001is a April 21st 2020 electronic meeting of the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission this meeting is in accordance with the executive order from the governor to effect to effect social distancing and mitigate the spread of covin 19 virus we intend to conduct this meeting similarly to an end to an in-person meeting however please be patient if there are technical difficulties public comment will be via telephone only to speak during any of the public comment periods please call eight seven seven eight five three five two four seven I'll repeat that phone number one more time it's eight seven seven eight five three five two four seven an inter meeting ID nine three two six nine four zero eight four eight seven that's nine three two six nine four zero eight four eight seven this information is
002also available on the publish agenda in the public notices section of the city website and on the broadcast of this meeting on CTN channel 16 18 T channel 99 and online at WWE to gov org slash watch CTN and we'll start with a roll call did great Alex Commissioner woods Commissioner Briggs here commissioner Mills here commissioner Milstein here commissioner give Randall here Commissioner Ackerman yeah Commissioner sobei here commissioner Abrams here commissioner hammerschmidt here it's full house and a corn we have any introductions this evening we do not have a commissioner they'll move the agenda move by commissioner gear Andale seconded by Commissioner woods any changes or discussion on the agenda and Brent are we doing a roll call for all votes roll calls are recommended under the governor's order I'm less concerned about a procedural
003vote such as minutes and agenda it will be important for us to take roll call votes out any petition action all right great all those in favor please say aye all right our agendas approved on minutes of previous meeting before us this evening and we have the February 20th 2020 City Planning Commission meeting minutes do you have a commissioner I'll move them moved by Commissioner Mills seconded by Commissioner Briggs any discussion or changes none all those in favor please say aye reports from city administration City Council Planning Manager Planning Commission officers and committees we will begin with our city council representative Commissioner Ackerman great thank you very much mr. chair city council had a long meeting last night I got out of there early hours of the morning today and just a small handful of
004updates for you from that meeting with respect to to work that will be coming our way at the direction of City Council the anti-armor Housing Commission and the Ann Arbor planning staff led by mr. Leonard have been pursuing the opportunities for affordable housing on several city owned sites of those two in particular were or a topic of conversation last night 415 West Washington which is a decommissioned Road Commission facility across from the YMCA and 350 South fifth which is the set of the performer why next to the Bleak Transit Center with respect to well I guess I should say for both projects staff has been creative in proposing a different process to move forward than we have in previous years or the perspective developing public in these scenarios we would be moving forward with a
005pre entitlement meaning that we will as a city as a community be shaping the parameters under which we would be comfortable seeing the development of these sites and at that point going to market to find a development partner to construct it on our behalf so a little bit of a reverse kind of process that we've experienced in the path putting things out for an RFP and waiting to see what developers bring back to us um which hopefully will engage it to me anything on the front end and develop some more buying earlier in the process with respect to 350 South v we we moved that forward with some excitement on 415 West Washington mr. winter I'm sorry I'm gonna have to call on you did we vote to move that forward or postpone it it
006was such a long conversation in fact remember where it actually ended in the action yeah I think the 350 South Main was was enacted so we'll proceed with that but there was some questions on 415 West Washington great okay and are we postponing that for more engagement the why a lot no 415 West Washington yeah 415 West Washington will be postponed for more public engagement with specifically the treeline Conservancy and some of the more immediate neighbors and residents of that site awesome thank you great and then to close the loop on something that this Commission had a hand in the credit union that we reviewed and recommended approval for 21:51 West stadium the MSG Cu credit union site plan and rezoning both were approved by City Council then turning our attention to kind of some
007long-term planning tonight City Council had the opportunity for the first time to vote on the a20 Ann Arbor carbon neutrality plan which is our ambitious endeavor to bring our community and using the city government as a lead agency and after in that to carbon neutrality by the year 2030 there was a robust discussion and debate which landed on moving the plan forward and beginning to implement it while also requesting of staff to bring back in short order some more information about financial planning to put some dollars and cents to the strategies and goals contained in that way that's everything for me Thank You mr. Leonard do you have a report for us this evening just briefly we'll get to upcoming business public hearings soon but at this point we're anticipating that for the next ordinance
008revisions committee meeting will be building a little bit more into plan project modifications so I anticipate that discussion will share that I'll share that agenda shortly for those RC members in the public that's it great thanks Planning Commission officers and committees any reports from the Planning Commission see no one written communications and petitions we have received a couple of items there in our packet so please take a look at those and we are now at audience participation 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 and I'll repeat that that is not listed as a public hearing on this agenda we all have public hearings on the items further in a meeting to comment on such other
009matters than what's on the agenda please state your name and address for the record public comment will be made by phone at the number appearing on the published agenda and displayed on the meetings video feed if you are interested in speaking at the at this time please call the meeting with information provided city staff will select callers that have raised their hand one by one using the last three digits of your telephone number in order to electronically raise your hand to speak please press star nine that is star nine on your phone you'll hear an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak when speaking please move to a quiet area and mute any television or background sounds so that we may hear you clearly so that's star nine if you'd like to
