Ann Arbor City Planning Commission Meeting 1/5/21

001e e e um welcome to the Tuesday January 5th 2021 meeting of the Ann Arbor Planning Commission happy New Year this meeting is being held electronically to protect public health and safety due to the covid-19 virus and to comply with orders issued by the governor the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and or the watch County Health Department we intend to conduct this meeting similarly to an in-person meeting however please be patient if we have any technical issues public comment will be via telephone only to speak during any of the public comment opportunities please call 877 85352 47 or any of the other published numbers um and enter meeting ID 7281 this information is also available on the agenda it's in the Public Notices section of the city website and on the broadcast of

002this meeting on CTN channnel 16 AT&T channel 99 and online at a2gov.org CN and if you want to watch it that way you select the government Channel Mr Leonard can we please have a roll call yes uh commissioner Mills here commissioner milin here commissioner Gib Randall here commissioner s here commissioner abon here commissioner hamers Schmidt here commissioner dish here commissioner Lee here commissioner Clark we see your lips I see you here great your volume works too full house and Quorum excellent um do we have any introductions tonight Mr Leonard no we do not excellent so we're on to item number four which is the approval of the agenda may I have a motion to approve the agenda as drafted moved by commissioner dish seconded by commissioner Gibb Randall any discussion of the agenda all those

003in favor of the motion to approve the agenda as drafted please say yes or raise your hand yes yes yes commissioner abin thank you um I saw everyone's hand so there are n opposed so it me car unanimously um item number five is the minutes of the previous meeting May I have a motion to approve the minutes of the December 15 2020 meeting moved by commissioner abon seconded by commissioner hamers Schmid are there any discussion of the minutes all those in favor of the minute as drafted please say yes or raise your hand yes yes looks like everybody anybody opposed I don't see anyone so the motion carries next up is item six which is reports from City Administration City Council planning manager Planning Commission officers and committees and the written Communications we had a

004couple packets in our um email today um and uh previously um on the written Communications um council member dish do you have any report for us I do I do um lots of good news from Council last night we approved distribution of the transportation plan which many people are very excited about um we passed the annexations and we did not reone anything as uh was petitioned for to allow greater density because most of us felt that it was not appropriate to do that from the council table without public participation or appropriate screening by the Planning Commission um in the course of that discussion um concerns about the relationship between single family zoning and race came up and I'm just floating this and maybe it's completely inappropriate or not ible but I know we have a

005working session on that coming up and I wondered if we could invite Council to not really I guess not participate so much as just listen in if they wanted to um but I don't know if that's appropriate or even feasible so I'm just throwing that out there because like I said it did come up and then finally we passed the flood plane ordinance with enthusiasm and we would like to see a sequel um flood plane ordinance step two um which would make some extensions to the flood Fringe and so we wondered if or I guess I wonder um it was mentioned last night I think by Mr Hancock that that could be put by staff onto the hazard mitigation work plan um I wondered if there were any action either from Council or from Planning

006Commission that could that would be helpful or needed to initiate that and that is all I have to say and all I have to ask thank you very much commissioner dish um Mr Leonard anything to add yeah um as referenced uh by commissioner dish uh schedule for the working session next week um we're going to have a presentation by two professors uh from the University of Michigan uh Professor Robert Goodspeed and Michael Steinberg from the law school um they're starting some research on uh uh racial racially exclusionary deed restrictions specifically in the city of an arbor um it's still in process but um I had an initial conversation with them and I found it really interesting and given the planning commission's desires from a work plan perspective to um start considering the impact of such

007issues in in the city um we're going to kick it off with that presentation I'd be happy to share that uh meeting notice with the council members it's a um the working session is publicly noticed as well to everybody our planning updates uh list um so um I I will I will definitely do that um I also in regards to the questions about the flood plane overlay um that that Hazard mitigation plan is anticipated to be updated that'll actually be led by the public services uh department and we can definitely uh as Planning Commission wishes we can definitely um have conversations with them about the development of that it will probably ultimately end up a resource document as well as part of the master plan um I would just point out that I think that

008this this came up um this this balance did come up in the context of the initial consideration of the flood plane overlay zoning District that was adopted and that is what is the right balance of protection and um uh protection of existing properties and structures and protection of the functionality of the flood flood way and flood plan going forward so um I still would stand by that the the the changes that were put forth are an excellent balance of that um they they guarantee and protect property and structures while also providing some ongoing use of structures in the flood plane um it's not to say that the city couldn't go in a different direction and seek to amortise those uses out that's going to have a much more impact on a lot of property owners

009and structures so um I think that is something that the Planning Commission might want to think about as we go forward um if you want to have a voice one way or another in that that Hazard mitigation plan or as that's developed um that this is a good time to probably start thinking about what the Planning Commission position on that is um and then um we're still waiting on a confirmation there's also a possibility we will have a pre PUD petition presented at the next working session um unfortunately I haven't been able to confirm that but um if that shows up on the agenda um it's for um an existing PUD near the law school um that are seeking some potential amendments um and so um I'll confirm um via the agenda if that uh

010comes as well thank you very much um the do any other commissioner officers or committee Liaisons have anything to report out on I don't see anyone just to note that as I mentioned to when some were on the phone orc didn't meet um in December so uh that's the ordinance revisions committee um but I expect that we'll meet in January as our we've got lots of ordinances to look at and I would also just flag here that if people do want if those of us here do want to talk more about um the flood plane ordinance and the opportunities for that like we can talk about that in prop commission proposed business like that's the right place in the agenda to talk more about that okay um next up is audience participation um this is

011an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about an issue that's not listed as a public hearing on this agenda so the things that we'll have uh public hearings for are the near North Town Homes the Capital Improvements plan amendments to the permitted uses in uh c2b and C3 zoning districts the rezoning for the ruthan nature area and oakwoods nature areas um I want to flag though that there is no public hearing scheduled for the c1a c1a our um response to city council since um it's a communication and so if you do have comments about that you this is the time to speak about that um so you can feel free to digitally raise your hand to to that end um if you want to comment on that issue or any other

012issue again that's not a public hearing for tonight you can call 877 8535 247 and enter meeting ID 7281 City staff will select callers that have digitally raised your hand you do that by pressing star9 on your phone um you'll get an electronic me automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak um and Mr Leonard will uh announce you by the last three digits of your telephone number when speaking please move to a quiet area and mute any television or background sounds that you might have so that we can hear you more clearly and please also state your name and address um at the beginning of your comments looks like we do have a hand up yes caller with the phone number ending with 556 uh you can unmute your phone and you

013have three minutes to address the Planning Commission hi this is Ral mcke 1116 Red Oak uh good evening I'm here to talk about Vol 11a the report on c1a and C1 AR I sent you an email earlier today I hope you've had a chance to read it in my short time tonight I'm going to focus on the affordable housing aspect first we all agree we have a crisis there we've had a ton of advocacy remember the outpouring to approv course bases so we could spend five million of City money on it recently the a20 plan said build quad plexes that'll help those that disagreed were shamed as fear m and in the summer campaigns incumbent council members were attacked for allegedly voting against it we've moved to develop City properties for it I like that

014but on 415 Washington City staff shamed objecting neighbors and that project isn't even going to be affordable in November we voted to tax homeowners 6 million a year for it at your next meeting we're going to be told about the racist history of single family zoning I'll tune in Mike Steinberg's an old friend of mine and then you're going to start uh Transit supported development all under the rubric of affordable housing what about lower toown approval in 2017 under C1 resulted in a loss of $9 million in affordable housing funds $9 million it was approved by running rough shot over the master plan which specified mixed use the original staff recommendation to deny said that loud and clear what changed don't know just the recommendation did any affordable housing Advocates squawk no deafening silence not

015a peep what did we get giant buildings full of 2500 a month apartments no retail and no affordable housing dollars zero if that process and results okay with you I should just stop now if it isn't you need to do something to shut the door on that because if you don't it might happen again and please don't say that was just one produ so was core bases so is Lockwood Lower Town was way bigger it could have been the biggest coup for affordable housing dollars ever and every parcel that's rezoned that way is one that might be a PUD with real dollars into the affordable housing fund or one that might result in premiums you have a chance tonight to actually do something to prevent another affordable housing disaster if you don't nobody should believe

016every again that you care affordable housing your words will be just more political hot air and viewed as a hypocrite the right thing to do is obvious here eliminate c1a or C1 and or at least limit it to where it really belongs please just do it thank you thank you very much if you uh I see another hand up on another caller if you want to address the Planning Commission on an item that doesn't have a public hearing tonight um that's star nine to raise your hand caller with the phone number anying with 534 caller with ending with the number ending with 534 uh please unmute yourself and you have three minutes to address the Planning Commission good evening this is Tom stalber I live at 1202 Traer Street in the heart of Lower Town

017um and I want to talk to you about c1a and C1 a r i sented two emails recently uh covering that I hope you had the opportunity to read those uh curiously the current report seems vastly different than what was discussed and voted on at the last minute and I'm sure you'll discuss that when the item comes up on the agenda I also want you to think about discussing whether commissioner Lee should recuse himself or be recused whatever the proper process is um nothing personal commissioner Le uh you work for Oxford properties uh you said you would do so for uh Transit support to development or T1 whatever we're calling it um and this is very pertinent here some people want to spread improperly spread c1a and C1 R where they don't belong and they

018want to take them and move them from the central campus business district to places with the word campus in them but without a campus business district such as perhaps North Campus where Oxford properties may very well have Holdings up and down Plymouth Road uh or manage properties for other people or say the South a letic campus where actual property certainly does have very significant Holdings so you know maybe this helps highlight what campus business district really is and what it really isn't and should never be I also want to talk about the garnet uh this body recommended replacing the C1 zoning with a PUD uh which the majority of council agreed with uh and I know that was a second goor around for everybody and that did result in $888,000 a private developer paid affordable

019housing funds um c1a was never appropriate for the garage for multiple reasons uh the campus business district kind of reasons the conflict that it had with D2 and our at2 D2 process and also the conditional zoning that was on that application uh that conditional zoning is specifically the type of conditional zoning that the courts frown upon that application should never have even got you because of that reason alone I could spent a long time talking about conditional zoning it's been misapplied and and you know I can't blame you all because you haven't been taught uh it's complex but we're doing it wrong and we're getting ourselves into very vulnerable legal Jeopardy if we keep doing what we've been doing with conditional zoning um with the garnet even though the majority Ved uh for the Pud

020there uh a minority really held out strongly because instead of accepting the affordable housing money they really wanted to set a present for improper up zoning improper use of Campus business district where it didn't belong and that was unconscionable for the that Minority on city council to do that so let's clean this up either get rid of c1a and C1 r or very specifically limited to the central campus business district where it was always intended where belongs and you don't have to worry about all the fixes you were talking about if you just keep it there thank you thank you I don't see any other callers on line Mr Leonard I do not all right then um we will move on to the next item of business which is uh item eight the public hearings

021for the next business meeting we have one public hearing scheduled for the next business meeting it is uh an item that previously appeared on the December 15th agenda it is the Lewis Jewelers retail Plaza site plan for city council approval and special exception use for Planning Commission approval um the request is for a 300 or a for at 300 South Maple a 1.98 Acre Site Zone C3 um and plans include demolishing the previous restaurant building and constructing a new retail building this was tabled on 12:15 and has been Ren noticed um they've made some modifications and we'll be returning it next meeting thank you very much we are on to our unfinished business um item 9A uh this is the near North Town Homes resoning and sight plan for city council approval with planned project

022modifications um as we do for petitions before us we'll start with a uh petitioner presentation uh the petitioner which Mr Leonard will start moving them kind of into the room um will have up to 10 minutes to present um then uh Miss Leo is here and can uh provide staff's uh presentation and then we'll open the public hearing before Planning Commission discusses the uh petition um Alexis and project team do you have a um one of you be doing any PowerPoint presentation and I can give you access to share your screen Alexis I can't hear you the double mute feature from the project team do you see everybody that you're expecting on the call now everybody from your team is here great I see some nodding heads yes there we go sorry I couldn't get

023my unmute unmuted it's a thing tonight it's totally okay it's 20 it's 2021 we got to stay positive so Alexis am I doing a presentation or is Lexis gonna kick us off I didn't hear um you you if you have a presentation to do do you have a PowerPoint or a visual you'd like to share with the Planning Commission I would love to share with the Planning Commission yes okay I'm going to give you uh access then and you can pull up your presentation and you'll have up to 10 minutes once you get started Ryan before you start I don't know if Anthony has access in case he has to speak on anything because I don't see him uh on video with us he texted that he he's listening because he's been texting me so

024um is he a w r um what did he say no said I'm here so um I don't want to I don't want to hold the meeting up um Tony you're welcome to text me if you can't speak that'll work okay all right uh you have you have up to 10 minutes um on make sure you can share your screen let's make sure we can see it yep all right that y we can and I'll give you I'll give you a note when you're when there's about a minute left okay I appreciate that um I know Alexis is a uh she's also going to have a presentation um she did a larger one last time I just kind of want to go over some of the things uh some of the the new documents with

025our submitt the site plan hasn't necessarily changed but we've added some detail some renderings Etc and then I'd like to go over quickly uh uh some of the Planning Commission comments that we asked for before we had it tabled last time so I just want to call everyone to uh we did renderings of the courtyard um we did additional renderings of the and this was also at the request of the of the uh when we had our neighborhood meeting they all wanted additional detail on how it would look Etc so we we did a series of of uh renderings to uh to better illustrate uh the site so so uh we have those you have the site plan from before um and I'm going to go to this rendering here just because it's my favorite

026um just just to highlight some things about the site we have that retaining wall over here uh on the uh on the east side to to maintain some of the existing trees along the property line um the this Landscaping has been crosschecked with our landscape architect this is meant to be as accurate as we could make it um because we have a we have a pretty good drop and grade across this side of the site um many of these homes on this side on the east side are are much higher and then as it drops to the north these homes back here uh they they get further and further away from the site so we have those to refer to um so so very quickly uh I'm going to go through uh the planning commissioner's

027comments and Alex milin and I I I right off the bat I want to apologize if I Slaughter anyone's name you you know I have the best of intentions so uh Alex um uh we had four bullet points from him he wanted to see some some additional renderings uh we have those um uh uh better color scheme doesn't like brown this is meant to be reddish uh we did we did change it I hope that it's a rendering so it's not the actual masonry unit but we we hope it look looks better um we did have another neighborhood meeting we had uh we had 16 invites and we had eight participants in that meeting and we incorporated their requests and explained um you know or we had explanations for their questions and the main thing

028we want to make sure is is as you recall from the letter uh some thought that the development had doubled in size and we wanted to make sure that uh it hadn't and we're right about where we were uh when we saw them in 2018 uh trash removal was unclear um we have oh let's let's start here down here is our uh screened refu uh uh container area we'll have uh Recycling and refu and the dumpster I try not to use that but yes the dumpster is there um that they'll it'll have a regular gate that's brick but it'll that's not very accurate but um that's where it's located and on the site um it's located here uh we have a we have a truck radius here uh from the sanitation department they reviewed this

029we went back and forth on a couple things I changed the orientation of this to help the turning radius and they're meant to come in this way come into this area labeled no parking back in and then leave um that is that uh phasing um the building is phased in so far as it's It's Des because the building steps as you go north south to North and because we Step at those wall sections we can actually call that a phase line if we want to stop it there um that's just Aus in construction for any reason economy weather Alien Invasion whatever if we have to stop for some reason we have a phase line to get to but the intent is to because of where it is Main Street um all the factors that you

030could bring up it is intended to um build as one building that does make the most sense but we we had to reserve the uh the opportunity for that um Shannon Gib Randall um I believe we discussed if it was in line with the master plan the first time and it is and Alexis can confirm that um solar roofing um I'll go over that in a little bit um those were her two comments Ellie abon's uh what contributions uh what contributions besides open space uh um we we uh we made a donation to the park fund of $10,000 um uh according to hoil uh we need one of three we're we're proposing more open space our North Side setback and we have a pedestrian orientation uh in this area here well if you can see

031we have a break in the brick there because there's a staircase that goes down to Main Street um right through here so this is a public this does not enter a unit this takes you up into the Courtyard area and then this is meant to be a uh Ingress and egress for all the unit members uh uh in the building to access Main Street um we hope that and then we we also have a staircase over here that also gets us out to Main Street so we have uh I think I think we're pretty pedestrian oriented um then Sarah Mills um she lik the doors on Main Street they they are still there EV ordinance um we consulted uh well Alexis did an analysis of the EV ordinance the flood plane ordinance in the in

032the in the amendments to the zoning the general zoning um based on her suggestions and our desire to um be part of that ordinance we're going going to and so we exceed what the ordinance would require and Alexis can can confirm that we're going to um uh complete all the garages in they'll all be EV cap uh capable with stations we're going to install the stations in all of the garages so that every every garage will be will be ready for plugin for two vehicles so all the garages we'll have um stations installed and then we're going to run the conduit out to the other parking spaces so that they'll be capable or ready uh uh if the if the association so desires to do that with the outside parking but we will provide stations

033for all of the garages um flood plane ordinance uh I Alexis can confirm I believe Jerry gave us uh clean bill of health on complying with the new flood plan ordinance um so we're happy for that Lisa so hope that's correct um she had flood she echoed the flood flood plane questions uh from Sarah um Lisa Jane D I hope that is um she is not comt able with three items of contribution adding up to be enough that was part of our motivation to um kind of lean into the the EV requirements and make sure we added something to that um B based on her comments um Sarah hamers Schmid uh about a minute left oh okay she basically had questions about the citizen par participation meeting uh you know we we had we had

