know make this slightly more for lack of a better word obnoxious for the petitioner right we push it back uh we tell them hey let's redesign what mixed use development requires a different Capital stack requires a different Vision a vision that seems to be more aligned with frankly the comprehensive plan so that's what we're trying to weigh right now right and so I'm of the mindset that um it it takes a lot more time so how long does it sit before

055you know I'd rather see kind of again a cleaned up productive eyes on the street Jane Jacobs kind of concept where we have a safer healthier community so I mean obviously the drive through lanes were not in concert with that but keeping this property vacant for a longer period of time also I mean again it's trade-offs and so I'm looking at it from that standpoint of what is the decision we can make tonight as a body that is in concert with the greatest amount of improvement in safety greatest Improvement in health and without knowing all of the variables right I mean obviously this is a lot of consideration so that that's I just wanted to say from that time timeline standpoint of uh I'm not going to say it's inevitable this is happening but uh

056you know the petitioners indicated they'll bring it again and so that that's where my consideration comes in it sits fake in it's it you know there's no eyes on the street and it is you know it sits for another several years and that's not necessarily something I want either so that that is kind of again from my standpoint and so I wanted to kind of clarification so it requires the majority um not necessarily the the six that it requires to advance something um also uh but I would like to also hear um from actually commissioner sovay specifically only because you did make fairly compelling arguments last time about you know this isn't a spurious denial we have had specifically tc1 allocated it isn't tc1 but I just need to refresh myself where that's codified and

057and where that Community goes so I'd love to hear from you kind of on uh your thoughts regarding this and what what are the rationales that just going through your mind currently um sure the grounds are special exception use we have the discretion and Liberties to deny uh based on that and part of the special special exceptionary standards are um applying it as it relates to our comprehensive plan we need documents and I didn't believe that it meant several of the goals of our conference planning documents and so with that the special exception used and the site plan together got denied in the context of today I believe that the tool that we have is time in actually a positive we are discussing tc1 the petitioner is here to hear some of the progress and

058the goals of tc1 um I understand that we're talking about conflicting land use buffers in the immediate future which could have an impact on this site as well and adjacent and so both of those discussions are immediate that the petitioner can take into consideration where those discussions lay to reapply to an updated site plan simultaneously being able to start again allows them not to kind of like band-aid and tuck point some of these issues but a reconsideration from the full traffic standpoint there were concerns but you know fire truck Point access bus access and things like that so I I think that there are uh eminent discussions around other policy immediately like in the coming weeks that may not be adopted immediately but depending on the duration of reconsideration about a petitioner it could actually

059influence the design more than deleting the parking or the Brazilian the drive-through Lanes um and so I think it's it's things like that that really uh make me kind of consider like what would happen in in the time it's really hard for me to believe that based on the goals um kind of stated and even what the petition wants to incorporate that this would be ready for reconsideration in two months so at that point how many times are we noticing this versus the opportunity to reset and do a full notice by postcard again so those are the things that I'm weighing in terms of notification if not to a date certain how do we re-engage the community if this takes longer than the date that we set tonight and what are the um current things

060on our working plan that the petitioner can now engage in because I think a lot of the discussion from last time was about haven't you been paying attention these are very con consistent discussions about drive-throughs this cannot be the first time that you're hearing about this if you've been working on this project within the city for quite a while so I think that these conversations are public and can be considered so that's my take thank you no I appreciate that feedback and then also again a respect your opinion so um I I wanted to hear um from me again uh Mr Leonard um you had proposed a separate kind of modification of the emotion in one which we may be able to table can you refresh us on that well to be clear in either

061circumstance it would require reconsideration of the motion I in my memorandum to the Planning Commission I propose is a postponement to a date certain I think that was from largely a perspective of the site would not change significantly other than the removal of the drive through and adding the condition of electrification my hypothesis is just instead of modifying a postponing it to a date certain if the Planning Commission chooses to reconsider tabling action that means there wouldn't be a date certain I want to be clear in either case of either a postponement or a tabling because of the nature of this process the public hearing will be re-noticed that's distinct if the item would have been postponed at the previous public hearing because that there could be individuals who were noticed of that meeting and

062are not here to understand even if the Planning Commission shows that so that will be re-noticed to commissioner sovay's point if it is not reconsidered additional notification will go out based on our citizen participation requirements but if more time if we weren't under a deadline of the 21st it might afford staff and the petitioner more opportunity to come up with some other Creative Solutions uh thank you but but I want to be clear to your question I those they are likely going to be more modest than for the reasons that you are I think articulated that drastically reconceiving this building and its financing model would be pretty different so I'm thinking about more of just scale its Arrangement on the site its relationship to the other sites so I I just want to be honest

063about expectations and where I would see movement sure sure I understand and again the alternative is we don't move to reconsider and they will likely bring back another site plan so um I will take that into consideration for that I will move to reconsider the motion on a tabling basis we're still in discussion okay yeah I apologize yeah we're deep into this cool I'll offer one more kind of question to this sorry I'm I'm stretching this conversation about the motion of the agenda item because I like if we don't talk about it now and it fails we don't get to talk about it the next step so let's just get all of it out now um and um I guess my question like from the letter from the petitioner there's no guarantees of electrification it's

064just an accommodation that they've said that they would do but when it comes back there's no guarantee that we have to hold them to it it still would come back as a buy right present a plan that doesn't include that um in other site plans though I will note that when petitioners are responding to those Community goals we do when they're offered voluntarily and they are memorialized then as in a development agreement so they do become obligations of the site but you're right it this plan could come back and say yeah we looked at it no we don't want to do that yeah and that's like in in both cases the same scenario of it okay I just want to open up that up to the table any further discussion commission I just want to

065clarify one thing that you just said um so you memorialize in a development agreement so even though the city does not require electrification right now if it's in the development agreement the petitioner is required to do it once they've passed Planning Commission correct okay I think we're ready for a vote we are vote sorry we are voting on the motion to amend the agenda to add reconsideration of 2929 Plymouth roadside plan approval as item 10A other business [Music] well maybe Maybe the wrong spot it'll work on the motion to amend the agenda to include 2929 Plymouth commissioner Lee yes commissioner Hammerschmidt no commissioner no commissioner dish yes commissioner Clark no commissioner Weiss no uh this emotion fails okay so now we are moving on to regular business which includes tc1 yes I'd like to say

066I'm recusing myself from the discussion of tc1 on the basis that my employer owns property in tc1 thank you commissioner Lee um and so this I hand it over to Steph report to start yeah um I'm going to turn it over to city planner Alexis DeLeo for uh an overview of the proposed amendments oh you're fine uh no we're fine um actually we're going to give commissioner Lee the opportunity to recuse himself from the room commissioner Lee based on that action I think you should go home um so uh before Alexis kicks off the presentation I just want to be clear um regardless of the outcome this evening I know that this motion will fail you have a quorum to conduct business however you don't have with uh commissioner Lee's recusal we don't have six

067affirmative votes to pass action this happens from time to time I want to be clear it will be reported onto the city council as a recommendation of denial from the Planning Commission but they will also be shared with the record that would show whatever the outcome of that vote is um my rationale is um that this per our last discussion there's a lot of interest I think in getting this District in the best shape as possible and so my intention is to continue moving this um regardless of the challenges that we've had with attendance tonight um again I don't know what the outcome of your vote is but because there are not six members present it will clearly not be for approval foreign like a a law that says because we don't it's in your

068bylaws okay so then since it's in our bylaws then why can't could I make a motion for us to postpone this to the next meeting so that we could vote on this because and the only reason why I am asking that question is Council it's my understanding that Council looks to planning to understand where things are moving as it comes to their table they have their own ability to vote at their table but they also want to understand how planning is weighing in on some of these pieces and I think that's sort of evident in our last meeting where staff said denial and then the table had a very long conversation and it passed six two so that information is important when it goes to the council table and we're going to lose our ability

069to communicate through our vote to the council table now I'm just concerned about like why are we doing that sure um so your first question of course the planning convention always has the option to approve something deny something or postpone action on it so that is definitely an option in this case um I I concur uh the report of uh hypothetically if all five Commissioners here president voted in favor of the proposed amendments that transmission would be a denial because it doesn't mean six votes but it would also reflect that all members present were supportive of that action I will say that there have been circumstances in the past where the city council I think has seen the totality of that record and understood the circumstances of of a case like this frankly where um

070based on some peculiar scenarios of our attendance there was we were unable to achieve the required number of votes um I can't speak for the city council how they would project that what the vote would have been if the president the presence were there so in short it's a possibility for the sake of a lot of work ahead I have of the mind and I would advise the Planning Commission to take your votes here and let's progress it to city council I think that city council is hungry for these changes based on a lot of the conversation of the previous item and other conversations that they're hearing so the nuances of that I think the downside of that singular voice of Planning Commission that is a that's unfortunate that if otherwise there would have been

071more members here it would have been a different outcome I think the totality of that record will not be lost on Council and it'll afford US the ability to move that forward and get on to the next work would we have the capacity to officially amend the motion like if we made amendments to the motion and then voted on those amendments prior that would be official record yes yes okay so we could pass on an amended motion that failed correct but at least the um the per the discussion we could amend it and then send that to council to understand maybe some changes to it the bylaws stipulate that six votes are required for items of advice items to the city council and so whatever actions you take at this table happen but six affirmative

