001willing to order the march 1st 2022 meeting of the ann arbor city planning commission this meeting is broadcast on ctn cable channel 16 at t channel 99 and online at a2gov.org ctn for those of you who have joined finally via the broadcast or through zoom thank you for your patience it has been challenging to get the technology to work here this evening so i sincerely appreciate your patience with that um mr leo can you help with the roll call which is item number two okay thank you um chair mills are you here yes uh commissioner gibb randall here commissioner sobe here commissioner abrams is absent commissioner hammerschmidt here commissioner dish is not present commissioner lee here commissioner clark yeah and commissioner white here thank you we have a quorum very good um item three on
002the agenda is approval of the agenda can i have a commissioner move the agenda moved by commissioner lee seconded by commissioner why can i not think of your name right think so vaguely [Laughter] sorry any discussion of the agenda all in favor please raise a hand or say yes that is all of the hands the motion carries item number four are the minutes of the previous meeting this is from the february 15 2022 meeting can i have a commissioner move those moved by commissioner hammerschmidt seconded by commissioner gibb randall any discussion of the minutes commissioner lee uh just really quickly i couldn't actually access the minutes um i checked on the agenda but uh not to um so i i don't have any comments because i try to review and it didn't come up so
003just want to throw that maybe i chose like a like an older agenda or something but i i didn't i wasn't able to review it so uh would we like to postpone that it seemed like there might have been some problems with the citation or the kind of link so um would you like to move to postpone approval of the minutes until the next meeting we can get the link sorted yes i would like to postpone all right moved by commissioner lee seconded by commissioner clark any discussion of postponement all in favor of postponement please raise a hand or say yes that is all of the hands next up are the reports from city administration city council the planning office planning commissioner officers and committees and the written communications we have a bunch in our
004packet that were sent throughout the day today commissioner dish is not here to provide city council comments do you have anything from the planning manager i do not and not because i'm not prepared officially there is no report you would not think it was because you were not prepared okay any complaining commission officers or committee liaisons have anything to report i just wanted to let you know that last week we the ordinance revisions committee did meet and mr leonard shared kind of our past um work plan in addition to kind of everything that we've brought up recently and some work that he's pulled together from a20 and i expect that we're going to who's going to bring all of that together to a future meeting so we can think about what is on our work
005plan because we've accomplished a bunch in terms of walking through ordinances go ahead commissioner give randall um i actually have something from environmental commission where we talked at length about the proposed resolution for connecting university of michigan and city of ann arbor with the housing and there were substantial um editing from the energy commission and there were lots of comments from environmental commission too and so i guess just so that this body is aware that that's kind of churning through the system um and that at some point it'll come to you know come to us as well so um i i think it's shifting and changing as it goes along um and uh so the the version that we saw is probably you know moot at this point but i'm just so you all are
006aware that that's been on several people's agendas very good thank you for sharing any other committee liaisons all right um next is item six the public comment this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about an issue that is not listed as a public hearing on this agenda so we will have a separate public hearing for the amendments to the unified development code um we'll first call on folks who are present in council chambers to address the planning commission and then to remote participants and if you're watching us and want to dial in and haven't already done so the call-in number is 877-853-5247 and our meeting id is 977-6634 12 26 if you've dialed in by phone you can press star 9 on your phone to indicate that you'd like
007to provide a public comment and if you've joined through the zoom link you can just press the raised hand button that's on the center of bottom of your screen you'll hear an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak once mr leo has promoted you that way she'll call on you by the last three digits of your telephone number or by your zoom name if you've joined that way please move to a quiet area and mute any background sounds for either method of participation please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments does anyone in the audience like to provide public comment now all right mr leo is there anyone indicating that they'd like to provide a public comment during this general time not not to the udc amendments but
008to any other items we do have two hands raised for call-in listeners okay caller ending in five three four you have three minutes uh please unmute yourself and you have three minutes to address the planning commission about an item not on the agenda thank you this is tom salberg i'm calling from lowertown tonight in ann arbor uh since i've asked before for information about tc1 uh knowing who is going to be the recipients of the wealth that the city is bestowing upon them the initiated resulting and also council members asked in a resolution for information on that orders as well as on evaluation to know how much the city is gifting landowners that resolution was defeated hopefully um we can still get some information before city council votes on this from the city that he
