Ann Arbor Planning Commission Meeting 8/5/20

001and welcome to the Wednesday August 5th 2020 electronic meeting of the Ann Arbor Planning Commission this meeting is in accordance with executive orders from the governor to affect social distancing and mitigate the spread of the covid-19 virus we intend to conduct this meeting similarly to an in-person meeting however please be patient if there are te technical issues public comment will be via telephone only to speak during any of the public comment opportunities please call 5247 and enter meeting ID 11143 this information is also available on the published agenda in the Public Notices section of the city website and on the broadcast of this meeting on CTN Channel 16 AT&T channel99 and online at www.a2gov.org CN you can select the government channel uh item two on the agenda is the Roll Call that's me uh commissioner

002Woods commissioner [Music] Briggs commissioner Mills here commissioner milin here commissioner Gib Randle here commissioner acrian here commissioner sov here commissioner abam here commissioner hamers Schmidt here we have a COR very good um do we have any introductions this evening Mr Leonard uh we do not all right so we're on to agenda item four which is approval of the agenda um can I have a motion to approve the agenda uh Alex moved by Alex and seconded by Ellie um I want to just note that wait what's next do we vote on moving the agenda uh there was a I just want to point out that there was an updated agenda that came out this evening that removes the minutes we just had some technical difficulty with um today this getting those done so we just pulled

003that in the agenda you'll see that at the next meeting got it any other discussion on the motion to move the agenda as amended earlier today all right all in favor of the motion please say I I I I any opposed doesn't look like anybody um so the motion carries um see item five is typically minutes of previous meeting but that's what was taken out so we'll look at those next time around um let's see item six is reports from City Administration City Council planning manager Planning Commission officers and committees and written Communications um so we'll start with Council Akerman do you have any report yes I do so ordinarily I would use this time to share an update from uh City council's meeting the night before um because of the primary yesterday um our

004city council meeting will occur tomorrow Thursday August 6 so instead instead I'll I'll take a moment just to share the results of of Tuesday's election yesterday's election um with nearly 33,000 anab residents participating in our city council election we had our largest ever record setting um turnout in such an election uh this um this vote resulted in quite a bit of shakeup and will result in quite a bit of turnover on the city council body um winning in the First Ward was Lisa dish the second ward Lyn song the third W Travis Rina who will be filling my City Council seat uh with my retirement in November and the fourth W Jen air and the Fifth Ward our very own Erica Briggs um who has earned a very uh who has earned her her night

005off uh tonight um these members of city council uh I should say um they've won the Democratic primary Each of which each of whom they'll be um unopposed in the general election uh so it is um almost statistically certain that they will be our our next city council Representatives um presuming they win the general election uh they will then take office November 16th being sworn in that night city council meeting um if commissioner Briggs wishes to it would be my assumption that she would take my seat here on the Planning Commission I think this would provide a really important continuity of service and an extension of institutional knowledge that I think would be really beneficial to the body um and then her seat would then become open for a member of the public to join

006to join this body um to those members of city council leaving office uh I think it's important that we thank you for your dedicated service over the years um while we certainly disagreed on very important policy issues serving neighbors and elected office is a difficult and Noble Endeavor um and and I think every single one of you deserves our respect and appreciation I think it's also equally important to note that each of these new members of council will take office after winning 51 to 66% of their vote in 2018 mayor Taylor won his re-election with nearly 60% of the vote Citywide this group of elected leaders ran with a clear message and platform that the status quo is leaving people behind that we can um and we need to push Progressive values and policies forward

007to truly be a welcoming Community to all I hope that this body will in turn do its part to put forward the best recommendations for policies and projects made better of course through public input and fair debate to support the community 's clearly articulated values and Visions as codified by last night's election so thank you all for your continued service um and it's a it's a happy day thank you council member Akerman um next is planning manager report Mr Leonard do you have any report no report this evening do any other commission officers or committee Liaisons have anything to report commissioner Gib Randall um I would just like to say that on the environmental commission we are kind of reshuffling who's on different um committees and um that myself and John Mery are going to

008be looking at our code in terms of how it supports or is in conflict with our 2030 goals for carbon neutrality so uh we're beginning this process we hope to get through a big chunk of it um to be able to report back some findings in October and so we will be keeping you posted obviously there will be some intersection uh with our own ordinance Review Committee and um and commissioner Mills has uh also agreed to be part of this effort even though she is not an environmental commission but she is a big part of the orc so we are happy happy to have her so anyway I just wanted to let you all know that that was going to be happening and that um if there's if there's ideas that you all have I'd

009be very open to them so just wanted to report that out thanks I am an orc junkie I don't know uh any other um updates I can actually update on the orc meeting we did meet last week and we talked about site plan requirements for small and medium scale projects that was something sent to us from city council and so staff is moving forward hopefully with some guidance from orc on that um we also talked about review of the c1a C1 R um District uh staff brought to us kind of some additional information we kind of told them what um what more information might be helpful for all of us to discuss together and then we also talked about new table design we weighed in on table design for the UDC for if you'll recall

010last meeting we postponed um uh some amendments to the UDC and and some of it was just kind of scrier erors and that kind of thing my understanding is that those redesign tables May well show up when we take that up which I believe Mr Leonard is the next meeting is that correct that's correct great and just to piggyback on what commissioner Gib Randall said about the environment commission looking at committees that's something that we're also going to take in the next couple of meetings I think we'll talk about it a little bit at the working session just pull up the Committees that we're assigned to now but we'll vote we'll U we need to do it at regular business meeting too so just put keep that in your mind to think about that that

011that's coming in the next two weeks or so if you have desires to be on the orc or things like that so all right um let's see that takes care of the officers and committees there in terms of written Communications we did receive some today um and that were posted online and there's also the comments that were um put from the on the online source so um just to note that we have those in your packet and draw your attention to them all right we are on item number number seven which is the first opportunity for audience participation um this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about an issue that is not listed as a public hearing on this agenda um to comment on other matters uh before us

012please call 877 85352 47 and enter meeting ID 51143 City staff will select callers that have raised their hand digitally using the last three digits of your phone number um in order to electronically raise your hand um and indicate that you want to speak please press star nine on your phone you'll hear an automated announcement that the post is allowing you to speak and when you do speak please move to a quiet area and mute any television or background sounds that you might have um so that we can hear you clearly please also be sure to state your name and address at the beginning of your comments and again if you're interested in speaking it's star n hello caller with phone number ending with 894 you have three minutes to address the Planning Commission hello

013uh my name is Tom renert I'm the association executive of the Ann Arbor area Board of realter we at 1919 West Stadium Boulevard I'm commenting on the proposed sign ordinance the city staff report sir um so because that's something that's listed on our agenda we will definitely take the comment but we need to take the comment during the public hearing for that which is actually the next order of business okay thank you so thank you you did you did the right process to raise your hand so if we can just put P um put you on that when we talk about that thank you thank you is there anyone else that would like to speak not about the sign ordinance or about um the vidiian project those are the two items on the agenda for

014today or our by bylaws God forbid or our bylaws if you want to talk about our bylaws now is not the time for that thank you not seeing anybody else all right then we will close the uh audience participation there's another opportunity later on um the actually I misspoke because this is my first time chairing so I'm not used to this the next item of business is the public hearings for the next business meeting so short item before we get to the the public hearing on the sign ordinance yes in addition to uh uh chair Mills referenced uh the UDC amendments that were postponed from the first meeting in July um those will be reappearing on the agenda and then we have one new uh public hearing item it is for 559 River Riverview Drive

015it's a proposed annexation and Zoning a request to Annex a approximate one acre parcel from annarbor Township into the City and Zone r1b single family um this would be in support of utility infrastructure very good all right now we're on to item number 9A which is unfinished business and the first item here is the sign ordinance amendments um this these are proposed amendments to chapter 55 in the unified development code to update and modernize sign require or requirements for signage um Mr Leonard will give a presentation and then we'll open the public hearing up again for this item great thank you very much so um uh we have been obviously working at this this these proposed amendments for for a while um with good good reason it's a complex issue um the one of the

016um important reasons that we're you know there are numerous goals in us trying to look at these amendments one is uh just to provide some modernization of our sign ordinance in the sort of context of of our current environment um and sign industry to that matter um as well as um respond to uh case law that has evolved since the original um drafting uh and en action of our sign ordinance in its current state so um at the last discussion um we um we had um addressed many of the sort of outstanding issues and I'm not going to rehash those at this point they're reflected in the proposed ordinance that was presented but there was a couple of outstanding issues that um that were of particular um discussion at um and unresolved which brings us

017to this reconsideration of the proposed ordinances um one is the the specific to the timing and duration of signage when a property is for sale or lease um the proposed area allowed for temporary signage um particularly in residential areas and then the sort of merits of inclusion of what we have in the current draft as an unlimited temporary sign uh an unlimited non-commercial temporary sign and so uh the draft um that we've presented to you i' like to just sort of um put together our thoughts on what you're seeing in the draft and then in the staff report we have included a couple of Alternatives if there if the Planning Commission disagrees with staff if you'd like to go in a different direction what we've tried to do our best here is to lay out

018a few options in response to those those scenarios so first up is the time or duration of signage when a property is for lease for sale um as a body we've sort of gone in multiple directions on this and I think um we had originally included some specific exemption language that would provide that a temporary sign can exceed the maximum limitation of duration which is currently 65 days with a 30-day break from um as it relates to Perpetual display and so what I what staff is proposing is to rein reinstitute language that has been removed in a previous draft that would um provide an exemption from that 65 duration for as long as that property is for lease or for sale so that would um in those circumstances it would Prov IDE a longer duration

019of signage to occur on that property to be clear it doesn't spec stipulate that it has to be a real estate sign but so long as that property was for sale or release it would provide an ex an exception from that limited duration of time previously um in a previous the most recent iteration of our draft um we had accommodated that by saying no you you well you could have a continuous display of a for sale or sign during a for sale lease period however it would have to fluctuate between the standard temporary sign and an unlimited sign which is much smaller in size and so while that would provide some Perpetual display um it would require potentially physical adjustment of that sign to meet the requirements of that ordinance and so our staff's proposal

020is to restore the original language that essentially provides that again the duration exception for when a property is for lease for sale that it doesn't provide any additional area however it does provide additional duration and time for the display of such sign um alternatively um the ordinance could revert back to that iteration that I just described where again a longer term duration is is enabled but it would require some a bit of um adjustment in the actual physical sign used to display those that messaging so that was sort of area one um the second area that was that there was a lot of discussion about was the area of temporary signage available to residential uses and so in in your uh I think one of the one of the questions that that was discussed was

021whether or not 12 square foot maximum would be an appropriate size for that signage staff's assertion is that it is um what we've done is we've gone out and provided you some examples of some signage that um might meet that test we think that um while not all of it meets that size the majority of signs does meet that size requirement um so we would not propose expanding that area um as proposed in the ordinance um if Planning Commission did deci desire to do that um one of the conversations that we had was trying to put some sort of limitation on a single face aspect of that so that if the size were increased it wouldn't necessarily result in a um inappropriately large single face sign because all of our signs are were sort of

022um you know our measurement is sort of is uniform it's whatever sign area is occupied be it one side or two sides so we have provided additional language that could consider increasing that where it would be a maximum sign area of 20 square feet with no single face larger than 10 square feet so in that event you could have up to a 10 square foot sign but again staff's contention is that based on our experience in looking at some signs in our community the current 12 square foot being proposed appears to be adequate from our recommendation then finally um one of the outstanding points uh from the last discussion was the merits of whether or not we should include an unlimited temporary sign I don't think this had quite as much discussion as the previous

023two items but it was raised um in that discussion um in short staff believes that that should be maintained um we believe that providing some um flexible and ongoing basically Free Speech opportunity should outweigh any sort of aesthetic concerns or or restraints that we we envision for our community so we would recommend maintaining that unlimited non-commercial sign um uh in the language but uh again if desired you as the board could determine that you would like to revisit that balance a couple other questions have come up that I would like to raise these were not specifically addressed by the Planning Commission previously but in sort of um finalizing some of these these uh proposals questions that came up um should the sign ordinance provide for a higher temporary sign if you'll see a lot of

024the examples um they are between five and six feet um our current temporary sign height limitation is 5 feet from a staff perspective we don't see the that height difference of five to six feet as objetive cable it seems very conventional and consistent um it seems um um pretty widespread so we would propose considering um potentially increasing the maximum height of those sizes to five and a half or six feet to accommodate that convention um should the maximum area of unlimited sence be increased from Maximum of three square feet to six square feet um currently that unlimited sign provision is going to provide basically a single-sided temporary sign phase whenever you get into two it's going to um I think a consideration would actually be to provide up to a six square foot sign um

025that could result in a single face sign that's six square feet as well however um I think that that flexibility for property owners would be um potentially beneficial um we have added a provision and definition to accommodate the use of non-commercial Flags um what what we've done is we've said that flags are per are permitted in any on any property in the city of a non-commercial nature up to a total square foot area and um they're not they're not counted towards signage so if you decided you wanted to have an American flag or a state of Michigan flag or any other non-commercial messaging flag it would not count towards any signage requirements in the city and then we have also clarified uh how we meas measure business Frontage um our sign area is calculated on

026the front edge of a business and right now the definition is very specifically oriented to public right of way what we've done is uh attempted to clarify that definition to provide um that it is measured either along a public right of way or when that space is fronting onto a shared access drive or a shared parking lot in the case of a multi-tenant building um there are circumstances where you might have a building oriented perpendicular to the right of way with multiple spaces this would provide a opportunity to measure the business Frontage along that shared access or parking area as opposed to potentially having multiple tenants have to share a single Frontage that fronts onto the public right away um and then not included in the staff report but one thing I do want to

027mention is um the from a uh the the draft ordinance provides some protection for non-conforming signs that are over 200 square feet um this is sort of the current version of uh existing language in our code that provides ongoing opportunity for the existing Billboards in the community but um but because of the 200q foot size limitation we don't have a lot of opportunity to expand those in our community in the future um I I I want to point out that that might not be exclusive to Billboards that provision could have implications for other signs that might be over 200 square feet um I have pulled up a couple of examples that I can share with you but um generally you could just think of some of the larger Business Center or business signs in the

028community that might also meet that threshold that would therefore then be afforded that same protection of additional sign sign area that is not counted towards that of the business so um again in its current configuration I um it's slightly more expansive than I think probably what I originally envisioned I don't know that it's problematic but I just want to make sure the Planning Commission was aware of that um and I'll stop there I'm happy to address any questions that the commission has or if you'd like to see any uh of the examples from the staff report I do have a presentation where we can pull up some of those example signs very good thank you Mr Leonard um now we'll open an opportunity for or now we'll open the public hearing for this oh sorry

029I don't know why I'm hearing feedback um this is an opportunity to speak for up to three minutes about the proposed sign ordinance amendments to chapter 55 of the unified de code public comment may be made by calling 1877 7 5247 and then entering meeting ID number 11143 City staff will select callers that have raised their hand one by one using the last three digits of your phone number in order to electronically raise your hand um after dialing into the meeting you press star nine on your phone you'll hear an automated announcement that you're allowed to speak and when you speak please do move to a quiet area and mute any television or background sounds and please also state your name and address at the beginning of your comments right sirell hello once again yes

030you have three minutes to address the Planning Commission okay my name is Tom renert I'm the association executive for the Ann Arbor area board of realtors uh we're located at 1919 West Stadium uh I'm commenting primarily on the city staff report uh for the proposed side mdance that was published on the city on on the commission's website uh the city staff report uh suggests to strike the proposed language that allows signs of properties advertised for sale or lease to remain in place 65 days unless the sign is classified as unlimited as an unlimited sign with a commercial message in a size of no more than three or possibly uh six feet if you if you choose to extend expand that uh one thing I like would like you to be aware of that as of

031yesterday there were 285 homes listed for sale in the multiple listing service within the city limits of Ann Arbor 116 of those 285 homes that are currently listed for sale uh have a days on Market greater than 65 days so roughly 41% of the properties on the market today when Mark when properties are selling fairly fast um are already beyond the 65 day uh maximum cap that's being considered uh striking the language requiring a sign a significant reduction in the size of the sign per properties advertised for sale Beyond 65 days will unfairly treat homeowners in certain areas at certain price points or simply homes that are more difficult to sell uh we're concerned that this you know may very well you know have some fair housing concerns um we would ask that you keep

032the exception language in place that's been proposed for properties listed for sale release uh as indicated in the staff report most of the for sale signs fall within the 12 square feet requirement uh the thing is though it's a real common practice in Arbor uh in our market for homeowners who are advertising their homes for sale for them to promote their homes as an open house on weekends in doing so they always place a second sign on the property in most cases that second sign will increase the total square footage above the 12T uh requirement placing them outside of the ordinance on weekend when they're advertising their open houses uh we would propose an increase similar to what you were discussing before uh we were suggesting you know at least 16 square feet as a

033maximum with some type of a single face of of either 10 12 feet something like that so it does sound like you're thinking along those same lines that so that might potentially accommodate that additionally 30 more seconds Sir discussion discussion about height of signs five of the eight examples in the staff report are above five feet with a maximum of fet we would respectfully ask that the maximum height be established at no more than 6 feet uh this is a long anticipated uh uh standard in the marketplace again thank you for your consideration uh if you like to uh ask me any questions uh please give me a call at 734 822 2265 thank you thank you very much is there anyone else on the line who would like to make a comment during the

034public hearing if so you can press star nine I see nobody else all right so we will close the public hearing for this I'm going to read the motion and then ask for or yeah read the proposed motion and then ask for a commissioner to move the motion so the proot proposed motion reads the an arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve the amendments to chapter 55 unified development code section 5.24 and related references that motion is moved by commissioner wood seconded by commissioner s um we're open for discussion Mr Leonard um I just want to clarify to the speaker point our staff's recommendation is not to strike that language is to retain that language um um to provide that duration exception so I just want to clarify that