072votes have to that signifies a recommendation of approval or denial to yep so it's four votes still to amend it and three three now three from the because now we're down to five three votes to officially amend it and then we have a formal record of any amended if there's discussion and decision to do that and then that proceeds but it will always in this case proceed as a fail yep okay option I don't know that it's necessary I I just want to acknowledge that I think there is some complexity here because I do think that when Council kind of returned tc1 to the Planning Commission is with some requests that I do not think the Planning Commission is necessarily fully in sympathy with Council on so the the complex situation tonight is if it

073fails because it has to but also because you don't like some of the changes that are being made and so that is the harder that may be the harder message to communicate but since there is the ability to amend ment um the council members I'm fairly confident have the ability to read so they will they can read our minutes and I can report the sense of the discussion and I will do so fairly regardless of where I stand on the things that are discussed here but it is true that we are missing some voices who raise crucial refinements often to the things that we're looking at it's just you know what I'm hearing from my colleagues on Council is a tremendous impatience which I have some frustration about because it's April 18th I mean we

074were told when we sent this back that we wouldn't get everything back until the summer it's not summer it's November out there so you know so I I am worried that a postponement is going to start a little brush fire so I would kind of rather that you trusted that the minutes any amendments you make and my report of the sense of the discussion would not lose your Nuance if we feel we can proceed without the expertise that we're missing because we are missing some considerable expertise so Alexis take it away thank you let me share my screen oh my God all right thank you oh I'm not at the beginning okay we are at the beginning all right thank you before you this evening are some amendments to the unified development code can you

075get your mind closer I'm sorry even closer even closer yes all right got it all right um tonight before you is um amendments to the UDC related to the tc1 transit Corridor District foreign these amendments are to allow vehicular uses I'm sorry these amendments are to allow vehicular sales and rentals specifically the thanks it's automobile motorcycle Recreation vehicle equipment sales and rental is what is in the primary use table to allow this in the tc1 district second to allow automobile truck and construction equipment repair as a primary use in the tc1 district and to redesign the transit Corridor development use specific standards table to clarify the building topologies and application of the standards let me start with a tiny bit of background not super in-depth but the tc1 district was created in 2021 it is

076our newest zoning District added to the UDC it's in supposed to be located along existing Transit corridors to realize mixed-use developments and mixed-use corridors and to support and sustain Transit service which means increasing housing Choice housing affordability sustainability and decreasing resource and energy needs from those developments um the reason we are bringing forth these amendments is city council passed a resolution in December asking to the Planning Commission to evaluate and recommend some amendments specifically to incorporate some limited automobile related uses but there was a note to exclude drive-throughs and gas stations and Council asked us to address constraints of the existing narrow rights of way primarily thinking of the West Stadium Boulevard area but or any place where tc1 may be is or may be applied tonight we are only addressing the first element incorporating

077limited automobile related uses we will have to come back to you in the future to discuss addressing those constraints of the existing narrow rights of way the 31 District is a version of form-based code similar to our downtown zoning districts D1 and D2 but the tc1 district has is heavy into and has a lot of form-based code elements as a reminder to level the discussion form-based codes are a way to regulate development that controls building form first and building you second some people also describe it as a means of regulating land develop Land Development to achieve a specific Urban form or Land Development regulation using physical form rather than separation of land uses as the organizing principle our tc1 district has some minimums some maximums some must have some of those form standards highlights are

078there are minimums include a two-story buildings the first floor height has to be 15 feet and that allows for a variety of uses long term into the future regardless of what the initial use is 60 for slower transparency must-haves include functional entrances facing the street the building spans 70 percent um of the lot Frontage at least we require smaller block designs for larger sites we have a 15 foot maximum setback um a footnote is that is for mixed-use buildings not for residential apartment buildings those can go 20 feet we have a maximum of one curb cut we maximize the vehicular use area at either 100 or 125 percent of the building footprint so that the dominant use of the site by surface area is not parking we have maximum Heights and we have a maximum

079diagonal dimension for that building The Limited automobile related uses we are suggesting to incorporate um our vehicle sales summarized without the full titles but vehicle sales and rental and vehicle repair um we recommend Vehicles these um and we recommend taking them together we feel that there are so many of interrelated nists to these sales and rentals sometimes businesses could um repair and then rent out what they sell or vice versa sometimes repair can be attached to retail Parts and Service Parts and such there they work very well together um and we are recommending approval be relying on for our form-based codes for newly established businesses vehicle repair or sales and rental businesses the tc1 standards are triggered by new development and if someone is any business whether it be these limited automobile related or any

080other business of any sort if they are willing to build to our form then we we can can well confidently welcome them into the into the district in that sense um selling brand new automobiles is no different than selling T-shirts or bananas um it's going to be in the same building typology um and then for existing businesses our rezoning of some of these corridors um both the West Stadium Maple Corridor and the state and Eisenhower Corridor are pretty much built out they have there are but one or two vacant sites on each of those and that means there are some of these existing limit existing automobile related uses we have made them non-conforming our code takes a very hard line you either have a conforming site and you can make all of your improvements whether

081big or small incrementally or you're a non-conforming use and you need to be phased out we can discuss regulating non-conforming uses in a different topic but for now there is really no middle area and making these existing businesses back to conforming does open up again the potential for incremental improvements towards compliance so it they might be in one story buildings now but this is uh would slightly incentivize bringing those not punishing the the uses and then focusing on getting the forms to where we'd like our batch of amendments also includes some table redesign of table 516-2 the tape we um you know of course I thought this was the best table ever um it had it um provides the regulations into two classifications for lot widths up to 250 feet and then lot widths over

082there were three building typologies mixed-use buildings townhouse apartment buildings and all buildings broken up into five categories with horizontal lines and columns and colors and it's not as intuitive as um as one hopes so we've proposed we proposed both a reason design and some amendments that seem to come naturally out of these uh the table redesign um it just has sort of three categories talks about sites how to lay out your site talks about building um building regulations and then just a little bit about some specific buildings the specific buildings are townhouses and apartment buildings or not townhouse and apartment buildings um and we've added some numbers and headings for easier discussion talking on the phone looking at it you know commonality um and we've also made an attempt to really reduce the repetition um

083between the two or between all of the the standards I'll go through the substantive table amendments um and I do believe that this provides a little bit better than the staff report may have um they don't conflict but I think this goes this visually goes a little bit better um nevertheless we've added a heading called development Arrangement and it comes from the previous standard that says in originally when the site is more than 62 500 square feet the site must be designed as blocks 250 feet on each side or as near as practical given the site shape with sidewalks pauses or drives separating the blocks and we've proposed an amendment that when the site is 200 site is that size it must be designed as two or more blocks with sidewalks plazas drives or private

084streets or proposed public rights of ways separating the blocks we have removed the 250 foot Mark but hold on it comes back for building Frontage there were three standards one was minimum Frontage equals to lot width less 30 feet or 45 when adjacent to residential zoning or a minimum of 75 feet or I'm sorry 70 or 75 percent proposing a change and the substantive part is that there's no 75 requirement it's 70 percent um and the minimum Frontage is 70 percent of the lot width but we do allow that as long as there's 30 feet between the building and side Lot line normally or 45 feet those 30 and 45 foot numbers were chosen because um 30 feet is the side setback um I'm sorry 30 feet is when provides you with a conflicting land

085use buffer if necessary and the width of a driveway 45 feet provides the side setback required when you're adjacent to residential so you can still have you can still have a driveway and maximize the building Frontage um and it was a point of confusion that if you were to divide your site as blocks like we asked how then do you measure the frontage is it based on the original dimension of the site or is it based on the blocks and the additional separation you've inserted into your design so we've clarified it with if the site is divided into smaller blocks as required the minimum Frontage applies to each block for transparency we have proposed to actually strike the language that was written and to refer to a section 517 6c2 which I've repeated below here

086that section is for the buildings in the D1 and D2 district and so rather than repeat the language in two different spots in the code but um this language is a little bit clearer provides a little more detail a little more tried and true we've been using it in the downtown and has a little more specificity about exactly how do you measure and Achieve that transparency um for building Dimensions we've combined that 250 foot block length that we had mentioned previously and the maximum diagonal so the building with parallel to the street may not exceed 250 feet pulling that standard from previously because that's what we sort of meant the 250 feet standard comes from downtown the width of the private property on our smallest downtown blocks which we are using for a proxy a

087very comfortable pedestrian scale blocks is 250 feet but if you add the width of the sidewalks adjacent to those blocks the depends on how you define block do you define a property line to property line do you define it from one including both sidewalks do you go to Center Line of the road to the center line or the next Road here so it doesn't matter we've removed that confusion about how do you measure a block and switched it to the maximum width of the building parallel to the street is 250 feet and then please add your sidewalks and plazas and so forth and the maximum diagonal Dimension remains at 360 feet that's the diagonal Dimension if you provide a building that's 250 square and finally um clarifying what you clarifying where we are prohibiting residential

088uses and what does a and that not all intersections are the same previously it said mixed-use buildings couldn't have the portion of the first story within 100 feet of an intersection or had to be occupied by non-residential uses for townhouse apartment buildings not permitted within 100 feet of an intersection of public rights of way this was all-encompassing this included then the intersection of state and Eisenhower but it also included the intersection of Collingwood and Abbott which are you know vastly different scales it would be appropriate to have residential within 100 feet of of say Collingwood and Abbott so this has been switched to residential uses are not permitted on the first floor of a mixed-bused building within a hundred feet of a signalized intersection and similar to the townhouse and apartment buildings and I think