034a third one I think we addressed everything um that that they had and answered their questions um and then electrification so on uh electrification we are let's go back to the rendering the renderings do Show solar panels um we we have we have we have engaged a consultant we are looking at that uh we're comfortable enough to show the panels on we're not sure what we can offer or what we will offer uh uh in regards to solar as far as electrification uh we're we're going to be mostly fully electric we will have uh we will have um I want to use the right heat pump we we consulted with a um Heating and Cooling uh consultant and so we will have heat pumps electric heat pumps in 80 80% of the units except for

035the corner units uh the corner units uh it just won't be enough for them without an a lot of additional uh help to produce the heat so uh we will be uh natural gas on the corners but we will be 80% heat pumps and and then electric electric uh water heat Etc um so the only okay and so that that concludes my presentation thank you very much um I think Alexus is still working on her connection here just give me one moment okay there Alexis you know I'm I'm sorry but Alexis really does have the most up toate information would it be okay if I suggest we take about a five minute break and um I can see if I can help with some technical is uh support to get her online that sounds great

036so by my computers clock that would be 742 let's actually let's come back at 7:45 great we will take a eight minute break then and see everybody e e e I e e e are all back so uh we'll call the meeting back to order um Miss Deo uh staff presentation thank you uh I'll just speak um and go over the staff report I do have um a last month's or last um meetings PowerPoint presentation that has um um the uh street view of the site and things like that I also have access to the renderings on the site plan um but because this is a returning project I will go over the um New staff report and then any materials or visuals upon request so as mentioned this is the near North development 700

037North Main Street it is a rezoning a site plan for city council approval with plan project modifications um it was previously uh discussed following a public hearing on November 17 and it was postponed the Planning Commission asked for a bit more information um about it and I and between the applicant and I we have assembled some additional information for you regarding Solid Waste and Recycling operations there was a question about that there is a single point of collection on site it can be accessed by um service vehicles um heading in and the those Vehicles can turn around and exit the site also heading out that also means that the fire department can head in uh head in and turn around on site and um head out as well the petitioner um actually held an additional

038neighborhood meeting by zoom on December 17th um an updated summary of or a summary of that meeting was emailed to you just last night it's also in the project file uh you had asked for an analysis of the proposed and as of yesterday approved flood plane management overlay District regulations um this building is outside of the flood plane and floodway therefore it is neutral the new ordinance does not apply um so it apply it complied then U before yesterday and it continues to comply with all of our flood plane regulations uh you've asked for an analysis about our um pending or our contemplated amendments to plan project modifications in the staff report I've gone through the basically the two amendments that we are considering and then I offer an analysis the bottom line is that

039um for the proposed changes which are to repeal or delete the plan current plan project section and to um expand one aspect of flexibility that's already offered and offer an additional area of flexibility for height so for what we're considering about setbacks the project um either fully meets or does not meet at all it meets meets the um setback line and yard Alternatives that we already offer to multif family zoning districts for the South Side um but we don't currently offer and we are not contemplating offering any flexibility for rear setbacks and this project needs a rear setback modification so under the proposed scheme they' need a variance um regarding height it could meet the exceptions that we are offering um and it kind of depends on what the applicant and the developer um might

040want to do um the proposed Building height is within the 30% increase that we are offering but they would need to make um more commitments than they have um regarding sustainability or affordable housing um so in summary the project complies with some of the pending amendments but it can't be approved as proposed with those amendments I personally think that that's a little bit more of a reflection on the Amendments rather than on the this project itself um if this is the kind of project that we would like to approve with the Amendments we'll need to take another look at the Amendments but again the these amendments are just contemplated they're not adopted so in terms of what is actually today's code IT staff argues it's our opinion that it meets um the current code now

041the code is a little bit discretionary but we have said in our staff report that we think it is approvable based on the justifications and the modifications that they're asking for you'd also um I will mention that we emphasized to the applicants the sustainability and affordability um priorities of the Planning Commission and city council um at the time the staff report was written I didn't have much information about that I we since have some commitments which I understand are were phrased as a consideration but are actually the um development team is going to install some solar panels on the roof they've been working with a consultant or contractor about that for zoning history this site has always been zoned off this site was zoned office for decades until 2009 and after which it was zoned

042PUD there's never been anything other than originally office o and now ped um a few site plans have come through and either been approved um and expired or have been withdrawn um additional renderings have been U prepared and finally conformance to the EV parking requirements um it's looking like the uh because of timing the electric vehicle requirements will apply to this project um and I have worked with the design team on making sure that the project complies what they'll need to do is provide six um charging stations and um 40 some um EV ready or 35 EV capable and 14 EV ready and I know that um this that this should not be too much of a hurdle this is brand new construction um and we're talking about uh six stations and then basically Readiness

043um which should be um easy to do and we'll take almost no site plan revision to do it um um to get that under construction um we staff continue to recommend approval of the project um we have found that it meets the plan project standards um for approval the site plan meets the standards of approval and we support the proposed rezoning from Pub to r4c as I mentioned at the beginning I am happy to um answer any additional questions also show any additional materials that either from the previous meeting or new things that the applicant has provided thank you thank you misso um now we will open the public hearing for this item this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about the proposed near North Town Homes development the

044public comment be be may be made by calling 877 85352 47 and then entering the meeting ID 7281 City staff will select callers that have raised their hand one by one and call and Mr Leonard will call on You by the last three digits of your telephone number you raise your hand digitally by pressing star nine on your phone you'll hear an automated announcement um that the host is allowing you to speak and please move to a quiet area and mute any background sound so that we can hear you clearly please also state your name and address at the beginning of your comments looks like we do have a hand up caller with the phone number ending with 134 you have three minutes to address the Planning Commission uh thank you Mr Leonard and chair

045Mills this is Ken Garber 28 H Hill Court um listening just now to the petitioner comments on building electrification um when he refers to a mix of heat pumps and gas with gas for the corner units you might want to dig a bit deeper into that during the discussion period um heat pumps can mean a lot of different things are we talking about individual air source heat pumps for each residential unit or are we talking about a vrf system vrf stands for variable refrigerant flow with vrf one central heat pump plant has refrigerant Distribution Systems serving individual spaces which have their own thermostats very efficient low utility bills quiet operation um Mitsubishi and some other vendors now offer some extremely efficient vrf systems that work well in our climate um I I'm agnostic on individual

046heat pump systems for units those are also good um but commission may want to put this question to the petitioner during the discussion period what we don't want is Pac units that stands for package terminal air conditioners or something similar these are the individual units that you see mounted in some hotel room windows that are basically individual air conditioners that can heat the room when you reverse the flow um uh these are uh expensive to operate very inefficient don't think we want those um I assume the petitioners not proposing that but you may want to check um also will the water heaters be heat pumps or will those be gas fired um that's another major source of greenhouse gases uh those are my questions and and um I look forward maybe to getting some answers

047uh later on today thank you you very much if any of the other callers wish to speak at the public hearing for this item it's uh star nine to raise your hand seeing no others I will close the public hearing and read the proposed motions from the uh which are in the staff report oh there is a hand so I'm G to open it back up I was too fast didn't allow for the TV delay sorry hello this is Tom stalberg again uh from 1202 travor I also want to make sure everybody knows that I um I'm manager and part owner of two adjacent properties to the North 110 and 112 East Summit Street um I want to start out by saying for the most part I do support this project I think it's a

048a good project uh I um want to recognize Ken garber's questions and hope those are answered um those are important uh things to answer I I do want to mention that uh the current plan project modification ordinance is something that we challenged in our lower toown lawsuit and don't feel is legal I don't think this is the place uh for us to make a a big stand on that uh because of two reasons one the Planning Commission has recognized that that uh plan project modification needs elimination and replacement and you're well on your way to doing so uh and that you've offered a couple different paths that developers can take one towards affordable housing another towards sustainability and this developer uh has been following their suggestions um towards the sustainability end of things uh with

049the electric um uh water heaters heat pumps solar EV Chargers Etc so you know I leave it to you to have that discussion uh if they've gone far enough or not um but obviously they're moving in that direction uh so again I'm I know you have to approve this under the current plan project modification ordinance not the one that you propose uh and again I have objections in general to the plan project modification ordinance but I'm not going to make a stand on that here because overall I think this is an appropriate project for the location uh there's something kind of similar to it uh just uh uh a little bit to the uh I'm losing my orientation here a little bit closer to downtown um and that uh it is appropriate the former PUD

050for this site was really a hail Mar pass uh for the former developer to try to get out of uh a lot of debt that they were in in a troubled time and partnering with on housing to do that so uh that was always going to be dicey in terms of financing that and so I don't think that's a good standard to measure any other project for this location by and that measuring this project uh how it stands on its own and compatibility the neighborhood and master plan and Zoning of surrounding areas I think a fine I think this is a fine project in terms of those measurements thank you thank you very much now there aren't any more phone calls I think that haven't spoken is that you're understanding to Mr Leonard that's correct

051so now I'm safe to close the public hearing and read the Motions we have two the first is the an arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve the near North resoning from PUD planned unit development to r4c multiple family dwelling the second is the Anarbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve the North site plan with planned project modifications to a increase the maximum height to 33 Fe 6 in B decrease the Southside setback to 15 feet and C decrease the rear setback to 22 feet subject to I maintaining 43% open space double I maintaining 1132 feet North Side setback and triple ey having front doors facing north Main Street garages underneath and accessible only from the interior of the site and development agreement

052subject to receiving preliminary approval from the Wasa County water resources commissioner and addressing outstanding engineering comments prior to scheduling for a public hearing of the city council moved by commissioner milstein seconded by commissioner S I didn't ask before any objections to taking these together And discussing them together okay so we will we will discuss them together anyone want to start out with comments or questions commissioner dish sure I would be uh I would just love to hear a response to Mr garber's Question um I think his first question is the more important of the two as I understand it from your December 14th memo you will have electric water heaters and um I guess so that that's electric electric powered by gas um yeah yep I I uh I took a call just now because

053I wanted to make sure I I know what I'm talking about because I don't know what I'm talking about with regards to hbac uh these are going to be electric heat pumps split systems um the proper very efficient ones uh not the um PTAC unit he um Ken was talking about so that that that that's that is what we're proposing there'll be all electric um P pumps not pxs um they they will be sufficient and and uh they are fairly cost- effective actually so it sounds like a split system is not the the brf Central system but individual units that are not the evil Pacs is that where we are correct anything else commissioner dish um the only thing that I'm still unclear about is the where we are with the commitment on solar it

054was a little unclear in the in your presentation earlier I thought you said you've put them in the renderings but you're not sure how you're goingon to deliver that that is correct so still a consideration and not a commitment on the solar panels not a commitment uh we're not sure how well they'll work based on our roof space and the design the the um the the uh contractor that we have looking at it um can't really commit to a system that provides a lot of solar energy and so due to that we we went further with the EV and the heat pumps uh due to that rather than it really the redesign to those there the units are fairly small actually in footprint and we need the Peaks and the roof and the Dormers the

055way they are so it was difficult for to get a proper sgoing view with enough panel to really make a difference that's all from me for now commissioner Gib Randle we just lost commissioner Mills with some internet connectivity issues would you mind assuming uh running the meeting any other comments uh commissioner milin um so can we talk about the mini split units um from I very limited uh knowledge about this but I just installed a mini split system it's actually right above me here um and then there is a condenser unit I I don't know if that's the correct uh uh if that's the correct terminology but there's a unit that's inside that I'm looking at right above me then there's a unit outside um and so I'm just wondering um if if this is

056a similar sort of system that we're talking about a mini split system which I at least this is the way my system was described to me um with the condenser unit outside all of a sudden I'm assuming every bedroom would have this sort of a system installed um every floor would have to have this sort of system installed so we're looking at for every one of those that'd be condensers outside so in a let's just say an average unit we're looking at potentially four condenser units outside um is that my understanding I know if I don't know if that's a question more for staff or the petitioner but that seems if that's the case that seems like a problem to me especially on a um on a Condo building this large well the uh there's

057one condenser no air handler uh could could you share the doc could I get a document share please uh you should still have the ability to do so just go ahead and share your screen yeah and if other Commissioners have more information on that feel free to jump in um I'll yield my time so I can get a better understanding of of this all right the um we have condenser uh sorry I keep pulling out the we have screen condenser area on the top of the building Brian go to the aerial I think that shows it pretty W the aerial shot right there no there's one that's more vertical and it's looking down at the roofs you have that one there I think you showed it earlier uh oh right there yeah yeah so right

058here we have those little Corners right there yeah these are screened condenser area uh for the for the um Heating and Cooling on on the top underneath the eve within the courtyard so it isn't it isn't pointed towards the neighbors worrying you know when you get a bunch of these together uh they're within the courtyard and they're and they're on the top in a screened area and is one condenser unit enough to support an entire unit or will be are there is is there just one condenser unit or are there multiple condenser units I am going to have to ask I one condenser okay one condenser outside um INF furnace inside yep yep one condens continuous texting of one condenser so I I have to go with that okay and that and that was the

059reason for the redesign here on the roof for that okay all right I will study up more on that um and then the next question I have is going back to the phasing and this question is more for staff not for the petitioner um I I don't seem to recall that we've maybe it's just my memory that we've had a condo project like this have phases um especially a condo project that's small having phases I just a little concerned you know as the petitioners mentioned that you know what if the econ something happens to the economy they can't finish the project things of that nature of what would happen with the rest of the property and the individuals who own own the units there so um the staff have any comments about that Mr Leonard

060or missio um in regards to uh phasing if this is common and how this impacts us from the from the city's point of view uh would need um to to for some help on the the how it would impact the association and the and however many homeowners there are at the time I agree we've not seen many um projects as small and and single building projects um put phases in but I can tell you that it um should not be a problem just purely in terms of phases um the they have put the phase lines that sort of between the units and I can can can see from just that site plan perspective um if they were to to stop at one of the phas line points our code is set up that for um

061all improvements shown in the first phase that benefit the entire project and then whatever improvements are shown in that phase um are needed to get certificates of occupancy so it works from that aspect um I think logistically once you start and for the foundation I think you're kind of obligated to do the whole building but if they decide some of the outright that they're going to do the foundation in stages as well it works from that phasing perspective but I couldn't answer right now how it would affect a homeowners association um or not okay I guess then my next question would be to the petitioner in regards to the phasing um you know where you have your phase lines um if ultimately you stop at the end of phase one um and you've sold those

062units with phase two um you're going to need cooperation from the people who live in Phase One in order to continue building um so I'm just I'm just trying to get a better understanding of like how is this are you truly planning on building this uh in phases or is or is there a financing reason is there another reason why we're seeing phasing on such a small project especially such a small project that's all really just one building um there there are several reasons U that uh could could come up for a product like this um but we we we know that we have to put in all the utilities to make whatever what the likelihood of phasing it is very low but due due to the type of construction the the way that the

063building is designed it gives it it it offers itself as an an opportunity to phase if we need to but we have to put in all the utilities in the in the entirety for the site so it would be um it would be fully functional and the phases would just be a matter of um getting back out there and just just pouring the footings and doing the buildings themselves all the sanitary and water leads storm sewer the you know uh pavers uh pavers is one of the reasons um we have a brick uh grass pavers in the in the lower area and that's one reason we wouldn't want to phase but it it it lends itself to an opportunity to do that and sometimes uh you need to um we don't we don't we we

064don't want to make it a sticking point out okay Mr loner it looks like you have a yeah I just I just want to add on that it it is atypical um I I I I don't want to I don't mean this to be flippant we from a city perspective we care less about how the phasing is going to affect the homeowners asso association we care more about the responsibility of the developer transitioning to the homeowners associations to make sure all those obligations happen sure we can arrange for that to happen I think the other thing that could be happening here as well is that keep in mind phases are also really important for the issuance of certificate of occupancies and so um one of the things that we actually convey to petitioners is think

065about your phasing when you submit your plan because um for example if you have a large project but your desire is to maybe close on a couple of units before the entire development is complete we can't do that if it's all one single phase so I would say that another thing that could be considered here is the ability to um it it might very well be a sort of a singular construction phase but that would afford them the opp opportunity to apply for certificate of occupancies on a more sort of intermittent basis for just a portion of the building as they proceed great thank you gandle thank you for stepping in during my technical difficulties again happy 2021 I guess huh who there done that commissioner sove just jump in on the end of the

066vrf um the condensers and line sets it makes sense that you can kind of you can split line sets from a single condenser into distribution units inside and I guess that's my question about the corner units and their size capacity and the rationale that you can't do in vrf because you could do multiple condensers to be able to increase capacity to cover the square footage so I'm curious about why those ones are opted out when you could just increase the system um just the uh the diffic the our HVAC consultant stated the the the corner units are very difficult to do uh just just based on um the capacity of the amount of heat uh we do have the opportunity to put in uh electric um um uh we can we can add electric heat

067to the duct work um to pump up the heat because of the because of the corner units but um if um if doing the corner units is a sticking point you know we can we could look into that and and at the at the council meeting we could present something there possibly I think it's worth it I've done the system in large commercial buildings so I think a large town home is feasible to do it just takes you know a little Ingenuity so yeah I would request that that gets looked into um some more as this proceeds I'm I'm not concerned about it holding this up at this point but I do want to reinforce that um there's strong support to see it Go in all of the units and I believe it's possible um

068and so as as it moves forward and gets the approvals um that would be an important thing to see not a not a problem thank you any other comments questions for the petitioner staff commissioner Gib Randle um I would just like to say that um I appreciate all the research that staff did to figure out kind of how things comply with what's coming and all of that sort of thing um and I am heartened that like the EV thing is is um in line um and that the it meets flood plane ordinance and and things like that I personally don't feel like we need to hold them to the new plan project um standards that's that's that's how I personally feel about it I think that you know again they're not in code yet um

069and uh I feel like in terms of just the length of what it takes to put these things together and then at the very end to say oh here's these different standards you can apply and they have changed but Shifting the whole footprint around and and and changing how all the architecture goes together feels like a pretty big ask for something that we're kind of asking for at the very end so I personally am comfortable with them complying with the um the the current plan project and not the the um impending um plan project so I just wanted to kind of put that out there and and say that that's how I that's how I um feel about that right now um uh I appreciate all the work you've done to try to upgrade things