035the staff report language that that indicates it's striking would be if the commission were interested in reverting back to that requirement of Shifting between a up to a 12 foot temporary sign down to a three foot unlimited sign you would need to strike that language out of the draft that's been presented you've already made those changes that's good clarification because that's one of the things that I was confused about as well commissioner s uh thank you for putting all this back together in like the full update I really appreciate it uh I guess I just want to clarify in terms of the um the court like uh decisions about sale and lease and if like because it's not actually saying something about language it's saying something about use is that would that be an interpretation

036um yeah I I don't and I I have to be honest I I can't sit here and tell you the exact nuances of retaining this provision in the context of the Supreme Court decision um as a reminder for everybody the Supreme Court decision um to greatly oversimplify is that a sign ordinance that requires you to sort of read the content is inappropriate and so um I think that that's that's the distinction here is that we are not saying that real estate signs um have the potential to be exhibited during a longer period of time when a property is for sale or lease but rather a sign is able to be displayed um during that circumstance and so um we staff believes that that is consistent with with that um I think that if there was

037a question it's probably the availability of that signage to that property given that use status um versus a similarly situated property that doesn't have that use status um but at the same token I think that there is just sort of a and again I can't say legal but a sort of experiential um reference point that signage and signages utilize very commonly when properties are for sale or for lease so um the short is that I think it is consistent with case law to my knowledge um by being clear that we're just providing a longer duration of signage when your property is for sale or release we're not saying it has to be a for sale or release sign but that condition is going to Grant you more time got it that's helpful thank you um

038I mean I'll just kind of put it out there for other Commissioners too I'm comfortable with the six feet uh and this the sizes kind of as proposed so I think there's you know small changes that we're not going to see a significant kind of impact in the visuals as we're trying to um look at here in part so I I'm supportive of you know where where staff has really brought this over the past year so thank you commissioner Woods followed by commissioner milin um Mr Leonard thank you for including the pictures this time I think that's very helpful um there's just one place courtesy of Mr Chang okay there's one place where and it may be that I'm looking at the pictures on my uh iPhone while I'm talking on my laptop but anyway

039um I'm just trying to get a sense uh I think it's the last set of or the second to the last set of pictures down there one is a picture of a Sign by Mr McGee who was running for a sheriff so what was that an example of was that an example of uh of a a large sign going that was going to meet that six foot or what is that for no no no um so that would that would not meet um the temporary sign requirements um I was and to be to be clear well not to be fuzzy um many of these signs could be categorized as multiple signs I the intention here was just to provide um what staff believes are the types of signs that might um justify the city's desire

040to keep an unlimited sign um during so but um a black lives matter sign could be a unlimited sign under the designated sign area it could also potentially be a 12 sqare foot temporary sign that is subject to the 65 day duration and has to be removed for 30 days so so the intention was just to provide um maybe some examples um perhaps in sort of support of of staff's perspective that we think it's worthwhile to carve out something in our code to accommodate these kind of Expressions okay and um if someone had a an objection to a sign that would um staff's not going out looking for signs right no okay it's all going to and I and I think that's Point huh yeah and and that's a you know that's that's a fair

041critique you know one of the things that we've previously indicated is for example these types of signs are not going to require a permit so we will not have something on file that says this sign went up on August 5th and therefore it must come down um if if a complaint comes up we're going to investigate it that might result in US documenting as early as we can as to when that sign was established and then measuring 65 days but the you're right we are not actively out um on a routine basis resourcing people looking at um inventorying signs on a regular basis so that we could quote un quot catch one or or ensure compliance so it would be on a complaint basis it would be imperfect but at least it is putting some

042um size and duration times that at least gives us something to measure whenever we get to that and that includes real estate signs as well right y okay under this provision however as as the ordinance is presented to you that would be an exception where it's not subject to that 65 days so as long as that property is for sale for Le you could maintain that and again it wouldn't require a permit okay good because I think so many of the ordinances that we have sometimes we we would just want people to understand that we're not saying go out and tell on your neighbor but it's all about being good neighbors and I mean if you think somebody's had a sign up forever you could always go say hey is that looks like this is

043still for sale right and they might say oh no I sold it last month sign still there I don't know but anyway you know um it's good to know that staff's not you know making this a full-time job of going out checking and frankly for sale is probably we eventually get notice of sales via the assessing system lease is actually probably a little bit more difficult to ascertain okay thank you commissioner milin thank you um so Mr Leonard Mr Chang and everybody at uh in the planning department all the city staff that worked on it I mean we've been at this for a long time um and I will take some responsibility for that so I apologize it's just the process but I feel like we are uh so close um I really have just

044two more things that I would really like to tweak um the first one commissioner so had mentioned um has to do with regards to the temporary uh uh sign height and I'd like to amend that from what's currently um in the ordinance to uh six feet um so I'd like to make that motion to amend that um just looking at the images you provided plus you know my personal experience um I think six feet would be an appropriate uh height so I'd like to move that Madam chair if that's okay that is is it seconded by commissioner s so now we're disc making sure parliamentary procedure we're discussing now that um uh amend proposed amendment so the proposed amendment would amend the current draft to provide a cap of a 5 foot high maximum temporary

045residential sign to a 6 foot high res that's in table 5.24 D6 just to make sure I'm clear the top effectively the first y white row any comments discussion here all right let's vote on that Amendment uh roll call or okay I'm comfortable unless um any commissioner could request roll call but just for the amendment I think we could just do by voice okay all in favor of the amendment please say I I or raise your hand I um all opposed all right that is unanimous so now we have an amended motion your next point my next Point has to do with what uh Mr ranker from ARB board of realtors uh came board with regards to a uh in regards to properties that um have open houses um although open houses are not a

046regular thing right now during the pandemic although it's still happening um it it's a very valid point that when there is a um a openhouse occurring there's an additional sign that's placed in front of the house um that's usually roughly about 2 by3 or so um sometimes maybe a little bit larger um so I would be in favor of amending um the 12 foot um size of a sign um 12 square feet to 16 square feet um to account for for that um for a potential open house sign that's being placed so that open house signs are legal um in an arbor so I'd like to move that and I'm open to discussion on that as well anyone second that a proposed amendment seconded by commissioner abam now we're in discussion about the amendment to

047change that commissioner abam and then commissioner Gib Randall um is the I thought the 12 square foot limitation was per sign so commissioner milen are you saying that the openhouse signs would be larger one single sign would be larger than 12 s ft or is the 12 yeah the 12 is is not total right Min was 12 was total Mr Leonard is that so if I look at the table it says per sign maximum sign area per sign if if you look into the um if you look to the left though it does create a maximum of 12 square feet as well per lot per lot got it uh then I would be in favor of the amendment yeah makes sense but so we would be amending the maximum per lot but not the maximum

048per sign I would be totally fine with that yeah and that still then it then would allow for this Gap like your maximum per lot and maximum per sign are not the same so it's still a limitation on how big any one sign can be um commissioner Gib randel did you have something to add yeah no I that's that was my question too because I I'm not in favor of just having more sign area I don't want a ginormous sign you know that is allowed through that so if there's some way to be able to distinguish that it's kind of has to be two somehow or that we have a separate provision that talks about open house signs can be up for 24 hours and it has a dimension to it can't do that because

049it's content related yeah you could allow you could say any sign you want could be up for up to 24 hours got it yeah I just want to make sure that whatever we're doing we're not kind of creating a loophole that allows you to have a really big sign because it accommodates both those so as long as our amendment makes it so that you still can't just have one ginormous sign under the um that that would be my concern is that there would be some wiggle room in there to be able to make one bigger sign with that yeah I think um as proposed it would provide a total increase in sign area of an additional four square feet but it would not increase the maximum size of a single size sign Beyond 12 square

050feet so in order to get to that Max you would essentially have to combine a 12 square foot sign and a four square foot sign okay all righty then I'll be in support of them that that I just to be clear that's that based on the Motion in the discussion that's how I'm interpreting it's just amending the per lot maximum area up to uh 16 square feet instead of 12 square feet based on the math that per that Miss uh that commissioner milstein gave I don't know that that's enough though if a if a um open house sign is 3 by two that's six square feet um is that one side of it Alex or is that is that double-sided it's one side of it I'm just four square feet like we've seen in the

051pictures that they're not all the full 12 square feet to start with so I I think like um if you start with a 10 square foot sign which seems to be reasonable like the kind of hanging signs that I see without though the tops or bottoms thing on them um then 10 square feet seems reasonable I think in the staff report what I read was perhaps we increased the total area not per sign but per lot to 20 which I think it's closer what I don't want to do is like we're trying to do this to allow for openhouse signs and then if we don't actually have the right math and then not allow for it anyway I was trying to uh be kind ask for too much I am totally good with anything more

052than 16 um you know I think definitely helps the real estate community I don't think that we so the again like there's different signs to accommodate for this in my mind the staff report suggests that one of the options might be 20 um which would be the same size as the two you know Reinhardt kind of hanging signs without the without the adder whatever you call them on the bottom on the top or on the top so I I don't know how friendly that would be a friendly Amendment for me okay that's a friendly moment for you Ellie um seconded it so does it have to be friendly for her and it's friendly okay so now I guess what we're discussing is total lot total area of signage for the temporary signs to be 20

053square feet keeping in mind that any one sign can only be 12 feet and we're still counting to be clear Mr Leonard if it's a double-sided sign and you have a message on both sides it's only six square feet then effectively because you count both signs for the one the one sign that's double-sided is you count both as it's considered as one sign it's a 12 foot sign that is six foot in overall Dimension but 12 square feet of sign area okay which in my mind seems reasonable uh commissioner s and we're applying this to lot area for single family two family multif family to six units and multif family of seven units and more correct all of those categories I guess it's like split into two right to both of those columns as well

054okay um I just want to verify like that it's not one or the other you know that those go from 12 to 20 uh I support it I also see the benefit when we talk about multif family that they're not sharing the maximum 12 square feet and it does split it up for signs so that when you have m multif family multiple households can get a part of of a sign there as well so there Beyond real estate there does also give more area in distributed signage for uh more ways to uh present your values and signs so I think it's good any other discussion about the proposed amendment can I just make sure that I'm clear on Our intention here the the the amended the the proposed amendment would change increase the maximum sign

055area for all residential just for freestanding signs from a maximum of 12 square feet to a maximum of 20 square feet and would not change the single per sign size of 12 square feet in either circumstance right which my I that's my understanding and my reading of the table would mean then you're making it would change the number in two places yep okay just I just want to make sure thank you commissioner hamers I have a clarifying I'm fine with this but I have a clarifying question just to make sure that I understand because when the caller was speaking I was thinking like well couldn't that just be the unlimited sign the openhouse sign but I'm reading this again the unlimited sign counts towards that 12 or 20 or whatever square feet no no uh

056it would have the limited sign has to be of a non-commercial message to that's what it is okay okay because like I'm looking so I'm looking at the temporary signs thing under okay so non-commercial message is it referencing the right table though I guess this is off topic a little bit that one that would count towards the max sign area period right now I'm getting confused and maybe I'm not looking at the right table non-commercial message but the commercial message oh Lord guys I'm sorry so so the temporary sign table those can be commercial messages yes yes okay the unlimited sign cannot be a commercial message correct but the unlimited sign counts towards that Max that's a so what you're talking about is that it's referencing table 24-4 yeah right yeah and that's an old

057reference yeah I think it's six because we've since added the Pud tables I'm sorry that's just a reference that I didn't catch I thought so but it but it does count but it does count towards that Max just for my understanding right so if your max is 20 and you have a real estate sign and an openhouse sign and you're at 20 you can't have an unlimited sign in your yard as well correct okay okay I'm good thanks thank you for clarifying that commissioner hamers Schmid any other um commissioner Woods then commissioner milstein I just wanted to go back to the the point that she just made uh commissioner hemmer Smith when she said that you could not have an unlimited sign as well but if your unlimited sign is something for example indicating that

058it's an open house for your child you could actually have that sign there plus the real estate Sign Plus an openhouse sign not if it goes above 20 square feet but why not because it says in the ordinance that it counts towards the maximum but see that to me in a way I mean I I know it sounds like a rare occurrence but it it could happen and it wouldn't necessarily be fair I'm I'm okay so I've got a real estate sign on a Sunday afternoon and I have that hanging sign or something saying you know open house or something and let's say that those two things together bring me up to the 20 but it's also my daughter's openhouse from high school and we stick out that sign to let people know this is

059where you should come and so I'd be in violation yes you'd be over 20 square feet hm you could pull you could pull down the real estate sign you could pull down the your daughter's graduation sign you could pull down the openhouse sign but that is this is limiting you to a total amount of square footage oh you could the Planning Commission could go in a different direction and say we don't care how many signs you have as long as they're under 12 square feet that would be another way that would say you could you could have a a real estate sign you could have an open house you could have a graduation and you could have uh um we support healthcare workers so um that would be another way but right now what we're

060doing is we're putting a total cap on the area that we think is is reasonable to provide some flexibility but it's not unlimited where you as a property owner are going to have to at times make some choices the unlimited signage says of a portion of that you don't have to take it down after 65 days we are providing a a reception from time but not area for a non-commercial message so doesn't that also therefore mean that you could not for example have a uh a sign we wanted people to vote for someone for president as well as for state representative as well as for Senator and you can't have all those signs in your yard at the same time then you could have up to 20 square feet of those signs up to a

061period of 65 days and then they'd have to to be turned down for 30 days that 65 days actually references some election law time frame so we actually um one of the reasons we timed that duration is based on some election uh state law Provisions okay but so I just wanted to say forget about dur duration for a moment but but in terms of the size or the number that you could have in your yard you could not have if there if the total sign uh if dimensions and everything go up to um 20 feet you can't do that if they go over 20 square feet it would be in violation that seems like then you're sort of limiting people in terms of free speech we are providing actually we I would say we're increasing

062it because right now the way our ordinance is constructed is we provide some ability for political science but not other type of signage now we're giving you 20 square feet to sort of use however you desire you may be giving me more more opportunity but you still may be limiting if I want to go if I want to indicate everybody on that ticket that I want to vote for it's it's a balance oh I'm just raising it because I know I'm probably not going to be the only one who's going to to notice that but okay I'll listen to other people Alex I have you but I want to get a clarification here because what I actually heard in that or that it brought up and I want to make sure I'm reading the table

063right is that we're now in inreasing actually um what we're discussing right now is increasing the total square footage that commissioner Woods can have political signs on um but in Du so so there's more than what was in the draft even so what the table still shows is that she's limited she can only have four signs and it could be four political signs it could be two political signs and two for sale signs you know the the sales sign and the open house sign but I just want to make sure that we know that there are still limitations on the overall number of issue signs or any kind of signs right that I'm that so that's kind of modifying what you were just saying Mr Leonard yeah there are limitation that there's not just the

064square footage limitation but there's also the sheer number yep that's true which may raise more red flags for you commissioner woods but I'll um I think that what we're discussing is what the overall square footage number should be we might want to discuss what the maximum number of signs should be um commiss or milstein Mr lonard can you help me do some math here quickly so let's assume so thank you by the way I'm happy with the 20 foot uh maximum uh but let's assume I have a 65 foot lot okay what would be my maximum sign allowed for a 60 pack but L um for a 65 lot you would get um lot width of more than 60 feet maximum of 02 square feet per linear foot of lot width so if it were

06565 ft times 2 you get 13 square feet but however that would ratchet down to a maximum of 12 or in this case You' get 13 because we've up it to 20 potentially so you get up to 13 square feet maximum of 12 square foot per sign maximum of four signs so we need to change that yes because if you have 60 square foot lot you get lat more signage than if you had 61 square foot lot with we we've put yeah we've put a basic floor so regardless of the size of your lot you have some opportunity for signage on your lot but to me it sounds like so from what I'm reading here it says for lot WI more than 60 feet so if I'm a 65 foot lot um in this category

066it be 13 feet I reading this incorrectly yes it be 13 square feet um lot width of more than 60 feet maximum2 square feet per linear for lot width up to 48 square feet yeah so you'd get up to 133 Square fet um so yeah if we're increasing the 20 for the 60 foot Lots you got to figure out what you want how you want that to be adjusted there so could we say maximum of our can we just say uh 0.2 square feet per linear foot uh what about just capping them all at a Max of 20 regardless of lot size I'd be okay with that I mean if we're okay with it for small Lots um unless we found some value in providing a much higher area for larger Lots but I don't

067know that that's necessary yeah I I'd be okay with capping it at 20 feet and so this is an amendment to your my friendly amended Amendment right to be clear so what that is is in the two places for single family and multif family freestanding it is regardless of it's now very simple right now it's currently a very you know much text the only thing that would be in that perlot box is a maximum of 20 square feet correct yes uh so you did that so I'm sure it's friendly to you commissioner aband is that friendly to you all right excellent commissioner S I saw your hand at one point are you you want to speak I was gonna say if you wanted to do math it would just be times 333 repeating to get

068to the 20 if you want to justly no we don't need more math 20 is totally good with me the less work we have people do and the more direct things are I think is great in an ordinance the I think that this makes sense and is Equitable the only thing that it would mean is that if you're a corner lot you have more Frontage and you you are you no longer get your two signs like double signs if you have a corner lot for sale um I thought I would bring it up that's not bothersome to me but if it is to anyone else you should know that it is bothersome but I'm not gonna push my luck tonight thank you very much for working with me on this excellent Okay I uh it

069sounds like we're ready to vote on the amendment and again this amendment is to in two places on table 5. 24-6 to change to have the per lot maximum sign area be 20 square feet regardless of um lot size for the single family and multif family residential commissioner s what did I get also for six foot height those two things are together those in previous motion okay yep sorry good all right all in favor of that Amendment please say I or raise your hand I I any opposed I don't see anyone so the amendment or the motion is now amended for the second time so we've got the six foot maximum height we've got the 20 square feet maximum per lot area any other discussion on the motion as amended commissioner abon yeah I just