010speak to the Planning Commission and just to remind people who are watching on phone number is seven seven eight five three five two four seven and the meeting ID number is nine three two six nine four zero eight four eight seven anybody raise their hand no one is raising their hand mr. chair okay thank you I'll just give it one more second just to make sure one more person just called in let's give them a second just for fun I'll repeat the phone number and the meeting ID number just in case somebody is at home watching the number is eight seven seven eight five three five two four seven so that's the phone number you dial and our meeting ID is nine three two six nine four zero eight four eight seven and I will
011have a jingle for this at a later meeting do we have anybody at this time right yeah we do have somebody at this time if you can please state your name and address for the record am i me yes I'm sorry I'm minute and I'm I'm not sure if that's me or not yep am I being heard hello yes 0 9 4 or and you okay yes thank you I was calling with regard to the the Main Street topic and I I saw the agenda and then I also saw that I briefly heard while I was trying to figure out which which way to get a hold of anybody about it I briefly heard that that was postponed as of yesterday so maybe maybe it was too late to make any comment with regard to
012that the zero so the Main Street is later in our agenda so you will have a poke at her staff report so if you want to stay okay watching instance and call back in so we'll be reviewing that later on in the meeting oh okay pardon me I'm sorry to interrupt them yeah I'd like to comment on that specifically so thank you that's agenda item 9c for us so if you're looking at an agenda so be coming up later in this meeting okay thank you thank you do you have anybody else at this time mr. Leonard just that caller it's it's it's possible that caller might be interested in the Valhalla project as well well that is on Ann Arbor Selene that is a project that petitioner has requested postponement but I just want to
013clarify that that well it's it's ten ganon or versa lean Road but got it okay and we will have a public hearing on that shortly as well is there any other audience participation seeing none alright we will move on to public no one else right thank you we'll move on to public hearings for our next business meeting mr. Leonard thank you I'm scheduled for the May 5th Planning Commission meeting we will have two scheduled public hearings one is 3611 236 21 Plymouth Road rezoning site plan with planned project modifications and special exception use for a drive-through facility this is a project that you have seen once before however we have we noticed it in conformance with the governor's orders that the meeting might be held digitally it has also been away from your agenda for
014a while so there's an opportunity to be notified folks and then second we have a series of proposed unified development code amendments relative to solar energy system installation the proposed amendments would provide flexibility in installing new accessory structures for the purposes of solar renewable energy and provides some exceptions to supporting ordinance height limit for the purpose of adding or energy right thank you we are now entering the regular business on our agenda and the first item before us this evening is the Valhalla and Arbor site plan annexation and rezoning for City Council approval the petitioners request a postponement of this application which city staff proposes for June 2nd while no presentation will be given a public hearing has been noticed and will be held for this petition I'm requesting a motion to postpone this petition
015to June 2nd at the conclusion of the public hearing audience members who address this petition this evening will have the ability to do so again on June 2nd this is an opportunity I'm sorry and now I'd like to open up the public hearing this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about this application to comment please state your name and address for the record public comment will be made by phone at the number appearing on the publish agenda and is on the meetings video feed if you are interested in speaking at this time please call the me please call the meeting with the information provided 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
016electronically raise your hand please press star nine on your phone that is star nine you'll hear an automated announcement that the host is allowing you to speak when speaking please move to a quiet area and mute any television or background sound so that we may hear you clearly and we will open up the public hearing at this time and the Valhalla project is the Pratt is the project that is at Ann Arbor Selene and Main Street South Main Street and it looks like we have some caller oh nine for you should be live all right thank you I my name is Darryl Fisher I'm at two to five one South Main Street let's see I'm also the the Association president for the last 15 years at the Main Street Commons condo association on Main Street
017so we would be fairly close neighbors to the Valhalla project and I guess given that I have three minutes I'll keep it short that that generally speaking there's a lot of concern with regard to we already have issues with runoff for example from the ground from the golf course that's next to us which would be separate separating the Valhalla project and the where we live but there are a number of things that would be challenging traffic would be one of them water would be another factor to say the least both on the surface and through the pipes basically so yeah I guess given my three minutes are probably about up I'll just say that we have concerns about that and in general are not super excited about it to say the least so just to
018make that known to thank you thank you very much and this will be back on our agenda on June second so you'll have an opportunity to address the climate Commission at that time as well is there anyone else who wishes to address the Planning Commission and regards this item if so please press star 9 on your telephone it looks like we have somebody with who's raised their hand caller 107 go ahead go ahead Stephanie hi my name is Stephanie Savarino and I live at 1 1 7 Golf View Lane this development is concerning and completely inappropriate for this location in my opinion with the density zoning request of our for ease it's it's there's no reason for a high-rise of a single-family low density multifamily neighborhood in this location apparently the developer can't assemble the