070and to address our concerns um I personally didn't get a chance to look at the um to look at the meeting minutes and I'm just wondering if from your public meeting and I'm just wondering if you could kind of characterize it for us in terms of just the I know that some of the neighbors were kind of you know had felt like oh it's been two years and things like that and just how the meeting went um from your perspective since it was only just a couple of weeks ago yeah it was um it was the questions I thought they would have they didn't have uh but mainly it was it was around renderings uh trying to interpret just exactly what is going on um that there was there was no uh question about doubling

071of the size of the development um I don't I don't know if uh that person was on the meeting um but um it really was just questions about the uh the patio what it looks like how do they see it the Landscaping uh the store owner to the north on some had a lot of questions about what is he going to see looking South so the renderings uh obviously were the answer to really 90 90% of the questions there there were some marketability questions you know a lot of the normal questions um but um it was really what's it look like okay and so the renderings just kind of help clarify yeah all all that okay I was just they have been supplied those renderings and I answered questions yes yesterday in this morning uh

072about those renderings and I marked up a couple for them and um as you can see we only had a couple Callins I think we took good care of it okay um yeah so I I feel supportive of the project I would like to see you know even if there's some solar I feel like it's still something um in terms of what's on there um so that's my that's my sense of it um I know that now that um because of the way the rates work with DTE that it actually makes some sense to have uh your solar on the west side of your house as well which is when people tend to be home because um uh we're putting it we have it on the south side of our house and we're going to

073put it on the west side of our house because we get kind of 100% of our money back when we are actively there using things and so it's sort of the way that DT has changed things it it's ended up kind of Shifting the market in terms of where it feels viable to put them so it may be something that you kind of talk to your solar consultant about that um uh and again I don't think anybody expects that it's going to be 100% of the energy use of the building but even if it's you know 15% where got that on another project that's still maybe what it's going to take to charge the the cars you know that are there so um I still would like to see some effort towards that but I

074appreciate the effort that you've put so far towards all the other sustainability components I'm I'm very heartened to see that any other comments I'll tack mine on to those oh go ahead commissioner Lee thanks um I'll I'll make mine quick it might be a little late in kind of the comment process and and I'm fairly new so please bear with me um my only comments really were that the north elevation to be perfectly Frank seemed a little boring and uh I I think that you know I'm thinking of the North traffic coming off you know uh it's kind of the Gateway into downtown if you're coming off of 23 and so I would have loved to see a little more you know I like the materiality on the facade towards Main Street so I I

075thought that looked great the Limestone and the wood uh adornment on the Windows looked good but the North elevation is just you know one big brick wall so uh you know it seemed just a little Bland so that that's my one thing but I'm not really asking for anything again I'm fairly new to this so please take uh my comments with the grain of salt um that it would be helpful to try and you know create a little more I guess complexity uh from that standpoint um enclosure enclosures I'm going to switch over to condensers I think the enclosures uh made a lot of sense one of the things that I know my condo association is dealing with is when people are getting different condensers because they're at the end of their useful life and

076they get you know different models and then you just get away from the uniformity of that design um my question to the petitioner what uh how long a construction timeline does 22 units take uh so when when you're talking about phases as Alex was pointing out what is um your expectation for construction timeline from this time that you guys get the you know thumbs up and go um well we would like to uh we would like to get through the construction plan review process and all that and possibly break ground in late spring early summer and um you know that's going to take uh it's going to take six months to a year to um get that finished up um I would imagine baring uh all the other all the acts of God Etc okay

077six to 12 months um if is I please let me know if this is an appropriate question what what is this going to Market at like what's it going to be sold for I'm only asking because in the meeting minutes with it referred to I defer to owner so um do you guys know what you're going to Market at in terms of sale price uh um I've heard I've heard many numbers bantered about by the owner but uh it's in the three4 of a million somewhere in there could be more could be less I fig it'll probably be more if the market continues to go up but uh something around that got it um okay that that's all the questions I had thank you very much anyone else commissioner milstein commissioner Lee that was one

078of my very first questions for the first year I was on the commission of every single petitioner to only later find out that they're always way more optimistic before us uh once they got to Market it was a very different number but I appreciate you asking the question thank you I'm here to learn and uh I just I think it's important for you know at least some expectations you know we pushing $550 a square foot oh my gosh so um all right thank you very much I want I will follow up on some of the comments the thread throughout about sustainability and largely Echo um and won't repeat uh what commissioner Gib Randle said in terms of you know we are beholden with what ordinance we currently have in terms of the plan project modifications

079and what's required um but really appreciate the petitioners looking back into um what elements well first of all appreciate staff doing the comparison to help us understand as we're changing things like do what impact this might have um I think it's it's helpful when there's things there's projects fresh in our mind also just to uh reiterate what I heard from the petitioner for everyone is that you know electrifying the the um um space uh conditioning for at least the units in the middle was cost effective is that fair I mean I that's a comment that I heard and so um I think that that is very promising for our discussions going forward and and to have in our um in our minds um I you know I have no strong opinions about those Corner units

080but looking a little bit more into that if there might be an opportunity there I think makes sense the other thing and um in terms of solar similarly like looking at what the opportunities are I wanted to just um look at the EV ordinance and make sure that I understand the numbers so based on um what Miss Deo said about what the requirements will be would be it would be for six um charging stations in total and what I heard the petitioner say was that there would be 22 charging stations is that right yeah I I'll make that clarification because Alexis didn't hear that she suggested six to meet the ordinance um besides having have have the others capable and ready um we we decided because uh we we we're not very confident in the

081Solar piece of it and some other comments from the Planning Commission we we there just wasn't a reason not to put stations in all of the garages I and again kind of in that trade-off right because of the you know I that is going above and beyond on on a sustainability element so I really appreciate that and I think what you'll also probably find is that if you can couple those charging stations if there's batteries that you can actually those solar pan like the solar becomes then very cost-effective you have lots of electricity load so um you know again I'm not going to push hard on that that's not a requirement even that you have considered it and you know right now within the current plan projects being so you know um solar access is

082or solar oriented design is something that we look at so um I think that towards the current plan projects modification um list of things your pedestrian orientation is is the thing that I can hang my hat on now but I'm I I would say I appreciate again um pulling this more in alignment with where we are as a community going um and and I'm glad that our pushing helped illuminate some things that are cost effective too so um and good for the environment isn't it great when we have win-win for that so um I am in support of this proposal any other comments questions I think Mr Leonard we're ready for a roll call vote then okay so this is on uh both motions as presented in the staff report commissioner Mills yes commissioner milstein

083yes commissioner Gib Randle yes commissioner soov yes commissioner abon yes commissioner hamers Schmidt yes commissioner dish yes commissioner Lee Yes commissioner Clark yes motions car very good next up city council for you all thank you very much all right yeah thank you very much uh I especially want to thank Alexa for doing a great job being available all the time and really helping us out with suggestions and uh we want to give her a lot of credit for being here we have a fantastic staff we are fortunate as a community so thank you all right good night everyone happy New Year Happy New Year to you okay next item of business is 10A which is the fiscal year 2022 to 2027 that's up 2027 um Capital Improvements plan the CIP um this is uh the

084petitioners effectively the city this uh so we'll have um Miss golin providing a presentation and then we'll have a public hearing um before our discussion and she should be coming in here momentarily good evening Missin thank you I was afraid I was gonna have poor Alexis's problem hold this up but it's good all right so who has the PowerPoint for this um actually we're just going to do verbal awesome great jump in dab at you're ready all right so since this is a public hearing I know that most of you um are pretty familiar with the process but I know we have council member dish who I believe would have come on board after the work session and members of the public uh may not be that familiar with the process so I'm just going

085to briefly go over you know what a capital Improvement plan is why we're here uh looking at uh taking an action on it here in the next meeting or so and then also a few highlights from the specific plan um and I do want to say the plan itself of course you had in your packets but it's been posted on uh the city website since about the middle of December so it's been available uh to the public in that format for some time now so what is a Capital Improvement plan and I'm going to be lazy and call it the CIP after this just to uh save some time so a capital Improvement plan or a CIP is actually a planning document that covers a six-year period of improvements and it's actually mandatory under state

086law for a community to have a CIP uh that comes under the U Public Act 33 of 2008 and basically a CIP is a tool to help Implement your master plan and move the community forward uh and it's also a critical element once past we'll talk in the process it becomes the building block for the fiscal capital budget so what does it take or what kind of things go in a CIP well the proposed Capital Improvement has to be something with a value of $100,000 or more or it could be a study that would be in the neighborhood of 50,000 that will lead to a capital Improvement in the future so uh we've done a number of like utility modeling studies and things along that line that eventually lead to specific capital projects themselves and

087probably more for the public it's like well really okay but what is a capital Improvement so we're talking about physical improvements to assets at the city control so we have a street system so Paving a street is a capital Improvement um we have a park system so if we want to put in a new baseball field or improve an existing playground that would be a capital Improvement to a city park um or it could be fixing an old water main it could be putting in a new sidewalk or bike lane so they actual you can see the difference improvements to the various assets that the city owns so how do we put this plan together um basically we many many years ago organ organiz the plan by what we call an asset group and that

088works well because most groups have targeted funding sources so each group has a large number of staff that participate uh in the process so the big groups are municipal facilities transportation and utilities and then within those it's broken down fur there so Municipal facilities include city-owned buildings like our fire stations and City Hall and there's a few other miscellaneous um city-owned buildings uh Parks and Recreation comes under Municipal facilities and solid waste uh because they do have facilities like you know materials uh resource facility and so on um transportation is by far the largest group and that includes improvements we do at our airport um active transportation is one that's near and dear to many of our hearts and that includes projects that help people get around not in their car not on train uh

089but things that require human power basically so sidewalk projects bike lane projects um things along that line midblock Crossings for safety for pedestrians those are the some of the kind of things that go in the active Transportation group um there's also a Bridges group most of us don't think about them we just drive over them but they really better be working right for us um there's a group we call other transportation and that involves things in the public right of way that are not really related to getting around in the classic sense but like our signs and signals uh our assets falling inside our right away that we have to spend money on from time to time uh we also have things like retaining walls in our rights away that have to be taken care

090of um and also we put the Downtown Development Authority streetscape projects into this category um then we also have parking facilities as an asset group and parking facilities are run by the DDA the Downtown Development Authority but they are City assets um the by far smallest category under transportation is new streets and it's small because this is not a community in an early stage we aren't generally in the business of building new streets from scratch however we do get a few that are done by developers that they want to become public streets uh and we do from time to time get requests from people who live on some of our gravel roads who would like to see them become paved uh that does take a special assessment District um but it's very small group for

091that reason um Street construction is probably the biggest of the group so the orange cones you see all season every single year we're reconstructing we're resurfacing and lately been doing a lot of what we call Capital maintenance so we may put a light surface coat on a street uh we may do things that last less long but cost a lot less and extend the life of the pavement and then finally a couple years ago we added Transit which basically has the train station and the idea uh well someday maybe cue jump lanes for buses and then the final of the big groups utilities uh has the sanitary system so that includes the system of pipes that collect waste and our treatment plant uh same thing for water all the pipes underground that the water comes

092out of when we turn the faucet but also the treatment plants and our system of dams and finally storm water includes again collection pipes you know catch basins and so on but also some detention storage basins and we also do water quality projects under that heading so those are the groups that the plan is organized by so if you looked at the plan you're going to see those uh that that's how the projects are laid out so how do we put it together um we go through a process I call the three PS so first we have to identify projects and a lot of that project identification comes from staff who know where the problems are um but we also have long-term planning documents Master studies of All Sorts that suggest projects but then there's

093also a public element where for instance the university may suggest a plan that it's our asset but it affects how they operate um we have Community groups like The wbwc who might say we'd like to see a new bike connection here uh we have neighborhood groups who sometimes make requests for projects you know condo associations so uh and also just individual homeowners and on the individual level they tend to be request for things like could you fill this sidewalk Gap please or could you please pave my stre Street um and sometimes they're bigger asks but generally those tend to be quite targeted to where that member lives so from the process of the first meeting we identify projects that are not already in the plan then we have to prioritize the projects money is certainly

094not unlimited so how do we decide to spend the resources that we have uh so the city for many many years has had a very robust prioritization system we did do some really um interesting new things this year because we made a change in software to a new uh product called alvance and as part of that they also furnish consulting services and we took our six biggest groups and went through a process of updating what they actually use the term strategic values rather than prioritization criteria so it was really great because it gave us an opportunity to really start rolling in Community Values that were represented but not very robustly in the old system so we were able to introduce things like um Equity issues uh more more emphasis on our new a20 um plan

095which really has climate elements but also trying to Foster you know more of a multimodal uh feeling to the community so each group could tailor uh their prioritization criteria to help reflect the values that most move the asset forward and help move the community forward so every project got prioritized and I mean every project so it was quite a challenge this fall because usually the first four years have already been prioritized we look at them see if the scope is changed and if so rescore them but when we changed the criteria themselves we had to score every project in those six largest groups and that's probably 70% of the whole plan so it was uh a long and robust process and then we have to program them so that just means you know the list

096of projects you know what their score was but it's not quite as simple as oh this got the highest score so it goes first because you have to take into account the reality of funding um if you only have a bucket for the year that says you can spend $4 million and you have a single $6 million project that ranks number one it still isn't going to go first um but it is the primary driver its score Modified by the available budget and we also work very hard to minimize disruption to the community by packaging improvements together so for instance if the engineers say these are the streets we'd like to see paved then there's a stop point the utilities Engineers say hm let's check out the state of the water the sewer the storm

097and that may suggest companion projects then after both are prioritized we look at those combinations that do the most um and so that results in the plan that you have that we're talking about uh for this public hearing tonight uh so it's organized by asset group within that group list of projects lists their rank tells the dollar value in thousands of dollars and the year that we're proposing uh for them to be done so a few highlights of this specific plan it's covering fiscal years 22 to 27 and because the city's fiscal year starts July 1 that means that fiscal year 22 is starting here in a few months so July 1 of 21 is the beginning of this new plan and within the plan um there are 491 projects which I think is the

098highest number since I've been here going on a decade now and um of that total we actually since we will have dropped off fiscal years 20 and 21 I furnished you a list of 199 projects that were completed so it was really quite an accomplishment especially considering that you know the current covid challenge affected a chunk of that time period um we also have 102 brand new projects that were added and the total dollar value in this proposed plan for the core years of 22 to 27 is a little over $ 1.02 billion and that's actually an increase of 54% which sounds like wow you know how ambitious are these people getting but a huge chunk of that increase is coming from one source and that is as you know there's been um a huge

099um impetus to increase affordable housing and city council um worked with um Jennifer Hall from the Housing Commission and a number of city-owned properties were evaluated uh for potential to be developed as affordable housing projects so also uh this community passed a millage just very recently that will help provide some of the seed money to help these projects go now they're still going to be heavily funded by grants but the sum I added up the Housing Commission projects are $397 million so they were a huge chunk of that giant sounding increase um if you set that aside so for the first time ever since Housing Commission is City owned buildings that's usually one of the smallest groups it is the largest this time but putting that one aside the water um asset group has the

100largest total ask a big chunk of that is the need to replace plant one and when I say replace it's not like a new one is proposed someplace on a new site but very very significant uh removal replacement on the current site on Sunset and also like everyone across the country our water system is aging and we are going to be spending significant funds over the next many many years uh just slowly rolling out a replacement of old water mains and then other groups that added the most new projects would be streets and that reflects the continuing fix our streets Mission from Council um the sanitary group added more than they often do and that's because there are a number of changes at the plant that are um age-based and also regulatory based and then

101active transportation again we're very fortunate that the community passed the uh millage to help us start uh making a greater effort on filling sidewalk gaps so we don't have to special assess to make that happen so we were able to put in uh quite a few sidewalk Gap filling projects and also continuing efforts on pedestrian safety type of efforts and then um there were you know every group had quite a bit of new things proposed but those groups that I just discussed are the major ones so basically we're looking at a six-year plan totaling over a billion doll and then if you factor in previous things still going and those we propos that'll be spending money in 27 and past the total counting the bracketed sides as almost 1.4 million or billion dollars so it's

102an an exciting it reflects the values of this community that we work hard to take care of our Capital assets and so I will stop there and then after the hearing any questions that come up from Community or from you I will be here to answer thank you you very much Mr Leonard did you want to add anything in just a couple couple of brief items um uh before the public hearing you'll note that in the staff report uh we do recommend postponement um there is no obligation to do so um that was done from um my recollection that in the past um typically the full uh Capital Improvements plan has been presented to the Planning Commission in a working session and then we have a subsequent meeting on it in this case the Ping

103commission receives several updates from Deb over the development of the process but I believe this is the first time you are seeing that Capital Improvements plan in in to in its total form so um that was the basis for that but if you are comfortable you may proceed with action on it there's no um necessity other than your desire if you'd like to postpone or take action and then we also I just want to um for the benefit particularly of our new Commissioners um just to to sort of echo a couple of the comments that Deb made um so under state law it is the planning commission's responsibility to put forth this Capital Improvements plan um it is intended just as Deb um always um does a great job describing to prioritize and consider all

104of the physical capital needs of the community going forward and um do our best to predict their cost and prioritization of those that document then is forwarded to the city council um it is not a um decree that the city council has to allocate budget dollars but it is a tool for them to use in the budgetary process so um just to add a little bit more um roundness to that and that's all I got thank you very much all right um I will open the public hearing for this item uh this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about the proposed Capital Improvements plan public comment can be made by calling 877 853 5247 and then entering meeting ID 921 7281 City staff will select callers that have digitally