009does have information we should know what you know but given i've called for that i think it's only fair for me to say that later on we're going to be talking about art shoe zoning and that i will financially benefit uh from if what is proposed passes or something similar so i think it's only fair if i'm calling for other people to be disclosed that i disclosed myself if i was a commissioner i'd have to recuse myself i presume commissioner lee will be recusing himself as his company also stands benefit from that ordinance revision so i won't make any comments on that that's later for the public hearing in terms of any details but i do hope that we continue to strive for transparency knowing that when we make zoning changes there are people who
010will be enriched overnight they don't have to build anything the property is worth more the day after the zoning law passes they can sell it to somebody else make a profit they can borrow on increased wealth for the property so the city is distilling the financial benefit of our people i'm not going to say that let's go to bed i'm going to say it's a fact and we can all make our decisions at least knowing the facts openly thank you we have one more i apologize um we have one more caller caller ending in five eight eight please unmute yourself and you have three minutes to address the planning commission to unmute yourself you can press star six there they've done it hello can you hear me we can go ahead good evening members of
011the planning commission my name is owen franks and i am an attorney at benjamin d joe plc in ann arbor 334 east washington street first i would like to thank you for your time and service to the community we are of the belief that the proposed amendment to the udc regarding marijuana license types and number of licenses per per lot would be helpful to facilitate this sorry to interrupt that this is an opportunity to talk about anything that's not for a public hearing and we'll have a separate public hearing specifically on the ordinance changes so if there's anything that's not specifically about the ordinance amendment now now's a good time to talk otherwise we'll get to that item of business in just a couple minutes oh okay my apologies i won't wait until then all
012right super all right if there's anyone else that's joined that would like to provide a public comment on an item that's not listed so that's the changes to the udc that incl includes allowing religious assembly in m1 um changes to the marijuana license types r2a curb cuts or curb cuts and street street planting frontage and modifying street tree planting requirements anything else is fair game now you can press star 9 or use the raised hand feature doesn't seem we have anyone on zoom or call-in okay very good um we'll move on then to item number seven which is the public hearings that are scheduled for the next business meeting mr leo do you have those i can pull them up from online too thank you i do not have them handy all right [Music] let's
013see uh the next public hearing which is on tuesday march 15 2022 at 7 pm we'll be hearing two petitions the ann arbor chinese church expansion for city planning commission approval this is a proposal to expand the existing church at 1750 duvarn road and the second item is maple cove 2 for city planning commission approval this is a proposal to construct a 70 unit apartment complex across three buildings and this is at this is on north miller road and or sorry north maple road in miller road okay we are on to item eight a then these are the amendments to chapter 55 the unified development code because of the technical difficulties and we were concerned that there that might have thwarted any people who were trying to participate uh my intention is that we will
014postpone the actual vote on this to make sure that anyone who wants to participate can join in um with that in mind we typically start our pr uh our petitions with um a staff presentation and mrs leo in terms of if we can generally keep it brief since we will this will come back for us all in the future does that sound good sure and then we'll open it up for the public hearing on this so for those who have joined we're getting to that very shortly all right um okay um i will give it one attempt to screen share and then we'll just call it all right so screen share let's screen share these slides share that i wasn't say folks at home may be able to see it better than us all right
015i think we think we're cooking with gas go get your glasses folks all right okay um presented before you tonight are some amendments to chapter 55 which is the unified development code there are five you can they i tried to format it so that you can act on them as a group or individually for example if you would like to um not tonight but if you would like to pass three or four of them but postpone one or two um i did try to do that in that format but for efficiency it is one staff report but there are five amendments the first one is into table 515-1 which is the primary use table i should mention that in the packet and all the planning commissioners have been provided with the the full ordinance of
016proposed amendments um the presentation just calls out just zooms right into what the skips all of the not changes so the first amendment is to section the table and 515-1 which are the primary uses primary uses are those that are permitted in the district no further questions asked they are appropriate everywhere in that zoning district and we um by request we are considering a proposed amendment to allow religious assembly uses in the m1 district you'll notice the table combines m1 and m1a so that's why there is a p parentheses excluding n1a in this box changes were not advertised to the m1a district i mentioned this was by request folks are allowed to petition for ordinance amendments this was considered by the ordinance revisions committee and there are other assembly type uses that are permitted in