019parcels without over paying for it and the numbers don't work without requesting this enormous knowning of our 40 that's completely inappropriate for the area I was also an extended on a Township Island and adjacent to the University of Michigan Golf Course when I built the house years ago and I requested out in one acre parcel r1a in the same location basically as we are talking about in this ball hollow development there's a multi-family development at South Main and golf U which we just up with Darrell's had just been on and he that called Main Street Commons and that was not opposed by any neighbors and consists of 64 side-by-side two-story units this is there's a natural pond feature it doesn't be checked you tracked it off in the neighborhood and it's consistent with the density
020of the area and that came and I believe is r1c again consistent with the area if you if I need to stop you can stop me I'm just I'm just going to just cite one thing in the aunt IRA city's master plan that read said read in addition to the types of dwellings permitted in r1 r2 r3 and r4 a districts these multiple families only districts are intended to permit attach long units to be arranged one above the other or side-by-side that's what we think is appropriate here and there's also concern for the natural features in the area that will be compromised permanently with this excessive purple intensity it's a hollow developers are asking for in addition the entranceway to city beyond our birth from the south I feel will be unrecognizable and a tragedy
021as a life Lani and I'm a resident business owner and tax payer I strongly object to the inappropriateness in excess of this absurd development it's proposed thank you so much for listening thank you is there anyone else who wishes to address the Planning Commission at this time hello Holland I'm Stephanie's neighbor my backyard faces the golf course and I I just wanted to support everything she said our neighbourhood group is in agreement that a high density tall pear structure structures is being proposed is not appropriate for this particular don't have a problem with someone wanting to develop that particular neighborhood but putting 500 units in a place that currently has 15 or 16 single-family homes is just an unbelievable idea that's really all I had to say thank you so much is there anyone else
022in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission in regards to this project seeing none I will close the public hearing and I will ask for a motion to to postpone until June 2nd do you have a Commissioner that will move that move by Commissioner Mills seconded by Commissioner gear and L any discussion on the postponement we don't have a motion mr. Leonard we don't have a motion for this it would just be a postponement of the the motion that's presented in oh yeah I'm sorry you don't have a staff report I would just suggest that the motion read that rezoning and site plan and related petitions associated with the Valhalla application be postponed until June 2nd commissioner Mills and get Brandel are you okay with that motion stated by mr. Leonard thank you
023any further discussion Thank You Commissioner Ackerman for that um seeing no discussion all those in favor please say aye all right it is postponed next item on our agenda for those following the meeting its Green Hill school track and field say plan and landscape modification for Planning Commission approval Misner I would like to indicate that I have had a relationship with Green Hill School my children have attended the school as well as grandchildren and so I want to make sure that the commissioners are aware of that in case some would want me to recuse myself from this discussion and vote does anyone have any concerns about commissioner woods participating in discussion and voting on this item anything I feel like you have more context all right thank you all right so our so this evening
024we'll hear from the petitioner they'll have up to ten minutes to address the Planning Commission regards this item will then head to mr. Conn for staff report then we'll open up the public hearing and then discussion and vote so I will hand it off to the petitioners for their report and presentation good hi I know you turned it over to Jeff my name is Peter Figueroa and I am the head of Green Hill School and have been for now ten years in two different stints I was the head of green hills from 2005 to 2012 and then went out east to run a boarding school and missed Ann Arbor so much and was very fortunate to be rehired a couple years ago to be the head of green hills again many of you know and
025Wendy we love your kids and grandchildren of course it's been a pleasure to work with them Green knows as many of you know has been a vital part of the educational community and ANR for over 50 years we were founded in 1968 and since that time we've grown to be a school of over 500 students and 100 faculty and staff we've been about 500 or more for the past 25 years and we've stayed true to some of the founding principles that began when a group of parents in Ann Arbor founded the school which was to serve the an arbor community to be committed to keeping a tuition level that is still within range of you know really the original blueprint was looking at tuition for a to professor income at the University of Michigan commitment
026to financial aid which is 20 to 25 percent of our students are on aid about 10 to 15 percent of our operating budget so right now it's a million and a half dollars a year that we used to make sure that we are casting a broad net and we're providing this education for as many people as possible over the years we've seen growth obviously like any school we've had to meet the needs of our of our students and I am proud to say that the capital projects that we've embarked upon we've gone about thoughtfully we've gone about with some of our core principles in mind and our mission which is to empower students to be creative curious and responsible and whose lives will better the world and and particularly with sustainability in mind and the
027community in mind the Campbell Center for the Performing Arts is not just a theatre space for our own students and own community but it is a space that we open up to the public that nonprofits in the area use pro bono our tennis courts in our field and our grounds are places where our neighbors enjoy it's a beautiful area we're surrounded by both Earhart Village and Concordia and glacier Village all three enterprises are places we've had great relationships with including building trails that connected Glacier Hills and and and green hills to the north our most recent projects we have a we put a geothermal wells and behind the school when we built the new science wing we put a green roof on it the retention ponds and all of the work that we've done we've