089yes so this concludes our substantive amendments um it's a lot I'm happy to break down or go over any additional um either related to the auto related to Auto uses or the substantive or redesigned of the table elements but planning staff are recommending approval of this as we all understand the vote tonight May at best would be five to zero um it can be characterized as the vote um is not so much denial I think that city council will understand the vote is not so much denied as it did not reach six votes now if the vote is zero to five that would be different but if it's five to zero I believe our city council has experience in that it doesn't mean it has been denied but it means that it has just failed

090to reach the minimum threshold any question oh public hearing I'm sorry thank you Miss DeLeo so uh now we're going to move on to public hearing this is an opportunity for persons to speak up to three minutes about the proposed UDC amendments to the tc1 zoning District we will first call individuals present to address the commission then remote participants to speak during the public hearing remotely press star nine if listening by phone and usually raise hand for sure if viewing via the web link for phone access call 877-853-5247 and enter median ID 977-6634-1226 City staff will select callers that have raised their hand using last three digits of your phone number or by name if available for those X as seen through the web link you will hear an automated announcement that the host is

091allowing 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 first we'll go to anyone present I do not see anyone we have a lot more chairs in here though that you just start to notice we are packed with chairs again okay um is there anyone that would like to address the commission remotely Miss Kelly there are currently three hands raised our first color is Adam yaskevich who permission to address the commission hi this is Adam jaskiewicz 1430 Las Vegas Drive I live in the dickin neighborhood adjacent to the West Stadium tc1 Corridor um while I'm not a big fan of changing the allowed uses

092for tc1 before we even see any new development coming out of it I've been following these discussions I understand why you're considering making this change I also understand that this will be um I guess technically denied um tonight which I guess is the best kind of tonight um what I've had what I have a hard time understanding is how most of these kinds of businesses are going to be compatible with a Transit Corridor having with pedestrian bus and bike traffic I think it will be difficult for developers to thread that needle we have a climate crisis and we have a traffic violence crisis and therefore we have committed to cutting vehicle miles traveled in half adding more car Centric uses is not compatible with that goal however looking at the ask from Council and from

093watching prior discussions on this topic it sounded to me like the intent was that these be added as a special exception use and that is what I was expecting to see tonight this would make the use consistent with our D1 and D2 zones which I believe was a point made in Prior discussions of this change in fact that is mentioned in the second whereas Clause from Council whereas some automobile related commercial uses I.E car rental and repair located in close proximity to housing are supportive of the goals of tc1 zoning District but currently aren't permitted by special exception use if you really must allow these uses in pc1 please consider making them a special exception use rather than a primary use so that you can retain at least some discretion in whether or not to

094allow these uses thank you our next caller is Adam Goodman you have permission to address the commission hi there Adam Goodman 400 Virginia Avenue um so I've spoken to you several times on tc1 before especially on the west EDM quarter near where I live and one of my principal arguments why we needed to move tc1 forward as quickly as we did is the idea that I think the community really does not want to see a lot of net New auto-oriented Uses along this corridor in fact I'm talking to you before I specifically noted a site on West Stadium advertising potential use as a car dealership and I asked is this really what we want I think it definitively is not rather we are trying to transform these corridors into dense Urban mixed use and mixed

095mode corridors and we are trying to further important city goals including reducing vehicle miles traveled by 50 so honestly I'm kind of baffled tonight by the suggestion that we re-allow these auto-oriented uses by right now I'm going to admit I've actually had some mixed feelings about certain kind of subcategories of these uses I do find it personally find it useful to have an auto repair shop in walking distance of my house I do understand that it will take incremental changes over time to reach the future that we're all envisioning and council member Briggs did make some Fair points in her resolution initiating this effort for example saying that enabling convenient car rental locations could actually help households reduce car use and ownership overall and that is after all what I want what I think a

096lot of us want I personally want a future where I no longer feel the need to be a car rider but for that to happen we do need to substantially transform our city so the question I think we need to ask more broadly tonight is how can we enable the flexibility we need in the short term and medium term recognizing Carson continue to be a necessity for some for now while still ensuring the policy we've adopted will help us get where we're we want to go now I actually kind of thought this was mostly subtle I thought that the doctrine of continuing non-conforming use was sufficient to address those near-term needs I'm hesitant to support you all going any further than that in one sense and yeah you know I can also see the rationale

097that says we should make tc1 more consistent with D1 and E2 I don't know maybe the answer is that D1 and D2 are the districts that need to change here not tc1 so in any case if you do feel the need to do something I think allowing some of these uses a special exception uses consistent with the current standards downtown is the most you should do tonight I think allowing these things to buy right is is totally contradictory to what we're trying to accomplish here I do not believe it will advance our goals thank you our next caller is Michelle Hughes you have permission to address the commission um shots and fortified to see a car uses being put on as a buy right primary use in these tc1 zones because it was my understanding

098that the whole point of tc1 is to take these neighborhoods that are on Transit corridors but are currently horrifying death strodes and turn them into um comfortable walkable neighborhoods and allowing car uses there is the opposite of that um and I could I could kind of understand when they said that when somebody said that having a rental having car rental in walking distance makes it easier to not have a car but um having a car sales definitely does not make it easier to not have a car you know that's promoting power use right there um and um you know it's a car a car sales lot a car repair lot that is not going to be the kind of thing that's fun to walk by even if it's in an attractive PC one building it's

099not something that's going to be activating the neighborhood and these are neighborhoods that need a lot of help because they're currently uh horrifying death strodes and um so I think we need to go as far as we can in in signaling that cars are guests here and aren't the primary residents of these neighborhoods because there's going to be a great temptation to um make car uses here and apply for special exception uses there are special exception uses available for these types of these types of purposes um and uh you know yeah even if you can make a car repair a lot downtown um people are less uh likely to do that because that's just not what is happening in downtown right now um but in these terrifying deathstrodes yes car culture is exactly what's happening

100here so we need to go further in countering the car closer um so please do not allow these car versus the common Rule and what's been happening thanks our next color is Brad pritz and one more hand raised after Brad pritz you have permission to address the commission uh thank you for the opportunity to speak to you Brad Fritz from 3030 Lexington uh Ward 2 and I am one who's dependent on the Plymouth Corridor so I watch this with interest uh let me take a different view from any of the other speakers let me say I agree very much with the long-term goals of tc1 sustainability and affordability those are both issues for our city that are very very important let me though add um for those of us including myself and my wife for

101a Mobility challenged the ability to have ready use of a car is very important and will be for the rest of my life however long that might be um and so let me say I like your approach to say let's have for for the building a less car-centric Community more carrots and fewer sticks and I think the approach of let's look at the form and so long as the use fits with our form designs then it should be allowed to go in you're not going to get a modern car dealer building under these constraints a car repair guy sure anyway um that's my comment thank you again for your consideration our next hand raised is Alex Lowe you can address the commission all right go ahead hi this is Alex Lowe calling again from South

102Southeast East Ann Arbor tc1 is great it is it's not perfect but it's and I really am look uh looking forward to developments that make it better unfortunately with uh with uh some of the proposes amendments from staff they say that chief what's what's proposed here with uh allowing car Centric businesses is basically a trojan horse being offered to the tc1 zone that if accepted would fundamentally undermine its purpose so much of the city is already dedicated to car Centric businesses and tc1 isn't going to force the existing businesses to change what does proposal would allow it is you concentric businesses to replace existing businesses that are far more amenable to uh to walk ability and Far More in line with tc1 so if we do really truly need uh need to allow this edition

103of some new car Centric businesses at GTC one I think it is reasonable to allow them only as special exceptions where the addition of that business will actually improve uh improve that tc1 as opposed to buy right which is just ridiculous at this point I'd also like to see some additional requirements to ensure that the changes are in line with the city's Vision to reduce carbon emissions and increase the sustainability for uh for example what uh one big one is don't allow this to be the uh the only use if you have to have a a car rental that's great put it in the parking garage along with a bunch of retail and some apartments uh easy uh second let's let's limit this and and say okay we're only going to uh allow this if

104all of the uh their cars there are electric and uh and third along with that let's make sure that uh that any of the uh any of the cars that are being rented out Etc the property owner provides green and renewable uh and energy to replace all of the energy consumption of those vehicles perhaps through unsight solar perhaps off uh offside with Etc thank you that's our last hand raised Madam chair thank you so now we will close the public hearing and I will read the motion uh so the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve amendments to chapter 55 unified development code section 5.15 and 5.16 to allow automobile motorcycle recreational vehicle equipment sales and rental as a primary use section 5.15 table 5.15-1 to allow automobile

105truck and construction equipment repair as a primary use section 5.15 table 5.15-1 and to redesign the transit Corridor development use specific standards table to clarify the building typologies and application of Standards section 5.16 table 5.16-2 moved by commissioner Hammerschmidt seconded by commissioner dish have discussion commissioner dish oops I wanted to ask a question about um the does the distinction between buy right and special exception use become less significant when you're working with a form-based code that is a great question and I'm I'm not um I guess I don't know I can I can mull it over and I can think about it um my death my working definition of a special exception use you know adoni district has a permitted principal uses meaning they are they are appropriate everywhere anywhere regardless of context and a

106special exception use is something that could be appropriate in that particular District based on context um and yes I can see arguments where if you have a form-based code that with which is very heavy well form-based code and it would if it's so strong in form it has dictated the it has dictated the context and therefore maybe there are no special exception uses in a form-based code I will say that our UDC is not a full form-based code it we borrow elements from it but it's not a full-on official form-based code so I want to say that the reason I asked that question is because as I was reading the staff report I was very oops I'm looking at the public comment right now yeah um I think I paraphrased it but this part I