105raised their hand by pressing star n you'll be called on by the last three digits of your phone number um when you hear the automated message that you're able to speak please move to a quiet area and mute any background sounds and please um is as we normally do um normally ask please state your name and address at the beginning of your comment there's a couple callers on the line I see one hand up if anyone else on the line would like to speak you can press star9 to raise your hand um and Mr Leonard um Mr Garber you have up to three minutes to address the Planning Commission thank you Mr Leonard um sorry I'm becoming so predictable um yeah but I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the CIP um I really commend

106sta for its work on the plan um but sustainability is again the topic for my three minutes my suggestion is this geothermal Loops could be incorporated into some of these Street and Sewer projects as you know the a20 plan envisions that all new building construction in the city will be fossil fuel free and a large proportion of existing buildings are to be converted away from fossil fuels this means heating buildings electrically with he heat pumps commission really approved three large projects all fully electrified that use air source heat pumps valala Glenn vidiian and County Farm Park and 2111 Packers and now the smaller new North the interior units anyway geothermal systems extract heat from the ground instead of the air as you know geothermal takes advantage of the relatively constant ground temperature to heat or

107cool the refrigerant that circulates through through the system to the heat pump it's more efficient than air source but geothermal is also more expensive to install because drilling is involved however the city can lower the cost of in its denser downtown districts by laying down geothermal Loops in which refrigerant that's warmed by the Earth circulates continuously each building along the loop would need to in install a heat pump driven Heating and Cooling system but these homes and businesses will avoid the high upfront cost of the loop which is which which cost is converted into a monthly service fee a good example is Boise Idaho Boise has geothermal Loops that now heat 6 million square feet of downtown buildings during the winter almost half of Boise's entire downtown each time we rip up the streets in

108our downtown area we could take advantage of the excavation to drill the holes and and install the pipes that comprise a geothermal system thus lowering the overall cost without any added disruption the dda's recent Ashley first project was a major missed opportunity to do this but this CIP includes another three million in nonspecified DDA Capital Improvements in addition to specific projects like the 3 million State Street Street 30 there may be geothermal potential there now it's possible that there's not enough critical mass of Demolition and excavation downtown over the next 5 years to make slipping in a geothermal Loop feasible but this should at least be looked at and maybe it has been um you may have noticed that the U of's carbon neutrality plan unveiled last month um calls for conversion to geothermal of

109all campus buildings eventually with 20,000 bore holes drilled across all three campuses we should be equally forward looking thank you thank you very much if anyone else would like to make a public comment about the Capital Improvements plan uh you can press star n to raise your hand seeing no takers right now I'm going to move to read the um the petition the proposed motion and then keep my eye in case somebody does raise their hand um it reads whereas section one colon 185 of the an arbor city code requires that the City Planning Commission annually prepare a Capital Improvements program for the ensuing six fiscal years whereas a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission on January 5th 2021 resolved that the City Planning Commission hereby approves the fiscal year

1102022 to 2027 Capital Improvements plan as a supporting document for the city's master plan moved by commissioner milin seconded by commissioner s any discussion or questions comments commissioner Lee um in the staff report I know that there was a comment saying that there's been zero public comments is that normal um I just uh that was one that just kind of stuck out at me there's been zero public comments on the CIP is that right we haven't received any to the planning department Deb have you received any public comment on the draft plan to date and you're muted um a couple of indirect questions um someone wanted to make sure the Edgewood Snider project was still in the plan which it is um and sometimes they just no matter what we say in writing direct questions

111through engineering or systems plan so um it's actually pretty normal not to get a lot of questions what we find is once individual projects begin there's very robust interest in the projects but the plan as a whole tends not to generate a ton of questions I my personal belief is it's the scale of the thing um that may just be overwhelming to people but they do look forward every year when we put up a map of proposed projects that are supposed to start during the construction season and then we often start getting a lot of specific questions and of course there's public engagement on every project but it's actually not uncommon to have very limited CIP as the big scale questions gotcha thank you and by the way thank you so much for the extremely

112thorough um explanation of the CIP so thank you uh the to Brett is there a deadline as you said this is um enumerated by state law as a requirement of the Planning Commission to put this forward is there kind of like a date that we need to meet well um typically we try to get it um adopted sometimes in the past it's been December or January um but generally getting it adopted as early in the new year is beneficial because as I said then this is you used as a resource as the budgeting process goes on so sort of parallel to this the city is starting its two-year budget cycle and so having this document in place helps all the various departments as well as the city council consider how they move forward on specific

113fund allocation um so um I there isn't a specific deadline from state law there is a practical deadline that the sooner we get this um adopted as a resource and policy guide that helps facilitate the balance of the budgeting process got it thank you uh and then last question is for Deb um on the parking prioritization it seemed like they were all number one and so um what how do we interpret when they are you know weighted all the same I suppose yeah that's a really good question in fact if it were accurate they would all be zeros because since the parking facilities are um managed by the DDA they don't um have a prioritization system in and of itself but or at least in this kind of fashion so we've been talking to them

114and maybe by the next full CIP um they are considering adopting this same new alvance prioritization process with tweaking from them but they're they're not competing they know what their budgets are and this is what they have planned so the old software would literally put a zero I've been working with the new software people to say it would probably be better because you had that question to call them all zero all ones all zeros it's they literally are not prioritized you might have noticed that also all of the Housing Commission projects have the same number same thing since they do have an independent um you know governing board um and therefore they're not directly competing for funds with City funds even though they all are in some manner shape or form they are not ranked

115gotcha thank you so much for the clear explanations it was extremely thorough so I yield my time other comments or questions commissioner Gib Randle and then commissioner milstein I'm just wondering how Co has impacted all of this in terms of budgets um because of you I know this process is so long in the making I'm sure nobody ever predicted with your with your budgeting process that something like this would happen I think we're still figuring out what the Fallout is in terms of tax revenues and and things like that and so I'm just wondering how that has affected your your planning it did have some effect not as much as I had feared going into it um part of it is if you think of say a group like streets where the funding is heavily

116coming from millage really wasn't much a fact um you our utilities are driven by revenue from our bills now that Revenue certainly did take a hit if businesses weren't open they weren't using water and so on but the buckets were adjusted to reflect that um and one thing I should mention is we also have um an internal group we that's called cpan and I'm always embarrassed I don't remember exactly Capital planning something network but we work on making adjustments so if in fact the budget shrinks that group goes back and looks at what has to give um so it doesn't happen a lot it tends to happen more because bids came in high or came in low and we have a little more so we just moved to the next thing in line so it

117had some effect and you know it wasn't as startling as I thought and I think it's the nature of our funding uh that there's a lot of local control but also like General funds probably were the toughest because you know sales tax revenue was down and the city gets a share of that that so the general funds we were asked to be extremely um conscious of and in the um City's budget last spring uh they set forth sort of a pattern of how to approach if revenues went down so the biggest hit I'd say was to General funds okay that's helpful um I I also I'm I think um Mr garver's idea is kind of intriguing and I I understand that these things are a long time in the making but um I be curious

118to have the office of sustainability just look at what it means utilitywise in terms of just the ability for people to be able to hook up to a system like that essentially you're creating a utility yeah um and so I'm just I'm just curious what you know I mean when we're rebuilding streets it completely makes sense to do something like that um but I just have no idea of the implications whether the way that we're structured is very different than Boise Idaho in terms kind how things lay out with utilities and uh you know's selling them and all all that stuff so um I would be curious though to understand if that's something that could be uh possible because you know we do do these huge Street projects it's too bad we just ended a

119bunch of them for downtown um which is too bad um there's more coming yeah there's more coming that's right it never ends does it right um but I I would be curious to see if they have any thoughts about the feasibility of that and again I don't know that it would hold this up because I know these things are long long long in the making um but I do think that that's a real kind of possibility um once it's opened up that that's a lot of the project is just opening things up so if that could be integrated in and they see some um you know potential for that as as something moving forward I think that would be interesting to to understand more about if I could if I could just briefly jump in

120and commissioner Mills might correct me on this because she has a lot of expertise in this area but um we can definitely um follow up you know I appreciate the it seems like sort of more of an information Point than maybe an amendment to this plan um I will say that um I I don't profess to be an expert in it but I my understanding is Michigan is quite different than other states and that we have a lot of restrictions in our ability to sort of create utilities and uh restrictions actually so um there might be barriers uh legislatively beyond the Practical difficulties if any in accomplishing that so but we can we can um try to at least provide that information back to the Planning Commission for reference yeah I'd be curious because it's

121not a straightforward utility in the way that it's not ener it's not DTE in the same way um so and and chair Mills you probably know a whole lot more about this than I do um but uh I think it'd be interesting to see just what's possible because I think we're trying to we're trying to take anything we can get at this point right in terms of of our a20 plan so and I would chime in that I think it makes sense to flag it I think that it is is a different kind of utility because at space heating right rather than um electricity so it's different kind of rules I did do a quick search of a20 and um geothermal districts were mentioned were brought up in the process so like it was it

122was part of our a20 process it's in appendix 5 and it's it's effectively part of a longer list of things that said these ideas were brought up and didn't rise to the level of one of our key strategies that we really examined it it you know I I think that it's um many could enhance our communities like it's it's not precluding it but just to know that this isn't the first time it's been brought up and so kind of um elevating that and seeing if this this idea of synergies right like using the excavation I think doesn't hurt to bring to to the office of sustainability thanks and thank you for all your work uh Deb this is It's always it's always a Illuminating thank you commissioner milstein um I guess this is a a

123question for Mr Leonard and Miss Goslin um I feel pretty comfortable moving forward with this and not postponing it um I don't know um Mr Leonard Miss Golan if you have feelings otherwise um you know I it's it's a plan we've we've seen it before the Planning Commission twice we've now had a public hearing um planning department hasn't received any comments and um this still has to go uh to city council um so I would feel uh comfortable approving this um I don't know how other Commissioners feel but before you know we sort of go down that road Mr Lon and Miss gosan do you have any feedback on that I don't have any concern as I said it was just more of a sort of this was sort of a unique Capital Improvements the

124way the information came to the Planning Commission came kind of more frequently and more fragmented um but no I don't any concerns if you if the commission um wants to move forward and it would be beneficial for the city re large for planning purposes yeah I'd Echo the second part I know um Marty Bashan who's the uh chief of staff for public services would probably appreciated if it were done tonight because otherwise they proceed ahead with building the capital budget on the assumption that they're going to get a yes where knowing they have it allows them to proceed with more confidence and the budget process is starting in pretty hot and heavy right now so I would uh not only not object but actively appreciate it if it were done tonight would make people above

125me happy missioner dish I want to Echo all the uh Applause for your presentation miss gosin that was incredibly helpful I did read through it before you know and you really it makes a lot more sense to me now um I am fully in support of this plan um there is something that I would have thought would have been on it that's not on it and that's North Maine and I'm Cur so like if something's not on it does that mean that we can't even think about it until past 2027 or I have to have a bake sale or something North I think North M's an mot project right yes that's why you're not seeing it our water projects that go with it are in the CIP but MDOT itself is doing the road project

126yes but if we if we if I shall I put it this way if I were to get what I wanted out of North Bain I think it might require some City funds at a minimum some study funds yes and I believe that we added under either active or other Transportation um a small project to do what you're saying and to try and Frame Up better the non-motorized improvements we will have to pay for them is what MD has told us but to this point there's been a lot of input but no solid recommendations so I'm double cheing myself um but I think we put Main Street yes under active transportation we called it Main Street actor Transportation needs analysis and conceptual design and we've framed it um MDOT has put off the main street

127project itself it originally was going to be 23 or four and now they're looking a little further so we do have a project to do what you're saying and continue the community engagement and planning efforts and then I expect that there will probably be some money budgeted the next time around for whatever comes out of that analysis so that's what excellent question and as as a reminder we sort of uh approached these Capital Improvement plans on sort of an every other year cycle whereas what you're seeing now is what we call a sort of uh a new plan where we really in a way start from scratch we reprioritize the next annual consideration will be a more focused modification to this document where we'll do some updates about what is uh what has been accomplished

128we might add we might remove some projects but it's really um some amendments to the ex existing plan so that's another opportunity um it might not even happen in the next cycle depending on that project timing but there every year the opportunity presents itself to consider those types of improvements and to to further be clear like if it gets added on the next time around it doesn't mean that it automatically moves to the end of the list because it's the repr prioritized right it might be in the next funding cycle like it might be it might be project number one yes yeah say I while things tend to move in towards the end that's certainly not the case in its entirety there are things that crop up that have either physical emergency in nature or

129changing values of the community cause something to be elevated so you're absolutely right any other comments questions the one that I have and I'm not sure if this is for Mr Leonard or Miss golin because it's um it's not about any specific project but one of the things that um Planning Commission um has been uh tasked with looking at or that that's been coming up and Mr Leonard really um headed this effort um at on direction from Council was looking at um some of our requirements of developments and uh it's it was talking to particularly for kind of small projects small project improvements that required site plan which also often trigger review of water M things there's a lot of other um engineering kind of things associated with that and what my this is Sarah's

130very simple version of what came out of a lot of those interviews was a lot of the things that we ask of private development um or maybe maybe this is a clear way it in other communities if development is is planned in on X Road you know part of what the CIP and why it comes before Planning Commission is to say like okay it's going to be City who ex who who makes the water infrastructure and road infrastructure ready for that int that increased activity that increased development where that's not always the approach here and sometimes we pass on you know the enlarging of uh water Ms to you know a a private developer and it's not just their property it may be other properties how does that like does that has that come up

131in your process about like what is called for in zoning where we're expecting to see a lot of growth and if we are appropriately budgeting or I mean a lot of this stuff in my in my like reading through is a lot of Maintenance um uh rather than I'll just I'll just stop there to say how how much has has that come up among staff as like does our what we add to the CIP prepare for the development that we are anticipating um yeah I I'll start and Deb if you want to if you want to add in so in short that conversation has not is not reflected in this Capital Improvements plan so that conversation um you'll recall um city council directed us to look at sort of site plan uh Amendment site plan

132review requirements as it relates to small and Min projects through that discussion we identified that there's this other sort of looming factor that we hear from the development Community largely that from an infrastructure perspective it is very challenging to develop in the city because of the expectations we plac on development for infrastructure Improvement and so that conversation is going to be uh a a long conversation because it's going to need to involve some of the Departments and areas that Deb's talking about that has implications to uh Water waste water storm water roads you name it and so there's the policy discussion and then depending what comes out of that you know if if there's movement there my off-the-cuff um guess is that that would result in less resources available for more infrastructure system needs that's

133where some of those that's where some of those things come from is um to recognize that because we are we're lucky we are a century plus old community that still has a lot of growth pressure and desire we ALS have to do that in the context of an aging infrastructure which might be different from some communities who are making proactive Investments to drive growth in specific areas or along corridors and the like if you think about the site plans that we've you've considered they are geographically dispersed across the city so it's pretty difficult for us to say this is the area we where we're going to get development pressure we it's it's pretty stretched throughout the city so I think that is challenging ing I'm not saying that we shouldn't spend more time discussing it

134but um the short answer is I think that those conversations have to happen before you'll see any reflection of it in the capital improv yeah I could add just one things there is I agree with everything that Brett said but there is some ways in which that kind of thinking comes into play um there are very robust for inance utility models in this city so in the water group for instance um Troy boffman that works in systems planning with me um is in charge of the water model and they test it regularly whatever and we can say oh in this area firef flow looks like a challenge so if there is a need where for the existing City we maybe feel like we aren't Furnishing what we could we do introduce projects like one of

135them will be an upsizing it can either go on Ann or there but there's a little small area that has fir flow challenges there and we have sanitary models storm water models a lot of the storm water projects are driven by um inadequacy so to speak I mean that's probably too harsh a word um on the other hand if the development itself this is where it gets into the philosophical discussion that you're going sounds like you're getting into is if the development is creating the um the inadequacy then right now it's very true that our design standards and Zoning codes put the burden on the developer um to extend utilities uh to service their needs one of the places where I hear at the most office is in the downtown where we often and probably

136commissioner Lee is working for Oxford to understand would would know this is uh they are asked to upsize Mains because they're you know sometimes the last guy in right now I would agree is is being is getting doing the upsizing that benefits them and other people so that is a whole philosophical but there is some minor element that that comes into play today in the CIP and certainly for streets if they're already in bad shape they're going on our list to take care of whether or not there's development on the other hand if a development actually tears up a road I believe we do require them sometimes to like pave a lane but that would be not be in the CIP because it would be the other so it's very convoluted question and minimally in

137there at present I think just another aspect of it too is is the some of the concerns we heard is probably reflected in this Capital Improvements plan so our models are based on certain sizing of water Ms and Sewer Ms and one of the things that we you you have heard and we have heard through this process is the city's asking too much my project could function just fine with something less and so I think that that's that's even a added layer to that conversation what is the appropriate standard what is the appropriate policy for a development's going in and the capacity is not there what is what is the right decision to say we need to figure out a fix for that building and what's the future proofing of that so that the next

138one is successful and you know those are we could do that in a couple different ways we could say no we don't care about the next one let's just focus on this one but we're just that's sort of in a way setting us back to how we got here with an aging infrastructure that's undersized for the growth and demand that we have on our system I appreciate that um and I yeah I didn't expect that that was solved overnight and I mean that that's something that literally I think two meetings ago maybe it was just last meeting that we effectively pass that back pass that word on um I think as we I mean you you know getting to the CIP thinking about what are our Community Values those are some of the same things

139right that that we as Planning Commission are working to uphold in the in the in the work that we do as well and you know as you mentioned like affordability and Equity um and sustainability are things right and so and um understanding how those things all play in and like anyway I I think that this conversation is probably going to come back and just thought in case you weren't in the loop about the yeah I did on the development side what we've been hearing I that's kind of some context for it um so I think it from my perspective um you know it it that we don't have um a lot of public comment on this that we have seen a lot of this before I'm comfortable um taking this voting on this tonight myself