070wanted to bring up again maybe the potential confusion around the idea of an unlimited temporary sign or a unlimited sign in the temporary category and I've been thinking if there's a word other than temporary that would make sense that could embody and I was thinking um would it be could we consider the word impermanent so the temporary sign is intended to define a sign um I have the definition up but I lost it now but it's the opposite of a permanent sign it's not permanently affixed and I think maybe impermanent would work because an impermanent sign of unlimited duration makes more sense to me at least than a temporary sign of unlimited de duration because temporary canotes time whereas impermanent maybe doesn't so um yeah I think um I I don't think it's distinct from

071your what you're talking about but one of the intentions there is it's not sort of I think a physical um constructed sign in a way so I think the temporary is also intended to probably speak to the type of sign it is um versus perhaps a like a three square foot Monument sign that somebody might put in a yard um I I personally am okay with temporary I understand what you're saying but in the context of this we're actually um its technical definition is an is an unlimited sign and we're just identifying that it is an exception from the general provisions of temporary science because of that duration yeah so like if you read the definition it says a temporary sign um intended for a limited period of display I mean I guess maybe that's

072the confusion so there's an exception in here which is that you can have a a per sign intended for a limited period of display but that is not regul you know but is not required to be limited in its period of display I think if other people don't find it confusing if they don't think the public will find it confusing I think that's who we want to be able to understand the ordinance as it's written so if people you know if I think if there's consensus in this group that it won't be confusing I'm fine with it but I thought thought I would offer impermanent as an option thanks it sounded like that was not a motion to amend but maybe seeking whether there was were others that were of the same mind yeah and

073I I mean I also um I I'll defer to Mr Leonard's opinion too I think if if he feels that it won't be cumbersome to the interpretation of the ordinance then you know I just that no I I would just say I appreciate the feedback um regardless of trying to come up with an alternative solution we can if in the event that this progresses we can look at that just to make sure um I it's clear to me but I think your point is good to make sure that we're communicating it to the public um as clearly as we can um that said I think there's lots of opportunities for us to do some communication on this ordinance apart from the ordinance itself and so um there's probably lots of avenues that we can we

074can help clarify that but well that's not to say that we we couldn't look at it and if there's a a more clear way to define it or reference it um that could that could be something that we present to city council for example after your sort of policy stamp that it's it's something we want to accommodate other discussion of the amended language now amended motion commissioner hamers smid maybe we were gonna say the same thing um but first I like I I'm reading back through this temporary thing like commissioner like totally get your point and like the temporary is confusing but I think like for me because this unlimited thing is like under the temporary sign section but it's saying like but one of these temporary signs can be unlimited like it's maybe less

075confusing um so I I kind of think it's fine but I wanted to bring back the number of signs and um I I also had written down some basically what commissioner Woods was saying I mean obviously there's was an election last night and I've seen many houses with you know six seven signs I'm sure if I went and added them up they're both double-sided they're all double-sided like it's way over 20 square feet I don't have a proposal I just think that this is gonna be a potential issue but since we can't regulate content you can't say like with the exception of political signs right so yeah I mean I think I'd be i' I don't know like I'd be comfortable increasing the number of signs like I don't unless we get into like a

076situation where people are putting 20 one square foot signs in their yard which I just don't see happening um but I I you know I don't know how big well I think maybe on on some of the pictures we had square footage of some of these political signs um that now I can't find yeah they they range probably from maybe we don't eight square feet probably to a little smaller depending on sign well so like this this black lives matter in this house we believe black lives matter sign where you have is 4.2 square feet is that on both sides do you know that's just one side um I don't know Chris do you know that I'm guessing yeah it looks to me like it's probably about one side I'd offer up it's one it's

077the political one is 8.4 two-sided and that one's 4 oh there that's right below yeah so yeah I mean then like under the sign ordinance you could really only have two of these political signs and I'm I'm I I don't I don't know I just know that a lot of people in my neighborhood will be breaking this ordinance right now I don't really have a no and I I I get it but this is this is the absolute Crux of the issue is that we can no longer you know our current ordinance our current ordinance evolved out of just those sort of things that well for political signs this is acceptable for commercial signs this is acceptable for um other types of for Real Estate signs this is acceptable we don't have that ability anymore

078so we can go as big and as accommodating as we want we could go as kind of restrictive and constrained as we want the important thing is that we're treating everything equally yeah I mean I think this is the tension right like we don't want to say like okay so like on average if somebody wants to have like three political signs in their yard then that could potentially go up to like 30 square feet I mean I I don't know I don't know it but I think that is the tension that we have to decide like size versus it's why you get the big bucks right so you get the big bucks okay I'm gonna stop talking and see if anybody else wants to weigh in could you remind us I what might be helpful

079is currently is it a free-for-all with regarding political signs that might help it put in in context So currently um currently uh a political sign um has a maximum height of 48 in and a maximum width of 36 in and the bottom of the sign shall be a minimum of six Ines from the ground the sign shall be set back at least 5 feet from the public RightWay or fixed to a building uh a sign that Advocates or opposes a candidate for public office or a position on an issue to be determined at an election shall be removed not more than 18 hours after the election um political signs shall not be subject to any specified time limit or must be removed if they become dangerous or otherwise prohibited so not restricted in size not

080restricted in duration other than after the political issue is comes to some decision they have to be removed in 18 hours and so the McGee sign that we see actually fits in that because that's a quite large I mean that's nothing that we're discussing would allow for that aign that size right to be like it both exceeds the overall square footage and the per sign square footage um got it okay uh commissioner who uh people moved on my screen commissioner Woods did you have your hand up before I ask that question I did have my hand up and and um not so much that I'm not going to vote for the signed ordinance because I know a lot of work has gone into it and and I will certainly vote for it but just just

081again I guess just to be aware that that there will be situations where you would want I would want and I don't try and go around breaking the law but if I could have up signs I could just see where I could have up for a number of candidates as well as a couple of real good uh causes as well as saying you know girls can do it too or whatever you know it's so it's it's just after a while it becomes you know and and I know our department doesn't want to go out you know ticket ticket ticket but sometimes it becomes you know if a neighbor gets upset with me because of the content of a sign then they call in or something or or I call in because I don't like what

082they put up so I don't know and I just wanted to say that but I do appreciate everything that's gone into the whole sign orness thing I mean it's it's rough I think you mean it's awesome just doing the math myself I think I would with this idea I think I would move to make one Amendment which is um changing the total number of signs from four to five because I feel like that the idea that a single-sided sign tends to be about four square feet we're now allowing 20 at least then that number that's not a limitation and actually I could I think I might move to have five but if there's somebody who wants to argue that it should be more um I would be okay with that I feel like we're regulating

083by sign area and so this is just allowing for a little bit more and I think your neighbor is e it's easier to count the number of signs than it is to take your tape measure out and measure so um actually I'm gonna amend my little motion to amend and I'm gonna say six does anyone want to Second the total number of signs that are allowed um uh commissioner milin we're open for discussion commissioner abens that was not a thumbs up that was a hand that was like a tentative hand and then I took it away but I'll speak um so that would be six signs one of which could have indefinite duration and five of which would only would have the 65 day limit and still capped by the 20 foot per lot and

084still capped by 12 foot per sign uh okay I would support that great uh we'll vote on that um Amendment all in favor who second who seconded that I think I said commissioner milin okay thank you uh all in favor say I or raise a hand I I anyone opposed okay so now we've got a motion that had three amendments on it um that it's back on the table for discussion I will just close by saying thank you for all of this work I think that the the changes that you made in terms of going out to the community we don't we don't want to put a whole bunch of things um automatically make them non-conforming um that I don't think that's the intention here the intention is to come up to speed with you

085know to make sure that we're complying with the law as written um so I I really appreciate all the work into this and the pictures again Mr chain thank you so much that was that was really helpful in grounding our discussion um it's difficult to imagine what four square feet is or you know understand like the different real real estate signs so thank you very much any other comments commissioner hamers Schmidt I just want to say one last thing sort of emphasize a point that's already been said um and also Echo this was so much work like I probably still don't understand like 50% of this ordinance but um what commissioner milen brought up about the lot size I think it's so important that we have just capped everybody at 20 square feet total I

086mean I understand like the corner lot real estate issue but I mean it's completely inequitable for somebody with a larger lot size to be able to have more signs or bigger signs so I think that making it Equitable across the board for any lot um is a great thing to do all right it looks like we're ready for a vote uh we'll do a roll call vote Mr Leonard please commissioner Molin yes commissioner G Randall yes commissioner akman yes commissioner s that yes commissioner abon yes commissioner hamers Schmid yes commissioner Woods yes commissioner Mills yes carries unanimously thank you for all of your work on that endeavor thank Youk you thank you all right um we're at 8:15 I'm going to keep on going um so we are on item 10A regular business this is

087the vidiian at County Farm Park planned unit development zoning and supplemental regulations this is at 2270 plat Road commissioner Gib Randall yes I am going to need to recuse myself my firm has been hired to work on this project and so I will be stepping away from the discussion um and come back on after after we're done thank you very much and off you go you are demoted uh give me a moment we have a fair number of um participants representing these petitioners um I will for the benefit of the Commissioners I have um provided um we have a PUD petition and we have two distinct site plans for that so I have provided them the opportunity for two 10minute presentations or one 20 minute however however they desire um commiss I guess for clarification

088how are we going to be voting on on this or we GNA be since there's two separate site plans but it's one PUD how will the votes be handled uh there are three distinct motions one for the Pud zoning which is setting the Zoning for the site independent of the site plans the Pud as currently proposed does not link those specific site plans to the Pud zoning district and then you'll have two distinct motions on each site plan however because of their inter relationship they're sharing things like access utilities we thought it was worthwhile to consider them in Mass thank you and now you're going to be joined by lots of people what I would add on to that is that I think hearing the presentations is all together if there as you know after

089the public hearing and we read the motions we want to take we if it makes sense to to separate them out I'm happy to do that as well but I thought we would just take them all together and certainly the public hearing makes sense to do together and I'm are there's six of us on this evening um is that do we need to all vote in order to uh all vote in affirmative in order to pass it to city council with a recommendation to approve there seven seven and six affirmative votes would be necessary to forward a recommendation Zach's just got his camera off ah okay I had to do like count up um I'm still working on people just give me a moment um Alexis I'm going to make a co-host she'll be running

090the [Music] presentation it's not the Brady Bunch anymore or on my computer Alexis you've been working on some transformative stuff in town I am single-handedly trying to take over the town getting there if uh if this is what rule under you as a benevolent Queen looks like that be okay um I I would just ask quickly of the petitioners is there somebody that you were anticipating That You Don't See present um no all right great so as Mr Leonard said um I'll turn it over to the petitioners for a total of 20 minutes um and then after that uh misso you'll take over and fill us in on anything else great all right the developers just let me know which uh presentation to load first Avalons right so should I go ahead and get started

091yes yes please so I'm Wendy cardi Saxon I'm the director of real estate development at Avalon housing and yes I'm sorry are you guys doing two separate presentations or you just want me to run a 20- minute clock run a 20 minute clock we'll roll from one right into the other all right thank you sorry about that yep no that's all right that's all right um and just really excited to be here with our vidiian County Farm proposal uh for our joint PUD covering both the Avalon and the Thrive sites and with our distinct site plans also and the picture up is a rendering that was done a while back showing the overall site certain buildings and such have you know shifted and moved around a bit but I think it still gives a decent

092sort of General feel for the overall neighborhood so I'll chat a bit about Avalon site plan and David Esau our architect will provide a bit more information on that and we also have our engineers and Landscape Architects here to to answer any questions that you may have you know later on and after David and I talk we'll hand it over to thrive and they can discuss their site plan as well as touch on the Pud and its public benefits um but since I'm here I want to at least mention what we feel is a really key public benefit of the Pud uh the expansion of the supply of affordable housing I mean we're really excited to bring 50 new units of affordable housing to the community with this development and it's both more units than

093what sort of the Baseline is with the Pud as as well as more deeply targeted and I'll touch on that in a little bit um and I'll just say the Pud also brings the public benefit of allowing us to do a mix of uses across the site and some exciting site design like enabling us to design the two sites as one cohesive site with common circulation patterns both vehicular and pedestrian creative land division techniques compliment exterior architectural appearance and also contributing to the long-term sustainability with the environmental approaches being taken but other folks can touch on that a bit more later um just real brief background so it's county-owned land and we each have purchase agreements for our parcels and as far as Avalon goes I'll just say securing land has always been a key

094challenge to our ability to develop so it's really been fantastic to be working with the county having a committed seller on this property which is just a huge uh thing for us um and then if you want to go to the next slide so thereor perfect um talk a little bit about the specifics of Avalon plan bran at County for Farm north um you can see sort of the gray Drive area that's on Avalon side you can't you can sort of see the property line uh and Avalon's units are the ones to the north of those and then you can see in the middle right south of the grade in drive is the community center and then the building to the right is also Avalons but even sort of looking at that drawing I think

095you can get a sense of how overall the development is intended to flow as a the two different site plans are intended to flow as a single development but as far as Avalons go we have 50 units it's a mix of one two three and four bedroom units and we're very excited frankly to have some four-bedroom units in our stack here we found that's a real need um for our families 30 of our 50 units are Supportive Housing so they'll be for households who are under 30% of area median which is about 21 Grand for a 1 person house household um and all of those 30 units are expected to have Project based vouchers so the households would only pay 30% of their income towards rent um 10 of those Supportive Housing units are further

096targeted to Ozone House so youth experiencing homelessness would have a home here um the remaining 20 of the 50 units are standard affordable housing just below 60% of area median we have nine buildings on our site uh including the community center and it's a mix our units are mixed of stacked flats and twostory Tow houses which we found that that kind of design really works very well at Avalon's other family properties of the townhouse stack flat design also want to note that 15% of our units our 50 units eight of them are fully accessible across a range of bedroom types and I think the code may require like one so really going above and beyond that um and all the ground floor flats and all the ground floors of the tow houses are visitable so

097no steps entry and sufficiently wide doorways Etc but now I will turn it over to David Esau Cornerstone Design architect to chat a little bit more about our site plan thank you Wendy um I Am David Esau with Cornerstone Design I've worked with all of Avalon's new projects and many of their Renovations um I'm going to start with talking about the community center you'll see it in the middle of the site as as Wendy mentioned um provides easy access for all the units um it's a joining avalance playground area which will be just to the west of the community center and then a joining thrives open space just south of the playground so that there's sort of a central activity area for the entire development where residents can come together for outdoor activities and and

098possibly activities leading into the community center and that kind of thing um the program of the Community Center is very similar to the ones that Avalon has at Pauline or at carrot way if you've ever visited those a large meeting room tenant laundry facilities service offices um this one will be a a unique building for them in the Avalon is part of the international living future Institute it's an affordable housing pilot program as part of our effort to achieve net zero for the community center um so that will be an interesting challenge as we finish up the the design for that we're we're currently planning double stud walls around the exterior so there'll be high levels of insulation in the walls as well as in the roof of that so um that will be the

099primary way and then the building is designed to allow a lot of solar panels to be placed on the roof to try to get us down to that Net Zero level I think there are some elevations on the next slide of the community center oh nope that is uh building a the front elevation along plat would be the next one that would be the community center NOP that was wrong next one after that there we are so those are elevations of the community center the South elevation would have the large roof that would be available for solar panels um so moving back to the apartments if you want to go back to one of the previous slides U this particular one is looking at one of the townhouse buildings with four bedroom units at the

100ends and three bedroom units in the middle um Avalon's units have all or developments have always had significant green requirements usually through Enterprise green but this one should be Avalon's greenest to date in a number of ways um of course being well sealed well insulated we'll have casement windows throughout both for air sealing and for accessibility uh these will be a new feature for Avalon and that they won't have vinyl siding or vinyl flooring um so that'll be interesting to see how that affects our costs and how it affects all the projects are maintained um but it it was a commitment we made is part of working with rrive on this development to to achieve the goals of the development and the HVAC will be all electric using primarily heat pump systems um we haven't

101gotten into the design of those much we've used those some on previous projects and we're looking forward to see how those work out in terms of our coordination with Thrive I mentioned coordination of the activity area in the center of the site we have shared drives for access to Avalon parking and Thrive garages in a number of areas where we're we're sharing those and common materials throughout the site using similar types of siding similar sight lighting fixtures paving materials there are a number of common design themes throughout the site in terms of unit entries to streets and Courtyards um details of the the exterior designs that will be common throughout the site common landscape elements especially in the rain Gardens we're using similar plants that that will be a look consistent as you drive through

102the site or walk through the site and then we've worked closely through the design process on the interconnection of the unit layouts as Wendy mentioned the utilities drives and walks to make sure that everything was coordinated um and that's really what we wanted to present on the Avalon side so I'm going to turn it over to Matt groov from thrive Matt are you there I see you Matt but I think you're muted I see your mouth moving oh no I don't have an option to unmute you any more than you were off I wonder if we have a number that he can call in um I can repeat it from the agenda is that the right number to give him Mr Leonard oh boy says host is you can also use uh in the lower

103left where the microphone icon is you click the little arrow above you can hit switch to phone audio should present the dial in number all right can y'all hear me now yes all right excellent yeah I think uh while you were anyway we don't need to worry about how that happened can I get my two minutes back not that we'll need it um uh so guys um I said some really brilliant things that you missed you have you have 11 minutes left Matt all right thank you um uh so uh Alexis can you go ahead and bring up the slides uh while she's bringing that up I'll repeat the brilliant things that I said when you uh when you had when I was on mute um so I'm Matt groof of the uh principles of

104the Thrive collaborative and the the the whole idea of Thrive is to bring together these collaboration things to really try to achieve things uh that you know and overcome really uh uh institutional barriers and achieve some of these urgent challenges that we have um we've spent four years of deeply integrated design as as David Esau was just talking about um we've collaborated we've consulted with uh leading industry people from from around the world really on energy green infrastructure Urban agriculture biophilic lighting uh even sound ecology from somebody at the University of Michigan um so really really deep ideas of how we can rethink the conventional development model which is deeply flawed and so all of this is really looking at how do we take a a regenerative approach to development and the results we think