107didn't existing form-based standards make us more confident to permit limited automobile related uses that's my paraphrase right there because we know that whatever else they will be they will have to conform to the things that we have said you have to do in tc1 to not recreate the landscape of a 1960s or 1970s shopping mall so I was open to that suggestion if I if it is a suggestion on your part part um but I but I am not sure that I think that there isn't still a place for the distinction between permitted uses and special exception uses even though we've kind of we've made all uses conform to something that creates a different environment than what is currently on these corridors it might still be the case that we want to consider carefully what

108kind of auto repair or Auto Sales it is and I don't think that we I I would be surprised if we could write into law we're only going to sell electric vehicles like we probably can't do that but if it's a special exception use we could think about which you know do we need a truck dealership and that was probably a rude thing I didn't mean that yeah right exactly I want the kind of truck that can run my house when DTE collapses um so I so I am I am I can see why we could use both it's not redundant and I could see also though that um that even if it's not a permitted use even if it's a special exception use we've still got the flexibility to encourage existing uses to modify

109themselves and get closer to what we're looking for rather than to simply be phased out I thought that was one of the very persuasive parts of your memo that as it is right now we kind of freeze whatever's there is Frozen the way it is and it's either a conforming thing and then we like that or it's a non-conforming thing and we're just waiting for it to die but that could take a long time bad things live a long time so um I I feel persuaded by that part of your memo around why we need to be open to thinking thinking about how the long term it's not as though we're trying to preserve these uses it's actually because we want to change them so but okay I'm sorry that's like too much of my

110thinking out loud but okay thank you what else okay I'll start with questions I have a lot okay I got really technical on this one um I got early attack um so I I guess I just maybe definitions to start outdoor sales permanent that's not outdoor sales of cars like that's already a permitted primary use can you give an example of what outdoor sales permanent would be when we had a Kmart at Maple Village it had a outdoor sales area where they used seasonally but that was a permanent outdoor sales space shown on the site plan where they put stuff for sale out there could be like a garden center or a lumber yard kind of side adjacent to a big box or anything else right okay I cannot there are very few of those

111in the city it's a um it's in most zoning ordinances you know is that you identify it and regulate it but that's what permanent outdoor sales are this would be compared to like if um a grocery store puts up a tent in their parking lot for two weeks in May to do flower sales or something like that but we have a temporary outdoor sales yes that's the difference between permanent outdoor sales um and Tamara and I yeah which might take over right I think parking spaces right I'm not 100 certain but like for example Bill's beer garden might be permanent outdoor sales it's not but it has parking spaces so it's a vehicular use area maybe that's not the maybe that is not like the one example then but I'm saying but like yeah so

112what I guess I I'm quite asking about that is there ever a condition that a vehicular use area and a permanent outdoor sales area would overlap as the same surface area or it could be adjacent to each other so right now we have vehicle use area 100 of the building footprint area but could you get like if you had a 100 000 square foot site and I had a 25 000 square foot building so thus I had a like single first floor building or like two-story building right 25 000 Square footprint then I could have a 25 000 square foot vehicular use area because that would match at 100 and then could I have a 25 or 50 percent of my lot coverage be outdoor permanent sales so all of a sudden I have a

113footprint of 25 building coverage and 75 open area I would say yes and no yes you can have those three uses on your site but the the permanent outdoor sales area doesn't it's not building footprint so it doesn't increase your side in the tc1 district it doesn't count towards the percentage or the surface area matching for the vehicle loose area right so like there it could it could be additive like but we still have minimum maximum setback standards that we need to cover so it's not like you can just push your building into a point Tower and have a big open space plan in tc1 in a lot of ways well you could have the big open space plan but it can't be a big parking lot right but it could be a big open

114outdoor sales it could be yeah okay I just wanna like I was like now that we're addressing short-term car storage that's a parking lot right what is short short terms to car versus medium term car both are not allowed in oh in tz1 right now but just to get definitions of what all these I'll let me see I'm sorry I told you the short-term cars are that's like less than seven days right uh so hold on I did highlight them but I just want like because they were still a little uh short term short term uh all it says is the site must have at least 87 000 square feet two acres of vehicular use area so we would not allow a site to be that large 87 000 square foot site two acres yeah

115two-way vehicular use with parking as approved with a p district on an approved site plan short-term car storage um is parking of personal privately owned vehicles and parking lots for up to 14 days this use is typically associated with car sharing services or park and ride Services okay and the only place that's currently eligible for this is the Briarwood parking lot okay because that's not car rentals because they're not personally owned correct okay um right so this is where like if you want to take the air ride from Briarwood to the to the airport and leave your car there I guess for free you can do that got it um and then the medium term it's like 30. is like 30 days um that enables someone within a large parking lot to say store vehicles

116um for the defined period of time which I believe is 30 days to more effectively use a parking lot um but again it's for how to better utilize super large parking lots so your site has to be zoned p and it has to have a certain size area um so those uses are not permitted in the TC one yeah I just want to kind of get a definition to be like does this fit under the you know why isn't Car Sales uh medium or short-term car storage you know outdoor car storage sort of thing that's uh that's I just want to kind of like understand why we have these separate categories and what exactly falls into it so yeah um so it could be I'm just trying to think of it in a scenario like

117Briarwood might give space in their parking area when they get an extra like an oversized shipment of cars for their dealership that don't fit on their lot yeah Briarwood has asked this came from I think of the time it was written there was a manufacturer that was doing recalls maybe Volkswagen or something and a nearby dealership received a big influx of cars that they needed to address and they couldn't store them on their site so they restored um I'm off-site and I yes I think this is um that's what you're getting at say you have a large shipment of vehicles that are not personally owned you don't need there's no point in you don't want someone to build a new parking lot just for this one purpose yeah let's utilize existing parking lots but that's

118where it is I think maybe what you're going I wonder if you're um when we when staff was considering allowing the automobile sales and sales and rental I think that the dealership the showroom portion is not the objectionable part that's where if you are inside of a building yeah you know um there's a population out there who may think walking past a showroom is great like see the new shiny cars it's the outdoor storage of the new inventory that's the objectionable part and in and I would argue in the tc1 district though that dealer owner will have to make a hard Choice you're only allowed so many parking spaces based on your building size are you going to use those for new vehicle inventory are you going to use those for customer or employee parking

119and if you're in a mixed use with like an auto dealership on the first floor something above it you've got to balance if you're providing that parking I think this is where some of the short-term medium-term parking come into play you can you can buy even a car online you don't you that we can have businesses that separate the showroom from the inventory spot and I think this was some of our reasoning why if a business such as auto sales or rental was willing to meet our Forum standards we can you can be that first floor use they will have to figure out someplace else for where they store their vehicles in a more appropriate spot so I guess I'm working kind of backwards from the logic of if we're selling cars versus TVs you

120know storing a product for sale um a car is a product in storage is that different you know is that different than car you know a car versus a product relative to what we call the space that it's stored in uh and I guess what I want to confirm is that there's no wiggle room that a parking space is also a car storage space relative to these two uses like there's no other space that a developer could build out to increase the amount of places you could put a car on a site in tc1 like we have maximum parking requirements and that would be kind of the one-to-one measurement of our form-based code of how many cars you could store relative to like fixing the truck or selling you have 80 parking spaces you can

121only have 80 cars and pick how you use them for customer parking or your stock and that you can't say oh well that's my outdoor sales area and you park them you know bumper to bumper like is that a lot like can you park cars Bumper to Bumper an outdoor sales area for a dealership I I do think that um so absent permanent outdoor sales I think the tc1 district is tight in that regard um I do think the definition of permanent outdoor sales would allow an outdoor auto dealership um outside of their parking counts it yes now now we could probably also have a discussion about is inventory storage part of the sales area or is that Outdoor Store outdoor storage right like are we is it right are they is that a sales

122there that people can walk through to look at the inventory or is it long-term storage that only staff can access to be able to like grab the keys and Shuffle it around yeah I'm just trying to break this into what's a Savvy car dealer would expand the amount of footprint for a car you know outdoor cars and I guess that's where I really see outdoor sales permanent is vague enough to maybe allow cars to also creep into that area along with that 100 building footprint parking area as like a moment of conflict or doubling down on how many cars we actually are going to see on any one lot does it like is is that hazy to you too like well like I'm I would as staff I would say I think I see in

123black and white the thread the needle I think in a highly motivated person might be able to present this at least apply to do both right like yeah okay but I think of all of the uses that are permitted in the tc1 district and where the tc1 district is going to be located I don't see that as being a car dealer's best option to do like car the sales and use is not the only use permitted in the district it's one of many uses and I don't see the demand for brand new auto dealerships I think the Classic Auto Dealerships do not want to be on Stadium anymore they've moved out actually what we may see are the sort of online based or something who just wants a showroom a more newer modern the newest

124car dealership on Stadium Boulevard that we've seen is it was a Fiat Dealership yeah an extra post office and no it's the post office and now it's turned into the car right I think that that's probably more likely what we're going to see just because that is the way Auto vehicle sales are are moving um and with land values the way that they are I I don't see it worth somebody's effort to work that hard when it would be much easier to um much easier and so that's my I don't know a tiny Bank footprint well it's worth three million dollars to buy a vacant office building and demo you know I so that that's what I I have concerns because there are especially a couple of large lots that if building construction is exceptionally