140um any other questions comments can we have a roll call vote then Mr Leonard since there was not a motion to postpone the V would be to approve this and we will start with you commissioner Mills yes commissioner milstein yes commissioner Gib Randall yes commissioner s yes commissioner abens yes commissioner hamers Schmid yes commissioner dish yes commissioner Lee Yes commissioner Clark yes carries very much very good I also saw at least two empty water glasses so I'm um wondering if we can take oh now that's three um if we can take a six minute break and come back at 9:30 to take on I think we have three more at least three more items um so see you back at 9:30 e e e order we're on item 10B which is um the amendments to

141the permitted uses in c2b and C3 zoned districts for city council approval and this two uh we'll just start with a staff presentation and then have our public hearing yeah thank you um so first of all I just want to sort of set the stage with this so recently we had a a project petition that that um sort of elicited some reaction from the Planning Commission that maybe it was a time to reconsider the permitted uses in that zoning District specifically storage and warehousing uses so I want to um you know and that's that's fine that's appropriate but I I do as we set this stage I want you to really um make sure that you're thinking about this appropriately you know we're really talking about a zoning District now and some potential modifications that

142is going to have wide ranging impact to those districts across the city so um so um at the conclusion of that meeting um you know there was uh uh there wasn't a specific motion or Direction but there was a lot of um sort of what I would say sort of unanimous support by the commission to really dive into the issue of what the appropriate permitted uses are for some of the commercial districts based on that and so um uh staff um has responded to that by putting forth these proposed changes if the Planning Commission does isn't um on the feeling like you're you're ready to consider this or you want more information that's perfectly understandable um so with that with that set um what what I did um is focused on um specifically warehouse and

143indoor storage uses and so um the staff report reflects um that we Define those um in our ordinance in our existing ordinance and we specifically provide them as a permitted use in five zoning districts currently the c2b district the C3 District uh the M1 the M1A and the M2 zoning districts and um and so um I'm just going to go through those districts uh and um give you sort of uh the the staff thoughts on this and then opening up to any questions you have certainly in discussion so uh the M1 and M2 and M1A zoning districts by Nature those are those are uses that tend to be um either very um Warehouse uh production um they might be warehousing associated with production um generally I thought that the the the the notion of warehousing

144um and storage seemed very appropriate to those zoning districts whether their Standalone uses or their integrated with a manufacturing or processing type business or or research type business um um I uh my my assertion is that those are very appropriate districts for the intensity and type of use of those locations so I didn't spend a lot of time on the M1 and uh the manufacturing districts either by further analysis or by sharing any sort of maps of those zoning districts with you so that obviously leads us to the focus on the c2b and C3 zoning districts and when we're looking at modifications or the application of Z districts this is one of the SE times when we want to look at intent um this come this comes up um sometimes with even in in response

145to a a specific petition review um and just as a reminder um that's the nature of an intent of a zoning District in RC is to try to set the stage of what we're trying to accomplish what the character of that district is when we have more specific regulations of course those apply so the intent section is not intended to uh cancel out some regulation that we've articulated elsewhere in the ordinance it's rather a guide for considerations such like this when we're thinking about adjusting uses or we're thinking about a new use or changing uses what is Our intention of that district and so um both the c2b zoning districts and the c2b and the C3 zoning District are pretty similar actually from an intent statement um the districts are designed for a variety of

146commercial activities um the c2b has uh a little bit more of a um well the c2b notably has a a more specific reference to the uses in that District um might be accessed either by a pedestrian uh manner or a vehicular manner it also relates to it also specifically talks about the c2b sort of being an extension of the downtown um when you look at the c2b map I don't really see the extension of a downtown from a g graic perspective that's not to say that from a use perspective that's not the intention and I think that's where I have really keyed in on the distinction between the c2b intention statement and the C3 intention statement which doesn't have that same emphasis on either pedestrian or vehicular access so um when you look at the

147C3 int uh District again some very sort of some similar language in the types of of commercial uses but I think notably it is more a assertive and saying these are uses that people are going to drive to access the service and then probably drive to another another business whereas the c2b doesn't prohibit that but it seems to embrace a more um complexly accessed integrated commercial District that could function in both ways and in short uh based on the Ci's uh sustainability goals both from the a20 plan um we're looking at you know the transportation plan draft obviously that's not adopted but really emphasiz uh other means of transportation our existing master plan have a has a lot of support for trying to find ways that our land use can help support other means of

148transportation uh modal Choice than automobiles vehicular access and so the short of that is is based on that um my recommendation is that the Planning Commission consider modifying the c2b District to remove what I think there is a very Automotive specific uh use from those districts however retain it in the C3 districts um I think that there there are other aspects of that I think the C3 business still does encourage some sense of um activity and interaction um but we've also recently considered other uses that I think um um for the C3 District such as micro businesses where you know they do have a retail customer focus but they also have sort of a more Warehouse grow large inactive space type function and so um so my in short my response to the planning commission's

149uh Direction in that regard is to propose that warehouse and St Storage District uses be removed from the c2b um as a permitted use but retained in the C3 M1 M1A and M2 zoning districts um I've provided you with a couple of maps particularly of the c2b areas in the city and the C3 zoning areas I will note that you will see um some of the same zoning along some of the same corridors um I I would note that they have a bit of um I think the C3 tends to be some larger what I would say sort of commercial node um which I think are distinct from some of the the what I would say inter Corridor segments that are are more c2b not absolute um um you also have uh Brierwood Mall of

150course is c2b um I think that is interesting but at its core I think that the the same analysis holds true um the mall um the building of the mall is specifically Z Z c2b and most of the parking area is actually specifically zone parking that was very intentional to focus commercial activity and pedestrian interior traffic in this case uh into that area and I think a like bringing an automotive dependent use to that where it might be just sort of a one more oneoff might be questionable as well so um I'll stop there um Alexis has also done a little thinking about this so she's just here uh to to jump in and correct me and tell me if I'm wrong um but um apart from that welcome your questions uh after the public

151hearing or before we'll do the public hearing next and then we'll unless Alex there's anything you want to chime in on now before the public hearing okay um so let's open the public hearing then this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about the proposed amendments to permitted use in the c2b and C3 districts um public comment may be made by calling 877 853 5247 and then entering meeting ID 95 or sorry 7281 City staff will select callers that have raised their hand um calling on you one by one by the last three digits of your telephone number you digitally raise your hand by pressing star n on your telephone um you'll hear an automated announcement that you are allowed to speak and please do move to a quiet area

152and mute any background sound please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments and I see that there are two callers on the line if you are interested in um providing um comment about the um the c2b and C3 zoning districts um now is your opportunity you can press star n to raise your hand just give it a few moments right I don't see any indication all right I will read the proposed motion then the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission recommends amendment to table 5.15 D1 of chapter 55 55 unified development code to remove warehousing and indoor storage uses from the c2b zoning District can I have a commissioner move that moved by commissioner s seconded by commissioner hamers Schmidt discussion of the proposed amendment commissioner milstein thank you um so I

153want to concentrate really on the C3 um zoning so while looking at the map um of where we have the C3 zoning um you know I'm looking at some of these major corridors like Stadium Boulevard um also Wasa and Plymouth Road where we have a lot of C3 zoning I shouldn't say a lot but we have some C3 zoning in in those areas and you know by looking at this map and seeing where those places are and some of those are you know streets that we travel on a daily basis do we really want to see storage facilities on those streets um and I you know I think this is a start um with regards to mending c2b but I would really I would really like to see us do something um with regards to

154C3 of having a special exemption use um for storage facilities um in those areas so I'm just a I'm I I'd like to hear more discussion on that but I I really would like to see um some limitation of storage facilities in C3 missioner hamers Schmid I think I had the same struggles um and I Mr Leonard your explanation makes a lot of sense to me so I think eliminating it from c2b for the reasons that you um articulated and then not necessarily removing it from C3 makes sense I I don't think we should just be going around like picking and choosing the uses that we're putting in our different zoning districts but looking at the map a lot of the things that commissioner milin said were the things that I was struggling with I

155like the idea I hadn't thought of like doing a special exception use if that's something that we could explore um I like I like that idea so I'll second that that idea um but otherwise yeah I'm I'm good with removing it from c2b I think based on where where we have that zoning right now it makes sense other comments uh M Lee uh Alexis did you raise your hand I um I did I'll just I'll insert um two two observations that um uh doing uh work on C3 does not prude that you can um uh forward this propos this amendment um and still continue work on C3 um and also um along the lines of um special exception use you can um attach use you can in the next phase if you'd like to work

156on C3 there's a variety of options um do nothing but um special exception use you can attach some use specific standards to it talking about minimum parcel size and the only the first one that came to mind but my my primary comment was um valid concerns um maybe there needs to be a more robust discussion about C3 but you can still act on c2b um and continue discussion on C3 I would I would take that a step further if if it was the commission's desire to consider a special exception for C3 um it it doesn't have to have use specific criteria I mean with there are special exception uses that don't have that those specific use criterias that just the sort of standard St criteria for special exception use that tends to be how does

157it relate to the master plan how does it relate to surrounding properties what does the transport ation accessibility to that use look like so um so it could also be done in that regard so I I would just add that there's a lot of different avenues that you that you could look at in in considering that commissioner S I saw your hand before I called on Mr Leo yeah I mean I just kind of wanted to reiterate like looking more at the C3 you know when you put them side by side some of these things are just all AC like equally across the street between the two there's the mall on c2b and then there's you know just on the east of state is a similar size project or parcel set of parcels that's C3

158you know on both sides of Stadium you know both sides of um plat down thereat plat yeah like so so they seem even more interwoven than there is kind of a clear designation between the intent statement and and I guess like this just goes like the maps are so light in touch because I'm sure most of this white is single family residential and residential as a whole so I think even like I i' support C2 like working on c2b now pushing that forward having a working session looking at C3 and just U all commercial designations without residential just get a hold on it overall and how those relationship really look because I don't think we've really looked at like a full zoning map very frequently to see what those relationships look like um and I'm

159sure that could also be really helpful uh with the T1 type stuff uh and where these two interner woman things might reconcile with another zoning designation so I just want to kind of put that out there that um just like Alexis just said I think moving this forward while doing some additional work this is kind of a great kind of progress step um to get something in action of something we don't like to see but the other kind of piece I'd like to say is like C3 those are bigger Parcels at least it looks like so C3 is probably more likely to do bigger where house storage units along these corridors and so I think there is still some maybe urgency that those are actually ideal candidates to see the types of projects that we're

160reacting to that we might not want to see um in that way as well so that's kind of my take and reaction right now thanks Mr Leonard but if if the commission shares that I would um I would venture to recommend you consider adding um on the interim basis a special exception use requirement for those uses in the C3 District that doesn't preclude additional follow-up if as Alexa said you want to develop specific standards that might apply or conversely if you do that work and find that if it meets certain criteria maybe that could go back to a permitted use um as long as it was satisfying those kind of criterias but I I guess I I was struck by that comment if if you know if the analysis of this use raises that concern

161now that would be a way to at least provide a a a checkpoint where if that use is proposed in the C3 districts it's still going to have to go through that process where we are going to consider all those standard special exception use criteria so two cents other comments commissioner abens uh just to chime in and say I agree with those uh proposals so to move forward with the CTB um special exception for C3 and then continuing the conversation and in terms of the zoning maps that um commissioner s was just discussing like even in this context I would find it helpful to see two and three together on one map so so I'm just not having to go back and forth and to compare so or even one map that had these and

162the M districts um would be helpful so I don't know maybe there's a time we could like list the different map versions that would be helpful for this conversation and then we could yeah follow up at a working session with some of those visual aids well I can also we could also bring that back so if if you'd like to see that information before you render a decision on this um I can certainly do that this is just sort of my poor map choices I personally don't need to see it before voting on um on on the on special exception for C3 and removing it um from c2b but I would like to see that if we're going to continue to talk about C3 and or other districts in the future commissioner Lee so I

163I think I'll take a little bit of a cont a contrarian standpoint just uh and certainly I am on board with the idea of eliminating sleepy uses in areas that we want to encourage uh more Equitable access more pedestrian walkability like Stadium we know what obviously Tri triggered this discussion um and I guess what I'm kind of the contrarian point that I'm thinking of is that the the nature of retail how we consume this how we experience things is changing pretty rapidly um warehousing as an asset class is rising pretty quickly um and and certainly the the demand for that is uh relatively high at this point in time whether it's the logistics companies like Amazon or whether it's you know there there's there's plenty of kind of freight and again the the point that

164I'm trying to get to I suppose is certainly on Stadium wash and a I think I see Ellsworth there are elements of this where you know I I could certainly get behind that I I simply um want to at least bring up the fact are we accomplishing really what we're looking to do because there's also once for just hear me out on this warehousing as a use um there are converted uses for for warehouse that happens quite frequently so as far as kind of like a a conversion factor sometimes open warehouses can be useful so um I just wanted to take that kind of a a different I guess perspective on are we really accomplishing what we're setting up to do there are specific areas where I could see warehousing being appropriate um even in

165c2b uh for example right on 9 four uh looks like it's right off of Jackson probably uh just to the west of what looks like weers on Jackson um I can't tell if I really have that correct but um I just I just wanted to voice that the nature and the sheer demand scale of warehousing and how humans are consuming things um are changing rapidly and I just want to make sure that we're being methodical about how we uh you know make this decision um and again to solidify the kind of grounding point that I don't think we should have sleepy uses in areas where we want to encourage uh greater activity greater growth um but that is doing this uh going to be prohibitive to um Warehouse demand that's necessary I will tell you

166I get more calls on warehousing requirements uh right now than I do on say you know other types of retail so um I I just I want to at least highlight and then maybe it's just a byproduct of Co you know just what what's happening right now and maybe there is some kind of elasticity and a bounce back to you know lesser warehouses for some reason again I think the nature of retail has been fundamentally changed so I I want to bring that up I don't want I didn't simply want to say yes you know I I agree with you know eliminating that use in the c2b I just want us to be methodical I I am on board with the concept of again protecting some of these more corridors from Sleepy use as like

167a warehouse but that we shouldn't be shortsighted in our approach when we know that um and is everything within the highway belt you know off off hand you know not allowed to be a warehouse right so I just want to be um and that's clearly a hyperbole because we're talking about M1 Etc there's obviously other zones so I just wanted to take a slightly you know contrarian approach uh in that respect and just wanted to highlight the fact that uh right now there's more Warehouse requirements that are coming in for us than there are you know for example retail so commissioner milstein and commissioner Lee that's it's a it's a great point that you bring up and that's why I think um for especially C3 and I wouldn't even be opposed to uh c2b of

168having a special exemption use um with the regards we can't go out there and look at every single parcel parcel by parcel and determine what the zoning is going to be for it whether we want a warehouse district there or not um and I can see in some of these like if some of these Lots were split off where you know you have Frontage on the main road but towards the back it's touching 94 maybe that would be fine uh to have a storage facility there or some sort of a retail establishment has retail uh in the front storage in the back I wouldn't be opposed to that whatsoever but I think that's where the uh special exemption use allows us to make that determination um do we really want a warehouse on Stadium Boulevard

169or a storage facility on Stadium Boulevard probably not but let's just say like one of the sites looks like it's on uh maple and maybe it's Maple Village that I'm thinking of or I'm seeing there I'm not exactly sure where it's Maple and then towards the back um is 94 well the reality is Maple Village behind Maple Village is a storage facility that most of us have no idea exists there um that is an area where a special exemption use is you know I'd be totally in favor of so I think that's where you know I'm okay moving with forward with c2b um but I also would be okay if we decided to take a step back and let's regroup and let's put c2b and uh C3 into the same category of doing Special exemption

170use um I would be fine with that as well thank you for bringing this up and I think that that highlighted like the the fact that these are across the street from each other in many many cases right leads me to think that even though the intent is different thinking about them together makes sense the concern that I have though um commissioner milin with kind of what you were just proposing about like well let's let's make them both special exception uses and this is also contrarian right is that if if our criteria that we use is let's go back to the master plan and we know that there are either sites specific or elements of the master plan like we needed a Master Plan update that makes me a little bit uncomfortable because again the

171nature of a lot of these corridors has changed the the just like the description for a lot of these I mean I don't know it sounds to me like the description for c2b and C3 were definitely built like written in a different era right like and um there are elements of our master plan I think that we're also written in that in a different era and that you know these have been corridors into the city that now that is where we put Transit and so we have lots of people like and so before where before that's where you wanted to keep all the cars and all of that traffic like now that's where people are walking around so and you want them to walk around so that they can access the bus and so that's

172my concern a little bit with putting it on the mass like putting it putting them both to special exception use right now I think that you're right that they should be treated the same I would almost argue that with the few exceptions of the places that you pointed out um uh commissioner Lee like kind of south of the Beltway or kind of south of 90 or of 23 most of those are probably whether it's c2b or C3 probably not places that would be appropriate um and so I would almost say at least until we can come up with a better fix and given one of the communication things before us which is thinking about T1 and maybe instead calling it mixed use right like all of these like we have different classes of mixed use

173maybe just like simplifying the number of districts that we have um in the city like this is a clear example to me of that we are applying these two districts very similarly that we have them across the street from each other in random I mean I don't it's maybe not R it was certainly not random there was definitely an intent behind it but but it seems like these things have not always been necessarily thought of as very distinct perhaps um that it's time to just rethink these districts entirely and like these zones entirely and do we need both of them actually and so in until we can get to that which I do think takes a little bit more thought maybe it's better safer to keep what we keep what staff recommended on c2b but