105is uh one of the most thoughtful and comprehensive Master plans that we've ever seen here in the city of an arbor hopefully it'll be a model for future development um so first I I think it's really important to talk about why we're here why are we doing this why is this so damn urgent and a year ago I had the extraordinary privilege of a lifetime really to meet with Greta thunberg at the first Global Climate strike in Stockholm Sweden I got to spend the morning with the parents of some of the original 10 climate Strikers and uh and one of the things that Greta thumberg said is that you know we've had enough pep talking what we need is action and I truly believe that pledges and plans and platitudes without action is Vanity so

106we've got to do something more than that we've got eight years to make this extraordinary transition so my takeaway coming home from Sweden and if um uh you can go to the next slide uh is what I learned from Greta was that you know hope is something that you earn right and so tonight is really an opportunity for the city to take action if you can go to the next slide I I told Alexis that I just do like a when I wanted to move to the next slide as a little signal so um uh and because of the work we've been doing um the uh United Nations uh highlighted the project at the world Urban Forum back in February in Abu Dhabi and um they actually sought us out and asked us to talk

107about how we're achieving some of the sustainable development goals and the goals you see on the screen are the things that that um that they've highlighted that they believe that Veridian is a model for for others to uh to to to to to to take exemplifying how do we achieve the sustainable development goals and you go to the next slide so we're on track to uh create what we believe is going to be the world's first residential Living Community challenge master plan for the vidiian parcel the project is already registered for The Living Community challenge we're a partner in the a20 um uh uh uh partnership and um The Living Community challenge is bringing the living building challenge to scale and the living building challenge is kind of the black belt of the Sustainable Building

108standards throughout the world so the next slide so vidiian of on the market rate side we've got 99 planned market rate residences and we've got a mix of all kinds of different unit types so we have 42 Town Homes of different sizes we've got 30 walkup Flats we've got 11 what we're calling Nest Flats which are micro units um and we've got 16 Village Homes which are single family detached homes next slide and this is a real strategic diversity of housing that we've got so the idea is how do we take market rate home homes and instead of having uh you know just kind of this you know again economic segregation at every level which is what the conventional development model does we've tried to by having these different housing types we range from 350

109square feet all the way to 2300 square feet uh for the Village Homes and a variety of floor plans in between to really try to hit different price points uh in the community to make it affordable to different levels of of uh of of folks so next slide so our goal for the Thrive collaborative is that the entire Community is nit zero uh uh someday um we've made a commitment that our Target for the Thrive partial is is net zero uh and that's our CER that's our registration with the Living Community challenge with our purchase agreement with the county we actually committed to a minimum of 400 KW of solar and to all electric fossil fuel so by being all electric we've let the door open to achieve Net Zero Energy for the entire Community

110by having everyone do that what Net Zero is is just saying that 100% of the community's energy needs on a net annual basis is supplied by onsite renewable energy with no combustions next slide so this is our solar study so our solar potential on the site again we've committed to 400 KW but we can install up to 1,400 KW of solar what what that would do is produce as much as a 1.6 megawatt hours of energy a year in production which is a huge amount so the next slide and this is how we get to Net Zero so our Target energy use intensity which is basically energy use per square foot right our production is 11 kilowatt hours per square foot but our home usage we targeting it to be under 6 KW uh H

111uh uh per square foot um which would give us enough to power these homes and the automobiles uh for each one of these homes so next slide um we're also planning uh for the market rate homes levels of resilience for each home so battery backup and storage for those homes next slide and as David mentioned the Avalon uh Community uh building is going to be an affordable housing pilot project targeting Net Zero Energy so their plan is to have solar on that building next slide but if you take a look what we've ended up with there's a whole lot of area that uh is unable to have solar an additional 44,000 square feet of rooftop because of barriers to solar for affordable housing which is true for most multif family housing so next slide so

112we're really trying to figure out how do we get to energy democracy how do we make solar that's beneficial to the entire Community not just to private homeowners so for four years now I've been working really really deeply to form collaborations with folks to find a pathway and I I'm really excited to share with yall tonight that this morning we had a phone call with the chair of the Public Service Commission some Public Service Commission members uh and multiple people high level Executives from DTE who are all in to work with us to create grid interactive community and so we're partnering with uh DTE the University of Michigan 820 and number 2030 next energy and a whole bunch of other folks to figure out how do we get the entire Community to do to accomplish

113what a single developer can do on On Any Given single family home so next slide uh and so again for the Thrive portion we're planning on abundant EV charging every garage is going to have its own EV charging uh we're providing refrigerators let's provide car charging as well all the Necessities next slide and human powered mobility of course we're going to default to that rather than the cars we've got 179 bike spaces 12 124 of which are enclosed and we'll also have a an Eevee Bike Share program so next slide um uh and to make the bike ownership easy we've got a a Four Season bike maintenance and repair shed that'll have bike storage on there in an area called the The Farmhouse Commons that'll be a available to everyone in the community including Avalon

114next slide and one of the coolest Community amenities we have is this small retail building um we're calling The Farmhouse which is planned to be the home for the honey locust Farm stop modeled after Argus uh the upstairs uh uh spaces can be used for office uh there's a Monas school that's interested in in in being there uh or it could also be residential so there's multiple things and it's really cool to think that actually this idea of vidiian itself was actually born out of a serendipitous conversation that I had at Argus Farm stop here in my neighborhood so this is a an extraordinary Community Asset next Slide the other really neat asset is the barn we're restoring a public a barn that we're getting from a um a property right nearby uh which will

115be a really neat space in next slide and the storm water we're not going to have any kind of retention pond the storm water is deeply deeply integrated into it and we're finding ways where we can infiltrate all the water on you know throughout the different parts of the site and really create a resource for the rain rather than a uh apocalyptic thing and the next slide and along with the our zero waste goals um uh we're doing a living building a living materials plan and we're going to have compulsory composting and next slide uh and you can see we've got abundant Park connections uh lots of planned really for humans not for not for uh cars and the next slide and most of our spaces are going to be adaptable and resilient and designed

116with accessibility in mind and next slide and um really our goal is to make this so that it's so beautiful that it's going to delight and Inspire for Generations but the biggest risk is that it's going to be successful but we can't replicate it so we're planning open house tour is an educational website and interpretive signage for the neighborhood and the last slide so uh we don't know if humanity is going to be able to transition fast enough to avoid the catastrophic consequences of climate crisis we can't predict the future but we can choose to create a living future and by God we better start now so your vote of recommendation tonight is really the action that Greta thunberg talks about that can earn us hope so thanks and let's open it up for uh

117questions thank you very much all right Mr Leo you have more to add yes I do uh yeah not muted okay I'm going to do a another bit of uh screen sharing bear with me for a second um I will uh Mumble along while I open this one up here we go all right uh thank you very thank you very much okay um I'm going to for brevity I'm going to leave most of the talk about the site plant to um a the Avalon and Thrive teams but I will be hitting highlights of the staff report and mostly talking about the PUD process and the Pud zoning district and supplemental regulations um and our staff analysis um starting from sort of the beginning this is a collection of three petitions the vidiian at County Farm

118PUD zoning and supplemental regulations the vidiian at County Farm North site plan which is um the petitioner is Avalon housing and vidiian a County Farm South site plan petitioner and developer is thriving collaborative so there are three motions in the staff report um that you've been provided um the in super in brief summary the rezoning is a petition to rezone a 12.8 Acre Site from PL public land uh screen sharing is paused um is it back to screen sharing I think so yes yes here we go it's a 12.8 Acres sites from PL public land to PUD planned unit development and we have supplemental regulations going along with it as required for a mixed type residential development with Community spaces accessory retail and advanced sustainable construction methods including a significant percentage of affordable housing also

119tonight is this North site plan it's a plan for 50 affordable Apartment Homes um and the South site plan it's a plan for 99 homes uh detached attached apartments and Community buildings um the here we go the um I'll go back the supplemental regulations were written because the Pud is a custom zoning District they're written to enable the proposed development while requiring the features amenities and Community benefits that support and justify the Pud to be realized and maintained um there are three dominant benefits uh affordable housing mixed income residential and sustainable living um we have supplemental regulations that um uh that um contain a purpose statement applicability the findings that we are um going through this evening and the regulations the regulations address principle and accessory uses area height and placement standards Landscaping buffering affordable

120housing community oriented design and sustainability um the supplemental regulations divide the district into two components north and south north again is Avalon South is Thrive some things are addressed holistically the principal use of the district is residential dwellings accessory uses there's a lot of common accessory uses but we've got some that are applicable to the South only meaning only Thrive will be allowed to have a retail possible restaurant outdoor sales personal services the density is 16 dwelling units across the entire district 16 dwelling unit per acre um we've got floor area addressed setbacks are addressed um minimum 10 feet from plat Road uh 20 feet well let me say this um in the staff report it's written 20 ft from the north and west boundary and 50 ft from the south um let me come

121back to that we've got height addressed parking addressed um we've got landscaping and buffering addressed but put in asterisk by that um affordable housing and the community design Community oriented design principles which are basically taken from the master plan it's a benefit of this PUD that we're not just encouraging some of our community oriented design but here we are requiring it um regarding the Pud process all plan units devel ments go through a five-step process starting with citizen participation this one in particular had more citizen participation than usual in that the county entered its own process for what to do they call it disposition which is I think a fancy term for selling but they went through a process for if we were to dispose of the property how should it be developed so they

122went through a community process for that came up with their preferred use then they went out for RFP request or proposals looking for developers and they hand selected the Thrive collaborative Avalon team um and put a lot of restrictions on them to put forward to you what they wanted um process includes a pre-application meeting that's with staff a conference with the Planning Commission we did that um last year and then tonight is steps four and five combined the zoning District review and site plan review these could be separated but we are proposing them together which is allowed plan unit developments have eight standards of approval um and briefly they are that the district has a beneficial effect for the city um also that it can't be done in another District this is not to get

123out of development requirements this is to make unique development requirements that are as robust and perhaps a trade-off some maybe more robust than normally required um we've got um requirements that it cannot have a detrimental effect on public utilities it needs to be consistent with the master plan or justify its deviation it needs to be consistent with um the with density or affordable housing is required you've got to have supplemental regulations to document all this you need to make sure that all modes of transportation are safe convenient um Etc and if you're proposing any disturbance to Cal features or significant architectural features that they're limited to the minimum necessary um as for staff we have found that the proposed PUD meets all of the standards of approval um for the benef beneficial effects requirement it

124um is notably an direct quote an innovation in land use and Variety in design layout in types of structures that furthers the stated design goal and physical character of the adopted land use plans and policies um staff we feel almost that the Pud was written for this type of project because of its again quoting from the standards of approval language it's an Innovative land use and it's got that variety of design that we don't normally see um we have also found it meets all the other standards of approval um the site plans have been reviewed and they are consistent with the proposed plan unit develop I'm sorry consistent with the proposed PUD supplemental regulations as well as the other aspects of the UDC that cannot be amended through the Pud process one example soil erosion

125another example storm water management um standards I will um note that our original staff report published on Friday contained an error H which has been redone I incorrectly said that Avalon had three story buildings they are twostory buildings um and I had some hyperlinks that were broken so we published a new staff report for that and then though since that time we are asking you to consider a a couple more changes and so I'm I'm asking you to put forth an amendment on the floor and approve it as part of the project there are a couple of these one regarding setbacks and let me try to get that laser pointer back all right here um the rear setback which is going to be the West Side um we've written in 20 feet I'm asking you

126to change it to 15 um some of the Avalon buildings um are closer than closer than 20 um and so 15 would cover it um that is an error on my part I should have originally written 15 but I did not so I'm asking for an amendment a second second additional change that um I'm asking you to consider are changing the standards for landscaping and buffers um I've got a strikeout version here on the screen a copy was also emailed um striking out the west and North buffer and the vehicular use area we are striking these out because these are the same as current code requirements so no need to reinvent the wheel and repeat it in it up here you can say the standard for landscaping screening and buffering uh in the UDC shall

127apply to the district um with one exception that we'll keep the South District gets an enhanced buffer and it is enhanced because that was um the result of the petitioners community outreach and citizen participation the adjacent neighbors wanted a little bit of an enhanced buffer so um in compliance with the normal buffer no point will be less than 15 ft but but that buffer will be enhanced by having an average of 25 ft some places will be much wider than 25 uh feet and all cases wider than the 15 um we've got to have a little flexibility for Meandering around some existing features um we've also got um and it's written here for a 75 deciduous or everen trees evenly spaced I think that we may need to take that down to 50 trees actually

128because we did some math wrong but um it this is no less than normally required also um whereas the normal conflicting land use buffer is a hedge burm or wall fence we are saying specifically a hedge R so a um um a burm is not acceptable A hedro here with specifically of dense shrubs and that came I understand that came directly from um um um the adjacent Neighbors and then the Third change to consider is um I'm not asking you to um necessarily approve specific language here is an example of where um I'd like you to approve a concept for affordable housing um the concept is 15% of the dwelling units are affordable and that would be our minimum requirement um but we have discovered crafting the Pud supplement relations that it needs to work

129both ways and we need to anticipate and have a provision in case uh one component is developed sooner than the other component if so to a um so each one of them needs to individually address affordable housing because technically speaking this is the proposed density is more than the underlying zoning the pl district has a zero density it's not for residential so therefore even one home on the site is more than the underlying zoning so our goal here is absolutely we are going to achieve 15% of Def of the dwelling units are affordable housing and that meets the standards of approval and we're we'd like to say that this can to be accomplished only one way on the North component that all the dwelling units are affordable housing is obviously very comfortable with that for

130the South component we'd like to offer three choices the first choice is they can build 15% of their units as affordable housing this option might be utilized if they break ground and then look for certificates of occupancy first a second option that they can do is they could build Avalon site plan for them or if Avalon builds it they can take credit for some of the units that are at Avalon site and if all of Avalon's units are built and affordable the entire District does have 15% minimum affordable housing a third option that will offer them is a payment in Li and so that might give them more flexibility in securing their financing but still provide the city assurances that we are going to realize affordable units the payment in L could even potentially be

131refunded when Avalon builds their units or could be just turned over to help Avalon in some way I'm not in the attorney's office but we would like to offer the options to provide flexibility but I want to assure the Planning Commission that we are in all options we're looking for to absolutely make sure that the city real realizes the benefit of affordable housing that this project is proposing and will realize this benefit no matter who breaks ground first and no matter who closes first um so with that I will um stop talking except to uh reiterate that we are recommending approval I'm asking for a few additional changes um but we are recommending approval for each of the three petitions on the floor um the applicant team both are here to answer any specific questions

132myself and um uh Mr Leonard are also here to answer any additional questions very good thank you very much Miss Leo um it's nine o'clock I'm gonna move to public comment and then if we need a break uh let's do if it's okay we'll do it after public hearing so um uh this is an opportunity for for persons to speak for up to three minutes about the proposed PUD zoning and site plans for 2270 plat Road um public comment may be made by calling 877 853 uh 5247 and then entering meeting ID 9771 150 11143 City staff will select the callers that have raised their hand you can raise your hand by pressing star n um and when speaking uh please do state your name and address at the beginning of your comments just give

133it a few moments sure Alexis while we're waiting I know Heath is we have a in error that we discovered late in the afternoon that Heath could address for us if this is the appropriate time we'll put a pin in that and ask a question when we come back um it looks like a couple of folks may have joined if you're interested in making a public comment press star n to raise your hand he caller with phone number ending with number 034 you have three minutes to address the Planning Commission on the vidiian proposal hello my name is Susan Bowers I'm at 2400 South Kiran Parkway very good um I would like to question or ask has there been a traffic study done for the impact on Plat road so during public comment feel free

134to say any of your or bring up any of your comments and this is something in our discussion that we'll be able to address okay my question being is we are the business directly across the street right at the corner of here on Parkway in pla and I'm a little concerned about the immense amount of traffic that this could produce on Plat Road and has that been um reviewed and addressed that's just my biggest concern everything else is super exciting just looking for making sure that we can get in and out of our driveway if we need to very good that's my only comment thank you very much for your comment are there any other that would like to comment at this time not seeing any other all right then I will close the public

135hearing uh let's read the motions and move them and then we'll take a break if that's okay so there are three motions um it sounds like the recommendation is that we do take them all together tonight that that's appropriate so that's what I I will read all three and ask a commissioner to move them um when I'm done so the first is the an arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve the vidiian at County Farm PUD zoning district and supplemental regulations the second the an arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approved the vidian County Farm North site plan Avalon Housing and Development agreement subject to land division approval prior to applying for any permits and the third is the an arbor planning the

136Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve the vidian County Farm South site plan for the Thrive collaborative and development agreement subject to land division approval prior to applying for any permits moved by commissioner milin seconded by commissioner Akerman um I have 904 on my computer let's come back at 910 ready for discussion hydrated and such all right very good yeah I just um thank you I um first of all um thank you city planner Deo for um a great summary and I just wanted to um add a just another note or two particularly about the affordable housing provisions and this is something that was of specific importance um to me and um I think Alexis did a great job in I just want to clarify this notion of

137Concepts what our goal here is is to ensure that regardless of timing um we have the the means to ensure that affordable units are realized at this site at a minimum of 15% hopefully more as proposed and so um we are exploring those options to provide frankly Flex exibility to the combination of in this case Avalon and Thrive um but to be clear whatever happens in the future so that the Pud District ensures the same for whatever this happens on the site um that we have multiple methods of meeting that goal and so um I just wanted to clarify so we want I I'd appreciate the planning commission's um validation that that is an important um goal for you the the provisions or ways for us to get there the the language that um Lexus

138use was Concepts it's just that to be clear I think that I don't I I honestly don't know to what stent extent that's going to be in the supplemental regulations it's probably going to be some combination of supplemental regulations and development agreements but um our goal is to communicate those Concepts so you are comfortable with those end results and acknowledge that there might be some refinement in where we put those in the documents going forward so I just wanted to add that um additional language to to that discussion Point can I ask just a clarifying question sorry um did you say that that language was in our packet Lang the language was provided in an updated um supplemental reg regulations that um I think Alexis has um I don't know that that's been shared with