125High being able to build the minimum viable building uh utilize the maximum amount of currently available land area to just turn cars actually seems like a feasible option to pack them in our experience in downtown however has been not the minimum size building that you can possibly get but the maximum size building that you can get right but I like there there is right now all of downtown is walkable we're trying to move that way and change that kind of value and love restructure and I don't think we're there yet and so that's where we need to put be able to kind of stop Gap momentum in the wrong direction and my concern is what will pencil out now might be a tiny dealership with a lot of cars if you can fit some of

126them in your parking area and some of them in your outdoor sales area um as a consideration so I so I'm jostling with that one parking structures are an accessory use right that's what I have too so I'm just going to kind of like parking structure or an accessory use in the tc1 district which means that's just the use case so you have to have a primary use and and I know we kind of have gone back and forth for clarification I think it's pretty clear the footprint of vehicular use area which is outside of the building can be a hundred percent of the building footprint but once you get inside of that form that can be a building structure as long as it doesn't exceed our parking maximums right so I can have like

127three stories of parking in the building to get up to my parking maximums even if the square footage of parking area between the vehicular use area and my parking structure is more than the footprint of a building yes and that's what it says it says we we are limiting the surface area devoted to parking but we are not um but that is not one and the same as the maximum number of parking spaces yep so then I'll go all the way back to repeating myself about adaptive reuse and parking structures and how we typically in America build them as slope floors which are very hard to adaptively reuse versus doing them as flat floors with you know like uh spiral access points um and so if there is alternatively another way for this to kind

128of get leverage to really you know I know we have parking maximums but to really maximize out that parking storage there may be a higher likelihood that we're seeing parking structures which are not readily adaptable unless we write into our code a form-based requirement of how those are designed to be horizontal slabs right which I believe like is that I think it's applicable to UDC or is that building code like are we threading a needle there too um no I mean we currently do not have any um such standards for parking structures they can be added that's a form-based okay thing so I'm just going to put that one out there too um and yeah I guess that just circles back to Car Store does car storage equal parking maximums and relative to a Savvy

129outdoor permanent sales person we might be able to thread that needle um I will say what I did find interesting was 5.16.3 C which allowed or required in the c2b district storage and repair of automobiles trucks and construction equipment must be located in an enclosed building um that seemed like something when I talked you know I was thinking about amendments to include along with c2b tc1 to make sure that the repair of automobiles isn't happening outside that we kind of capture more of that maybe in the ground floor back of the building sort of thing if we're trying to hold more in a building to get more building doing the same measures that we're doing for c2b relative to the same use might be a another restriction we might want to apply alternatively uh special

130exception use so I saw that um as maybe a benefit for the repair it may it isn't applied to anywhere for the auto sales or rental um I and that's where I jostle with like is it a benefit to put that in a building do we get more slope fillers do we need to go write another you know portion of the um Amendment two so I'm just going to put that on the table before I come back if maybe that's opened up some thoughts for other Commissioners um and I think the last thing relative to the the 70 30 to 45 feet um it says adjacent to residential zoning I know we're going to talk about Club should be residential use is it relevant should it just be adjacent to districts requiring a club a

131conflicting land use buffer just semantics of calling it residential zoning versus residential use but say that first part again so um in the sorry let go to the table in the table if I can find it again sorry is um 70 lot width provided this allows 30 feet between building and side Lot normally or 45 feet between the building and side lot when energy when adjacent to a residential zoning and I understand that to be purposefully to help support a conflicting land use buffer like to give some space there because that's not a required setback it's just 70 with that wiggle room for that reason right yeah um that is purpose that is purposeful the conflicting land use buffer section in the Landscaping section says the tc1 district only needs to be buffered um when

132it adjacent to a residential zoning District okay or a park okay so we don't have to worry about the other club because yes language tightened right in the downtown area and in the tc1 district we do not require buffering from land used for residential this would be introducing completing languages buffers almost maybe every single lot would need to buffer from every single line right you'd be possibly having 30 feet of building breaking up that street wall which is not what we wanted right right okay um um okay those are mine for now so I would say like in summary the things that I'm considering are how much do we open this up for car storage based on what we currently have as permitted uses um concerns about what we're doing exterior versus what we might

133want to include in the building similar to what we have in 516 3C for repair um and what we think about parking structures and their building form standards if anyone else has comment commissioner Hammerschmidt okay um you may hear me think a lot and it's too late for that um so I have a really easy question to start as you were just sort of going through them because you're like the TC one like Guru so the 100 feet first of all the table clarifications look so much easier to read so thank you um 100 people signal intersection awesome change if you had a building that was like part of it was 100 feet but part of it was 200 feet it was all the same building could could you could have residential use past 100

134feet right I just wanted to clarify except okay perfect um okay the reason that we're including Sales and Repair and rentals all sort of together from the council resolution was sort of to provide flexibility right so like if you had a car rental if we didn't if you have like an Enterprise that wanted to locate on the corridor if we didn't have them all sort of together if they wanted to like sell a vehicle as I think they do that would not be allowed right like is that sort of why we're considering these all all these uses sort of together well they're two as in our current format they're just two uses one is sales and rental oh that's one together okay and then repair is one pair is one got it okay and the

135definition of repair almost makes it seem like putting windshield wipers on it when the staff of the auto parts store puts windshippers on that becomes a auto repair I mean and so like um and yeah the and the rental part and even technically the sales part even if you are if a classic car kind of guy and you're just sitting at your home on your computer on the internet like dealing like buying from one guy and selling it to another guy you never take possession of the car you're still a car dealer but it covers the gamut but sales and rent sales and rental is one use okay I mean I guess where my head is at right now like I am I guess more leaning on the the form-based code aspect of it so

136we we know that we're limiting any use to be to look like how we want it to look to you know have the walkability as aspects of it that we want them to have um but what you just said about like kind of breaking it especially with the parking garage thing um I would be open to like form-based parking garages if that's something that we can do because like I hadn't even thought of that until you brought it up the other week about like the angled parking and like you can't just re adaptively reuse that um and I do still sort of think that we're in an inflection point in the city where like people are still relying on vehicles for better or worse and and I guess I'm maybe a little more cautious and

137maybe I'm being naive but like I'm sort of on your like what you were saying about like just the way that people are doing business like I don't I don't see like these big car dealerships trying to come and like locate on Stadium like they're gonna go out to the townships where they actually have room but if they want to if like there are urban car dealerships I was Googling them like they can look okay and you know if they're going to replace something that isn't a form that we want like maybe that's okay um I would like to have more of a conversation I think around this special exception you aspect of it because I'm torn because I think that like we already know what we would approve if we made these social exception

138uses so I'm kind of like what's the point like maybe we should just like say what we want instead of pretending that we would actually consider something that we don't want if we don't want some of these things so I've been saying like I'm ready to vote Yes I want to move this along but like if there are things that we think are like deal breakers like now I'm a little concerned about this like outdoor storage thing then let's talk about it before we send it on Mr Clark so can I just can I just uh clarify about the parking the sales um to kind of pick that apart a little bit further I'm sorry um so I know it's like on Jackson Road um there's a couple parking lots that are just um I

139don't know the buildings are long gone and there's just like an air parking lot and it's kind of just like a budget used car lot wouldn't I mean I wouldn't necessarily think that someone would go and build a car lot for that specific purpose but I worry about it delaying progress with like well if you can just rent it out for your vacant parking lot to put a you know a very makeshift car dealership there is there incentive to invest in that parcel or are you just going to keep renting it for that immediate purpose for however long um I guess there might be something that's already preventing that um but yeah there are a couple examples on Jackson Road you just go a little bit West and yeah and they've been there a while

140so just curious that's a question I believe that our we we do allow that right now your parking lot for car storage but it's not permitted in tc1 so we have a so we have a way to if that would were to occur in the tc1 district that's a violation of the zoning ordinance um and we would and we could enforce it in that way um if that was occurring in a P Parking District that was um met the threshold um that's actually not a violation that would be conforming but in the tc1 district that would be a con um a not not a permitted land use and that could be enforced okay just for our own understanding I'm just um what's the distinction between the scenario the commissioner um described with the with a

141enterprising dealership if they wanted to find that technicality what's the distinction there between them just like kind of um like what would be the limiting factor there so I I as it's we're on our working interpretation here um on a site they could have a a building of exercise and maybe the first floor of that building is a car dealership and they can have a parking lot of the same X size um and so maybe that because of the dealership size and the building size maybe that parking lot is um 50 spaces or something like that and that would be have that 50 spaces would be unless they built a parking structure that 50 spaces would be for every use on the site including customers and employees and car inventory and Sales inventory and so

142forth but if they also put a permanent outdoor sales area on a site plan so they had not only their building and the vehicle loose area they could have an undetermined size Outdoor Store outdoor sales area where they may display X number a few or a lot of cars and so they would be trying to say that this this big area of cars on is not car storage they're like this is our outdoor Car Store thanks it kind of clicked part way through it's late and then one more question just kind of again um for just another scenario to kind of so if we're worried about things like let's say um minimizing conflict points with pedestrians and you're having uh you know a showroom there would we want a scenario where let's say however many

143customers per hour are driving in and out of a vehicle and adding those you know entering and exiting through as opposed to a different use where it would be people may be walking up to an urgent care or people walking up to just you know at any other business versus something that's actively encouraging cars to be coming in and out um and I just you know just something to think about outdoor sales yeah like Network I guess I know this isn't yeah this isn't what was on it but kind of running through the scenarios if we open a valve I feel like there is kind of a valve to kind of close to mitigate the compounding effect of this and I guess I I see a few ways forward which if we maintain the outdoor