028done in keeping with our core principles and this most recent project is a great example of that we've worked with the ecology center downtown to make sure that this turf field is going to be organic infill we have been researching the pea fasts in in the grass blades and the artificial grass blades and were we're very much taking advantage of the fact that one hand were the last to actually go turf we've had a grass field where the really one of the only schools and MHSAA to still only have a grass field but we've learned and we've learned from our local schools too and some of the decisions they've made about their turf projects this is a field that is necessary for our student athletes because it's a Michigan spring and fall and when you
029have one field that we end up having to actually use a lot of our local schools fields when ours is unplayable and it the track is an aging track and we have to replace it with a with an eight-lane track that will meet the needs of our student athletes so we're really excited about this project as with everything we've done at Green Hills it's something that we absolutely need and we're really looking forward to getting in the ground and getting it going I'm I'm going to turn it over now to Emily who will talk a little bit more and then look forward to answering some questions yes and we submitted some slideshows am I do I need to share that Jill yeah here I will share that for you okay great thank you great you
030can move to the next one Jill all right um hold on just a minute just filled up my whole screen and I lost my notes there we go all right thanks so this project as Peter introduced you is replacing and improving the athletic field which is located between the school facility in the highway so east of the of the facilities and as he noted the the need to do this is really for the the student-athletes safety and to improve the athletic conditions that the student-athletes are using here and to make the area more usable during adverse weather conditions with the synthetic turf being in the middle there in addition to that it actually the improvements will allow for stormwater management improvements with replacing the track from six lengths and going to eight lanes there in
031improving some of the infield areas with track surface and then the interior going from natural turf to synthetic turf we are increasing the impervious surface of this light ever so slightly which triggers some of the stormwater management requirements out here we're limited by the existing clay soils that are out here to allow for infiltration but to supplement that we have underground detention that will be occurring underneath the new synthetic turf field that will be managed to manage the hundred-year 24 hour storm event with a release rate that's been approved by the Washington County Water Resources Commission the drainage in this area will just charge to the north through the existing drainage system and connect the existing drainage system through your there through the restricted outlet we've been working with as you've seen on the plans
032with jsv who's the construction manager for this project a Smith group and jsj camp worked on a number of athletic fields in the area together success police so we have a good working relationship as well as with green fields and have been mindful about how they can get access to this area as it's kind of behind the fields as I said behind the school in limiting where construction access is and limiting disturbance of other areas that area where the athletic field is is the only area of disturbance we're not proposing any improvements at the driveways or parking lot areas and as indicated in the staff report there is a request for a landscape modification since we're not changing anything in the parking lot we don't meet the requirements of the interior landscaping in terms of
033sizes but we meet the intent of the ordinance here and all the other landscape requirements around the around the site are in compliance with the ordinance they're there if you click through and probably talk through most of these other slides but we can share a little bit more information the next one shows [Music] the zoomed in that that's the proposed field right there as I said so existing field right here you can see all the natural turf on the inside just six lanes of track moving to the next slide you can see the graphic representation of a slightly wider traffic to include eight lanes as well as you interior track surface at each end of the track and it's a Petach turf will be in the middle of the field there if you can click
034through to a few of the other ones you can see some of the stormwater management system outlined which is in stone base underneath the field which helps stabilize the field and provide a more stable field during other conditions as well that's the proposed layout there so the intent is to move forward hopefully we can receive approval for this Incans construction can start this summer with the track being completed in order for the spring sports period of 2021 when hopefully we are all back to participating in watching sports I think that's all we had Peter or John and Joe from guess bigger here as well I'm Jeff if there's anything we've missed that you want to point out no Emily I thought you did a fine job summarizing the project delighted that you brought your whole
035crew with you to answer questions I I would only add that staff recommends that the site plan be approved because it would comply with all local state and federal laws and regulations the development would limit this disturbance of natural features to the minimum necessary to allow a reasonable use of the land and the development would not cause a public or private nuisance it would not have a detrimental effect on public health safety and welfare secondly staff recommends that the landscape modification request be approved because the modifications are consistent with the intent of the ordinance and are associated with a previously approved site plan that that's all I have right thank you so much mr. Conn um at this time I'd like to open up the public hearing on this item this is an opportunity for
036persons to speak for up to three minutes about this application to comment please state your name and address for the record public comment will be made by phone at the number appearing on the publish agenda and displayed on the meetings video feed if you're interested in speaking at this time please call the meeting with the information provided city staff will select callers that have raised their hand one by one using the last three digits of your telephone number in order to Ultron eclis raise your hand to speak please press star 9 on your phone at this time that is star 9 nine six three go ahead hello my name is Rita ah I live at seven eight two green homes drive and I lived in Earhart village homes I believe the site plan says that