139you but we could share we could share that language and pull that up if that's something you'd like to see more specifically uh commissioner Akerman just a quick comment you know in looking through the supplemental regulations that are linked through our legistar packet it looks like they're in there so I that was what I was working off as I Was preparing for the meeting so should we just assume that the presentation and those those items that Alexa that M Deo walked us through are included in the Motions as R Alexis can you provide an overview of where the revised language that we discussed today is um yes I can and here we go um zoom zoom d013 on page four here we go um here are the supplemental regulations um that were um they are

140in legistar right now and they were emailed very late in the day and I'm going to scroll down because we have in here with track changes I think I've gone too far um hold on these are not with track changes but I think oh oh wait they yeah so I apologize I'm not sure what happened to the track changes in the con conversion to zoom but you'll see here that we have we had worked on Alternate language I guess let me say this um commissioner akman our concept was still before we are we are still wanting the 15% from the districtwide and Avalon has to do all affordable housing and then uh that was in the supplemental regulations that were issued in the packet but we worked on additional language that we were trying to

141make it more clear and provide more of the options the more of the if then sort of thing anticipating the different start times different completion times we and so we came up with um some more language that again but same the concept has never changed and so on my screen here I've got we've got Thrive this provision of affordable housing shall be accomplished by the following one two and three and then there's and as you can see there's a lot of stuff here yeah and as we are working through it the concept is never changing but we are wondering if it is more appropriate to have these this level of specificity in a development agreement or have this um or keep it here in the supplemental regulations and we're not we need to consult more

142with legal and our attorney's office on just the best home for it we're not really asking to change the premise yeah we're just trying to trying to find the right home for it right okay so as a matter of pro so I I completely understand the rationale I understand the language um I kind of operated today with the assumption that it would be included in the supplmental regulations and I was comfortable with that um as a matter of process would you like us to make a a motion that we're comfortable with this language and that between now and whatever the next phase of this project is city council presumably um or between an affirmative vote and uh and city council that we give you the space to decide um yes yes please I think we're

143asking regarding affordable housing two things number one in your discussion we want to be sure that you are comfortable with this um flexible approach yeah um say compared to you say nope nope nope we can't have that um we need this is this other thing is important to us cool okay so part of the discussion if you would make sure that you're comfortable with that and then if you are yes uh a motion that indicates you are authorizing staff to hammer out the very specific details in keeping with the concept that you choose beautiful okay um then I will I'll make sure that's the last thing I speak to then Brett did you want to add something there yeah I just think another way you could look at it is we Alexis highlighted all the

144proposed changes in the updated supplemental regs which are and lar and shared we just want to be clear that our recommendation is for you to adopt those amended versions it does it does include all that affordable housing language that was just referenced we want I want I just want it to be clear some of that language might end up realized in a different format but so and so that's just another way of looking at it I think the the critical thing is you understand those Concepts if you adopted the supplemental regs as presented and amended that'd be fine but I I just want to be honest with the Planning Commission we might we might ultimately go then progress to city council and say we think this these aspects are better Incorporated in another another document

145oh I'm glad you said that because I think if I saw in the development agreement at city council I would have voted against the proposal so just kidding I can I I want to have a clarifying question though because there were a couple of other things that Alexis highlighted changed yeah including the like rear setback distance the version that is now on legistar that that are are we when we vote like do we need to move those amendments that changed from our original packet but that's the version that's up there now or can we just effectively say thank you staff for highlighting those differences between what we may have reviewed over the weekend what's different in today's version that we are actually voting on includes the 15 foot setback rather than a 20 foot setback

146and the simplified UDC enhanced buffer language is that you can do the latter okay so no action has been taken on the draft that was originally included we're presenting you updates we have summarized the substantive changes to those updates so you can just take action on the amended version excellent thank you go ahead Zach um no that's great um so I I think just I want to make some general comments I want to ask some questions um and then it doesn't sound like we need to make it any amendments it sounds like we can work off the assumption that the the current version of the supplemental regulations in legistar are what we're voting on tonight which that that that sounds good so um I guess turning to to some general comments um I I've been

147looking forward to to today for a long time AR ranage Mr groov at KY town uh we were both Mass I promise and and uh um we you know I I told them I was excited about about this meeting in two weeks because it's something that I've been looking forward to for three years and that's because when constructed vidiian at County Farm Park I think he's going to be the most transformative and important project that we'll have worked on um because it's very real it's tangible and it's here right now and it's not something we're planning for 10 years down the road um our community has the opportunity to take the site of a decommission juvenile detention center and build the greenest and one of the most Equitable neighborhoods not only in the city in

148the county and the state um but in the entire Great Lakes Region um we're taking a site where we used to put struggling kids and segregate them from society and turn that land into a neighborhood that's built for people of every income level every background and produces more energy via solar than it consumes that's an incredible mission that we have the opportunity to be part of um not only uh is is the mission you know just and right and timely um but the developers have also put in tremendous work to make everything beautiful uh through the site plans the architectural and landscaping design um I I think when we negotiate with other developers to make incremental improvements to their projects um sometimes we're successful sometimes we're not but but when we are negotiating with other

149developers it's something like this that I think we all envision that we want to strive for Meaningful amounts of affordable housing true sustainability uh and that's that's exciting to get to to vote on it in a pure form here tonight um so thanks to Mr grov Miss patino uh and your teams that thrive in Avalon for the vision and the partnership um and the persistence over the last uh three four years um and then also a big thank you to the neighbors um there you know I was surprised we didn't get many comments tonight but I think it's because of the tremendous amount of organizing and activism that happened in the immediate neighborhood in 2017 um you know this sits in the ward that I represent and I've seen uh the lead the the neighborhoods

150really um bring themselves together to support something incredibly important uh even if it causes immediate disruptions to their lives um through the construction and through the you know slight impacts of of added traffic um so uh you know to folks like Janine Palms um who took what could have been a really divisive uh development and turned it into something that the whole neighborhood could rally behind um is super beautiful and to to watch so thanks to them as well uh ultimately I'd be happy and proud to vote for this tonight exactly as it is I think there's been a tremendous amount of work that's gone into it I do have um a few questions though just as clarifiers um the first is to the developer um are the renderings that uh were Linked In the

151staff report that are dated July 2019 are those still the most accurate representations of uh the aesthetic that you're trying to capture um are you referring Zack to first thank you so much seriously you had me choked up uh the are you referring to the elevation renderings of the homes uh yeah and there's also some yes and in the streets as well as some stock photographs of beautiful homes around yeah so thank thanks for asking that question because um the answer is is is no those have always been intended to be conceptual designs um uh everybody wants to see what we might build there we are we have deliberately waited uh until this stage to design everything vertically because um we really wanted to make sure everything on the ground is working and then work

152from literally from beneath the soil Megan glid from biohabitats can tell you all about that we really looked from where is the water going and then building up and then we're designing as we go from there um and then also that helps as a developer that you can adapt different unit types uh um um you know as as Market changes happen as pandemics happen and things like that so far all the unit types are exactly the same interior floor plans might change but the buildings won't the designs the buildings are there just as examples of things The Farmhouse will have very similar feel okay um and uh and a lot of it will have a very similar feel again so go ahead sorry is attachment k a better representation that's the site plan with buildings

153attachment which um Alexis can you put that up attachment K and while she's pulling that up I just want to make sure we don't miss the opportunity because there there was a um uh that goes along with the amendments that you'll be voting on tonight I want to see if there's a way to get that in Alexis we noticed that there was an error on the south setback and if you've got questions about it Heath har from MCI can address that uh it should have been 30 feet it says 50 50 would you know the barn is within 50 feet of that and so um so instead of having a 20 foot setback which is on the North side we would have a 30 foot setback but not a 50 foot setback we can we

154can address that yeah just want to make sure that there we don't miss a detail that's super important so the screen share the screen share right now is attachment k um and it was taken from the uh current site plan package um there I'll I'll move through them quickly and then tell me if you're good or if you want to move back um sheet one is yeah and so Zach are these the sheets that you're referring to yep okay yeah I can let Ben Willis from Union Studio architecture and Community planning um uh address that again all of these designs that you see here these are not these are not designs uh for vidiian uh uh they sorry they are designs for vidiian but they're not what is going to be built as is these

155were just perceptual designs um primarily to really kind of just give a feel of what the neighborhood might be like and if you notice they've got some funky roof shapes and things that on the ground with Landscaping will be balanced out but um they're unique because they allow for solar on the North and the South Side by having that shell roof pitch so the the roofs are very intentionally designed to be like that um uh but uh if you're interested Ben Willis from can can I'm comfortable with that answer that just clarifies what I'm yeah Focus my on um thanks um colleagues may very well have follow questions on that which ask but um and then in the supplemental regulations and development agreement I had a hard time finding two important items um the first

156is the 99e affordability Covenant and the second is the 400 kilowatts of sustainable energy production where where would I find those guarantees the and um I will only give a partial answer um regarding the kilowatt hours um it' be super difficult for the city to enforce that and measure it and monitor that so our the supplemental regulations are relying on the uh living building challenge and meeting those standards will uh wrap in those um however if I am very open to suggestions for um how how the city can come up with a way to keep tabs on that and enforce that um um we're open to listening but given the resources we have available right now we are relying on adherence to the living building challenge to um capture that for us so we would

157essentially use the living building challenge as like a third party auditor if they get that accreditation we can assume that they also meet that 400 kilowatt hour promise uh that our operating assumption yes okay Mr gr you want yeah I can simplify that so in our purchase agreement with the county we've agreed to to install 400kw and these are funky terms but 400kw is actually installed solar so we're we're committed to developing that amount of solar as a minimum standard so that's a measurable uh that that's a measurable thing so um uh and again that would be you know that's what we pledge as a minimum so that's measurable with the living building challenge and the living community challenge that is a performance-based standard that takes years so we have already uh registered the project

158so that alone is is a is a massive commitment we've already satisfied that criteria um and everything else is being designed that way but the measurable thing that is important and the amount of production that actually happens just is relies on the sun and the clouds and everything else the amount we install is a measurable thing and that's 400kw is the minimum that we've we've have in our purchase agreement and that's something the city can hang their hat on with confidence from day one okay so you have you have a contract with the county that said that guarantees a minimum yep can Mr L Miss Deo just between Planning Commission and city council can we do some documentation of that maybe in a memo or staff report just to say know the County will be

159the enforcing party yeah I've already taken note of that okay because I think that'll give reassurance which your I just want to clar clarify we've been we we've been sort of careful to not um they've made various commitments to the county as part of their purchase agreement is my understanding we are not party to that so as those things could change I just want to be clear when we're setting those thresholds we're sort of adding a parallel requirement to that and I would specifically ask in that regard um we had a little bit of this discussion with another project is the intention that that has to be realized at unit one or does that have to be realized at unit 99 um when we're looking at that are you interested in us going One Direction

160or the other to help us understand the the clarity of that language well so this project is would only be and correct me if I'm wrong but my assumption was this project will only be phased North and South but like South itself won't be phased construction yes but um the nature of a it it's not currently proposed to be phasing phased I would be very surprised if this doesn't end up being phased because the nature of projects like this is that they will ultimately construct finish a unit and they'll want to realize the sale or occupancy of that unit perhaps before they finish other units you're correct it's not being proposed to be phase I'd be very surprised if it doesn't end up being phased and so that's why I just want to be to

161clarify I presume Our intention is we want to get to a 400 kilow hour goal and I'm presuming that we should do that in a way that provides the flexibility that they can incrementally get there as they're relying on rooftops and the like yeah that that makes sense if we can find a way to sculpt that language in some kind of I just yeah yep no I I think that makes good sense and that that the same conversation we're having about Valhalla two weeks ago right okay um that makes good sense to me and then uh I apologize if you mentioned but the 99e affordability Covenant where where would we find that I think that it's going to have to go in the aord the an affordability agreement um you are correct it is not

162in the supplemental regulations right now but our UDC just requires those to be Perpetual units so that'll be that'll be part of the method by which we enforce it so the UDC requires that a PUD to have affordable units it actually doesn't set a time frame 99 years becomes the de facto kind of way to memorialize that um but it could be longer but it to be clear we're not proposing anything shorter of term it is intended to be permanent affordable housing units okay commissioner sov you you have something that jumps off this just attachment B page two shows affortable housing 99 years and the minimum 400 kilowatts for reference so that's the Pud development just cover those two things and is I guess where does the develop is a development program a contract that

163we execute with um it is not it is background and supporting materials for to um help your understanding and to help you um make your decision it's explaining what is being proposed and what is going on but the um the regulations are the supplemental regulations and then um details on execution are in the development agreement okay um so so I guess the 99e affordability Covenant baked into the zoning they apply for a PUD they rezoned as a PUD it's their by by default so okay I I get that um cool so it sounds like we're going to work on some language around the 400 kilowatt hours um and the housing is taken care of by its nature and I'm interpret I'm interpreting You' like to see this in the supplement of rigs more explicitly than

164just through the living communities challenge I think that that's wise but if that I mean if that becomes overly complicated complicated and restrictive um in a way that doesn't allow the developer to actually build um then I mean Mr lonard to your point as as they construct more they'll be able to realize more on the rooftops so if we can away no no I just I just yeah absolutely that that goes without saying but I I just want to clarify your comfort or the commission's comfort with relying on the living communties challenge which which includes some aspect of renewable it probably incorporates a lot of other sustainability aspects as well um currently the supplemental rigs require this project to meet that they might do that through the provision of forign kilowatts we could also say

165in addition to that or component to that or independent of that we expect a minimum of X number of kilowatt hours per square foot of housing to be realized through development yeah I think to Mr grof's point that the living building challenge is a accreditation certification that will take time and so that makes our enforcement of that dependent on this third party's validation so then are we holding a certificate of occupancy until this third party you know for which we have no control you know issues that accreditation that that um so I do I do think that there's an opportunity like Ballo to do that if that makes sense okay awesome thank you Mr um and then the our our lone Brave caller asked about a traffic study so I just want to make sure

166that we we address that on the front end um is someone prepared developer or staff to speak to traffic impacts um I am not I mean I'm happy to wing it but I don't have to our transportation engineers Cynthia readinger is on this call meeting time is ringer hello got a member of the I can um I can preface it by saying um there has been a traffic study done it has been reviewed by the city Traffic Engineers um who did not find anything worthy of um uh or who did not find fault with it now Cynthia can um provide any details or a general overview as you like yeah um I can provide a brief overview of the transportation impact analysis that was submitted this location um they did prepare their their transportation impact

167analysis and they did have to go through one round of revisions before we accepted it um just uh a a little bit of information on it I you know the they are proposing a mix of uses in the transportation impact analysis it is um you'll find it in the zoning so it's it's not actually located with um with the site plans it's referenced by the site plans but it's in the zoning because it is for uh the rezoning and the Pud in the transportation study they have broken out um which trips are being generated by each of the individual site plans so that you can get a better understanding of that and in this location we did have the the engineer who is preparing the study utilize trip reductions uh for multimodality because in this

168location we do anticipate having multi modality as compared to uh the Valla project which you were recently looking at where we did not use those trip reductions so we have trip reductions for um for walking and for biking and for Transit as well okay so if I please go ahead I was just going to say the um the proposed new intersections of the private driveways with the public infrastructure on Plat are not expected to have any um any operational concerns the nearby intersections which are already um overc capacity during Peak periods you know they will continue to be over capacity but this development is not expected to have um an overly large impact on on those locations or really to change functionality much at all awesome can I try reading that back to you and

169you let me know how I how I did um you know this is a a residential development um for which you know there will will be some level of car traffic not so much that it raises red flags but we also anticipate given the nature of this project that there's going to be a lot of folks um biking and walking and using Transit given its location on multiple bus lines given its proximity to parks and Retail um and given its uh bike access along washt not towards downtown um as such you know if I'm a nearby neighbor I shouldn't be worried about getting out of my driveway however the issues that I see on hon and on Plat that already exist will continue to exist but they're not going to be exacerbated that's accurate okay

170awesome thank you um and then the the last item was just uh the the error of the setback from the 30 feet to the 60 feet the 30 feet to the 50 fet um and I just wanted to get a sense of um I mean if it if it's just a little Amendment you know maybe just knock that out now I think it's just a clerical error um e you want to address it uh yeah I can I can quickly address that we had uh when we had submitted our recommended PUD regulations um we had proposed a 30 foot uh setback on the south um that would get us outside of both a u a water main easement um that exists and also get us outside of that 25 foot landscape buffer um 50 foot

171was as Matt said would be uh encroaching further than what we had had planned for the development for the P so it reads 50 now and you okay so that so in the Pug supplemental regulations is that that's page 3 item 4 c 2 a so I would make a motion to amend in the supplemental regulations for item e for C to a a change of 50 feet to 30 feet moved by commissioner acrian seconded by commissioner s discussion on the um motion to amend my only question is to staff is that kind of you're reading to and looking closely yes at the site plan that that's appropriate there yeah okay all right um all in favor of the motion uh the the amendment at proposed please raise your hand or say I I anyone

172opposed I don't see anyone um all right so now we have an amended motion you still have the floor Mr akman I'm an enthusiastic yes and I'm excited to hear other colleagues thoughts okay commissioner Woods I just have a couple of questions about the traffic and again with um with Miss readinger um is is now if I'm not mistaken there's a school across the street from this development is that correct yes that is correct sumers no um and I think the last time they that we looked at this item that the school was in favor of it if I'm not mistaken but um the developer could tell us about that but how will this impact if children who live it children from the development are going to go to the uh uh to the school

173across the street for example if and I know I think it's a private school or something but at any rate how would they are there any planned um um cross walks or anything between the development and the school across the street or would they go down to the corner uh at what is that platin pack platin here on River no platin uh here on River drive at that point and then come back up or um did that come up there um there's actually currently a crosswalk located near the school itself and yes it is a private school um but there is a crosswalk that is currently um located there and it is marked and signed as a school crossing and it has a school speed zone associated with it as part of the transportation impact