017the m1 district and the earnest revisions committee felt that this was a worthwhile amendment it was appropriate and they recommended approval as you know that doesn't that is not binding but that is the amendment before the planning commission the next amendment is to section 516.3 g which is marijuana facilities we're doing three things here we are doing two substantive changes and then one just a reorganization the substantive changes are to delete paragraphs d which is number of state marijuana licenses per lot and delete paragraph e which is types of facilities on a lot this slide shows that the table and the lists being deleted what you can see from the table that certain districts are allowed certain number of licenses per per lot what we have found and as the state continues to evolve its
018regulations rules and regulations is um they have specific to growers and this is just an example but specific to growers i don't know the number off the top of my head but say they categorize large growers as um a thousand plants and what they have now done is they they are not issuing single businesses a two thousand plant license their what they are doing is they are issuing the same business two licenses a thousand and a thousand here in ann arbor what that means is a large grower couldn't do that because we in some districts because we would only allow one license in the district now that our marijuana facility regulations are in place the landscape is sort of settled it is our staff's opinion that we don't need these licensing restrictions um per district
019um we don't anticipate a mad rush or really anything changing so therefore this is just a piece of regulation that is probably unnecessary and is could prove to be in conflict with state uh state procedures the other paragraph e is types of facilities per lot you may recall when developing the regulations we were very conservative and we really wanted we did not want concentrations we did not want things bundled everything should be spread out again now that things have shaken out um we don't think it's gonna it's going it has not been an issue it's not going to be an issue to allow um different or multiple facilities on a single lot and also the way it has it is listed it can be vague and code shouldn't be vague so we are proposing to
020again delete this paragraph then for reorganization we've flipped the format without changing any of the rest of the stuff the old layout focused on the standards it was and you can see here this is the layout and the headings um and each of the standards is listed there we're just reorganizing and flipping it to um organize it based on facility so you can more easily find the additional use specific standards for the specific what you're looking for provisioning center or micro business or designated consumption facility um but we haven't changed any of the the content no numbers have changed no additional information or lack of information the third amendment is to table 7517-2 two-family residential zoning district dimensions specifically the r2a district we are proposing to reduce the minimum lot area from 8 500 square
021feet to 5 000 square feet reduce the minimum lot area per dwelling unit um from 4250 square feet to 2500 square feet and the minimum lot width from 60 to 40 feet i had this is the the one topic i have a little bit more background on the r2a district is intended to provide the residential um basically higher density single family density with a single family feel and but it's a minimum lot area and lot area for dwelling unit goes along with that has come up and it's now more in line with some of our lower density single family districts so we are proposing to have its it match the r1d district um which is a higher density single-family district and so the dimensional standards we are proposing to match r1d um it would still
022allow two dwelling units on that lot but the physical characteristics would then match the r1d um this is a map of where you'll find r2a zoning currently you'll see that it's um in gen the bulk of it is in the waterhill neighborhood also the old west side there's a little bit um in the burns park area south of campus and some pockets on on uh broadway pontiac trail um right across um over that way um currently current standards of the r2a district with the 8 500 square foot lot size and 60 foot lot minimum the majority of lots do not comply the yellow is compliant but the blue is non-compliant also known as non-conforming with the proposed amendments um we flip and the yellow is compliant so the yellow proportions on the left is minimum
023lot width those would be the ones that conform to the minimum lot area i'm sorry width on the right side is lot size and so the yellow would be what would conform and the blue is what would remain non-conforming oh next one um okay um i'm happy to i anticipate that maybe the most questions will come up about this one so i'm happy to answer any questions um at the conclusion but those are our proposed amendments regarding our 2a district and then the fourth amendment is to section 520 10 b trees required with site plan developments the track changes is shown on the screen what we're going to do proposing to do is eliminate the width of the curb cut from the linear calculation right now it says one street tree shall be provided for
024every 45 linear feet and the change is one street tree provided for every 45 linear feet minus the width of the curb cut on larger lots it's not really a big deal to count the curb cut but on a very small lot there might you might require a street tree but the curb cut takes up so much width the tree will not thrive or survive also two trees or more likely two trees might be required but really there's only space for one because half of the lot is the curve cut and we are also proposing to eliminate the references to street tree escrow the escrow is money that is collected from um developer and but they are still supposed to plant the trees and then so we collect the money they plant the trees three