174maybe also at least for the time being take entirely C3 this use out of C3 as well I don't think it's gonna put that much of a kib bash on the market um and many most of the places that are C3 I think probably would be inappropriate um from my perspective so commissioner hamers Schmid and you could always reone right so like that one parcel in particular that's like by weers that maybe would be an appropriate place for a warehouse like they could always request a rezoning I'm starting to maybe get more convinced that like we should just take it out of C3 as well no yeah go ahead I I would just again encourage you to think about the use in the intent sections we might have zoning districts in close proximity to each

175other but they're they are different zoning districts and I I'm not you know I think you're you're raising a lot of good conversations and this is like this is a a point of challenge for me is that so many of the conversations that happen around this table and at the council table um are right for a master plan discussion and obviously we're unable to do that at this point and so um you know I it you know so I but I would I think that there is given that um we are dealing with our policy framework which is our master plan and we're dealing with our current code framework which is are these distinct zoning districts um so I I would again I don't want to say that their proximity is not relevant but they

176are distinct districts the questions about whether or not the they're in the right places I think that relates to this but it is a slightly separate question misser gab brandle yeah that's what struck me is is more just like it seems a little random where these things are in relation to one another that's what struck me the most about this not so much the intent that you're talking about um but just that these things are all interwoven around each other and if you drive down a stadium you can't tell one from the other by looking at the different at the different zoning districts that are there so um I do think it is a bigger master plan issue I'm comfortable with c2b but I think commissioner Lee brings up a good point I do about

177the C3 I'm not quite willing to go there yet with the C3 with that as as part of the discussion which I think is valid I think a lot of a lot of things are changing right now and I don't know if it means that it's more like an overlay over the the transit corridors that may just prevent a certain number of feet back from something like that maybe that's a way to deal with it that's different than the the thing about the special exemption use is that it's a gamble every single time a developer does that it's like are they going to accept it or not you know and I certainly don't want to make people reone either just like oh you just have to reone because that's also a huge risk and so

178I in some ways would rather be just clear about what we want is it 100 feet back from the from the back of the you know from a major Transit Corridor if that's our issue let's just say that um you know so I I again I'm pretty comfortable with the c2b um just as I'm looking at it there's I'm surprised how few there are you know when I'm looking at them um and there's obviously more C3 but I I just feel like there's a bigger discussion to be had about some of this in terms of where things are going um and that there may be some other tools that we can deploy to be able to get out exactly what we want here um and if it really is Frontage along roads where we want

179people to be and maybe let's deal with it in terms of Frontage along roads rather than the zoning that there's some sort of overlay something [Music] so commissioner milstein how would this group feel about tabling this and uh having a discussion at our working session maybe next week um so that instead of you know voting on this separately since I think there was an agreement of some sort that this is we're pretty they're pretty much the same or at least very very very similar so it might be worth it just to table this and um have a conversation in a working session whether it's next week Mr lard depending if that PUD uh uh pre submission happens or not or if it's a a month from now I don't think it really matters um but

180I think I I really do think it's worth the discussion of having them together um because the more that I think about it the more I'm sort of thinking well maybe c2b should be a special exemption use um but I'm also open to hearing what everybody else says so um unless there's huge opposition um I will eventually move to postpone this I'm not opposed to that other than like given how few Parcels are c2b um wondering if it makes sense to move on that now um uh the other thing that I would just flag that this highlights for me right is the urgency and the necessity that to some extent what commissioner Gib Randall brought up but I think that is underlying this is to look at how things along these corridors are zoned and

181whether it's an overlay right or for the existing districts or generating a different District um I think these Maps right and and the extent to which we have different directly across the street from each other um different uses allowed or not allowed I think is emblematic of our need to kind of rethink what happens here because for example if we move done what was happening tonight you know on the east side of Liberty in that stretch of Liberty it wouldn't be okay but you could do the very same thing just across the street and I would argue that we want the other side of the street to be walkable too like it it has the same character right and so that's where that's where treating these two differently that's how that's how the zoning is

182applied not the intent I totally get what you were saying Mr Leonard about the intent like the intent is different but as it's been applied like how what the map looks like um doesn't always bear that out and that's what makes me uncomfortable because I feel like it just seems odd so um commissioner s and then commissioner Aon I'd say I I'd prefer to proceed I think um because it isn't just across the street they are nested and I think there was some urgency because we're seeing this and if commissioner Lee is right about the demand uh more could come up as we deliberate and so like I really do want to be proactive in the things that we do want to see and don't want to see and set up our ordinances in a

183way that reflect that um and so I think uh making movement on c2b um um and that's where like c3m okay special exception or you know we can kind of look at it but yeah I'd like to see all these corridors and just like what everything is the rainbow of zoning along them and have that bigger discussion but I I would prefer some action um now as we're seeing things happen pretty quickly um in some of these areas commissioner abon um I was basically going to say the exact same thing so ditto that I I would prefer to proceed with the c2b at least other questions comments motions or not commissioner aons sorry I also just maybe a question for um for Brett and Alexis the the process by which we would look at the

184zoning along a major Cor or and evaluate that like that is the master planning like does that happen outside of the master plan process well um we're not we're not Midway through a contract to update our whole master plan but on your work plan is to um have the master plan subcommittee meet and start talking about what are some components or aspects of the master plan that could look at incrementally um that might be that might be one of them where um and the short of it is yeah I think that's a master planning conversation it might also be a zoning conversation I'm struck by the parallel we've received some feedback on the transit district you know that is advocating for you know no don't create a new District just create one District well that

185you know I you're you're sort of contemplating that we got here because there was a desire for some distinctions in some of those uses I think now X years into the history of zoning here in the city we looking at these maps and questioning are are those were those distinctions applied correctly or um maybe some of them were actually in response to specific proposals who knows um so um I think it is it is a master planning Endeavor it doesn't have to be we can look at zoning to see how zoning is relating to our current master plan but I think that's the better way to go um so given that it seems like the time scale for that larger analysis could be quite long um so it kind of reinforces by um feeling that

186we should act at least on c2b this evening if if there's consensus other questions comments commissioner milin um I just want to point out to maybe city council members who are here or who are watching us from home um this has now become a regular thing where every single meeting we are addressing our M master plan and how outdated our current master plan is and So for anybody who's watching from home uh or on whatever way you're watching it or when you're watching it um I encourage you to contact your council members um and encourage them to make this a priority um it's time and we keep talking about it and now it's every meeting we have the same conversation that it's time for a new master plan uh for that process to start again

187so I'll uh mention it one more time it's time hopefully um our city council members are listening to us thank you commissioner clerk you're muted sorry I just wanted to tag on that um from like a am I okay good um like I was just working in another city that had recently updated their master plan and from affordable housing development perspective I was kind of surprised just how much more accessible the information was the interface was so much easier to go and find all you needed to know about a parcel in one spot it made even you know Finding tax records easier so there's a lot of benefits there that people might not think of um yeah just wanted to throw that out there thanks all right um commissioner milstein you suggested earlier that you

188might propose a motion I don't know if you want to do that or not or if we're ready to just vote and so there have been no proposals to amend what's before us instead what we're getting ready to vote on is changing the use T it's as drafted which is changing the use table to not allow this use in c2b and letting C3 be the next step could you I'm sorry I didn't get the notes of who moved and seconded the original motion you recall I kind of feel like I called on commissioner s and then maybe commissioner abon no no um who wants to have seconded commissioner hamers Schmid oh M commissioner milin you did it I don't know okay thank you thank you for that CL it's all very friendly you know you

189can go back and watch after this I know um I think we're ready then for uh uh roll call vote commissioner Mills yes commissioner milstein yes commissioner Gib Randall yes commissioner s yes commissioner abens yes commissioner hamers Schmidt yes commissioner dish yes commissioner Lee obstain can can can I obstain sorry um on what basis um on let me let me follow that up the reason you would abstain is for a conflict okay um um this I as we're not taking any action on a specific property um I don't see that I don't know if the Planning Commission would like to investigate that further so I would I guess I would encourage you to um if you're comfortable to take your position on the proposed change unless you think a conflict uh is is existing no

190I just I'm not sure that I've um engaged with this substantively enough for me to have a very um like an informed vote I I which is fine in that circumstance I would encourage you to vote no then if you are not comfortable with the information that's provided that perfectly acceptable no I is are you are is that do you have any questions about that before we move on I just want to make sure you I don't think it was yeah um okay I don't know if I can make something for the record or or do I do that after the vote well well let me just finish the vote but to be clear for all Commissioners um when you're faced with a vote your responsibility unless you have a conflict is you should be

191taking a position on it if you um are supportive of that you should vote Yes if you're not supportive of it you should vote no if you feel that you are not ready to make a decision in that regard and the rest of the commission is it's perfectly appropriate to vote no you can disclose that that is the reason why but I just want to be clear that um unless you um unless you are affirmatively understanding that you can support that action that's a perfectly appropriate action gotcha answer commissioner so I got you for a no and commissioner Clark um I'm going to say no because um I want to kind of learn more about where the master planning and everything fits together and I feel the same way as shley that's great so the

192motion passes thank you very much we're on to item 10c which is the ruthan nature area Edition resoning which is at 3301 Getty's Road and this is for city council approval Miss Leo you're have a presentation for us thank you um I will just while I speak I will share the staff report mostly for the all right are you I see it okay good um mostly for the benefit of any viewers um to see um the staff report I know that not too many people click on the link so this is a rezoning of it ruin nature area addition it's um the ruin nature area recently had an addition of um um I apologize um the roofman added little more than eight acres and there now a 28 acre Park um it was previously zoned

193r1a and it is now appropriate to Zone at PL plant public land here is the roof in nature area which is located at Gettys and hereon Parkway and the addition is outlined in the dash line um this is somewhat of a formality however it has um an change to the zoning map cannot be done administratively it must be done by ordinance which means a public hearing of the Planning Commission and then again by the City Council planning staff is recommending approval any followup questions be happy to answer them very good um we will we do have a public hearing for this uh this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about the proposed ruthin nature area um resoning of ruthin nature area to public land the pl uh land District

194public comment can be made by calling 85352 47 and then entering meeting ID 921 7802 7281 City staff will call on uh call Select callers that have raised their hand um calling on You by the last three digits of your telep phone number in order to electronically raise your hand after dialing into the meeting please press star n on your phone you'll hear an automated announcement once the host has allowed you to speak at that time please move to a quiet area and mute any background sound so that we can hear you clearly and please also state your name and address for the record at the beginning of your comments uh if there there are a couple callers on the line if you'd like to speak at this public hearing you can press star nine

195I'm going to start reading the proposed motion um in part because we typically don't have tons of comments keep an eye out awesome thank you um the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve the ruthin nature area addition resoning from r1a single family dwelling to PL public land that is moved by commissioner milin seconded by commissioner Lee we are in discussion any comments questions for staff about this um commissioner Lee and then commissioner Gib Randall uh just for staff this seems purely procedural um is there anything substantive that we should be U that we should know about this um everything seems again just simply uh let's just make sure that it reads correctly on the map um correct it is purely procedural although we can't just do it

196administratively and change the map we need a formal action to change the map but um it is one of the more um um maer I don't have the right words tonight it's one of the more knee-jerk reactions it's our policy to Zone publicly owned land PL um just when the city acquires land whether it's donated or purchased the zoning map does not change automatically so we need to initiate this formal procedure to follow it up um we are not required there is no law that says that publicly owned land needs to be zoned PL but it is our preference and our policy that when you look at the zoning map the zoning map gives you some indication of the land use and so um when it is a park land or city-owned land we want

197it to show as PL so you have a a clue when you look at the zoning map about what's going on there and I guess the only I guess substantive question that I might have is that if it's currently zoned single family residential um has there been a highest and best use that the city could uh don't get me wrong I love Gallop Park it's right across the street I think it's great glacial land and is uh was there a highest and best use in that glacial like pres preservation as public land in a park is the highest and best use um I know um that the there is a a longer process for when the city either acquires or accept land donated particularly for Parks um this land was um purchased by Parks um

198and it went through their own vetting process which includes an evaluation of the land the monetary value as WEA as the um Park value of the land um and then it the purchase price um there's a process there where um I believe the city can only pay market market value of it and so forth so um I think in some sense of what you're saying yes there's been a evaluation there's been a lot of process involved also in terms of um task force recommendations committee subcommittees um reporting to get to this point got it thank you for the clarification it was just a simply a question borne out of of I suppose ignorance so thank you for it's all it's all good missioner gandle yeah I would just point out to commissioner Lee that it

199looks to me like about um 95% of this parcel is in the flood plane um and so you know that that also helps clarify why it makes a lot of sense as a park and not as more single family zoning my question is is that there is no sidewalk along Gettys there is sidewalk along um here on Parkway and I see all kinds of trails and things like that through this area that people have just um made there's there's an really interesting C which is a glacial structure there that is really like I think the only one that we have in ant Arbor that's really that distinct and um there's just not an easy way for people to get there and so I guess what I would hope is that as part of this that

200the city would actually commit to putting some sidewalk along Gettys there and I realized that it's not going to go anywhere and all that kind of thing and that the RightWay is really narrow there but um I just would like to have people be able to have access to this thing and I think that the easiest place for if people are going to park there it's to park at the gallop parking lot and be able to cross at the intersection and get over there and and enter from a sidewalk off of Gettys and um I would just hope that as part of this acquisition that the city would commit to putting some sidewalk in there so it's safe for people to do so so if you could just kind of pass that one along I

201guess to City Council in terms of um you know or or parks department or whatever that I hope that that's part of the long-term plan for this site I I will be sure to pass that along to um the manager Colin Smith commissioner Clark and then commissioner milstein just real quick wanted to Second what she said that's a really great point that are is hard to access and it might be I don't know how the sidewalk Village and all that's going to go but I feel like that might be a you know appropriate since it's a public spot and everything I just want to throw that out there Mr milstein I will third what commissioner Gib Randle um said in regards to sidewalk there's also an interesting bus stop that's right there where there's really

202nowhere to stand at the bus stop sort of like you have to literally stand stand in the road um so I thir that um the other piece just for uh commissioner Lee um so this property was on the market for a very very long time time for a a lot of money um and really it's buildable towards um as far away from Gettys as possible um if you go straight back and you literally needed to build a bridge that was very very long to get to that small buildable part um so this is the best use for it gotta thank you no I appreciate that clarification any other comments do you want to roll roll call vote Mr Leonard or should we can we just Voice vote it is action on a piece of land

203let's take a roll call vote then commissioner Mills yes commissioner milin yes commissioner Gib Randle yes commissioner sov yes commissioner abam yes commissioner hamers Schmid yes commissioner dish yes commissioner Lee Yes commissioner Clark yes car you man excellent uh the next item is 10d Oak Woods Nature area addition resoning which this property is at 3382 Nixon Road and this is also for city council approval and Miss Leo you've already got things loaded trying uh you can so you can see great um this is very similar but um it's a different Park in a different piece but but this is a six something acre addition to Oakwood nature area bringing it to 55 Acres I believe if I remember correctly the uh oaka nature area is in green here it fronts on Green Road goes all

204the way up to us23 and it is a little bit east of Nixon Road um the addition is here in the red dashes it comes from the uh adjacent development which is now called Owl Creek during the planning phrases phases I believe it was the annex but again it's um zoned R1 I'm sorry zoned r4a and the proposal is to rezone it to PL now that it is been deed to the city um this one has was a donation the previous one was a acquisition meaning a purchase any questions I'm happy to do followup um staff is recommending approval thank you very much there's also a public hearing on this one um and so I will open it up this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about the proposed

205oakwoods nature area resoning from r4a residential to PL public land public comment can be made by calling 877 85352 47 and then entering meeting ID 7802 728 one city staff will select callers that have raised their hand you do that by pressing star nine Mr leonnard will call on You by the last three digits of your telephone number you'll hear an automated message saying that you can speak please move to a quiet area mute any background sound um and please state your name and address for the record and that was largely done give it a moment see if anybody indicates a desire to speak yep for the TV time delay TV timeout I'm going to start reading the motion and maybe people will call in or raise their hand um the an arbor City Planning

206Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve the oakwoods nature area addition resoning from r4a multi multiple family dwelling to PL public land move by commissioner s seconded by commissioner dish any [Music] discussion all right this is largely like the last except not on that busy road it's tucked back in behind the development Mr Leonard I think we're ready for a vote commer Mills yes commissioner milstein yes commissioner GB Randle yes commissioner s yes commissioner abon yes commissioner hamers Schmidt yes commissioner dish yes commissioner Lee Yes commissioner Clark yes motion cion Anders excellent we are now on to item 11 other business this is the c1a c1a are um updated response to the city council resolution R20 d26 7 Mr Leonard we failed you in your absence last time so well um see

207I was going to I was going to introduce this as um I missed the meeting and just had a burning desire to micromanage you um so um on December 15th um uh you considered a communication to city council um on a direction that they had given to the Planning Commission regarding the c1a and C1 R zoning districts um we had developed some propos changes and modifications to those districts um on the 15th uh you uh modified those Communications to um uh to basically seek additional direction from the city council on what they would like to do um my my view of this is that the Planning Commission has not yet fulfilled what the planning what the city council has already asked the Planning Commission to do and that's to advise them on whether to eliminate

208those districts or modify them or or do nothing and so um my assumption going into that meeting was that we the Planning Commission had agreed on a series of potential changes to those districts as it relates to development standards associated with them um and I believe that at the modifications that were made on the 15th again don't speak to what your recommendations are for those districts as the council has asked so um you've already at you've already um executed a communication on this um I can't force you to go back on it my point is that I I think that I feel like as a Planning Commission we have an obligation to um communicate what our recommendation is in response to the original resolution and I didn't think the modification did that it seemed to