174study they did take a look at that crosswalk and if um the additional traffic would change where it lies within our crosswalk design guidelines and if any changes would need to be made and it was not found that there would be need to be any changes additionally um as part of our completes streets um policy for the city the both of the new intersections with the private approaches that are being created on Plat will have um non-motorized access so they they will have crosswalks um they will be installed according with designs according to our design guidelines and consistent with the corridor and positive contrast lighting will be provided by the developer as well thank you and then I had one other question and that was back during your um um information to us Mr Leo

175and you were saying there were there was one of the slides that indicated um uh and this was about the affordable housing and it was talking about the north side having um 100% affordable housing and then on the other side of that wasn't happening and there were three things that could happen one of which was a return I think of funding back to the developer could could you just put up that slide for a second I want to make sure that I understand what was happening while she's pulling that up I could um maybe explain some of the rationale for some of those ideas um one is um again these are um going to come in their timing scenarios so we were trying to basic create flexibility one scenario is the South site could just

176create its own affordable housing dwells dwelling units independent of the north um and if they did 15% of their units they'd be compliant okay or if by the time the South market rate housing units are ready for occupancy the North affordable housing units have been completed then they um that North those North units will meet the requirement for the entire site and that meets the set that meets the requirements or we're looking at two sort of in between options if you will one might be a payment in Li which is a option provided under the Pud where they would the on the market rate side they would be paying contributions into the city's affordable housing fund at a rate consistent with our formula where they're maintaining compliance with 15% of however many dwelling units are

177are essentially coming online in and if after a three-year period those North units have then now been fully realized those monies would be returned because the the requirement will have been met otherwise if that doesn't happen those funds would meet the affordable housing requirements um via a payment andl contribution instead of providing the units and then the last option we're exploring and I think this one probably has the most a lot of potential for other uh documents is um to for the city to frankly accept some minimal level of risk that is um that the units the affordable units on the North site are at some stage of progress but not complete where we are comfortable assuming that they are at a a progress state where we have um I guess comfort that will be

178ultimately realized so um so that was the The Return of money would be basically kind of until the units on the North are realized and then that is no longer required okay um and so that payment in L um and and I'm familiar with that you know for other uh times when it comes up when the developers decided they don't want to build the affordable or they've decided they've declined to do it um so that would be payment in Li and that would probably include interest or whatever the city was accumulating for whatever funding that was at the time no no typically with an escro payment we do not um it doesn't accumulate interest so that would just be a flat contribution and a flat re the refund of the same amount if that um

179scenario were to occur okay um and can you just remind me how many commissioner Woods I would mention that um so no interest typically accurs with um when it's in escr but the payment in lie can be set the amount can be set every year by Council so that's sort of in lie of Interest the payment inl amount is not necessarily static it can rise or fall with market conditions so what if they were to build it in 2021 um and chose the payment in l option it would be might be one price but if they were to build it in 2025 it might be a different payment and L amount and okay so and who keeps track of that city council or the uh um the um planning depart uh planning office but as

180well as the um County's office of um um I'm gonna get it wrong but community and economic development um and the uh they help administer um um these types of things and so um it's it's basically on file the amount is on file until it is changed and um uh the the county often spearheads the need for increasing the amount based on market conditions okay all right thank you that helps also saber Brier sends me an annual email asking about it well what's going to happen next year I guess I'll have to start sending the email thank you anything else commissioner Woods no you're on mute so um um commissioner so's hand is the one that I see just had a followup about if they assigned affordable housing to the South site and then they

181built the north how like can you just kind of flip where the affordable units go in the midst of the agreement and say assign them to different units I think that's what we're kind of trying to do but not by unit by unit you know building by building we're we're saying that if the nor if Avalon builds their or when they build yeah they're they're 50 units those 50 are it's basically um it's almost 30% of the total number of units so their 50 alone mean means that the whole project has at least 15% affordable so if if they go first everyone is covered if Thrive goes first if Thrive goes first without these Provisions then no affordable units are provided so we want to make sure that there's options on the table right so

182question is about the option that they make affordable housing on the south site okay then they build on the North site and the north site is Affordable can you then redact the South site affordable or once they become designated affordable for 99 years can you not Shuffle the units away you know it's a good question but I think you could adjust those as long as you are ultimately meeting the minimum requirements okay so by scenario if say for some reason the North uh site didn't get developed for 20 years but the South site um was developed within 3 years um under that scenario one of those Provisions is going to have to apply either the payment in Li in which no units are realized but then the clock expires and those funds go into the

183affordable housing Fund in that circumstance it would be satisfied um in the event that they designated units and then 20 years from then the north gets built and 50 units are built there and they say hey can we convert these 15% to market rate the answer would be yes because it would be compliant with the supplemental regulations at that point they're meeting the minimum VI of the north units and then they'd have 80 years left well again they're Perpetual we use 99 terms for the contracts but they should be Perpetual okay I just want to make sure like if if they're doing this kind of evolving you know revolving door to kind of get to it legally if it's blocking it in or not because I think the intent is to provide flexibility and so

184I just raise it just in case you know legally just cross check it as along yeah just as a reminder though with um you know rental affordable units is much easier than ownership affordable units I'm not saying that they're impossible but when you're thinking about these two sites and the mix of ownership models being considered ownership models can be much more challenging so um I think the likelihood for frankly for ease of financing is that the site is probably going to be developed and realized in a very similar way to what's being proposed for for some of those financial reasons yeah got it yeah this is that was my only other clarification thank you there questions comments from planning Commissioners uh commissioner abon um maybe Mr Leonard or uh Mr Leo could just remind me

185um what things go with the rezoning and what things go with the site plan so the supplemental regulations are part of the Pud um so the um if if it helps I don't know um so we are rezoning it to PUD I suppose you can also um think of it as we are rezoning it to vidiian and the supplemental regulations are the UniFi development code for this particular site and so they run so the Pud on the zoning map and the supplemental regulations run with the land um and that would be and if it if approved that that's the zoning designation and those are the rules that you need to abide um abide by um in that case um thri thrive could walk away Avalon could walk away and any other developer could come in

186but they have to live with the adopted supplemental regulations um then right on the in the same meeting you know you can imagine this could be done years apart but in the same meeting we also have Thrive has proposed a site plan and Avalon has proposed a site plan um and the only difference for these site plans is we are not judging them against um the uh for example r4b area height and placement we're judging them against the vidiian supplemental regulations that say 45 feet in height 30 foot side set back 10 foot set back um so the the site plans are the um entitlements to the developers to De develop they have three years from approval if three years go by their site plans expire and they'll have to come back but the zoning

187designation and the supplemental regulations um run with the land okay that helps [Music] um so like um if Thrive and Avalon decided not to pursue this project or for some reason the site plans weren't approved but the Pug zoning was approved there would still be like a North District and a South district and the North District would have all the affordable heal like all of that stuff is actually goes with the zoning yes yes yeah the requirement that so if you notice the Pud sub regulations they don't say Thrive or Avalon but um for for any developer the next one um they can buy the north component and then they need to follow the north component regulations which says it um all has to be two stories has to be 10 foot setback um all

188all of those things has to be all affordable um and then same thing for the South component um someone else could come in uh but they have to live with these supplemental regulations um they have to have this variety of housing type they have to have these setbacks these height they have to they have to register the living building challenge um okay yeah so that helps thanks that's my only question for now thank you commissioner hamers Schmid I have kind of a lot I don't think any of them are huge questions but it's mostly because I'm very excited about this project my very first Planning Commission meeting along with commissioner abin was what just over a year ago and it's the meeting where you guys brought us this project and I was so excited about

189it that I've been wondering for a year when it was coming back so I'm thrilled um I'll stay on the affordable housing piece for a minute there's just some things I wanted to make sure that I'm clear on so of the 50 I think the math was wrong when it was in the presentation so I just want to be clear 30 of them are supportive for less than 30% Ami 10 are for ozone and then you said 20 were for under 60% but you meant 10 were for under under 60% because 30 plus 10 plus 20 is 60 I'm gonna defer to Wendy Cardis Saxon but I think what she's going to say is the 30 that are supportive and 10 for ozone she means 30 or supportive including 10 thank you and and she's

190not and she's nodding got it got it got it got it okay it's an easy question okay then I was trying to do math so if the north is not realized and we we and we have these options for you know what to do with the pieces on the south is it is the 15% 15% of the South which is 99 or is it 15% of the total which is 149 15% of the total of the total so if the north is not realized the South has to come up with 23 units or payment and L or whatever we it's 15% it's going to be it's a 15% number it's not a number so they're as as their numbers increase they're going to have to provide 15% if if that's realized and then 50 units

191come later on the North site that is also going to have to provide 50% of the units oh no that would still be have to be all affordable so it's it's 15% of what is built so if they on the south so it's not 15% of the total is 15% of the total built okay okay got it um okay so is there a scenario where not all 50 are built then like is there any sort of well is there a scenario where not all 50 would be built or is this sort of like an all or nothing and maybe that's a question for the the petitioner right yeah the way we're structuring it at the moment is we're looking to put in our funding application for all 50 so they would all come together okay

192then I think my question is Moot and then the the P supplemental the supplemental regulations um don't have a minimum dwelling unit though now that would be separate from Avalon funding commitments but the the sub don't have a minimum or maximum number dwelling units the maximum would be 16 dwelling units per acre but they don't have a minimum but we do say all of whatever you do achieve so there there is technically a difference between what is required and what Avon is going to do it's I think in this case their funding requirements are going to dictate over okay okay and I'm this is just I'm just curious I know we have this now you know 15% of units are required to be affordable do we have any requirements on like the size of those

193affordable units or the number of bedrooms or do we just sort of leave that up to the developers we chose to leave it um we could we have the ability um to put in further restrictions parameters regulations but we chose to leave it as open as possible to give them the most flexibility as possible if the commission decides otherwise they can discuss okay I mean I think you know all all 50 on in a perfect world when this is all built all 50 and the north as affordable with the variety of units it's not an issue I don't know it becomes an issue then if the north is not realized and then you know I just I wouldn't want to get into a situation where all the the affordable units are the micro units and

194then we're not you know looking at this equitably and like really addressing affordable housing concerns of like our entire Community just to be clear though if if the sou happened that could that could occur we're not we're not saying that it has to be a certain blend it just is is a number of units so um I I just want to be clear again I think I I think that scenario is quite unlikely but um if that's not something we're specifying we're just saying 15% of the units um in I your question is a good one this does happen in other projects that have been market rate and affordable um they tend to be the small units because that has a smaller impact to um and um while I think in this case you have

195um um a partner who is really committed to a mixed income globally they also have some Financial realities that might make it challenging for us to add that layer of restriction okay I'd be interested in others thoughts but I'm going to move on for now um okay the Living Community challenge you're registered the supplemental RS say say that just need to be registered I'm curious what is the process for getting certified and how is how is that different than just being registered you'll have to attend one of my two-hour workshops on the be challenge for the I would sort of love to um yeah know it's actually really cool so right now we're working on uh what is called The Living Community challenge compliant master plan and um what's cool about that is is that

196we basically present this this overarching vision of this is what we could achieve this is what we should achieve and this is how we would get there conceptually kind of like what I did with the Net Zero um diagrams that I showed you tonight that this is showing how we would get there and we'll have to show some of that for the master plan too in much greater detail with all the spreadsheets and the numbers um uh basically just showing that yes this is possible this is How We Do It here's the master plan um once that happens then we go into uh construction period uh and then after construction we go into uh the occupancy period and to be certified it's when everything is complete you've checked off all the boxes and uh you've

197occupied it for 12 months of performance and that performance period is what separates this from virtually every other standard in the world this is not how many bike racks do you have it's not even how much solar do you have they don't care it's not a prescriptive thing it's it's what are you achieving in total and uh and it's up to you to decide how to achieve that and the standards are actually quite simple it's you have to harvest all your energy on site just like a tree does and um and you know and we and then so that's Loosely the process there's another hour and 55 minutes we could go on about that we'll save that for another day I do just want to add just one one other thing about this because we've

198gotten into big discussion about these supplemental regs that honestly for for for the committee's novel understanding we all kind of learned about this yesterday and it's it's really a function of this funky thing that we had to do by separating the parcels the initial plan for this community was that we would be one joined legal parcel lawyers and funders and investors all got involved and said no you can't do that you have to have two separate Parcels so we're stuck once again with one of these conventional barriers so the goal here is that we really do have 33% of affordable housing units and not just affordable housing units but you know people have recently experienced homelessness like so so that's the goal here is to make that happen um so you know I just want

199to be careful of not getting into this uh oh you know this idea oh we're letting this developer get away with zero affordable housing and that's not it at all under the original plan it was we do the whole thing and we we gift the land the developed land to Avalon because we can't do that anymore we raised our purchase price with the county in order to supplement that and and Avalon gets the land for free and so on we we could talk for hours about this but just understand it's one of these FY stupid uh unintentional consequences of decades and Decades of regulatory things of code things of of financial things of funding all of these things that are barriers that we're we're discovering as we uh put this over or not even discovering

200sometimes deliberately pushing up against them to show that these need to be changed moving forward so and I love your vision I love your dedication I love this partnership I think this could be replicated across the country I love I'd love to clone you thank you all over the country um okay just to make sure I'm clear on this living sorry just to go back quickly to the living communities you're occupied for 12 months which means that they actually get to see how the buildings are performing right like that is a benefit of this particular certification system do they have to come in and like recertify at any point in time or is it they evaluate you after a year you get your certification then you're you're good to go at at this point in

201the living building program um no you don't have certify um yeah I was just curious okay just have a few more things and I'm sorry if I missed this somewhere um the units on the South Side are they for sale or they for rent uh they're perform it for sale but they they could be rentals but yes TBD okay okay um who is managing the farm stop are you and you I remember you mentioned a year ago and you said it ago tonight a little bit modeled after Argus so is there like a third party coming in to it take it will be that that that person has not been identified we're in constant talks with Kathy and Bill at Argus and um uh you know I I I will tell you I'm I will

202push to have some sort of partnership in that I want to be part of that um but we don't know who will be managing it and it does have a name it's the honey locust Farm stop um but beyond that um uh there's there's lot more to work out and again we haven't really started working on that uh because we're we we we we got to get through city council and all this other stuff has to be all of these questions are me being selfish because I'm just like personally very interested these are the questions I love I only have a few more I promise guys um the community center I assume is open to all residents of the site it's you know technically on the North piece but I'm assuming like that you me

203somebody mentioned there's a meeting space like I'm just assuming like any Resident at vidian can access the community center yeah I mean we do with the size of it we're primarily anticipating that the within the unit or within the community center is probably primarily the folks on the north but barbecues outdoor activities bigger activities certainly and you know additional things that we're able to accommodate certainly be open to folks more and again so just a neat addition uh the um again when you look at it you see how it's designed the purpose is that you can't Identify the property boundary so there you know the the playground which is technically Avalon's fictional side of the boundary and this other open space which we'll have we're calling these Community moments that are yet to be designed

204um that's all one contiguous space so as built it you you just won't know that there's this legal fiction underneath it yeah I that's even from the rendering like that's very obvious to me um speaking of the playground in the open space that's my next question is that private for this that's private for this development correct or uh not necessarily no that's I mean these all these spaces are designed to be open again with access people we know people will be passing to and from the park and actually part of the Living Community challenge is one of the aspects is um is place and under that uh you have to maintain the What's called the rights to Nature um and you have to provide these Public Access to it awesome yeah not privatizing stuff it's

205we're not gross [Laughter] point this is I love it um so then I assume I assume though that it is privately managed public space public space like you guys are somebody within this agreement is maintaining those spaces yeah that would be a just classic uh homeowners association right okay I remember that from a year ago now um okay and I appreciate like Council acman thank you for mentioning all of the public support that this project has gotten I was surprised that we got a couple of um of letters from people that were not as thrilled about this project and a couple of them mentioned they didn't want to see this project on a park space and I just sort of wanted to reiterate this is not a park this was County Land it's zoned public

206land but it's County land that was a juvenile detention facility and may it while it may look like a park today it is not part of County Farm Park which is staying as a park this is a completely separate parcel I just wanted to put that on the record because a couple of people mentioned don't take away my park space or something to that effect and that is all for me for now thank you I really am truly very excited about this project uh commissioner milstein I will keep it very brief uh since most actually all of my questions have been answered actually all but one um so first I just want to say I'm really excited about this project I am looking forward to it um I've been on the commission for over five

207years is that right commissioner mels over five years we've been on here something like that uh maybe six something like that and I can count on probably just one hand how many times we've had uh affordable housing uh before us um especially affordable housing that is uh of this size um you know we keep chipping away little by little by little but we're finally like this is this is how we get to it so um I'm very excited about this and I'm very happy that Avalon um is a part of this project um one of the questions that I'm often asked about any project that comes before us is what's the timeline um so if all goes well today and by early fall you have city council approval um um what is the timeline for

208both the North and the South I can answer for the north uh so we have applied for some funding uh got awarded some the big piece of funding is low-income housing ta the latter part of 2021 begin building and then occupancy the latter part of 2022 is when we would start lease up and how about the other side of the project yeah on the vidiian side this is uh this is Joey Jonah um we're we're hoping to get through this process by October uh we'll finish our construction documents and apply for permit we expect about six months for that um and then at that point we're ready to break ground depending on winter conditions so um you know this winter or early spring is the ideal scenario for us okay thank you so much I'm

209looking around for hands I have a list as I always do but I will I don't see anybody else okay I'm gonna go through my list first off with the platitudes of like thanks this is amazing I I Echo all of the positive things others said and I would just highlight one thing that I'm really excited about I know Mr groof you talked about like the difficulty of splitting it into two like for reasons I actually think that this the the fact that you are two neighboring land owners that are working together and integrating a development that allows for this coming um multiple points of Entry between your properties is something that we push other developers to do all the time and we don't see and so I'm really excited that again um what commissioner