144sales um it really is the special exception use allows us to measure the full site plan as presented if they are trying to do that parking area and the outdoor sales we have some discretion to then evaluate oh they are trying to thread this needle this is not the intent and then we can kind of push back on the kind of doubling up of outdoor area versus building volume that we want so I think maybe like the cleanest way for me I guess is I either want it in the building or and I want that building to have flat floors or I want it to be a special exception use um because it's it's just too many open valves to add this in I absolutely like I understand um kind of sales going for like

145yeah I've been in a lot of cities and you walk by any other thing and it's I mean I think it's things like we talk about vehicle sales this says automobile and truck but you know it's like scooters like all sorts of Mobility can really be in a lot of these storefronts um the test driving I hear you um so I don't know maybe I'm just going to open up the discussion and see if there's an app like which way I'm happy to make a motion but it's either special exception use or including it as interior space with a horizontal floor somehow maybe staff can weigh into like what's actually cleaner to move forward it sounds like I think the second one sounds a little messy because we're inventing a new kind of form-based weight

146recommendation moving up the ladder to city council but I think uh to my opinion um is a special exception the special exception use should be used when it's just the character and the intensity of the land use itself is not appropriate throughout the district um and an example I often use in talking to someone is um um the residential districts a lot of the residential uses single-family uses all over the place that says if you're in this District the the home the dwelling is permitted but a child care is a special exception use because it's not really appropriate everywhere there's cul-de-sac streets not for example probably not appropriate um but if the if the site for child care is a big enough lot if it's on the corner if it's you know then that's why

147it's not just up loud everywhere it sounds to me that the the concerns which are legitimate the concerns of maybe automobile sales are not because it's not appropriate everywhere I've not heard like I don't want it I I it needs to be on the transit line or not it needs to be here here I'm not actually hearing that so I'm not hearing that it should be a special exception use what I'm hearing is it needs better standards or maybe the use needs to be broken down more individually so it's not all forms of vehicle sales um we have found an example where there was you know it could be personal vehicles and then heavy equipment the same thing with repair so that I mean if it helps the discussion at the table um I'm not

148what I haven't heard is um that these uses now they can only go on a street of a certain size they can't go here they can't go there they have to be within this proximity I've not heard that it's more what I've heard is more about the unintended consequences or just the broadness of the use and so therefore I think the answer is to add um better definition or Nuance to permanent outdoor sales I've heard Maybe levels of auto sales or and Rental maybe even repair oh that hasn't been as much of a discussion but that's what I've heard the concerns are and I don't think that special exception use is the tool to address those um to address what I've heard and that's my opinion feel free to disagree Mr Clark can I just

149add one quick con I'll keep brief um I think something just that I haven't heard come up a lot is the relationship between the use of the property and to the like the idea of a Transit Corridor of like moving people efficiently in general and just the maybe one of the core issues with the auto Centric uses is the limiting flow of things like buses and having cars turning on and off and limiting it from being a primarily any literally anything that doesn't interfere with like a rapid bus transit or something but you can't really have a rapid bus transit going down you know Stadium if you're going to be having people testing out a brand new car they've never driven trying to drive in and out or you're going to have even like you

150know the existing repair shops that are there time um oh that was another side I was just um curious what threshold like percentage if the auto repair sorry is a separate so I'm kind of jumping around um just a question how what percentage like would they have to be uh renovating their building to then have triggered the T1 I can't remember that offhand um the it's addressed in the non-conforming youth section and I yeah sorry I think it's 50 for a non-residential use and 70 percent um the expansion when it's considered a new build would be the 50 of the value so be pretty substantial uh renovation for any like repair shop or whatnot that's there yeah I guess that would just be my concern would be looking the only other Factor would be just

151how it interacts with the idea of Transit and efficiently moving people in the future of like a rapid bus um and having minimizing conflict points with that yeah I do not have the numbers in front of me but I do believe I'm fairly confident that in terms of trip Generation Um Auto Sales are much lower than other uses that are permitted in the tc1 district for example restaurants would have a much higher trip generation than auto dealership including probably test drives commissioner which just a question about the comparison between the tc1 and the D1 as it relates to the auto use so in the T in the the D1 D2 It Is by special exception use I'm double checking that right now and then I wonder why if it was in the council whereas Clause

152it didn't come across as a special exception use was that a staff decision to ignore that and when I say ignore I don't mean that maliciously so don't don't read anything into that Mr Leonard um for the vehicle sales and rental it is a special exception use in the D1 and D2 districts it is a permitted use in c2b and C3 for repair the same special exception use in the D1 and D2 and a permitted principal use in the c2b and C3 um I think that as staff were for the sort of the reasons I articulated previously I didn't think we thought that it should be a special exception use because of our form-based controls we thought it could approach the contact it would fit in context everywhere that tc1 was zoned um and if

153the and it is very valid if the commission disagrees would a car multi-story elevator work that is to say it would have a short setback because they're those elevators they probably would have to do a 15-foot first story but outside of that they could go up because the far would probably fit the footprint so we could get a bunch of car elevators in the in the structure that we have right now is that we could but that would be yes we could and that would be I think I think it'd be considered a building either way it's a structure yeah and I'm pretty certain that's not what we want and what we'd like to do so that's for me that's why I'm trying to figure out why we didn't bring the special exception use over

154because it gives us the most amount of flexibility as the district transforms into what we want it to become and if I understood the council member's concern was by excluding it early we harm the transition I didn't hear the concern from Council say that this is something we want to permit in perpetuity it was something that we wanted to create to create a easier transition and this it would seem that the special exception use would allow us to enact that and then there was something else you said earlier around um it's been my it's been my understanding that we do have rules for non-compliance but we don't always enforce those rules uh I don't I don't think no I don't think that's why that is not what I was trying to articulate oh sure and

155I don't need to put that into your uh in your comment I think it was in response to something that commissioner Solvay said which would be we would be able to correct that through enforcement and so I'm trying to understand how because we have a lot of non-conforming things within planning but we're not like a lot of the conversation that I've been trying to have around um r4c is non-conforming but we're not going and saying this is not conforming and it needs to come up to code we wait till there is a change then we bring it up to code and so the the enforcement is a lagging indicator in a sense it's like a lagging tool it's not a a primary enforcement tool so I just wrote that down as a like I don't

156think that's going to get what we want um but it was then it was in something that you were talking about like if somebody tried to like pencil in the the parking lot and all these things to like like really thread the needle we have a tool to correct that I think is how it came across which is through enforcement and I don't know if that meant you would prevent that through the building or through the enforcement of like the inspection of the site plan if somebody tried to do some trickery or some some non-conforming things so anyway it was just something that I I noted and I I just don't see us using those enforcement tools so you can clarify like you know if we had a stenographer we could read back the transcript

157but I'll have to do that after the meeting offer up the thoughts maybe similar to drive-throughs and special exception like we there was kind of a consensus of the intent behind it like near Highway interchanges on off that you're not kind of coming into their community and disrupting the flow of the neighborhood we are opening and considering it once we get into our neighborhood corridors that's where we drew that line and kind of set it on West Stadium with a second bank and then Plymouth Road and it's almost like we want to say with special exception uses here it's a special exception use when it's modifications to an existing building we're not interested in special exception to allow this into new construction is at least what I'm hearing as part of the discussion and I

158think that's where I I hear both sides like uh staff de Leo and commissioner Hammerschmidt about sometimes like sales can move and is sales in a building doesn't matter like does that matter but I guess what I disagree with is when you're changing windshield wipers that's not a primary use as vehicle maintenance because we're talking about primary use table selling cars online is not a primary use of a space and that's what I kind of distilled down to like we're talking about primary use of these projects not accessory uses or kind of you know Fringe uses and so if we're if we're selling cars online or like coordinating rental pickups that's that's a desk job like an office use it's an it's an office use I don't see that if there's anything in the plan

159that is about myself instead of the use of the space and the impact of the space um that's why I think we have the uses delineated differently so that we can measure intensity differently and when we start talking about the future of some of these uses that intensity dwindles to start becoming office or something similar that we currently allow to be permitted and I think that's maybe another kind of piece I'm grappling with is if it's lower intensity use it might fall under a different category when we think about primary use table um because I think you could change out a battery and that's not the primary use of a AutoZone that just happens to be some subsidiary thing that you do it's just good service but it's not like so I don't I want

160to move this along and like this should be it feels easy and it feels very hard at the same time so I'm really like I feel like I'm really pulling all the weeds at this one um and I really threw in that outdoor sales thing um um but yeah I like I understand not the special exception use but I actually think it's probably the clearest way to send a message about how we need to have early and Frank discussions with projects about this that um without opening up too much potential for new like new projects in tc1 and so I I think it's maybe the message I would say and I'm going to make an amendment so we can kind of move with discussion somewhere the message I would say with an amendment to include

161these two uses a special exception is that the intent is to request that staff maybe encourage any petitioner that brings a project to maybe bring to a working session to have a priest Middle have an early conversation to see what it like if it's a big addition or something um but I think that like that's the intent I think we're trying to convey and I don't know the clear other clearest way to do it I think one way if I yeah be so boldly butt in would be to um uh make a right because there's five members present tonight maybe make a recommend maybe break up the motion and make an amendment on the parts that you feel confident to move forward and to postpone the um and postpone other elements that maybe need more