025years later we return the money we are entitled if they don't plant the trees to keep the keep the escrow money and then use it to plant trees the escrow formula doesn't actually cover the cost of planting trees but the more important part is this is a lot of paperwork this is a lot of money being tied up for little gain when we also still have our regular security i think most people would call it um posting a bond or a performance bond but when you go to finish your project it is legitimate that it might be outside of the planting season you might not be able to plant a tree in february or plant grass so forth so you can post a bond and say as soon as the planting season comes up i'll
026plant i'll plant a tree if you do both of those things it's also fairly redundant and just kind of seems pointless so it seems more efficient and a better use of everyone's resources to eliminate the street tree escrow and if the trees cannot be planted for some reason we can do it through our regular performance bonds that are already required um we are also proposing to add headings to this section to make it a little bit more user friendly and then finally the fifth amendment is to section 530.1 landscape modifications um the the bulk of the change regard is regarding adding street trees as an eligible modification um if you follow the current format what we're doing is um on the left the sentence says flexibility in the application of landscaping or screening requirements and
027lists some sections and so we are inserting one more section into this but with our reorganized layout it's going to look like the right adding a title listing the sections with their titles list form but you can see here again the only real substantive change is adding the street trees and then for all the proposed um layouts the current layout is as on the right we've got the heading and then the sentence that says which sections um you can change and then it's got a and b a is standards of approval and buried in 2a are the seven conditions that are associated with modifications um we have proposed the proposed layout change would just list them a little bit more logically section a would be these are the sections you can modify section b this
028is the required conditions um in order to be approved c is standards of approval and d is the approval procedures i feel that a chunk is missing so i'm going to stop sharing this and i'm going to smoothly transition to this go back again smooth as silk screen sharing over here right i do fear that this may become slightly small but it will help prompt nonetheless in this landscape modification section i will be fairly brief but there are seven now proposed to be eight reasons why you can have a landscape modification um the first one is regarding topography or elevation of the site and we are proposing to a move it into the list by itself but then b um rewording it to instead of talking about topographic features just say when the topography or
029the elevation of the site relative to another site makes the screening not effective that's legit reason to modify it is another reason that when existing vegetation and landscaping are located that more would be detrimental proposing to rephrase this to try to be a little more straightforward and talking about when the planting or installing the required landscape materials would be more detrimental than the benefits of the additional screening that is also a condition that can be considered there is a condition that talks about use of bioretention areas native and prairie plantings structural amenities or xeriscaping and we are proposing to change that i don't believe we've ever used those reasons um to grant a landscape modification but our experience is increasingly showing that a reason that we should be granting a landscape modification is when the
030soil conditions underlying the site prevent the strict application of the requirements for example you may require a bio retention swale for infiltration but that should not go right on top of contaminated soils and so strict application is is at odds with each other this is a reason why a modification might be appropriate we are proposing to eliminate the plan project reasoning because we don't have plan projects anymore and then we are adding the description of why you might want to consider a modification to street trees we've made them eligible in a previous amendment and now this is saying that um planting a new street tree if it's prevented by an existing and unmovable obstruction impediment public infrastructure and examples fire hydrants overhead utility lines poles traffic control devices transit shelters if those are blocking the
031planting of a street trade this might be a uh landscape this can be considered for a landscape modification so those are the five amendments that we are proposing we are recommending approval of them all i feel like i whip through them that probably took longer than i thought but happy to answer any questions doing a follow-up that might be needed when this comes back and with that i will turn it over either to the commission or the public hearing next up is the public hearing so as before um uh well let me start by saying this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about the proposed changes to chapter 55 of the unified development code as before we'll first start with any folks who have joined us here in council
032chambers and then moved to remote participants again if you're watching us and need to dial in now the call in number is 877-8535 and our meeting id is 977-6634-1226 if you've dialed in you can press star 9 to indicate that you'd like to provide a public comment if you have joined through the zoom link you can use the raised hand feature mr leo will call on those who have indicated their interest in speaking calling on you by the last three digits of your telephone number or by the name you've entered through zoom please move to a quiet area and mute any background sounds including television so that we can hear you clearly whether you're participating in person or remotely please provide your name and address at the beginning of your comments would you like to