210arriman said before about being able to point to a project um and say this is what we had in mind mind like actually I know it sounds like it was a pain that that was the that that was the requirement of having these two things but I think it helps us see that it's possible um and so I would just I really appreciate how you really have blurred the line between those two and and you can flow seamlessly between these developments um I that set of comments about the Pud the supplemental regulations and then a set of questions about the site plan so on the supplemental regulations it is my I don't know self-appointed Duty on Planning Commission to figure out like what happens in worst case scenario and I know that there's been a

211lot of talk about the um affordable housing component of that and I am comfortable very comfortable with the approach laid out um and so I have no problem with that um actually the three benefits so that so there were three key benefits that Mr Leo talked about early on uh affordability so we've talked a lot about that one mixed income which I think that that's where are my notes that's on one of the tables it's very clearly spelled out um the minimum percentage of single family detached you know duplexes um multif family I think that's fantastic like we're I love that we are putting in the supplemental regulations that no matter what happens with these site plans that component of this will be required for anyone who wants to develop this site so I good

212job um staff on that sustainability um is another aspect and thank you commissioner hamers Schmidt for like hammering well for figuring out what exactly this is like we see a lot of lead so how is this different and um and so I appreciate that I also appreciate that staff so I'm comfortable I know it's having kilowatts is a is a clearer measure from the get-go right there's no risk associated necessarily with that and the fact that you have to live in this building and it has to function as you hope it functions um is risky but I really appreciate that staff has included you know what H so what happens if you're found to not be able to achieve that compliance years down the road and um that you have to then come back and

213negotiate what are comparable um comparable sustainability benefits so I feel covered on that aspect um the things that I would highlight that are in the supplemental regulations that are you know what's the difference between what we see in the site plans and what the supplemental regulations allow or require um is having to do with height so my reading of the site plans is that there's you know um night nothing at least shown right now on the Thrive side that's over like 38 feet but the supplemental regulations allow up to 45 feet I'm pointing that out I'm not concerned about it I don't think that was a primary concern voiced by neighbors um but I just want to make sure that like we're aware that if the worst case scenario happens right there that there could

214be taller buildings what are shown it's a minimum requirement of two stories um but there could be things that are taller than what we see um is that fair um uh actually I can ask Thrive and um and Avalon as well like I'm not reading the site plans wrong you're not maxing out the 45 foot height limit right right does that that gives us flexibility in a lot of areas and what we it was something we had to work out with the fire chief because that height thing is funky and so that would allow us to go as high as you know three four stories tall uh and then get some uh extra housing and everything else and again that gives us flexibility that makes this possible and the next thing that you hit on

215was about F which is or I'm sorry not F but um uh the density so you're right now your density your allowable density is up to 16 units per acre and what you have my calculations I think are 11.6 um so from me I mean actually my question that I'm goingon to ask to you is why are you only 11.6 and not 16 because this is the site that is like highly accessible you know this is where we want people building yeah no there's a there's a lot of functions for that and thanks for asking that question because in the dream world we would be finding ways of making these things more dense the the the weird thing is it's like it's it's units and the way we count units is just so kind of

216silly right and an arbitrary thing so if if you turn one of the homes one of the single family homes into four micro units it's four units instead of one so we have the option to doing that later with with the with with the uh you know the r4b frankly so um uh you know and then the other function of that is like you know on the footprints themselves how do you do that we're pushing up against all kinds of things when you do green infrastructure uh it's you know again Megan's one of our favorite people in the world right now uh you know trying to figure out where where are the setbacks where do you put your Equalization drain pipes inside of your bio swes these are all things you know do you tear

217down Bur Oak trees to allow for uh a setback that doesn't work now because you had to put your sidewalk going around the Baroque trees like crazy things like that are all really Dynamic and complex in a way that most developers would just say let's just build a grid and pop everything on here and maximize everything and we didn't do that we really tried to balance everything and optimize it um that said we want to find the opportunities to increase density um and then also really see give us flexibility going forward with market conditions um which is you know this is unique because we're doing this zoning and the site plan together so we have to present that but we don't have to design every square inch of this right now and we can do

218that in the next months after we get approval and really nail down some of that stuff so that again gives us that flexibility and I would say I'm fine with the flexibility I want to make sure that everybody on Planning Commission knows and you know whoever's watching us out on TV world that you know there's a possibility that that that you're site plants don't show more units than that but if there were if we approve the rezoning to this PUD with these supplemental regulations a future development there there could be more units right just because there is some difference and so I'm fine with that and I would encourage that and welcome that flexibility that you're building in this is the place for that and I think that the plans that we see show that

219you are doing density right um and so but I want to make sure that that's just um transparent there um just one more thing I'm sorry to interrupt you um uh just in case there are folks out there talking about the density and the 45 foot height I I don't want anybody to get the notion that we could just the entire site becomes 45 feet it's not even possible because the the fire chief has an issue um the only place where that is possible is one building and that's The Farmhouse and we deliberately put in a a permeable uh what will likely be like a grass it would look like grass but it is r for to hold a fire truck so you've got this really Innovative way where we can expand this roadway to

220allow for a fire truck but it doesn't look like a wider Road and that's the only place that you could get to that kind of height so we really don't have the option to get to that height in any other place um and in and even in terms of like if if the idea of density is um concerning to some people um again all of that density would need to be within the living building challenge because that's written into the supplemental regs too and so there's so additional units would still need to be able to cover all of their own energy right and so I think that that's um I just want to make make sure like that people understand there's a lot of um you know when you rezone something especially when it comes

221along with a site plan um there's sometimes an expectation that that's exactly what you're going to see and we hope I mean we all hope upon hope that that's what we see but I think um there there is some flexibility in case you have to go back to the drawing board in terms of the site plan but I'm comfortable with this is the place for that density like I said I think that even higher I would be comfortable with because because of where it is and where it's accessible um I this I'm skipped over this when I was talking about height but Mr Leo in the in the supplemental regs there's a within the height section there's a reference to paragraph nine like it here are the height limits except reference to paragraph nine I

222think it might have just been from revising I think it refers to the twostory minimum that's in now called 8f does that make sense I'm I'm trying to look at Z well um it's certainly possible it's hard working in a p it's hard working in a pandemic certainly possible I have a typo thank you for pointing it out um the the height is intended uh um I think you I think you got the concept um there's a twostory height limit but we did want to make an exception for the community building yeah and I think what I was talking about in case uh and yeah and then I did w to um I did want to um I see exactly is it now the height um the maximum height um I want to be I'm

223always conscious of there are some people who don't read the entire breadth of the regulations so when if you do talk about height in two different places I like to cross reference yeah so I don't think that my sense is that that's not like we don't need to have an actual motion for just like a m missed reference but just to point it out for the when you're moving forward thank you I do appreciate the extra eyes I can't help myself uh um I also want to point out that there is um there are limitations on how much um accessory use there can be non-residential um that differ from North and South but I want to also be clear to everyone there's no requirement that we see um a non-residential component is that right is

224that the correct reading of this cor correct there's no requirement that there is but they but it is enabled right sometimes I mean um this is this often comes up in our discussions of puds because the Pud is one of those um things where it allows for mixed use um more so than some of our other districts that's not the basis on which like this is unique um and so I am okay with not requiring there to be non-residential uses um I just want to highlight that again worst case scenario um and we you know these site plans don't get built and some something else does it may not include a non-residential component it may not have these accessory uses um let's see those are my comments about the Pud so effect the the supplemental

225regulations so generally I think that they're great I did have I did want to raise the question though um Mr Leo you had noted in your staff report or in your presentation um I think it was in six a I I about the number of deciduous trees or something if we need to make a change you s you seem to indicate that maybe that 75 was wrong it looks like yeah I got word um late today that the 75 was um someone double counted some trees and so um the petitioners asked if we could go um down to 50 which would be pretty close to what the normal um one I believe it's like one tree for every 30 feet is so um if the commission is comfortable reducing the 75 to 50 or um

226comfortable just matching the tree number requirement same as the traditional conflicting land use buffer the thing that we wanted to mostly add in the supplemental regulations was a specific allowance for spacing to work around the uh easements and overhead lines and whatnot um but um thank you for pointing it out um I I think we can cover it with nodding or we can do it more formally with an amendment but the petitioner said that they accidentally double counted when they reported the numbers to me um so they asked if it can go to 50 or to the traditional um standard I think that this is something that I'd like us to vote on in part as an amendment in part because this is one of the you know we didn't get very many letters and

227given the size of this development we you know I would ex you know I think that speaks to how much Community engagement there was but I think based on the folks that we're hearing about it's generally on the southern property line I like that there are there's something documenting an enhanced Southern buffer but this particular one especially because it's deciduous effectively the yearround um the yearround trees I think it is worth I want to make sure whatever we have there is at least as protective as what is in the current UDC personally um but I'm happy to make an amendment to change this to um to perhaps just reflect that um similar to what you did for the you know to to strike this is that the is that the best would that be the

228best recommend uh the best path forward um to to just again kind of make sure that the Deciduous nature of here is planted in to at least meet what is what is required in the UDC um yes I um let me read the the UDC requirement um there again there are three components to a conflicting land use buffer the first component is the width and it must be at least 15 feet wide our enhanced buffer is going to say average of 25 feet although some places can be a minimum of 15 but it must be an average of 25 um the second part of a conflicting land use buffer is the plantings the UDC requires one tree for each 15 feet or a fraction 50% of the trees need to be Evergreen um 100% could

229but 15% need to be Evergreen the rest could be deciduous um um and our enhanced buffer talked about uh we put in a number we the there's been a request to go back from a number to uh one tree for every 15 feet um and then the third component of a conflicting land use buffer required is a um continuous screening in the form of a head Edge burm or wall um a fence is considered a subtype of a wall our enhanced buffer is saying no burm no wall it must be a dense shrub hedge um so looping background for the um there's a request on the floor that the component that says a minimum of 75 trees be switched to either 50 trees or one tree for um for every 15 feet or a fraction

230thereof consistent with the UDC do you know what the length is uh give me one minute after 900m I trust my memory I do not trust my memory and I also deciduous does not mean Chris like Evergreens sorry see I know a little bit and I know decis means leaves not not needles uh yeah sorry sorry I'm the Jeopardy guy uh deciduous is when leaves can fall off the trees at certain times of year it is not Evergreen yeah as I was saying it in my head I was thinking I don't think that sounds right but I'm just going to go with it there's nothing like confidence to like push it through anyway this is uh what happens when commissioner gandle has to step out of the room I miss her it's late we shouldn't

231have to pronounce words like deciduous Miss Lou you're we're killing time while you're looking right thanks I appreciate that uh maybe the petitioner has has that number I'm getting closer and closer go if um it Susan I see your hand up that number it is 740 feet along the Southern border all right so who's got a calculator 740 divided by 15 is what's required so that's 50 trees that would be required anyway right um I think then if that's the case then what we should say is match I guess H this is where I wish commissioner Gib Randle were here like I don't know given that that may be a sensitivity if we would want to if this is an enhanced buffer if the intention there was to increase the number of evergreen trees not

232deciduous trees um since there's a vegetated hedge that seems pretty high I don't actually I don't know um do you know M Leo like what the intention was in specifically calling out the 75 trees the 75 trees there um like I said I think that the 75 was a double counting of one of the groups either we double counted the um uh Evergreens or we double counted the decis um instead of making it a subset of now um my every report back I got was the um adjacent Property Owners just specifically asked for dense shrubs and the the development teams really relay that to me as staff saying we have to make this work that was the request um that they they wanted almost a solid wall of greenery um so I it was not

233conveyed to me about the any specific requests about uh evergreen trees or um deciduous trees but um the development team made it clear to me that the neighbors really wanted um these uh dense shrubs and they wanted it a little thicker than usual um go I I defer to the petitioner's landscape person about what's planned again because commissioner Gib Randle is usually the one who looks at like what what the plantings are in the Hedge R and if those are deciduous or Evergreen because in my mind that makes the difference about well no they're both there are um there are deciduous trees um as and evergreen trees for the tree component and then in addition to that there are shrubs so so this is no but I think that that the whether or not that

234shrubs right like some shrub I don't know I've seen Hedges that lose their leaves I don't know so I'll go ahead petitioner yeah so the the southern um enhanced buffer was basically generated through a conversation with the community that happened last August and what the neighbors were telling us was that they really wanted shrubs as a screen because they didn't feel like deciduous trees are really going to adequately screen and so they ask for the dung shrubs and that's where that sort of 25 foot enhanced buffer comes from those are primarily deciduous shrubs but they're you know eight feet tall so they're going in at a minimum of four feet they're growing to a minimum of eight feet and we have a 20 foot wide 25 foot wide buffer that includes the deciduous trees and

235the shrubs so in terms of trees we have 51 trees right now for that southern buffer 33 of them are Evergreen and the and the eight rest of the 18 are deciduous got it again I what's in the plan I like you you've heard from neighbors right like this has been vetted I'm just trying to make sure that whatever we put in the supplemental regulations that would stick with it right um is is fair for the next person so actually I would I would almost suggest that you know we cut the number I think now I'm formulating what the right uh uh amendment that I'm going to propose is but it seems to me that the the plantings these deciduous or Andor Evergreen plantings that you have our code requires a minimum of 15% Evergreen

236if we say 50% Evergreen you're providing way that you're providing more than that this is providing some yearr round cover which is what I read in some of the letters that what I just heard too was that your hedge is not necessarily going to be providing because it's going to be maybe thick but but branches without leaves in the winter so my I'm going to move um an amendment that would modify um 6A I I to say a minimum of 50% of the required or the the number of evergreen trees as or of the trees required per the UDC must be Evergreens right so for clarification the mod the modification to 6A I would be um the planting requirement would match the UDC but um minimum 50% of evergreen trees correct so really the 50

237trees that you're providing you're providing 51 you match the UDC that's fine and it's just specifying that that 25 of those in this case need to be Evergreens so we um uh yeah and so you you well exceed that it's great like there's some wiggle room in there actually for you yeah but I feel like we're protected in the future but nobody else is seconding that motion so maybe not uh commissioner s is seconding it any discussion on that commissioner woods and Comm um Mr Leonard first maybe and then commissioner Woods okay I just want to clarify if you're proposing an amendment that would um mimic the um UDC requirements of frequency of planting and 50 % Evergreen then I just might suggest just striking that provision altogether whenever there's nothing specific in the supplemental

238RS the UDC is going to is going to be required and if if I'm understanding correctly you've essentially just amended the supplement of RS to match what our code already says I'm asking for more Evergreens my understanding more than 50% I I thought I heard from I thought when Maybe I thought I heard 15% was what was required and 50% is what I recommended but is that did I miss here um 50 50% 5 zero is required the 15 is one per every 15 feet I got that sorry I thought it was 15% that the 15% of every 15 feet um okay well commissioner so I just I suggest that's the direction you you go in the only supplemental regs is it's going to be compliance with the conflicting land use puffer except for it's

239going to require greater width it's going to specify a continuous headro and allow the adjustments from continuous continuity um it's not in fact going to specify it would not the amendment would not specify any um uh quantity of ings beyond the what the UDC already requires got it so that make sense Alexis yes um unless commissioner Woods really likes this I can like take it back if Lisa wants to take it back is okay with that sorry that I couldn't hear I just want to encourage you to take it back so I just couldn't sorry I don't know if it's later that I 15 and 50 are close yeah Sarah yep so we still instead of taking it back we could do Amendment to the amendment to just get rid of a double ey thank

240you yes that sounds good you're friendly to that any discussion of just getting rid of that the number of trees here and just deferring to the UDC uh commissioner Woods yeah I I guess um and maybe it is the lateness of the hour but I think May um given that their landscape architect and um and probably ours also have looked at it and um I sort of have the sense that we are perhaps going down into the weed so to speak and one person who's not here is a person who I believe is a consultant on this project so I guess I just don't I don't think that it's necessary to do that at this point I would so I wouldn't be in favor of it I would that would just be my opinion what

241I heard is that what there what's shown on the plans right now don't match this like they're not they're not meeting this so if we we can't approve the site plan or we shouldn't approve the site plan if we pass these supplemental regs we shouldn't approve the site plan because it doesn't match that is that true Alexis that is what their landscape consultant told me well because it seems to be a little bit of confusion then this could possibly be something that could get worked out and get taken care of before it goes to council um well I guess this it does the commission like the buffer that's shown on the site plan and if so I will work to properly memorialize it if you think that more is needed we can discuss that but

242if you like what is shown on the plan then I can work to memorialize it yes like it so so we don't need any motion is that right uh no if no we don't need a motion I can if needed I can explain to city council that we have made a um change that you did not specifically recommend but I will explain that it had your blessing and the reason why um we needed to make this change was to memorialize what was shown and you specifically approve the plan as shown okay [Music] um is there was there a motion in a second yes thank you so we need to do something with it is that right Zach yeah we gotta vote it down okay so the motion which would just strike that language we're um

243we should vote on is there any more discussion uh commissioner hamers sorry I'm just like I'm confused so as it stands now it says say they putting in 75 trees they're not actually putting in 75 trees they're putting in 50 but we don't have to do anything on any we don't have to take any motion we can approve it with the 75 in there staff will do something with it before it goes to city council is that clear yes okay then I'm good we can vote all right all in favor of the Striking that language say yes or raise your hand all opposed say I raise your hand okay so the amendment fails we are back to the amend there was only one amendment that we had earlier which Zach had offered um I have

244two questions on the so on the those were my comments about the Pud and the supplemental regulations my comments about the site plan um one is minor and one I think is a little bit more major or or sensitive um the minor one is about bicycle parking I think that it's great like the I like the look of the bike house what I'm curious about is the people who who come to visit on their bicycles because this is a bicycling accessible place um who visit people in you know the apartments or the houses where's your guest bar bike parking by the residences it's I will just tell you it's it's on the plan and it's abundant um because yeah we and Shannon who's not here you know we bike we know where people Pike their