037this is the property west and an apartment complex but it is not an apartment complex condominium association of 174 townhouses my concerns are about the buffering landscape traffic impacts and the environmental impacts of the project in terms of the buffering of the buffer landscape when green hills installed their tennis courts and the track originally there was a site plan that had buffered landscaping that was never done it was part of the plan it was approved that was talked about but then apparently they ran out of funds and they never did put in that buffered landscaping so if you're referring to that it was never done and currently the situation now is that the canopy trees in that area that border that parking lot that separates the condominium association from the school's parking lot several of
038those large pine trees have been removed and that replaced many are distressed due to drought conditions and so and much of the mature vegetation has died off therefore exposing the parking lot and the condominium homeowners to vehicle noise and to light pollution so I would like to see the school improve these deteriorating buffering conditions and bring it up to what it was supposed to be from the previous site plan that was never completed I currently also have some concerns about road safety and access primarily during drop-off and pickup hours at the schools it's very congested as you would expect but my concern is is what will the construction traffic be like when this occurs most importantly we have pedestrians students walking to and from the bus stop located at the corner of Earhart and Green
039Hills so I did not know until this meeting today that this construction was occurring in the summer which would be great it would eliminate a lot of that problem but it is a concern and I would hope that home owners could be assured that construction vehicles and traffic on green hills would not be further encumbered lastly I'm concerned about environmental pollution Erhart condominium thirty-seconds color what have had an excellent relationship with green hills and when their buses were idling in the parking lot and causing fumes to come into our homes they made arrangements to move their buses to an entirely different area of the school property and we've been very grateful for that we would just like to make sure that there are assuring PSA's dustin's that construction vehicles do not park in that particular
040parking lot creating fumes and odor and noise thank you very much thank you so much if there is anybody else they'd like to address the Planning Commission regards this item please press star 9 I don't see any other thank you seeing no one else I will read the motion there are two motions that we have this evening um does anyone oppose taking them together seeing no one I will go ahead and read both of the motions the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby approves the green hills school 850 green hills drive site plan for city for Planning Commission approval and the second motion is the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby approves the proposed landscape modifications according to the unified development code section 5.3 0.2 landscape modifications while the Commissioner move this move by commissioner
041Ackerman seconded by Commissioner and give Randall we are in discussion and my plan is just to I'll keep tabs of who has raised their hand and as a new as I call a new speaker I'll let whoever's in the queue I'll let them know that they're in the queue so any discussion Commissioner give Randall we also as I'm sure you all know had a written correspondence that covered many of the points that the caller just identified and I haven't driven out to the site but I just wanted to get a sense from mr. Cohn I am assuming that because of the size of the the project that's going on that the kind of whole site has to come up to compliance and that's why they're looking at the parking lot screening and things like that
042within the context of this project because obviously if the landscape Islands are too small and they're far distant from the project that's part of the reason that this is all becoming reviewed at this point right just globally we require every site plan to ensure all the trees that were originally shown on the site land to continue to be provided and if they die or if they're removed we require that they be restored and as you can imagine if the site has been there over 50 years there's going to be some die back my guess is that the folks who typically look at landscaping probably didn't go back to some of those old site plans to see what was there we can certainly do that we do that periodically with other sites if we receive concerns
043or complaints from nearby residents that may be trees are gone from a particular development project we'll work with the property owners to ensure that they replace the trees that were originally shown on the site plan and we can certainly do that in this case I think that would be good because it sounds like there's at least an accusation the you know landscaping not put in in the first place to sow some sort of corroboration to understand what the past promises and whether they were made and broken or whether they just you know through attrition and you know whatever trees died being able to do that when I just again I have been driven out there and I'm just doing the kind of Google Streetview version it seems to me that a lot over on the
044south looks pretty pretty well vegetated in terms of the intent of of your ordinance it I don't see a continuous you know berm or hedge that's four feet tall to meet your conflicting land-use buffer ordinance you know over on that side but again I think the intent is met I think the parking lot to the north however looks more sparse to me in terms of the coverage and so perhaps you might take look at that a little bit in terms of what neighbors would see because there's some gaps that are in there and it's probably just again through attrition of trees and things like that over time but if the whole thing is kind of coming up to snuff and we're looking the whole site plan I personally uncomfortable with undersized landscaping islands in the
045middle of parking lot because that's that's a pretty big lift to redo all of those and to reconfigure your whole parking geometry but I do think that you know promises are made about how we're gonna handle screening and things like that and that I think these these opportunities for for renovation allow us to look as I plans again and to make sure that people are meeting they're meeting our standards and and are complying with you know our our standards as well as working with neighbors to try to work things out in that way so that's my two cents mr. Mill's and this is just an immediate follow-up because that was my comment as well what is the best way to ensure that that follow up the checking kind of on the landscaping in particular to