162consideration revision or maybe need to be and then included with more amendments to to to be I I get the sense we'd like to look a little more holistically and there's probably a couple options but to look at some things more holistically maybe this entire package of amendments is not ripe for um forwarding to city council commissioner Hammerschmidt there was a part two right there was a part two of something else we were bringing back to us for tc1 and I'm forgetting what that is but there was a part two related to the narrow rights of way thank you until that even comes back and we move that on to city council they're not going to let us resume any other corridors is tc1 right so but even the amendment that brought this to the

163table said these changes should not delay the adoption of tc1 so I just wanted to give that Counterpoint no thank you I was trying to buy us more time no because because there was a separate amendment to uh briggs's original motion that struck something that was like and we recognized that this will slow down or delay the implementation of tc1 and it was struck from the amendment because it is my understanding of watching Council that they want the TC ones to move throughout the city um okay somebody said something here tonight that made me think that we weren't literally with you so I I commissioner watches right that but I I propose I just want to be frank I propose that language because modifying this district has consequences and yes that was struck struck but

164I I would reiterate my position the reason a factor in that resolution being presented back to Planning Commission was there was ambivalence from my perspective at the city council table of rezoning a corridor to tc1 because there was concerns outstanding on those matters those are specific issues that were raised and I I'll just reiterate my premise that until those are resolved I think bringing any additional areas those questions are going to remain in the minds of city council I'm projecting that I'm basing it on the experience of the past rezoning but that's why I think it's important that we advance those changes prior to pursuing additional geographies okay what is the timeline for the um setback thing um my voice is going we're hoping to shift to that after the automobile uses was resolved oh

165so you don't want to do them at the same time I mean I I do sort of to miss Celia's suggestion like I think that maybe makes sense um or I mean if it was a special exception use for everything you commissioner said something about not on new buildings just a special exception news for this season these uses on existing buildings or well I think similar to drive-throughs we've kind of taken a position right special exception is about a certain context and so to Mr Leo's Point what we talked about was context and so drive-throughs it was like it's close to an interchange you're quick on quick off you're not coming into our neighborhood that has context Ambitions but at least it was kind of like clear like we drew a line This Not That

166in terms of special exception is about the expectation is there a way to clearly communicate This Not That in a similar fashion with special exception here and I think that's where it's it's different because it's not about context relative to you know the the planning opinion of you know how we use our ordinance policy to do it versus how we're talking about how we want to try to regulate that land use so different but the same in terms of trying to draw like splitting hairs on when it might be appropriate or not so at least we can communicate that earlier so that we don't have people like coming all the way to site plan and be like we told you like this was not part you know qualifying as a special exception use okay can

167I can I just yeah um no yes go ahead I'll just well I know but I wanna yes I'm supposed to give everybody the platform I'm practicing um I think there's equal ambivalence at this table as there is a city council uh relative to tc1 on the other side and we will Instant adopt maybe at city council until things are cleared up and I think ambivalence to make changes until we see more movement uh so that's where I also see kind of a conflict of should we do should we wait should we wait should we do between these two tables um and I'm trying to kind of reconcile and like appreciate you know a lot of the professional opinion and then poke those loopholes because we want to have projects come before us that set

168a positive and ambitious precedent for the types of projects we're trying to see and if we see a dealership with offices on the second floor with a parking lot a parking structure and an outdoor sales use as the first project in tc1 like I feel like we would be taking so many more steps back in terms of where this where I think there are a lot of strong moments of this policy instead of keeping it tight to the things we know we can get out of it as it stands right now say maybe it depends on what it replaces but maybe it doesn't actually depend on what it replaces and I I think you're right about the ambivalence like I want to keep rezoning and just sort of fix TC well Plymouth could in Washington

169could bring up issues again that nobody had thought of um Mr Leonard can you remember me where are they on our work plan right now are they sort of postponed because we're dealing with this or next year this year so generally our time frame with CC1 was to resolve the tc1 direction that Council has provided then we were contemplating simultaneous rezoning of both Washington and Plymouth So based on timing um I mean you were in the midst of this as we are at this table trying to predict how long the first part of that will take um I I want to be clear we've been having a lot of conversation as staff with other property owners and potential developers regarding the tc1 and I want to be clear we have 10 other suggestions that have

170been proffered um and I can't sit here and tell you which among those I think are good which of those I think we should pursue which of those that don't rise to prominence for me we're trying hard to get this District in a form that works I I do want to be clear and honest we have yet to have a tc1 proposal in any District I don't want to say that that is because the district is bad um I think the District of sound we um you you'll recall when we started this conversation we presented a lot of different scenarios we talked about varying approaches different TC districts we talked about trying to build upon some of the known quantities and Regulatory Frameworks of our existing districts we very intentionally tried to use building blocks

171from some of the things that were within our ordinance so I think it's sound but I I think it's fair to also sit here with the experience that you as the Planning Commission have not yet seen a tc1 proposal and so I there could be a lot of factors to that I frankly think that economic factors are a big part of that building right now is very difficult but I will say there are other proposals happening you are seeing other proposals so um I I just want to I I I put that out there to say I acknowledge that tension of trying to rezone more areas to tc1 and getting areas tc1 zoning more appropriate I advise my opinion is that we are having this conversation because there was unease uh at the council table

172I I can't speak for a council at that moment I'm telling you how I interpreted that and I'm projecting how that unease might carry forward to the next districts there might be new issues as well so I don't even want to suggest that resolving these two will be a Panacea that those similar questions won't be raised but I think it's sound to try to be responsive to what the council's asked us to do before we lay that next conversation on their lap because there's more people to talk anymore if we if we said we want these uses permitted with it we need a special exception use can we put conditions around special exception uses like can we say like if you do a parking garage it has to have flat floor plates or yes but

173that suggests to me that we have some more work to do to present you that text okay that it achieves that okay thanks uh just to clarify um this came in at the transition point of the old Council to the new Council and it was championed by if I remember correctly a single council member um so when we talk about unease I I just want to contextualize it that it was not a majority of the council so it wasn't a mandate in terms of it I hear use it in a very unique position it's a different position than I sit in and I respect that position and I respect that you see the proposals and you hear from the developers and you are talking to the policy makers and you're trying to create a vision

174for what's going to work and what's going to move through but we do have a new Council we this table I think to be kind uh to use the kind words that commissioner so they sort of intimate it there's some ambivalence is how I would look at that um and so I just I I see this I'm I am struggling with this because it it's slowing down what we need to do and then we're seeing petitions that are getting in in this transition that aren't in our 50-year plan we know in our 50-year plan we do not want to dedicate this much land to these kinds of uses and so if that is what is known and that is the trajectory or to use a term that I use in my profession are Telos it

175is our future it is time for us to activate our future at the table um and if that means that we do it by Special Egg use exception or we just ban it all together and send it back to council and say we looked at all of this here's where we're going we do not agree I I that's where I would sit to give you feedback to miss DeLeo because I didn't say much at the beginning um so just some more piece and let me just say I did not say this tables look great thank you for those changes I I would love to have seen these separate so that we could just um just Heap Praise on the changes that you are making and thanks for your both your expertise your knowledge and your

176diligence uh in this work we are the beneficiaries of your good stewardship foreign okay I'm gonna do I'm gonna rip this Band-Aid off and I'm gonna make a motion to uh amends to make special exception for the Auto Truck Repair and the auto sales and my reasoning for this is I do want to move this forward it's going to technically fail and we can continue this discussion uh whatever Council wants to kind of do next with it but also if the intent is that some of these uses are moving forward in a way um that are reduced in intensity to what we're seeing now like we're selling more things online and we're having inventory off-site we might deliver it and things like that then it might fall under a different use category as the primary

177and the special exception should be evaluated in terms of what level of use is it actually doing an intensity of the site versus these so really the question is not um where but um like does I I think it when it applies that they need to request a special exception it's to the discretion of is this cutting the threshold from like office sales to Auto Sales relative to a primary use when we're talking about how sales are transitioning in this modern era so I think that's what I'm also kind of hearing that there's some gray area in the type of sales and if Auto Sales looks the same and when it does look like this there I have concerns about car storage and what we're prioritizing there for neuroform and how much more parking structure

178we make it instead of Apartments so I have two amendments one is a motion to change the Auto Truck and Equipment Repair and the auto sales and rental to a special exception used on the table my second motion and I can take them at one at a time but okay yeah yeah I need your first one okay move by move by Me seconded by commissioner sorry so I guess we'll take that one up for discussion for that motion sorry uh it is to change from a permitted use to a special exception use for the Auto Truck Equipment Repair and the auto sales and rental so the two first two of the three bullet points of the original motion to be a special exception use instead of primary use any discussion no thanks Kelly can we

179have a roll call sure on the motion presented uh commissioner Hammerschmidt yes commissioner yes Mr dish no thank you commissioner you said it wasn't the tool to use and so I am not in a place where I can think about this commissioner Clark yes commissioner Weiss yes that would carry back to the original motion I'm going to make a new motion that is to apply the use specific standards 5.16.3 C uh two the automobile truck Construction and Equipment Repair which currently is applied to c2b which just to kind of read for everyone's edification um requires storage and repair of automobiles trucks and construction equipment must be located in an enclosed building so I want to motion to apply that use specific standard um without a yeah because it's called out in the uses for just