033provide public comment during the public hearing sure this is on any of them any of the five sure absolutely um any remote participants we do have one raised hand um collar ending five eight eight um please unmute yourself and you have three minutes to speak to the planning commission about these proposed amendments okay hello members of the planning commission can you hear me we can oh okay well hello hello again my name is owen franks and i'm an attorney at benjamin d joe plc in ann arbor we're located at 334 east washington street and i'd like to thank you for your time and service to the community i just want to start by saying that the proposed amendments to the udc regarding marijuana license types and the number of licenses per lot would help the
034city and local licensees and as it's currently worded the code sections at issue seem to be pretty vague and open to interpretation and we are of the belief that appropriate amendments to the udc would allow for some more clear guidance under the code and mimic what the state guidelines currently allowed for now as previously mentioned at the start of this call these amendments would allow for any number of marijuana facilities on a single lot as well as allowing for multiple of the same kinds of marijuana license types on one line however these amendments would still leave open the question of how many different types of licenses a light agency may have at a single location and we believe that in addition to the proposals currently being considered the code should also be amended to be
035clear that any number of marijuana license types on a single lot are permissible or at a minimum to allow for more combinations of types of licenses on a single lot we think that allowing for any number of licenses on the lot subject to the obvious zoning restrictions and allowing for any mix of types of licenses on a single lock should be considered by the commission for simplification and as well as updating you know best practices within the city and it would also mimic what the state guidelines currently allow for essentially to try and simplify it so the best that i can we are especially requesting the commission to consider that marijuana licensees in the city of ann arbor have the ability to stack licenses and the ability to have different types of licenses on the
036same land thank you for your time and consideration thank you we have one more unless you've changed your mind we have one more of caller that has raised their hand caller with phone number ending five three four you have three minutes to address the planning commission hello again this is tom stalwart calling from lower town in ann arbor uh some of you may know but not everybody listening they know one of my hats that i wear is a property manager and i'm a part owner in some of those properties and manage properties for other people that i don't have ownership interest in under both categories we have some r2a zone properties uh so i will be a beneficiary of these changes a couple questions i have for you which i know you don't have to
037directly answer but be helpful if you were to describe what notice was given for these changes and who received notice for your next meeting who might receive notice as well and again when it goes to council who will get notice of these changes there was concern for the adu ordinance revisions about lack of direct notice to 20 000 impacted residences that was brought up at a prior city council meeting a couple years back and city council turned it down because they felt that better public notice and engagement was important a couple years went by instead of getting more public education and notice just a new council said go ahead people asked for at a minimum a postcard just to go out to those twenty thousand packs of residents so they would have direct notice and
038i believe that would i believe it's appropriate to err on the side of giving notice more rather than less so i hope you can take that into consideration and give better notice on these changes and i think it would help the public to compare given the new adu ordinances that have affected the adu ordinance revisions effectively eliminated single family dying that the name is kept the label is kept for r1 etc uh but two habitable dwelling units are allowed on every residential you know a lot except for home i believe that's r6 so i think it's worth comparing uh what the adu would be to uh duplex there are some differences that i know but the publicly helped if you could cover that uh personally i like duplexes i think it's a wonderful opportunity for
039owner occupancy by financing with renting out one unit inside you know occupying the other unit that you buy of the two uh hopefully those opportunities will be increased by an increased number of duplexes uh which hopefully that this is intended to do not just bring in to conformance some non-conforming lots but add additional um duplex capability additional units to the housing stock so i think that would be beneficial again i want to put the disclaimer out that i would be one of the beneficiaries financially of these changes the only question from my group my investment group is do we have if these should pass that planning commission then subsequently council do we act on google or do we wait until we get four units per lot which some people are advocating some um three minutes
040three minutes has elapsed please wrap it up thank you bye if there's any other callers who have joined via phone or zoom that would like to provide a public comment during the public hearing you can press star 9 on your phone or use the raised hand feature there are no additional callers on calling or zooming okay if you'd like to go ahead okay all right hi jeff penco 213 west madison considering the marijuana amendment i have two comments if the overall goal was to allow greater concentration of marijuana businesses in areas where they are most appropriate i think there would be a lot of support for this so in commercial or industrial areas far from residents it would make sense to allow the higher density of these businesses but do these changes run counter to