046past site plans how do we ensure that that happens do we need to have like a something that's added to the motion or is just talking about here enough I guess that's the questions for stylet I I don't I don't think we need anything specific to the motion what what we can do is just review past project files for those past site plans and as part of as part of sort of site compliance for any changes if this proposed plan is approved we can just incorporate compliance with those past plans to ensure that everything is appropriate as as Jeff indicated um as we hear you know we're not proactively going out to every site plan that's approved after it's been sort of realized and monitoring the health of those the landscaping that is a requirement
047that it is maintained so now in short we don't need anything specific in the motion and we can incorporate that compliance as we go great thanks and then I just wanted to verify so so and to be clear change you just check to make sure that all of the landscaping and the buffering and that kind of thing are in compliance with what we have and so this is where presumably like this idea for the landscaping Islands has been added since that land that parking lot was built like our ordinance changes it's a living document and so that's that's one of the places where we have made that changed generally if they were to build a new parking lot we would require those landscaping Islands but but that is a heavy lift in this particular case
048but is that correct kind of what how I characterize that I I think it was summarized it well I think that it's a great addition to our code section but it's extremely expensive and for someone who's maybe tweaking a little part of their site it could it could discourage a lot of sorry for the kids screaming in the background if you can hear it it's bath night the other question that I had was so is there anything else like of all of the changes that have kind of happened over is that the only thing that really then required that will be approving sir would you mind restating that I the last part of your statement was cut off for me sorry the question was is there anything else in doing that review was that was
049the the parking-lot Islands the only thing that was out of compliance or is kind of the landscape model that were approving tonight something else that we have - was there anything else captured in that my understanding is that it's it's only the the modification is is was the focus for tonight Bret you may have had a better chance of hearing Sara's whole statement so you may want to interject to my understanding if I'm understanding your question correctly that is the only modification that would be necessary for compliance and I add something this is Emily from Smith group again I just want to say as you can see in the plan say that you have a copy of you know we did an extensive tree survey of the the entire property and and confirmed tree species
050and size and condition out there and Jeff you can correct me if I'm wrong here but I do believe that we are in compliance with the existing requirements in terms of conflicting land use buffers and other elements required by the landscape ordinance and I believe the only thing that we don't meet in the current ordinance regardless of what may have been on previously plans but in the current one is is those landscape islands as they've been identified that's my understanding Tiffany jakab Ozzie is our staff member who does the landscaping review and she also does natural features review she does a comprehensive review and she would have done this for the whole site and so the one thing that is not currently consistent with code is the landscape modifications within the within the Islands but
051starting tomorrow morning I'm gonna contact Tiffany and Emily will certainly work with you on on having a look at those older plans to make sure that whatever trees were identified on those plans are replaced if they if they've been lost or their discussion commissure wins sorry just a question that the neighbor brought up concerning the construction and when that might take place in her concern about the noise or the traffic and I was wondering if if someone might be able to address that I know I think mr. kebabian you indicated that construction might start this summer is that pending the government governor's permission or something like that and then could you give us a sense of the hours that the work would take place and whether or not you would anticipate I'm assuming you you
052would prefer that it not take place while school is in session but could you just give us a little sense of that so we can make sure we're addressing the concerns that that neighbor brought up sure my preference is that school is in session first of all you know which actually you know this is the thing with us right there's no better time for us to have a construction project at a school right now and there's no school and no traffic and you know it would be ideal so I'm gonna turn it over to Joe vegg who can talk about the details about the trucks coming in and out and when when he and we would like to begin this project good evening I'm Jill Vig with Jas Figg construction company and you know I
053have the privilege of knowing the school very well might my children went to school at Green Hills and I've been a construction manager for Green Hills for probably seven or eight years now on multiple projects and you know we're very a mindful and aware of the residential development to the West and and we've worked very closely with John Nichol and his team to try to address any of their concerns in the past you know as Emily mentioned in her presentation when this project was designed we actually designed the construction access road the Smith group did around the east side of the building so construction activity will enter the site at the north end of the site and it will be routed around the east side of the building on the closest proximity of the field
054construction activity to to the residential neighborhoods is about 500 feet and you know it as my field supervisor pointed out to me um there's quite a bit of elevation change as well as you extend from west to east you know that the Western elevations sit higher in elevation and then also as you saw in Emily's presentation the stormwater connection is to the south of the property so there's really kind of no interference or direct conflict between any of the residential development to the west and this construction project that would be maybe in contrast to the last project that we did the most recent project that we did where we had construction activity happening on the west side in the West parking lot and that would have been more direct but it we still managed to