209point back to what the council had already asked the Planning Commission to do and so I presented uh a draft um amendment that um would um more directly reflect um I think uh what council had asked um which is that if that the Planning Commission does not recommend any changes or elimination of those districts um that seemed to be um what the the Amendments on the 15th were seeming to get to to say that this is not of importance to the Planning Commission unless the council thinks otherwise I would Aspire that the Planning Commission takes some more sort of determinative position on what the council asked than to do so I I think it's either um be more forthright that the Planning Commission does not believe any changes are warranted or I think our communication

210to them are we sh we intend to pursue the modifications to the development standards that were discussed you can yeah let me know there is no public hearing so I think what we do is I read the motion somebody moves and seconds it right I just want to make sure because we normally have public hearing okay so I will read the motion and then commissioner disa first up um the motion reads the an arbor City Planning Commission hereby approves the following update in response to city council resolution R20 d267 and summarizes Planning Commission intent for proposed ordinance amendments moved by commissioner milin seconded by commissioner dish commissioner dish yeah so I don't mind at all being forced to revisit this as you know because you heard from me after this after our last discussion uh

211um I wonder once we have developed the T1 District or whatever it is that we end up multi-use whatever it's called how How likely is it that these zoning designations would be used along corridors that some residents have objected to because they're too far out of the central campus area so along corridors like Plymouth um Packard wherever I mean we've never used it there but wherever is that too speculative of a question to be asking um and I'll just be forthright I mean my feeling is this is not something to put a lot of time into given all of the other things that we need to do because I think that it is not likely to be used in the imminent future and I think it is really not likely to be used uh after

212to is in place at least it's not going to be in in the language of some people misused once Tod is in place and I I hate to see us waste our time uh our staff waste their time I should say um well my my thoughts on that it it is a little bit speculative I I think that the transit district has the opportunity to probably resp to provide depending how if and how it is realized has the opportunity to provide a sort of similar development criteria in the ordinance as to c1a and C1 um that the couple of recent examples of those of sites that have sought that don't come to mind to me as being on the signature Transit routes um so um a little bit of yes and a little bit of

213maybe did you have more commissioner dish or you want me to go on to commissioner S I mean I was goingon to say that I didn't think lower toown was impossibly off it but yeah no it it's proximate um but like I think when you look at the signature corridors they are Plymouth and state and when I think about that that project lowertown beakman on Broadway is quite close to Plymouth obviously um the garnet is was sought that was denied that's a little bit off so it's it's hard to say but I think that's the intention of the T1 District at least from a staff perspective is to provide some other development opportunities along those Transit corridors where density can be supported by those other modes of transportation perhaps more R right um and I

214know that I or I believe I remember that this instruction to Planning Commission to review these designations was paired with a a moratorium on their use which seems like I mean that's not a word I like it just feels like a very dramatic gesture but I sort of I I feel like it's kind of safe to say these designations are going to be sort of mothballed for a while and Council can certainly not use them a developer might ask for for them Council cannot use them um knowing that we have this other piece of the puzzle underway and hopefully you know really at the council table by this summer or so um so I just I really I feel like this is a distraction and um that I guess this is just I you know

215I could try to make a resolution in Council to say let's not prioritize this but I I just feel like let's not make too much of this um the the horse is out of the barn for the past and we are looking forward to a future where we have a a Transit oriented development or however Transit supported or whatever we're going to call it Zone yeah I would I would concur with that you know any any proposal to reone property is reviewed in by the city and ultimately um you know that's where city is going to look at Master planning documents and other circumstances in the recent cases where this zoning has been sought one was approved one was denied um you're absolutely right you know ultimately you and your colleagues at the city council

216upon advice of the Planning Commission have that ability to consider the appropriateness of any zoning District so I would agree with your with your your assertion that there the city has a lot lot of ability to consider the appropriateness of if if these districts are proposed anywhere else um without any action commissioner S I saw you your hand before I guess I I read this as there's two directions one to adopt as is about the the leave it you know let it be or add the language back in and say we recommend much modifications and these are what they would be um are kind of the two ways just okay um and then if we recommend modification we would be giving ourselves the homework without a requirement of city council directive to start acting on

217those modifications that we recommended through this communication yeah I would Envision that happening like the site plan where you're going to communicate to the city council we've considered this we've done we've done analysis of it we think that these changes are appropriate and we're going to get to go to work on them um alternatively and the the draft that I presented uh to you this evening is the the second option it is I I'm sort of basing that on the changes that I saw occur on the 15th which seemed to indicate that the Planning Commission wasn't prioritizing that homework and I I I thought it was appropriate to be more definitive that the Planning Commission wants communicates to council we don't intend to do any changes in this regard you know and to to say

218recommend no elimination or modification it then kind of says like if this is still a priority to you you can send another directive back to us you know that goes without saying though right I guess that's from our conversation from the 15th I guess how I recollect it is we we were kind of feeding Council the idea that the stuff was going to done to test the waters to see what their priority was to give it back to us as homework but how it actually is written is this is the work we're going to get done and so we're automatically prioritizing it through the communication and there's no way for Council to actually give us it as a priority with everything else they've already done that they've already asked you to make that determination and

219do that work if you think it's appropriate and so that's I feel like I feel like I feel like that analysis went into it and then at the last minute we said but we're not we're not planning commission is not sure whatever you think and I think that the council has asked the Planning Commission for advice in this regard that's the planning commission's role and so I I it the Amendments seemed uh too wishy-washy for me they didn't seem responsive to what council asked of us and so that that's my promise I but I totally agree I think that if if the planning commission's thought is we always the city has the ability to consider such zonings in the future we don't think it's a priority we think that moving forward on Transit is more

220important I think that that should be the clear communication that there's no that we don't believe any changes are necessary at this time we don't intend to work on it alternatively it could be we think these districts are appropriate we think we should make these modifications to the to the development standards in response to some some of the concerns that were discussed at the resolution and we're going to proceed with that that's ideally I would see one of those two okay yeah I I think yeah my take you know from early on was I think that there's other things that should come online that have more appropriateness than this that would replace it and so working on this to then be um taken over by more appropriate things seems like not the right priority um

221I do think though that there is you know and I'll just say there there's a need in Zoning for something like this which is why it's starting to come up as this sort of combination of needs on a site through the c1a C1 AR that other zoning designations don't help with and I will be the broken record on this agenda item to say the master plan would be the thing to help solve what that combination of things of zoning is so just to kind of reiterate how it all circles back to that again and again um but yeah I I really appreciate you clarifying this back back into just get get a direct response done uh and it really just kind of highlights where to get the work done which is more about types of

222zoning designations and that we just don't have the appropriate combo right now and there's other ways to work on it thanks so yeah I actually I like the strike through I'll just kind of be very clear about that since that's the ask right now other comments my very blunt comment is that I oh go ahead commissioner well finish my blunt comment um we've already given this way too much attention given all of the other pressing things and like that was the very first thing that we said when we saw this directive which is yeah there's things about like our city has evolved this is why we need to update the purpose statements of our districts why we need to think about all of our districts why we need to think about like what are master

223plan is calling for like our city has evolved but as commissioner s just said like people are proposing this because they want to build something like this and actually I would I want to to say that I have heard the callers who have called in and said PUD is the way to go when people want to build something like this they should be building a PUD and that's the Pud is for when we don't have a district where we don't have a typology that you can do some like that is appropriate this one I think that there's a bigger conversation um and I think that there's different attitudes about what how often puds should be used there is a lot of uncertainty associated with a PUD it's a make your own District um if the

224things that we're looking for are mixed use like we have we've developed districts that are mixed use that allow some for some flexibility on parking we should just make those districts and not push people to to create their own I mean that's what PUD is kind of create your own adventure and and it locks future development into only what was envisioned at that time so I personally don't think that we want to be pushing although I I recognize we need more affordable housing I think the uncertainty associated with PUD ultimately does works against affordability personally um I mean I would be happy if somebody put numbers behind that but my sense what is that all of that uncertainty is actually not it may it may lead to additional Revenue into the affordable housing fund but

225it incre it it increases development costs which I I think is counterproductive so that was less blunt than or Su commissioner hamers Schmidt and then I think maybe I saw commissioner Clark's hand maybe um okay so I know there's a lot of baggage with this issue with these zoning districts I guess I have a few disjointed thoughts and comments and I'm not really sure where I'm landing with these things I guess I feel like you know going back to the original request I don't know that it's really our place to completely eliminate a recommend elimination of a zoning category without a public process without going through this master planning process so I definitely wouldn't be comfortable eliminating and I think a lot of things that commissioner Mills just said like we need these more flexible

226um like mixed use zoning districts to be options I don't think c1a and C1 are perfect like I think they do need modifications but I also don't think they're NE necessarily going to stick around I think what commissioner dish was saying they probably are not going to be used and we don't necessarily want them to be used and we're going to be working on these other zoning districts to probably replace them so just so this out there like does it make sense and maybe this is more of a staff like process question or maybe this is something that fellow Commissioners want to comment on and I don't even know if it makes sense but like the idea of this moratorium on a zoning District that we're saying well if Council doesn't want to do this

227they can just not do it I mean if if that's of the approach that we're taking that we don't love the zoning District but we can just deny it and make them come back with something else it doesn't make sense until we have something better to just do a moratorium sort of asking the question because I don't I don't know what I think well um the this this discussion is a statement of intent of the Planning Commission so if if it was desires to move forward with elimination that process would occur definitely um as it relates to um the the use of the city I guess I I don't when I say that the city always has the ability to apply the zoning District or not I would I I am personally not coming from

228a a a premise that it's not a good zoning District I think that as part of our discussion we recognize that obviously there's been consideration of this District in the city I think that comes from combination of market demand and and desire and appropriateness as determined in some actions and inappropriateness by by the city so my my point is not that when I say that I don't my premise is not that they're bad districts my premise is that the city with any district has the ability to decide if that district and those development standards are appropriate at the location saw and so um I look at it a little bit differently I don't I don't think saying that is is presuming the dists are bad and you know why shouldn't we just be more forthright

229about that my point is that it's what I've heard from the Planning Commission considering this issue over the last several months is that no this is this this has utility for a development prototype in our city the city always has the decision on where to apply that you've heard from members of the public that there's you know positions that the city has applied it incorrectly But ultimately the city always has that ability to decide whether or not to apply that and um you know that that's that's just base that's how the legislative process works I mean I liked the modifications that we had in I don't even remember when now like with the height because right now it's like no height limits right y yeah the proposed um modifications were height limit um uh that

230as it got close to adjacent res itial districts that height goes down um it was also removing premiums from those districts um uh and yeah those are the the bulk of it I also agree that yeah I also agree that I don't we've talked about this a lot and I'd rather be working on like a transit or a mixed use District so I don't know I mean if we said like we recommend those things I mean I don't even remember how it was like is it there a way to word it that's just like let's keep it let's do a height limit we're done we don't have to keep working on this well if if we that's my point if planning commissioner thinks there should be height limit I think the Planning Commission should say

231there should be a height limit here and we're going to work on that I don't think I I don't think that it's responsive to council asking you what should we do with these districts for us to say ah we think we should do a height limit but we're not going to do anything about it that's the planning commission's role is to say we think that there should be a change here and we're going to work on it okay what okay I mean I guess maybe I haven't been around long enough to know like what is the pro if we said like there should be a height like we say in this what you have crossed off like at 100 foot height limit for any portion of the site what is the what is then the

232process to actually get that done then we're going to draft changes to the UDC we're going to present a staff report to you with those proposed changes we're going to hold a public hearing and you're going to take action on those to recommend those changes in the UDC to the city council okay commissioner Clark oh sorry sorry no I'm I was just gonna say I'm gonna stop talking for right now I was just going to agree with what um what you mentioned earlier about puds in the affordability aspect and just um worth considering the degree of risk that it takes on for both the city and the like you know um the developers and it might you know result in only a certain type of project just simply by means but um that's worth considering

233thank you commissioner abon then commissioner dish so it it helps me to maybe just like rewind for a minute and fig like I feel very confused I guess about this conversation that we didn't want to spend any time on has taken up so much of our time and and we are here yet again without it being resolved and so I mean just to revisit the last set of decisions my understanding at least was that the reason that we changed the language was because the language specifically said that like here things we're going to work on and this and the feeling was that there's been enough Change in city in the city council makeup that perhaps they don't it wouldn't we all would agree that there are more important things that we would want to work

234on in 2021 because even those small set of changes would take up time you know and so instead it was like a kind of check like are you is there still an appetite for us to do this as opposed to putting that energy and effort towards something else so it's kind of a funny thing to say oh this body thinks that C1 AR needs a height limit it's not something I think that we would have have initiated or worked on um without having gone through the last six months of this or 180 days right of this process so I guess I I it's just very I feel it's very muddled and I think it's also very specifically about a history around two projects recent projects in the city not a kind of generalized issue like

235a lot of the other things that we work on and so it feels I don't know if anybody else maybe can help me feel less confused I would appreciate that because I I feel like we keep trying to kind of put it to bed and it's and we can't somehow but but I also don't want to just like on the Fly be like yeah add a height limit just so that we can get it off the work you know get it off the list because I think that's not really in good faith what I don't know what the intention of this body was at least the last time we spoke about it um so maybe just to wrap up my sorry my rambling and kind of um unfocused thoughts would be to say I either

236would like to just leave it leave it or I could could possibly be convinced to say that we don't want to make any changes at this time which is I think Mr lenet what you're asking us to do be more definitive as opposed to Simply uh batting it back to council for directive but I also did on the 15th obviously like that made sense to me then this idea that well we need to know that that we really should be working on this still and spending even if it's only a few hours it's like we only have a few hours together so um I think both things kind of make sense to me and so yeah I would appreciate maybe you all helping me work it out so I don't think that the changes that

237were proposed will improve the c1a and C1 districts if the concern that motivated sending these districts to planning was that they were being used too widely and used in parts of the city where they weren't meant to be used and we can argue over whether that is correct or not but if that was what the we can argue over the rightness of that concern but I think that was the concern and so spending a whole lot of time making I don't know there were five or six changes height limit set backs other stuff that actually make it easier to use them more I don't think that is I don't think that's going to make very many people happy so uh or I don't think it's going to make the people who are concerned about these

238zoning districts actually feel any better it's going to make them feel like well great now you've made them more transportable terrific and then I think there's a group of people who are just not interested in these zoning districts this is the past we looking towards a future time is limited opportunity costs staff time costs money um there was a list of those things public hearings all of that it's energy that we should be and need to be devoting to uh the the the momentum towards what our vision is for a future and Arbor not how can we fix these holdovers you know things that we hadn't used since the 1950s until the beakman on Broad Broadway project and the attempt to use it for Garnet so my feeling really is that this is not a

239good use of time because it isn't going to please anyone and so I would like us to support the I don't know if it's I don't understand is it an amendment a memo what it is that Mr Leonard has brought to us but that is what I think we should send forward and if council is not happy and wants Planning Commission to work on C1 AR and make them better Council can tell us that and then figure out where in our work plan it fits right I mean part of this is a prioritization I I think at the end of the day there's just like for the CIP there is limited budget we have limited staff time and our time and so yeah um I saw commissioner Lee and I saw commissioner milstein in that

240order I don't know if you still want to talk um I I suppose well you know I obviously read um the communication that came in from Ralph mcke and obviously I think Civic engagement is critical um I think it's a a thing we have to continue to encourage um so I certainly want to take his concerns seriously um the thing that I wanted to ask staff um was if we could just um pull up a quick map of just the filtered c1a zones kind of like what we did with CB2 um because I I have the gis up but like I'm having trouble filtering it I know I know I need to be better at it but the gis app seems to be slightly different so I just you know I I get all the

241comments that it seems like from a scale and time resource allocation perspective is this is something that um you know our energy could be spent uh but just just as a reminder just as a refresher if you could just bring up that map and um but I I certainly hear everybody I I just also want to be very mindful that like you know people who take the time to specifically engage write these kinds of emails and you know put in these things it's something that we want to encourage more and I want to take Point seriously uh and as commissioner Hammer pointed out there is a lot of baggage around this particular uh issue um I want to make sure that we're we're honoring those things and just understanding uh different viewpoints while making sure

242that we are time effectively uh and so the thing that I'd like to do is just refresh our scope and scale of the c1a um and C1 a district by just kind of pulling that map up so that we have a very you know because really the only place I really see it is at Hoover and Packard where I see that as kind of like a you know and and I know that there's that retico project going up on Hoover and green so um I don't I so to conclude I think it's a par of that we continue to try and encourage Civic engagement um that means to take emails you know that people send in seriously but that we also have to be very mindful about how we're spending our time because that is

243a limited resource so in an effort to balance the to an an effort to gain a sense of scope um if we could just see that map one more time I don't know if it's something that's quick to pull up but um well I'm I'm trying to find it right now but um I can describe describe it for you um the the only C1 uh districts in the city are around the state and Packard intersection um so have both c1a and c1a R that's probably the the kind of the largest uh number of parcels in a contiguous area that is Zone c1a and C1 a r um we also have now the beakman on Broadway site and then there are two other sites uh in the city that are zon one of those districts um

244one is Angelos the diner and the other is the uh [Music] a site that is I think just south of the funeral home on South Forth a single parcel and so those are the only sort of four geographies in the city that have these zoning districts present all of which are fair Fairly you next to campus I again I don't want to be dismissive of any um again civically age comments but uh you know I will then Echo uh commissioner um Dish's point that our energy is limited and that we do need to U make sure that we're taking we're getting a resolution on this one way or the other but uh so um thank you for the clarification I yeld my time BR you Brett you mentioned that um the largest area of c1a

245um is the state peckard Hill triangle um the um um and that's I me there there are some there are something like 60 or 60 or 80 Parcels there that's our largest zoning District I do believe that there was some c1a some C1 AR in the uh South U area but that got um it's no longer you'll no longer find it on the map because now that area is either D1 or D2 um but the state Packard Hill area um triangle is our large c1a C1 a r area in terms of number of parcels can everybody see the map yep so this is uh uh beakman on Broadway up at the top uh here is a single parcel on South Forth this is the Angelo's site and then as uh Alexis mentioned the largest concentration