041the goals of the 600 foot separation portion of that um wouldn't it be better and more equitable to remove the 600 foot separation at least in these areas is it equitable to have two lots next to each other and grant more licenses to the first lot than denied the neighboring lab for many of these businesses due to the barrier is this proposal the best course of action and then for other zones that have residential areas nearby i believe the status quo is best these limits will mitigate the impact these businesses have on the neighborhood i would like to ask you to remember that most of the recreational facilities did not go through the current marijuana approval process they were grandfathered in and the immediate neighborhoods were not involved why further remove protections for these neighborhoods
042in addition planning commission has commented at least on one of these sites that the proposed changes would not have any immediate impact due to other current limitations that are on existing then why expand them for these sites that there is no need and would have no impact keep the status quo and make changes due to the due to a need and cause beneficial change you know at that time so i asked is this amendment the best course of action forward the second comment i have is about the local neighborhood involvement in this process while other amendments are in general and have a diffuse impact amendments affecting special use exemption businesses have a high impact the limited region like the earlier caller it could be practical to provide additional communication to these areas that when plans
043are under consideration and get their involvement you know at earlier stages or if you have other needs for interested parties to stay informed i'd be grateful to hear of them thank you for your time and attention thank you no other indication has come online has it mr leo oh yes um we have okay group help the color ending in five three four has a hand raised but i'm we've already done that one right okay so no i forgot to lower the hand um there and there aren't so there are no additional ones new ones all right very good uh i'll close the public hearing and read the motion um the ann arbor city planning commission here by recommends that the mayor and city council approve the amendments to chapter 55 unified development code as proposed
044and generally described as table 5.15-1 to allow religious assembly use in the m1 district section point 5.16.3.g to eliminate marijuana license type and numbers of licenses per lot as well as to reorganize for clarity table 5.17-2 to decrease the minimum lot size minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum lot width in the r-2a district section 5.20.10 to exclude curb cuts from street tree planting frontage calculations and remove references to street tree escrow and section 5.30.1 to add eligibility and conditions to modify street tree planning requirements by landscape modifications as well as clarifications and reorganization of that section can i have a commissioner move this moved by commissioner silvay second and by commissioner guys i don't know what my my brain is not working tonight i think i need caffeine or something i hear you
045um [Music] any again i do think that we should wrap this up but if there are any questions that people have for clarification or additional information that people would like staff to bring before we see this next time this i think that might be a good thing to collect go ahead commissioner hammerschmidt just one little thing on the r2 hey i'm just curious and don't spend a lot of time trying to get this data but when you know you have the pie charts and like what would change and be conforming i'm just curious like what what if there's a way to sort of articulate like what is what is the rest of it like i saw some of the public comment that was like oh can we you know why isn't this setback the same
046as or like wasn't it 10 feet why is it 20 feet if we if is there any little thing that's changed that would make more of them conforming am i making sense like what are those little slices once we make these changes and is there like is there anything else like if we did make the minimum lot size um smaller you know like would we capture more of it to make more of them conforming um does that make sense yeah so i'm just curious what's left over i guess like what are what are the um what are the yeah what are the characters thank you what are the non-conforming characteristics after we would apply these proposals i guess my brain doesn't work either you can't see that yeah we can't see that and so yeah
047now you don't do it right now i don't need to know right now but bear with me words not good no got it they are split i think we're highlighting but they add up to 100. um the only the only measurement so i know you can't see it but you can see the yellow and the blue um yeah from there so the um currently with the 60 foot minimum lot width 39 comply with that 60 feet or greater and 61 are not um don't comply are non-conforming they are less than 60 feet so it adds up to 100. so there's no like missing piece no no no i know so like if you we have the existing and then we have the like proposed right so like it was one of the next charts where
048the like the yellow i think it's much okay the blue my question is like oh how low do you have to go what is that like how do you eat away at the blue there you go thank you okay yeah so a bunch of them yeah or is it a bunch of different random things got it yeah yeah that's yes then i'll just leave you with um because you can't see but um going down to 40 feet from 60 to 40 will go from 31 percent to 13. so just again and then for the lot area um going to um 27 non-conforming but um 73 but i hear yes i'm on it i think we all understand okay quantification of what is remains in the blue pie wedges yes other questions or clarification that might
049be helpful for when we discuss this again go ahead commissioner weich just on the marijuana licenses if i uh one of the comment i was following and then i got a comment and now i'm confused um and i'm not sure if it was just because of how the attorney talked about it but it appeared that we were going to resolve the issue of the commenter is that correct yes that was my interpretation he was um it was my opinion was as if he only was was aware that we were deleting the table with a number of licenses per lot but we also were deleting the other paragraph that regulated the types of licenses okay because i got confused because i was like everything you're asking for is in there but you're commenting as if it's