055mitigate that you know quite quite well from up from a pedestrian safety standpoint I think that was that was a really good question by the caller so you know we will have flag people stationed at appropriate points so that when we have trucks on entering and exiting the property um you know we'll have safety controls and in place and then also from from of kind of a dust mitigation standpoint we will have in addition to the you know the soil erosion controls that are explicitly called for on the plans we have a complete kind of dust mitigation strategy and street-sweeping strategy so because of our familiarity with the expectations of the neighborhood we're very confident that that we can meet those requirements in fact I personally know residents in the development and and I'm extremely
056mindful of their concerns thank you thank you any further discussion Commissioner Randall just when you have Tiffany look look at things I'm just looking at the Washington counties you know aerials and things and it seems to me that that North parking lot it gets pretty thin in terms of a buffer and I know you know for any new development there's there's quite a few components to the conflicting land-use buffer and I just don't see shrubs or things like that in there so just have a look at all the different components which are evergreen trees deciduous trees and a 4-foot shrub or you know 4-foot hedge or berm so just make sure that you know if we're reviewing it for that and this is going through and getting passed by us that she's looking at it
057with those eyes - we'll do the discussion for hamstring just real really quick question Joe thank you very much for explaining you know the process that you're gonna go through to make sure that environmentally and kin safety perspective everything's good I'm assuming you're gonna have signs up so the resident does have an issue they'll know exactly who to call to make a complaint you know that that's an excellent suggestion and we we absolutely will do that okay great thank you great further discussion I think Greenhills wins in the regards that during my what feels like not many years but it's been a couple of years that I've been on the Commission I think this is the third time we've seen you guys for a different construction project so you guys are definitely busy there any
058other discussion I'd say no ma'am we're ready for a vote although or actually we will be doing a roll call vote so I will hand it off to mr. Leonard for that yes or not you can either give I would prefer you give me both an audio and a visual just for quick reference so the motion is both both motions together as presented both the rule of the site then the lanta landscape modification Commissioner woods yes Commissioner Briggs Commissioner Mills yes Commissioner Milstein yes mr. Gibb Randall yes mr. Ackerman yes commissioner so they yes commissioner aprons yes Commissioner hammerschmidt yes motion carries Nancy all right thank you very much all right thank you thank you all right we'll be moving on to the next item on our agenda which is 10:43 North Main North Main
059Street rezoning for City Council approval and we will begin with mr. Conn with the staff report the site is located on the west side of North Main north of Depot Street and in the Huron River watershed I'm gonna I'm gonna summarize this effort and then we have a few slides that we'd like to share the site is currently zoned agricultural the minimum lot size for the AG district is a hundred thousand square feet which is about two and a half acres which means that a new single-family home would be non-conforming for the lot size which is about sixty two hundred acres excuse me two sixty two hundred square feet additionally the AG district requires a minimum of a 50-foot rear setback which would basically make the site impractical to construct a new home on so
060the site we believe is too small for any other residential zoning district other than single-family since the minimum lot size for our 1d is five thousand square feet the petitioner is proposing on our 1d zoning district in order to construct a new single-family home access will be from North Main Street staff recommends the proposed r 1d Zoning be approved because it is an appropriate zoning district for the proposed single-family land use is consistent with the master plan recommendation and is compatible with adjoining uses I think Jill brought up this the slides for 10:43 North Main this this is a photograph looking west of the of the houses there now that is not in great shape we can go to the next slide this is a survey showing parcel 1 which includes the single family single
061family home the single family home did have a carport that extended a little bit into the north property line but that carport has been removed it also shows a little bit of an encroachment into the MDOT right-of-way along North Main Street once the building is removed that encroachment would cease to exist we can go to the next slide this is an aerial photograph showing the approximate location of the home as you can see it's pretty close to pretty close to North Main there are a few other homes just immediately to the south and buffering the site to the north and to the west is Bluffs Park you can go to the next slide this is a slide just showing the zoning here is you can see the AG Sony is by itself there although I
062do want to point out that the same time this cemetery is also zone just just a bit to the to the west to the south is our 4c and I believe that may be the last slide unless there's something else in there yeah that that looks like you and so that's the that's the end of my staff report thank you at this time I'd like to open up the public hearing on this item this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about this application to comment please state your name and address for the record public comment will be made by phone at the number appearing on the publish agenda and displayed on the meetings video feed if you're interested in speaking at this time please called meeting with the information
063provided 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 please press star nine on your phone that is star nine if you'd like to address the Planning Commission in regards to this item I see no hands raised but I do see mr. Fowler in the audience all right seeing no one Hammond's rates I will close the public hearing and I will read the motion the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approved the 10:43 North Main r1d zoning do you have a commissioner that will move move by crusher Mills seconded by Commissioner Abrams we are now in discussion Commissioner Briggs yeah thanks so I was I can understand why
064there would be desire to rebuild that house there it's definitely in poor condition and I can I can see the desire to rezone to a single-family use district but I was wondering in terms of how this was taken in consideration with with regards to natural features and how I was looking at the different sort of priorities in terms of highest mid-level and low level concerns how are those slopes in those areas consider it and I noticed that there's already work that's happening on the site so that's my first questions I can try to start my response by addressing your your second point which is the work that's already been done I was out there yesterday and noticed a bobcat doing some grading I immediately checked track it to see if a permanent been issued and