246is at State and Packard these are all of the c1a and C1 Zone Parcels in the city currently currently yeah it would be fair to say that that the the biggest risk of some buite development proposal getting you know obviously jammed through would be on that corner of state and Packard is that correct um State and Packard is is actually quite challenging um because uh the c1a and C1 uh have parking requirements so the ability to realize a larger scale development um in these sites particularly amongst the what I will the multiple individual Parcels um even you know even if you were to Able able to assemble all the properties um because c1a and C1 R do not have the same parking exemptions that the D1 and D2 do um you are not going to

247have the same ready the sort of same um development ability because you're going to have to balance those on relatively small sites I think the the action here originated from applying that District to new areas and as we discussed um you know it's been applied and it's been rejected and um that's remains a a decision on a Case by casee basis of councel would it be unreasonable to request that we this to a working session um because I you froze on me I was going to say I was moving to see if it was me yeah sorry nope I think that was me sorry yep I just got the warning my internet connection is unstable um I'm just pointing it out because we do want to obviously avoid something and I I have to ask

248at least the question is there something better that we could do there um obviously the scale and scope is pretty limited and I I don't want um but I just I have to ask the question because that email obviously uh comes from a place of passion and then they do feel strongly about it so I have to engage with it um to that respect but I I will obviously encourage any know descent um in that matter commissioner milstein um so I wasn't going to speak about this just because I'm fully in support of the of the memo that uh Mr L has drafted and I completely agree with commissioner dish that we have our time is butter spend doing other things than this especially with this few parcels and commissioner uh lee um with all

249with all respect um we've spent a lot of time talking about this over the last six months and we have way better more important things to talk about especially because we only have 12 working sessions a year then to deal with this um issue and then also because we really don't know what the direction of this council is with regards to this um so I think going back with this memo is the best thing to do at this point um I think we've had a lot of discussions we all sort of feel like from the very first time we heard about this to I still to today you know I sort of get the sense our feeling hasn't changed it's like why are we there more important things on our plate at this point why

250are we talking about this um and I I totally appreciate and I respect the people who have written to us and have called in um but there are more important things for us to worry about especially because of the limited staff time and because of our limited time so um I would be in favor of uh moving this forward to council and then um having Council if they' like more from us coming back with more Direction so that we can uh provide what they're looking for commissioner Clark I saw a hand maybe maybe not all right commissioner Lee and then we'll move to vote go ahead thank you for the clarification on context again I'm fairly new here so I haven't been attending these meetings for six months so I appreciate the context and I

251my time yeah commissioner Clark and then commissioner aens you are muted still commissioner Clerk sorry um I was just reading through the master plan out of curiosity on the lower town area since that was brought up as the Maiden Lane and I mean it's pretty it's a you know I know people might feel very strongly and have their personal connections to that land but it's pretty clearcut that it's campus commercials in there and I agree that we're spending a whole lot of time on something that's kind of already been hashed out with you know following the master thank you commissioner abens just wondered if there were any other Commissioners who um would support just leaving leaving it as it was um or if there's kind of more more more of a sentiment that we should

252adopt another memo commissioner hamers Schmid what do you mean by leaving it as it was I mean that this is this isn't something actually have that we have to take action on if I understand correctly I think uh Mr Leonard feels that the action that we took in his absence isn't satis satisfactory um to the directive that Council gave us but I think we also could decide as a body that we've done enough and we could adjourn that's my understanding please correct me if I'm wrong I I agree kind of voluntary follow on to maybe be you know more de declarative in the memo than we were maybe it's late because I'm still confused I'm sorry I mean it is late um I mean I guess I was I was goingon to say something after

253you spoke anyway but I think the thing I'm uncomfortable with I would not recommend elimination but I don't know that I wouldn't recommend modification at the same time I don't really want to spend time on this and commissioner AB like you said a little while ago like would we have looked at this had Council not asked us to know but they did and we've looked at it and like I think that that some of the things that we said could make it a more comfortable District even if I don't think making it putting parameters on it will necessarily make people want to use it more but I think it'll prevent us from having like massively huge buildings next to single family housing just you know hypothetically um I'm not sure where I was going with

254that I'm not comfortable with the saying that I don't think it should be modified I wonder if there's a way I guess is there is there a way to say like here are the modifications we would propose but Council needs to tell us if they want us to work on it and then the council can that's where is that what we were my position is council's already asked you should there be modifications and if so do them they already they've already asked that and you know there's been some conversation about the change in counsil I can appreciate that but count it it from My Lens Council has asked us for our advice and I think that we should provide it but they didn't say if so do them I mean can't we say here's what

255we and here is what we would propose to modify and they can say like yes modify or no don't modify they could yes we could say that I I guess it's a r I think I I think this sort of relates to the master plan conversation um at some point I think it's appropriate for Planning Commission to recommend the policies that it thinks is important as opposed to always being waiting for Council to tell the commission what you should be working on and so I think in this case council's asked again I I totally agree with commissioner abon you don't have to do anything my read of it was the Amendments seemed they don't seem responsive what council has asked the Planning Commission to do I I I fully respect if I'm in you know

256I'm apart from the commission on that and if that's the case I would say take no action my sense is that Council has asked you should we eliminate them or modify them up until that modification it felt like we should modify them and I know it's a a distinction but it's sort of the action you set sort of said are you sure you know are you sure you want like are you sure you want us to evaluate these and they they do want you to evaluate them uh I saw commissioner s then commissioner Aon then commissioner Clark I'm so sorry is there a way to take all the struck the language that struck that we had issued and just put it kind of above that last sentence to be like we evaluated these types of

257modifications s that could be appropriate um given priorities and the impact of these modifications and then follow up with the Planning Commission does not recommend elimination or modification of these districts at this time so at least some of like the work about review of modifications is communicated to council but in the end we definitively say we looked at it we looked at height we looked at uh setbacks we looked at all that stuff we think that there's some stuff to be changed but we actually don't think it's a priority right now and so we have a definitive communication back that says we're not going to do anything with it but we looked at it and there's some things that if it becomes a priority in the future here's a communication that outlines them so it

258ends with the definitive we're not doing anything I like I I because it's it's it's everything you could definitely make that modification yeah does that I guess the question to it is does that modify what we sent enough to meet what you're recommending to us to be more definitive or does it just make it a rearranged messy thing it still feels a little messy to me it's still feels like you're communicating two things we should make some modifications here but we're not we don't think it's important enough to prioritize it and that's fine I I think that's valid there's a lot of work on your plate there is only so much liit a time I think it's it seems like kind of a copout I just want to know like I know this is like

259on the record filed for us but it translating forward like there has been six months of discussion and it's not for not what the communication also says is like there's a zoning District because I don't think it is about the the plan as shown for what's zoned I think the reaction to this is there's a zoning designation that's needed that people are looking to rezone for an opportunity to put all of these things on a site this mixed use and so to put some of these modifications on record and communication towards city council says what we have right now isn't the right fit there's a need for it and as we move forward and look at zoning class you know mixed use zoning type these are the types of things we want to look at

260and it's just sharing six months worth of conversation about the pain points and modifications to zoning overall and I'm not sure if it matters that it like that officially goes to Council on record or if we just file it away on record in the Planning Commission Communications so that that's kind of one of the things I guess I'm jostling with that just put back to the Commission in terms of what officially goes to the city council in detail or if we just just close this thing stop wasting our time and move forward with the other priorities so sorry commissioner Clark can I just throw something out there really quick because what I'm kind of hearing here is that the overarching like kind of conclusion of this conversation is that we're looking at it on a

261very granular level rather than how it fits into the bigger picture it might be useful to say to council like we think that at this time considering it in a vacuum obviously word a different might not the most productive use of our time and then it should be fit into a bigger more cohesive strategy um and looking at it more in depth compared to the transit oriented development as we move along and just kind of leaving the recommendation um on that and then see how they want to move forward commissioner Aon I think that makes sense but I think that the only issue with that is that we weren't it's a little odd for us to go back to them and say we don't want to look at it the way you asked us to

262we want to look at it a different way so if I understand what Mr Leonard is asking he's saying if we just look at it like in the if the most distilled thing the the resolution that Council adopted is actually like he Planning Commission eliminate modify or do nothing right there were only three choices and so we I guess we have a responsibility to go back and and declare one of those three choices choices the the difficulty I have with um like commissioner hamers Schmid you know POS like putting on the table I guess the possibility that we do want to do these kind of height limit things is that I actually think if we wanted went and looked at those modifications they would require some in-depth and and lengthy conversation they aren't cut and

263dry so you know I I know that I don't remember um if it was Mr stalberg or um the other gentleman who has reached out to us a few times but like you know I think astutely pointed out that a 100 foot height limit is higher than the height limit for D2 so suddenly you have as you move away from the downtown you you have a higher limit than a lower limit than a higher limit and so these kinds of things like I think they're not yeah so I think we just have to decide like if we're gonna if we are going to say that we think there should be modifications and we're going to take that on then we have to just be committed and to actually working through them and I don't think

264it's cut and dry like I don't think it's a simple thing we can just take care of tonight or or or you know without a working session so I do think the other option is to say that uh at this time we we recommend that we do nothing it doesn't seem like there's any appetite for elimination so we either choose modification and we commit time to it or we say that at this time we recommend nothing right those are our choices which I'm now kind of going back to where you started commissioner aons and you said what's the appetite for just letting it sit what I'm hearing from Mr Leonard is that is not the message that our initial memo sent um because it's not the message and so while I thought that was the

265message I thought we left here with that understanding if that's not the message then if and we need to make it clearer then I think the language that we have before us is clear we don't think the the thing that's really important to me that I would pass on is at this time like because we got too like the sub the subtext is because we've got too many other things that we should be spending our time doing personally so um if time were unlimited we could do we came up with ideas it will feed into future conversations Mr Leonard just to be clear so the first memo what we voted on last time has not gone to council yet right okay and so what won't be in there is the additional like if you were

266to change it which now we're saying if you were to change it but we don't think you should this is how you can make it more palatable um and that's the that's the height limit so so council is not going to see that but we know that that might well inform what we want to do on other mixed juuse districts in transit corridors and so we just have to remember to go back to that is that fair I think that's fair yeah rather than spend more time word smithing a memo that none of us think is a good idea I would just say let's go with what we got that's my opinion and then we've talked about it so now we know we got to go back and look at what we struck out here

267when we're talking about those mixed juice districts because I think these conversations the concern about this is going to come up in those places because a lot of them AB but neighborhoods right whether they're very close to campus or not commissioner sve do you mean go with what we got that we already approved or go with what we got with what's proposed right now what go with what was before us tonight the the the motion on the table cool that's what I sorry thank you for it's it's past my bedtime guys I just wanted to clarify which one we're talking about so yep yeah okay any other comments or can we vote on this thing I I see a quick comment from commissioner Clark and a quick comment from commissioner hammid and then we are

268voting really good question just because of for context um does this mean that the moratorium like that there won't be any going forward or not uh I believe the moratorium is already expired okay that's commissioner hammeri I don't want to Smith I think the at this time I'm glad that you mentioned this because I think that helps me because it is the like I do think it should be modified but if we just say we but I also don't think we should work on it so that at this time helps me um quite a bit but I'm wondering like we say we don't recommend eliminating or modifica or modifying like you just tell me to to stop talking but um like I almost would be feel more comtable it says like we don't recommend like

269pursuing the like I don't know that I don't recommend modifying it you know what I mean so like I'd almost feel more comfortable if it said like it we don't recommend pursuing elimination or modification I don't know if that why that one word like would make a difference to me I don't see support I don't okay okay can we vote y people all right we do if it's okay let's do a roll call because it sounds like there might be some varying opinions on this uh commissioner Mills yes commissioner milin yes commissioner Gib Randall yes commissioner sve yes commissioner abam no commissioner hammid no commissioner dish yes commissioner Lee Yes commissioner Clark yes is that a yes yes motion carries okay thank you very much it is in our bylaws that we don't take up

270new business that we vote before taking up new business but we don't have anything else to take up we've got public comment which we need to close with um so we're on to item 12 which is public comment this is the final opportunity uh for members of the public to speak for up to three minutes about any item of Interest public comment can be made by calling 877 85352 47 and then entering the meeting ID that I have said about a dozen times tonight that if you are listening to us is available on the bottom of your screen um raise your hand by pressing star n and there are have been a couple people on the line and there is a hand up right now so I will read more details if needed caller with

271the phone number ending with 556 556 you have three minutes to address the Planning Commission hi this is Ralph mcke can you can you hear me okay yes sir uh I guess I'm almost I'm very rarely speechless but you almost put me there that is one of the most convoluted and surreal discussions I have ever heard in my life and I I I can't think of whether I should analogize to beating my head against a brick wall or trying to get through quicksand I've spoken six times I think and written two detailed things and I'm not sure if anybody other than I heard a couple of comments Miss Clark Miss dish and Mr Lee I heard each of them make a comment that I'll call a nugget that that something that I have said got

272through but most of it I don't think you even get the point the point is lower town was a disaster and the moratorium is out and by not doing anything here you just opened the barn door that Miss dish correctly said that the horse is already out you're you're allowing it to happen again which is my entire point that that's the absolute disaster and and now it's okay just let it happen again it might not happen in 50 years it might be like Hurricane Katrina and after that it won't matter if it won't ever happen again that's what I'm concerned about the point about the that M dish made about about uh we don't want to make it more transportable is exactly right and number two the the uh the point about affordable housing I

273I'm not sure anybody got that either it's the Pud may be more expensive I don't disagree with that but Council has already said and Jennifer Hall has said and Amanda Carl everybody else who knows anything about affordable housing in this town Market will never build it the only way that it's going to be built is by getting money from developers or by a tax we just tax homeowners why can't we tax developers too that's what puds are for if you make this the route rather than a PUD you just gave the developer the money that would otherwise go into the affordable housing fund I can't make it any more blunt than that I I just don't understand why that's hard to get if it it I if that's I I can't make the point any

274stronger than that if if you're going to allow that item just the one time you could lose a giant amount of affordable housing money again and that's all I'm trying to prevent here so I I guess we'll just have to take this to council because this is frankly I I I see as hopeless I'll write it out in detail one more time but I'm not expecting anything to come out of that time up bye thank you for the others that's are on the line if you'd like to speak um at this time you can press star nine to digitally raise your hand H with phone number ending with 534 you have three minutes to address the Planning Commission hi this is Tom stalberg again I would like to speak as the official spokesperson for an

275aror neighbors for responsible development we are the neighborhood association that sued the city we are the reason you are here tonight and I think people forgot why you were here tonight we sued the city because the Lower Town approval was illegal and anybody who says oh we can't have P puds because they cost more the convoluted way that this was approved to avoid a PUD was more delay and more expensive than if it had been a PUD and the only reason lower toown was approved in the convoluted way that it was with C1 AR with plan project modifications zoning board of appeals for parking and uh conditional zoning was specifically for one and only one reason to get out of $9 million of affordable housing contribution we are here because people cheated the system c1a

276and C1 a r you didn't have to modify them they're perfectly fine where they are Alexis Deo was correct commissioner Lee was correct commissioner dish was correct if you leave them alone where they are they're fine you don't have to modify them they're not a problem it's when you move them where they don't belong where they become a problem and if we could trust our own City that they wouldn't move them where they were inappropriate like lower toown and like the garnet both of which had multiple inappropriate and illlegal aspects to those applications and approvals if they hadn't been tried then we wouldn't be here we wouldn't be needing to do anything to c1a and C1 AR we could leave them alone if we could trust they wouldn't be used to cheat the citizens and

277cheat the city out of affordable housing money that a developer should have paid at the case of lower toown a developer was given a waiver of $9 million that's the only that happened different than approving that appropriately as a PUD at the garnet four members of council were trying so desperately to not get $888,000 from the developer who was perfectly willing to give that money because they wanted to set a precedent for illegal further use they wanted the precedent of illegal further use of these categories you are here to stop that from happening again you've already done what you've done we're on to Council next and it's up to council the new Council to stop what a prior counsel wanted to do which was to cheat the citizens by illegally and inappropriately using these categories

278so I thank you for your time you shouldn't have had to waste your time but other people ruined it for you by illegally and improperly using these categories which which would be just fine where they are without modification thank you thank you there's one more person on the line if you'd like to speak at public comment you can press star nine to digitally raise your hand going once twice okay item 13 is commission proposed business is there any commission proposed business I did write something down it is late I'm putting it down that I would like to flag for the future which is particularly as we talk about proposed um plan project modifications having a primer on electric heating systems air source heat pumps vrfs Mini Splits so because that's part of plan project modification

279changes modifications I think that that would be really helpful for us so um I will commit to helping to pull that together but kind of thinking about what the right venue is I think it would help us all that's okay um anything else commissioner Lee I just wanted to say thank you to everybody for you know staying so late on a Tuesday evening especially Brett uh Mr Leonard and misso so thank you and you guys are all just Beast for being able to you know um do this so I just want to thank y'all awesome for being able yeah no I'm ready but uh I just have a great deal of respect that's all I wanted to say so and on kind of a positive note so anything else um I just have one thing

280um I'll be following with an email now that we're back to a full commission I'm going to be um um at the next January meeting we'll be talking about uh subcommittees and appointments representatives to other boards we had done that sort of on a quick level but since we had so many vacancies I wanted to bring that back I'll send something out in the interim for a descri reminder of the description of all the opportunities we've got a new appointment to the center of the city task force that we need to identify so um uh I'll send out that information but that'll be on the upcoming agenda as well thank you all right um item 14 is adjournment would a commissioner like to move that commissioner milstein seconded by commissioner abon all those in favor

281please raise your hand or say I I then you can turn it into a wave and it have a good night good night see you next week e