050not in there so maybe it's not in there and you understand it better than i did okay so that was the first one thank you the second question which i tried to read everything and it's probably there and i just missed it are we changing the total number of licensable marijuana facilities within the city from 28. no okay so it will still be 28 it's just the type of license that they are obtaining from the state that will allow them to move from just a dis a distributor to a grower but then be in the same lot space where that previously had to be in different lot spaces right okay great then i if that is true and it remains true then i'm good on that and that one seemed to make sense yeah okay
051thank you for the clarification of anyone so the restriction of 28 maximum provisioning center slash retailers remains the cap for 28 designated consumption facilities remains and the requirement um for 600 feet separation between certain facilities one specific is provisioning center retailers remains and the provisions for a thousand foot separation from k-12 schools remains the only things that are changing is you can have more than one license on a lot but you have to be eligible in the first place but you can have more than one and if you have more than one they now can be multiples of the same they don't have to be different i have a follow-up question on that and i and and i don't think it has to be done now um for some of the other types so like
052just um delivery facilities grower grow facilities my understanding or my recollection is that there's not caps on the total number there are not okay um so this could have an impact on that the other question and i think that this kind of comes to one of the other commenters um comments uh is about um both uh kind of dispensaries um and consumption facilities largely when though when we put those in place or when when those special exception uses were granted my recollection is that there's in almost all situations a cap on the square footage of the for that particular facility and i'm curious well first of all um a dispenser uh uh i think that's what it's called right dispensaries um can't because of the separation between individual dispensaries those ones could not stack is
053that fair um that is fair yeah you can't um we you they you can't be 600 feet apart and um stacked so that that is um remains and we're saying yes and and any expansion would they would still be capped by the square footage limitation in the special exception use yes most if not all i know that most are very specific they're in this tenant space or they are this amount of square feet um so any if if the one provisioning center wanted to expand they most likely it would depend on the specific conditions but most likely they'll need to come back and amend their special exception use and if something has been approved if a special exception use has been approved for a provisioning center and maybe grow facilities not the right example but
054like the process the micro micro business that's one of the categories or um kind of a secure transport thing was not envisioned it's going to take some you know space in a building and it was not envisioned at the time of that special exception you they would have to come back and apply for a separate approval for that is that right well they would need to follow whatever rules are there okay um so off the top of my head if there was a provisioning center and they wanted now to take advantage and have an upstairs downstairs provisioning center and designated consumption facility the designated consumption facility needs a special exception use so they're going to have to get that approval go through the process for that but if they wanted for some reason to be
055a um the provisioning center on the bottom and they've already got that approval and they wanted a use upstairs that was permitted a primary use they wouldn't need to amend the special exception use this would allow them to have so two licenses would be on the same lot but each facility would follow the regulations of that district got it so that so i'm just looking at the table like a secure transport or what i'm what you're saying is that because that is a permitted use in c2b c3 and m1 and m1a it's a p on the table if they wanted to do that right now and there's already let's say a uh dispensary on the place right now because of the stacking that may not be allowed or there would be limitations on that but
056this would say you could come back and add that as long as you're in there as long as it was permitted anyway okay got it thank you for those clarifications other questions or clarifications okay good do you want to postpone it to a date certain i think so although do you have well we know that there are two things on our next agenda um but i think postponing it to the next meeting seems reasonable having three honey okay would someone like to make a motion commissioner weich is making a motion i move that we postponed this vote until our next meeting which is march 15th march 15th okay seconded by commissioner sovay any discussion of the postponement all in favor of postponement please raise a hand that all of the hands the motion carries thank
057you all right um we have nothing under item nine other business so we're on to item 10 which is our last opportunity for public comment um this is for an opportunity to speak for any issue um uh for up to three minutes again we'll first call on those who are present here and then move to remote participants to speak if you're uh listening in remotely uh you can dial eight seven seven eight five three five two four seven and then enter meeting id nine seven seven sixty six thirty four twelve twenty six uh if you've dialed in by phone you can press star nine on your phone you can use the raised hand feature of viewing through the web link um either way please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments
058jeff penco 213 west madison um i just want to say thank you to all the commissioners and city planner brett leonard all the communications through him has been very responsive and you know it's uh anyway i would say that you guys are real class act and do very well managing these difficult scenarios so thank you for your time and energy thank you and thanks for your patience tonight waiting us out here yes seriously any others that have uh indicated through zoom that they would like to speak no again if you've joined star 9 to raise your hand or you can use the raised hand feature all right uh item 11 is commission proposed business go ahead commissioner lee oh there we go um hey just just to be perfectly clear i plan to recuse myself
059from the vote with respect to the m1 religious assembly and the r2a just to err on the side of caution of things so um i i don't have any actual or current knowledge that oxford owns r2a but i just want to be safe and i know that we manage a thousand units so um to be perfectly clear and i'll bring this up again at the next vote but i just want to let you guys know um thank you thank you any go ahead commissioner weich uh wondering about uh some of the comments that we got uh regarding parking maximums and how we would bring that to an agenda so for i think that's my first question is what's your preference as chair to have that conversation should that go through orc should i work with
060staff to bring a motion to the whole planning commission for consideration and debate um do you have a do you have a preference for that conversation so i would suggest that typically typically ordinance amendments start in orc and in the one of the key limitations is often get you know there's only so many staff so this is why we have our work plan prioritizing kind of what's next and this particular issue came up as some one of the top things that we thought that we would add to the work plan um so the prioritization process is the next thing um i what i would also say and we talked about this a little bit at orc is that there's more things on our work plan than we know that staff can handle that we the
061orc can handle that we honestly can take on and so if there are if there are issues that others committees you know if there's something that's an energy commission thing um we put that out there there have also been like the the lighting ordinance i would say um uh citizen initiated rezonings and responding to language is a little bit easier though it takes still like putting the polish on like how does it fit with udc um so i uh the next plan for the work plan discussion is i think can you help me remember what we discussed what is it work is it are we discussing it at our working session is that what we talked about yeah we're going to discuss at work session but we're also bringing a first round of parking or
062amendments to the commission for vote maximums is not part of it but can be part of that discussion as well so i think there are two kind of opportunities both in work plan and with the first round of ordinance changes coming to a vote that we can have both of those discussions and can i ask a clarifying question and would that be a city-wide maximum or is it just within specific um zoning areas that's what's up for discussion okay all right and we can yes that yeah and so again that's next week that we thought we would look at the work plan okay so we so we're having our work plan meeting next week that's the full commission not just the sub okay great and so then that's where we can talk about it and
063then potentially propose some language for that or is that too quickly so i'm seeing some heads shaking in opposite directions i mean i think it depends on how much work we think it will take into it i think well talking about work plan is talking about what to prioritize not working on the work plan yeah okay so because i'm just trying to understand the context of how deliberate this will be so it sounds like the first stage of the conversation is we have the whole list we prioritize and then we will figure out what kind of work ethic excuse me effort it's going to take to take on the things we have prioritized and then from that prioritization we will begin the process of working through that that does not specifically it does not well
064it does not say how specific we can get between those two points because if in the working plan conversation this doesn't come up then my next question just to telegraph is how can we get it higher and it's not to say to to do away with the work plan process it's just to understand like is it because it requires so much staff time and it's something we could ask the university like or a planning class to do as a project for us and bring back that language so i'm just trying to understand how to approach it and because we're a slow moving body it just takes weeks to process some of that and since we're all here and i feel like some of you have answers you could just say it's not likely that this
065is going to come up in the next three months but we will put it on the list we will talk about it and then we'll see where we are does that make am i yeah i think we should all look at the many things that we've put before that have been proffered for that work plan the whole goal of that as a as so that we as a we can discuss what the priorities are and rank though because this is this is my sense is to direct both it's it's really to help staff understand what our priorities are for their assistance in this so if there's something that doesn't make the hyatt you know higher priority there can be other avenues though ultimately at the end of the day all of the things no matter
066where they come like if it's an ordinance change it comes to our whole body right and so um so i would say next week we'll have a better sense of how all of us feel about what the collective priorities are because there's a bunch of things okay thank you yep other questions uh commission proposed business that's what the section is almost entertain a motion to adjourn move by commissioner silvay seconded by commissioner gbrandal all in favor please raise your hand that is all the hands have a good night you