180c2b relative to that table by commissioner wage discussion question does that that sounds good to me but I remember us discussing this at some point either when we were having the endless maker discussion or some other time about would you be able to fix your bicycle in your driveway or something like that is there anything that staff would like to raise about why not to do this or implications that we need to think through really is actually what I mean to say foreign I would um not want to evaluate or analyze at the table okay but I would offer that um when preparing the next version of the ordinance and we all and we'd also prepare a briefer transmittal memorandum to cover if we have then flagged something we would articulate that to council and

181expanding or saying that a different way when we're then working to fulfill the planning commissions recommendation to council um we imply a recommendation to city council as well and we could say this is what the city council has this is what the Planning Commission has recommended we have we do see this concern though and we may then suggest suggest something along those lines but that it would be in like the worst case scenario but I'll go back to my original point I'm just not sure at this time like you know yes do i do I um see an under consequence with that I don't I don't see it right now but as part of our work to forward on to to forward your work to city council if I do then see um a concern

182I would articulate that as well and make some sort of recommendation whether it be I have an alternative that fixes or whether it should be postponed and returned for more work depending on what I may or may not see okay I mean I will say that as the attentive traveler that I am when I'm in urban places like Paris it is all inside and you appear in the windows and you're like oh my God that's an auto repair in there and so I can see that that makes a lot of sense and is a clean amendment I think commissioner hammership which can you say it again Five Dot yep it's 5016. 5.16.3 C okay and I was like I just want to clarify that's artist studio yeah okay C1 is hearing c2b District storage and

183repair of automobiles trucks and construction equipment must be located in an enclosed building which I believe the intent is don't have junk yards and your intention is to add tc1 to that list correct so it's in I would say C automobile one tc1 and c2b District because right now relative to that table it Flags it but when you go to this it only calls out c2b as the applicable use scenario even though there's more than one District permitted to have this in it so that's how I read the UDC yeah yeah I'm following this okay any other discussion okay ready for a vote and the motion is presented commissioner Hammerschmidt yes commissioner yes commissioner dish yes commissioner clerk yes commissioner white yes that carries okay back to the original motion staff are weak clear can

184we help um so the two modifications are shifting automobile sales and repair the two uses from permitted uses to special exception uses and modifying 5.16.3 to list both c2b and tc1 correct and uh I mean Alexis helped me I think 5163 is probably already listed in the use table for yep repair yep yep let me check my version say p i want to just ask about one more thing if it's possible or if it's too stupid and too nitty-gritty that we can't do it but would there be I can see why we would not want to prohibit what is it called now permanent outdoor sales from tc1 because that can be like a flea market you know like people like those that's what we want that can be pedestrian friendly but I cannot Envision any

185moment of my life in which I would want a car dealership to have a permanent outdoor sales because it's more parking lot we are not interested in parking lots so could we prohibit that from uh things that sell rent in repair Automobiles and trucks and machinery I would like to do that so outdoor sales of other things is okay but outdoor sales of vehicles motorcycles electric vehicles cars is not okay I think it's if if I'm understanding there's a distinction between outdoor sales area and the regular use area you could still sell cars and motorcycles and things in a vehicular use area they're using parking spaces yeah but you couldn't do that and do it in the outdoor sales area if but you could have a parking area and an outdoor sales area we're just

186saying that we care about what's in that outdoor sales area and vehicles we prefer not but other outdoor sales items trees landscaping materials are okay but car vehicles not there no it's permanent outdoor sounds lumber yards yeah okay this is why I asked if it doesn't make sense to do that well it's a it's a question like I understand I think that our perception is that outdoor sales of vehicles is gonna be more adverse to the goals of the quarter maybe than other outdoor sales I'm not absolute about that it's still open space it's still gonna have often not a feeling of protection maybe to the sidewalk it is a question I mean people choose Christmas trees they walk around lots that are filled with Christmas trees and it smells good and it's festive and

187they hang lights a lot filled with cars looks a lot like a parking lot whether they're parked or whether they're in inventory and people walk around and look at them they do they can do that inside too or online I mean it's it's the I don't mind walking by a Christmas tree lot it doesn't make me comfortable walking by a huge parking lot and I don't know if this is a distinction without a difference but but I do know that when you raise to the issue of you know what is it called when you stack parking I guess it's called stack when you just line up one after the other that's an unpleasant pedestrian experience which I do not want there to be any doubt that we can't do commissioner Clark can I add a

188distinction I see there is not an earlier vehicle trips was mentioned vehicular trips and I think that it might be less about a point in time particular trips but the trajectory that's possible so something like a Christmas tree sales lot you know in the future 50 years from now you could walk up and get your Christmas tree I did it in New York when I lived there you walk up and get your tree and get only one you can carry um there will never be a point where you can walk into a car dealership and walk out with a car you you just can't do it so the trajectory there is there's a limit like you it will never be zero in even in like Utopia whatever because it's a vehicle so it will have

189some interaction with the corridor moving people which is the primary function of you know our ideas to have a efficient way of moving people throughout the corridor um so I guess that's why I see the distinction I'm sorry if I got wildly off topic because it's yeah but later I maybe I just like when we look at um the right-of-way if staff could provide comment for that I feel comfortable like leaving it as is especially like having that special exception but it would be interesting to have that discussion at a future date with the right of way yeah it's fine and plus I do sense discomfort with that so let's not do it we don't have to do everything yeah right at the table right okay so we have a double amended motion any further

190discussion to vote yeah questions Steph yep I'm not 100 did they vote on the Second Amendment to apply the 5 16 piece yes that was voted okay yeah so I think so now you're at your Amendment commissioner dish was the only one that toggled no and then yes was there already a mover and a seconder for the it was overall motion as amended or when we started started right it was commissioner Hammerschmidt and commissioner seconded by dish okay yes okay on the motion as amended in this meeting commissioner Hammerschmidt yes commissioner Solvay yes commissioner dish yes commissioner Clark yes commissioner white yes that motion carries that motion fails it's sorry it fails it does all that work it looks like it carries it does not okay so um with that let me toggle back make

191sure but I believe we are now back on to public comments this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about any issue that is not listed on the public hearing any issue I'm going to strike this on my typo speak for three minutes on any issue uh we will first call on individuals present to address the commission and then remote participants to speak during this public hearing remotely plus 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 with meeting ID 977-6634-1226 City staff will select callers that have raised their hand using the last three digits of your phone number or by name if available for those accessing through the web link you will hear an automated

192announcement that the host is allowing you to speak when speaking please move to a quiet area and mute any television or background sound so that we may hear you clearly for either method of participation please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments scene no one in the room we're going to move directly to remote callers Kelly do we have anyone on the line we have one hand raised at this time Adam Goodman you have permission to speak hi there Adam Goodman 400 Virginia Avenue again uh so I just wanted to re-emphasize something that commissioner weich said which was that city council did not direct Planning Commission to delay applying tc1 to other corridors when they passed R22 390. yes you may have heard that sentiment expressed by certain people in the

193discussion but a majority of them voted to strip out language from that resolution that would have contemplated such a delay I believe it is urgent to move forward with tc1 on all of the proposed corridors even if there are potentially some changes come in and I further believe that the instruction you have received from Council such as it is would not be inconsistent with such an approach I also think specifically if you if you look at Plymouth Road for example it does not have the same right-of-way constraints as West Stadium does so that I I definitely don't think that particular concern should should be a reason to delay here um more broadly I I guess you know I I do understand on the other hand that it seems cleaner to solve the open questions first

194but you're already seeing the downsides of this delay uh with with just as one example this umcu project we talked about at the beginning of the meeting that nobody seems to like so okay if you all think differently if you think it's best to delay rezoning then um I don't agree but I believe you do have that prerogative but absence explicit Council resolution speaking to this you are the ones who need to own that decision it is not correct and it is not proper to say you are doing this because of Direction you have received from Council thank you thank you uh there is one additional hand raised Alex Lowe you have permission to address the commission hi Alex again calling from South Southeast East Ann Arbor um as Adam pointed out uh before me

195we're starting to deal with issues related to these uh cities uh slow pace of rolling out tc1 and this this is starting to cause some real friction between the city and businesses and community members so let's let's get cracking let's let's just uh do some more uh TC warning we can improve we can improve it even uh even after we've res uh reserved Plymouth Road after we've re-zoned Washington after we've resoned flat after we've rezoned packed after we've resolved that as an out we can do all uh we can do all of those and still make improvements at GTC one after that so let's yeah use use both hands we can work on tc1 with one hand and we're going rolling it out with one hand and work on improving uh that's you know what

196uh why we have multiple people here that's why we're uh we've got uh we've got uh multiple members of Stuff Etc so let's remember that pc1 is uh is supposed to be different from from what we're used to seeing in every little trashy little city in America where you've got the 17th Lane uh Strode that uh and no ability to uh to walk anywhere tc1 supposed to be different than that tc1 is supposed to be more like downtown so let's uh let's not take that uh take that and say oh well we'll we'll make it like uh we'll make it look a bit like downtown but we're still going to learn that that people have cars just everywhere it's ridiculous this is this is supposed to be different from that this is supposed to be

197an example for the rest of America let's let's make it that give you there are no more callers thank you so uh next we're on to commissioner proposed business commissioner witch just a quick uh clarification for the sake of being accurate um the I misremembered the motion that brought this to our table it did happen with the new Council and um I was focusing on the six to five vote that was deleted at the urging of commissioner Iyer who said there is a huge sense of urgency around tc1 rezoning in Ann Arbor so I apologize for misstating it and I just before the end of the meeting wanted to correct the record thank you anyone else and we moved to adjourn move behind commissioner white second by commissioner Clark we are adjourned