245bikes and there's there's a lot um uh if you want more CL we could look a little I was just I was trying to find it like so like when we we say it's abundant like there's bike Hoops throughout like along the streets or yeah so in in front of in front of units in front of the uh U Megan they get in your way if you want to answer you might have off the top of your head of where they are so Megan designed our from biohabitats designed our bio swes and stormw water infrastructure so sticking anything in the ground impacts her work so she might have an answer if you do R give me a thumbs up if not she doesn't so um I I hate to say this but they're there trust

246us I mean there's a lot of s to dig through so that's why I I that's the thing I'm sure you don't want bicycles parked to Street tree or you know to the trees that you've planted um so I just want to make sure um that it's throughout yeah um to to give you an idea we have 179 total bike spaces only 124 of those are inclosed so you subtract 124 from 179 and that's all the butt that's the park bikee parking that you've got that's an open air or or covered okay but not enclosed got it okay um I I will go back and look a little bit closer again and make sure that I can see them the the one that I think is a little bit bigger um and it's just because

247we've been talking a lot about lighting and sadly commissioner Briggs is also not here tonight who is kind of my lighting compad and this is the photometric plans between the two sites seem quite different um in terms of the overall foot candles and I'm trying to understand why um but particularly the kind of the the lighting that you see I think most of what I'm seeing is that when you're within this development you know collectively you move seamlessly between them why on kind of the Thrive side the most most common like number that I see on the roads and in the parking lots is 0.1 or like sometimes 3 foot candles there's a couple instances where I've seen it up to0 four point6 but on the Avalon side I feel like there's there's some numbers

248that are in the twos so I don't know which of you maybe it's both sides that can explain to me why that is or how how what's leading to that and I can talk a bit about it from Avalon's side I mean we've take well number one the type of fixtures that we're looking to use are consistent throughout the site as far as what kind of lighting and we've been working together on that but you're right as far as volume of lighting um we and and the um warmth of the lighting we're looking to be consistent but as far as number of fixtures we do look to have more really relying on our experience with our tenants at our properties over the last number of years and giving folks kind of that sense of security

249and that you know they're looking for depending on where they've come from in the past and what they've dealt with and how that you know um helps their experience living in our property uh you know and I think it's certainly it's it's bit different than where Thrive is looking at things and we've uh this would be the property that has least amount of lighting of any of Avalon sites so we take that as kind of a basis of experience but recognize what we're trying to do here and our you know certainly bringing it down below the levels that we've had at any of our other sites I don't know if anyone else from Avalon's team wants to add anything to that we haven't taken up our um one of the things that got postponed last

250time was uh kind of our lighting ordinance and so comparing to what we have there I think um is something that again I'm I wish commissioner Briggs were also here to kind of check in those numbers this sense of like more light equals more security I think is one that is common but a lot at least as we've been putting together our lighting Ordinance one that we've been trying that we've have had disavowed and it's actually contrast between light and dark that's that's really hard um that's actually what I worry a bit about particularly I was looking on the road that you have running to the on the along the west side where you go from you know it starts out as effectively kind of Avalon um Road and then it goes into Thrive and

251and at the border um perhaps because we don't want to have uh light pollution spilling from one um one property to another like there's this there's this dead space and you go from pretty bright to quite not and I that is I don't know that that seems to me like it will be noticeable sure only at night but that it will be noticeable um and so I appreciate that you're working to you know that this is less than what you might normally have I would encourage more collaboration between the two of you potentially to try to blend those things better because I'm really worried about the contrast actually between the two and that it's going to be noticeable um like why is one side of this development lit up significantly more than the other side

252um Mr grov yeah thank you for bringing it up I don't want to spend too much time on this and I think Wendy's kind of expressed why there's some of these these challenges but um there it's it's a really really complex issue and know that we are really deeply collaborating on this and um and trying to figure it out because because it's one of these things where you know on the one hand like you said about glare that can impact uh you know people with with seeing disabilities right um on the other hand you've got issues which I'm just learning about now of people have experienced trauma who even if lighting doesn't actually provide a safer environment it's their perception of safety that's really important so we're trying to figure out how do we balance

253all of these things and it's a challenge that I know people in affordable housing are are working on this and uh we uh in London right now there's actually a huge program underway and we're really working on trying to see what they're doing and figuring out things but just know it's really challenging Avalon's working on it we're working on it they've done a great job of coming down a little bit but we hear you and um and we're working on it we'll continue to work on it well and and I appreciate that and I'm actually like it's it's kind of the blending and so it might not it might actually be averaging it might I hate to do this but it might require it might require particularly on those areas where they're right next to

254each other again blending it a little bit more I don't again and honestly I think this the idea that we have mixed income mixed income neighborhood that's the benefit right that we're getting out of this figuring out like having this conversation and figuring out how we do this and like what are the issues that are coming up I think is really important this is like um commissioner hamers Schmidt said before something that lots of like that we want other people to learn from and how can we take this to other parts of the community commissioner Akerman as a point of order I'd make a motion to extend the meeting to 11:30 uh seconded by commissioner Abron everyone in favor of extending it say yes yes all right I see enough fans um thank you um

255that was the end of my thing so that just I encou thank you for those conversations thanks for helping me understand that um I'd love to learn from your discussions together in that about like what this means for other places um any other comments questions from planning commissioners so we have um a two site plans that have not been amended or anything we have a um um or motions that have been amended we have a um sub uh PUD rezoning that has been amended once um up for vote I think we seem ready to take a vote on that um could you Mr Leonard give us a roll call vote Yes so this is on the um revised supplemental regulations that were presented amended to adjust the south setb from 30 feet no change to

256the number of trees um and the site plans as presented correct akan yes commissioner s yes commissioner abon yes commissioner hamers Schmidt yes commissioner Woods yes commissioner Mills yes commissioner milstein yes it's unanimous very good thank you good luck at Council thank you really exciting thank you all of you um thank you thank you thank you to Avalon and everybody in our team uh this has been an incredible incredible journey we're learning a lot and we want to get some sleep and uh and keep eyes forward and move fast all right thanks guys thank you thanks you're bringing commissioner Gib randel back Mr Leonard all right did I accidentally jettison anybody one two three four five six seven nope we just need to get Shannon I think she went [Laughter] home you guys notice me

257jumping around a lot it's because I'm being tortured by a mosquito that I'm trying very hard to kill but I Waging War with for the past hour but I real on camera I was like jumping around Ellie I feel like we're getting a like a slow tour over weeks and weeks of your house because I feel like your background not this is not my this is not my house I'm at a at a lake house like uh on Lake Ontario fun so I started outside I would have showed you the sunset but it didn't seem appropriate to interrupt anybody now I'm in a little room so Shannon we voted down I'm sorry what was that we we voted down uh vidiian we thought you wouldn't I can watch the entire thing you realize I just

258wasn't on the screen I heard everything you said so how much you were missed yeah I mean yeah be tough getting that it's gonna be tough getting those 75 trees in there good luck with that it's the drawings all match it's it was just a clerical thing at the end in terms of supplemental regulations so I'm sorry the didn't care I I appreciate all your patience with that you all sorry if I had just heard the number early on it would have saved a lot of time I just didn't he um the next item of business is 10B the review of the Planning Commission bylaws and reading them to prepare for this I think what we actually have to do is we have to vote not just not when our meeting extends but when we're

259goingon to take something up after 11 is that true yes that's correct okay so can we need to vote whether or not we can take this up you actually have to do that not the other thing right I didn't want to correct commissioner aurman didn't think it was the right time never knew that yeah if middle of it you don't have to say that again if you're in the middle of it you don't have to I learned that last time when I shared uhuh but inform me of that subtlety so if we're in the middle of something we don't have to extend but if you take up new business afterwards that's when you have to extend so get irant in my life you're just getting it right at the very always works so Z move

260to take up the bylaws it sounds like Zack moved to take him up um Ellie uh seconded it uh any discussion about whether or not we should do that all in favor say I or raise your hand yes any that's everybody okay um so let's talk about it so we'll start with um a presentation to by Mr Leonard um and I think um so you you saw these about a month ago and um I had the Good Fortune of getting some City attorney comments um after that postponement but before tonight's meeting so there's a bit more changes in this version than the previous version that you saw I've outlined what they are um generally I would say it's just a lot of language cleanup making these bws more consistent with a lot of other boards

261and commissions um um I've to highlight some of the not notable changes um I'm proposing that we modify audience participation to be public comment um uh sort of formatting numeric conventions um um we did uh eliminate the secret ballot Provisions that were available for the election of officers um that is not in the spirit of transparency so I don't think we um want that there um uh clarifying those actions that require uh a majority of members present when applicable um there are still numerous uh Provisions that are unchanged that require six votes to advance a petition require six votes um uh for something else that escapes me 2third to amend the bylaws um um I'm adding uh I'm proposing to add my um authority to cancel um a meeting when I find out that there

262is not going to be a quorum or there's a lack of business as opposed to having to contact the chair for that um adjustments to uh the order of agenda um right now for example this is listed under regular business technically we don't have public hearings for some business items under regular business so just um clarifying that regular business could be some items with public hearings and some items without public hearings um um um we talked about this previously um the the automatic mandated review of me my performance by you as the commission was kind of a a bit of a holdover from when the Planning Commission actually hired the planning uh director um there's no longer a planning director now there's a planning manager I think that was um very intentional and so I'm

263proposing that that language that you um would provide that feedback when my boss the community services administrator asked you for that feedback as opposed to automatically requiring you do it on a regular basis um I'm always welcome to discuss um how I can improve regardless um so those are the changes and then I think previously we talked about the order of agenda the 10-minute presentation that um I didn't highlight that um not critical but I did highlight we don't have to have two public comment periods separate from our public hearings um I think I put this in here as a discussion point on the Eve of our last couple of meetings and perhaps this one where we've had a couple going late but um um it's there now um but um if if you wanted

264to shorten the agenda um providing one public comment opportunity as well as the corresponding public hearings for individual items would definitely meet their open meeting teack requirements so that's all I got um the bylaws do require that you I present these to you because there are a lot of changes even though you saw them before I wouldn't recommend action tonight but rather any feedback changes that you would like to see or discuss and then um we would um respond reflect Pro propose uh provide any of those changes for adoption at the next meeting the script that you gave me and based on what you just said suggest that we do not go to public hearing next that we that I read the motion is that right okay um so the motion is the Ann Arbor

265City Planning Commission moves to accept the proposed amendments for future consideration uh at the August 18th 2020 Planning Commission meeting well would somebody like to move that moved by commissioner milstein seconded by commissioner hamers Schmidt uh discussion commissioner Gib Randle I would just say I'm in favor of what you put forth so far and I think it is important to have two opportunities for public um comment just because not everybody wants to stay up late and I think sometimes we actually get some really interesting feedback for the people that really stick with it until the end um and it takes a little time but it doesn't take that much time so I would be in favor of keeping that other comments I concur like I said before I also appreciate reading this once a year

266to remind us of like the kind of little things like when we vote to extend the thing that that um I noted this time that is in there that we don't do is it says that the petitioner can respond um has three minutes to respond at the end of the public hearing before we go into our discussion we don't do that I'm wondering if we should and I think we should discuss it yeah um that's something thank you for bringing that up that's something that um I um I added one of the things that's come up like we've gone through an evolution if you'll recall in the past we actually didn't provide any separate opportunity for the petitioner to present their project apart from the public area itself and at times that could that manifested

267in different ways sometimes it might just be one person getting up giving five minutes at that time um we've had other circumstances where they would do five minutes and then their engineer would come up for three and then their architect would come up for three and then their landscape architect would come up for three and their traffic engineer come for three and so um when we switch to the 10- minute the intention was that um we were compressing all of that as a wider opportunity for the petitioner to present their project to the Planning Commission inclusive of all those aspects um to that end we we tell the petitioners they should not be addressing the commission during the public hearing portion that is really for um other members of the public to provide feedback on

268the project um given that restriction I think it is probably appropriate to um provide the petitioners the opportunity to potentially rebut um briefly anything that they heard in the public hearing that they would like to respond to um it doesn't come up much because I think frankly the commission does a pretty good job of responding and bringing up those questions in your deliberation and provides a lot of opportunity for those petitioners to do so um but it's probably cleaner if we if we want to sort of have that hard line to say nope you get 10 minutes at the beginning then the public hearing and then we'll give you a brief uh if if there's anything you'd like to add before our deliberation you have up to three minutes um or if none you can

269kick into your deliberation so um so that's that's something that kind of proposing to emphasize with that new petition structure about commissioner milstein first and then commissioner abens um I think the reason why we actually stopped that or sort of slowed down on that was because we had several uh members in our audience who would actually yell out why do they get a chance to stand up again you know people got a little angry in the past I remember commissioner Woods had somebody when she was chairing who got a little Rowdy um because they were unhappy that the petitioner got up for for another 3 minutes and they wanted another 3 minutes so they can rebuttal the have more time to rebuttal what was said so I think that's the reason why we got away

270from that so that was probably happening when the petitioner was speaking during the public hearing yeah uh yeah during the last part of the public hearing commissioner abens yeah um I I wasn't um privileged enough to witness that but that was kind of my intuition was that I think that format maybe pits the public comment against the developer in a kind of adversarial way whereas I think at least as I've observed this body I think we do a pretty good job asking we ask the petitioner to respond to what we hear uh from the public comment but I think we're often able to kind of frame the question or give it some context in a way that it takes that kind of confrontational edge off so I would be in favor of I guess striking

271it from the bylaws yeah um and and doing things the way that we currently do makes a lot of sense I like yeah it's kind of like data data data for us like we have presentation staff report public comment and then it's like ours to make the most of it I like that yeah and and I feel like they're probably like going to be a petitioner eventually who is doesn't have the temperament to like be cool after some strong public feedback and may end up you know escalating the situation um I can think of some examples commissioner abin uh one other thing that I noticed in here is that it does say that the chair can extend uh an individual's three minute speaking time at their discretion and I wondered if that was something that

272I have never seen that happen I didn't know if that was something we wanted to keep in here or not or what Serv would maybe that be useful yeah um it's it's probably most useful in the context of providing a little flexibility for maybe a a heated discussion um so that it gives the chair ultimately a little discretion so that if if know say that there was sort of oppositional views on something and and somebody went beyond their three minutes and well such and such got you know three minutes and 40 seconds so I expect that I'm going to get three minutes and 40 seconds I don't know that it needs to be there that I think just happens naturally in the chair sort of managing that discussion but that that might be where it

273or to kind of provide that official recognition that ultimately in this case Sarah has some discretion to try and manage that situation uh commissioner Gib Randall then commissioner hamers Schmid yeah Ellie I haven't seen it happen very often but it does happen every once in a while and sometimes it's just for somebody to be able to kind of finish their thought and it's kind of a see more than anything else um and I mean happened a half a dozen times um I would say so I think it is good for the chair to have some discretion um to be able to to be able to do that to be able to kind of call it in either direction commissioner hamers Schmid to unmute and that's is if I'm reading this right that's only during the

274public comment not during a oh my God I just totally forgot what is it called a public hearing just when it's I only saw it in there under the public comment so public hearing there wouldn't be that same extension or do we want it in both places to be I think it's a good question if we want it in one we probably want it in both yeah I mean the way that it's been described I have no problem with it being in both places that the chair has the discretion to extend either public comment or during a public hearing beyond the three minutes just in the in the scenario that commissioner G brandle described like as a courtesy I think that would happen in either case um I had one other question as I was

275going through this and maybe there's some background on this um so it says a person representing an organized neighborhood group can speak for up to five minutes and then like other people that are also part of that group can speak for three minutes what's the rationale behind letting one person speak for five minutes but then other people can still speak for three minutes it's always been there I pres I presume it's um acknowledgement that a neighborhood organization is organized and maybe has some voice of maybe a larger group of residents from that area but your point is good that technically each of those individuals still have the ability to get up as well um could be I don't I can't remember I don't I don't remember if that we've been facing that with that in

276the past year maybe we have I can't remember I don't know what next or two minutes a fors if you're still going to let other people talk for three minutes but if other people have thoughts on that it hasn't come up I don't think in the last year where I don't think that there have been too many neighborhood groups around some of the developments it's prior to that it it's been regularly invoked I think it's an extra two minutes they have to be on a list effectively um okay personally like yeah no that's I that's that's fine I just did not know the a sort of background and I don't think I've seen it so I was just kind of like why but it's it happens regularly then dep it depends on you know like

277where the project is where project is proposed Brett do we need to we going back to the like whether or not to allow um the petitioner to have a rebuttal do we do you want a motion from us to strike that or did you hear from enough like did you read our body language enough to suggest yeah no I don't feel like I need a motion because this is coming back for Action this is the that that's kind of the point of this um after we're done I just want to sort of summarize to make sure I'm I've got any and all changes that you'd like to see but no I don't need a specific motion other than the postponement and confirmation that I've got the changes you want to see in any other things

278that people noted okay so guess we're there the motion is not a postponement the motion is like we're going to take this up next time right uh it's to accept it yes you're right so we shouldn't vote to postpone we should we should affirm the vote affirm the motion okay yeah so but but um I just want to be clear when this comes back we'll strike the rebuttal maintain the five minutes for neighborhood organizations we're going to maintain two segments of public comment and we're going to replicate um the chair's discretion for all public did I say that last one twice okay all right you want a roll call or do you want it just Voice vote all in favor of taking this up next time I say I any opposed all right thank you

279it passes unanimously um now we are on item 11 um which is not new business so I do think we take it up even though it's after 11 now I need to go back and read our pyot um that's okay it's audience participation but now soon to be called public comments um if you'd like to speak you can uh make it come on any topic you have up to three minutes to address us you can call 877 5247 and then our meeting ID is 15043 um if to raise your hand digitally you push star n and uh you will hear that you have been invited to speak no one on the phone line so no audience participation public comment tonight um number 12 is there any commission proposed business this late hour I'm not even

280GNA propose something and I have something I'll do it next time um is there a motion to adjourn number 14 moved by commissioner milstein seconded by commissioner s thanks good night everybody bye bye