065then contacted Peter Stevens when I didn't see one he said he was going to investigate the matter he felt he thought that there might have been a permit issued for one of the four parcels along along this stretch but hopefully he'll get back to me a little later this week with regard to the natural features portion of your question as you probably know single family homes are exempt from meeting our national futures requirements and on this on this site the slope of Bluffs does come down into the property so there is slope on the back portion of the site that's quite that's quite steep I don't know what how steep it is I don't believe it's 40% but it's it's pretty steep and there are some there are some trees back there I might defer
066to mr. Fowler Rob Fowler to see if he has an idea about where the proposed home would be located to see if it would impact those natural features I guess my name is Rob Butler um so we're not gonna push the obviously we're not gonna push the house and farther back then we have to because the party we go back the more we have to contend with the hill we do figure that we're going to have to put in a retaining wall in the back to to give us some sort of a flat spot so there's we actually have a rear yard so there is currently part of the hill that's been dug out in that whether it's on that property on the adjacent property right now the adjacent property we have a permit to
067build a garage there on 1041 North Main so a part of my question is how do how do those natural features come into play in terms of thinking about a rezoning or whether that rezoning is appropriate given the the natural features that are there questions more first staff on that one sorry oh I'm sorry yeah I think um one of the things that you're referencing Commissioner Briggs is that under the UDC there are some exceptions from rezoning --zz where an either an area plan or site plan is required one of those is when a proposed property under 2 acres is being proposed to be resumed for single-family and so I think what probably there's a bit of a gap in and knowledge because the detailed site plan has not been accompanied by this rezoning for
068those standards given that provision I have issued a waiver from the area plan for the rezoning in this circumstance because it was only a single-family I'm happy to follow up on this to see if that is something that is absolute from that decision or if that's part of your decision as well to say no that's something we'd like to see before we make that determination but I'll need a minute on that but in short I don't think that the natural features my initial reaction is that they they shouldn't be paramount to your decision on the rezoning the master plan has already provided some level of guidance as to how that land-use should be governed and then we in turn rely on our UDC natural protection ordinances and requirements to make sure that any physical development
069that happens there is respectful of those I recognize that we provide more flexibility for single-family uses than we do for site plans those that's the sort of regulatory framework that we as far I've chosen to enacted and then it's adjacent to Bluffs Park there and then there's the three properties that are zoned r4c next to it I think and if I'm correct none of those have appear to have parking associated with them I assuming that folks have been that there's been kind of a shared parking arrangement that maybe has been happening because there's been a incredibly there's an incredibly wide driveway there and there's been a carport and so and the sidewalk ends has ended at that property and so I'm curious what's happening with regards to I mean obviously we're just rezoning and we
070haven't don't know but based on how we're seeing the property use today I wonder if those considerations have been looked at that's why we're building the big garage at 10:43 is too big accommodations for the next three properties to go to park so I I'm just struggling a little bit with this one because it seems like I can understand the limitations around having its own agricultural but it this seems like an area that based on kind of what it's not a great zoning category but based on what the initial purpose of it was it seems appropriate for the area but it seems inappropriate that housing was actually ever built on this piece of property so I'm having a little problems with actually rezoning it and maintaining single and then putting single family homes there that
071then don't have to be it was respectable to the natural features as maybe they should be so that's where I'm at right now and kind of a try and understand kind of why we're at but all that others discuss this more Naraka me you mister chair just a very specific question this is where the sidewalk ends on this side what any future construction include sidewalk continuing through the site hopefully one day continuing north I could take a stab at that typically when new single-family home is being constructed our public services staff will ask for a sidewalk to be included as you know North Main is a very narrow right-of-way I think it may be sixty or sixty six feet accommodating a four-lane Boulevard with with a sidewalk on the east side so the sidewalk actually
072is probably gonna wide if the sidewalk gets constructed it would wind up on private property but we may be able to obtain a public access easement on top of it those are all voluntary none of that would be required by code I may ask Brett if he if he has an idea about that on the sidewalk I think it is it is part of our standard specification constructions that a sidewalk be put in place however there are relief valves that the public services administrator I believe can determine that it is you can waive that requirement as part of the issuance of a permit I know that has been done in cases where there other aren't for example and improve street where you have full curb and gutter and stormwater or I don't know specifically if
073that those have occurred where there are not an existing complete sidewalk network or not so the short of it is is that it's an expected detail but there is a release valve administrative Li if the petitioner were to seek try to limit the requirement or avoid that requirement as part of a single-family home yeah I remember it was quite the topic of conversation we're discussing medical marijuana provisioning Center at Hawkins Auto Body just that this this is an area that's kind of chronically had sidewalk emissions but to preserve that in case we're ever worried want to connect those just because it's one of the most beautiful parts of town one of the hardest to get to by foot or by bike or just how you want to enjoy it so - sounds um if I
074could just follow up on that previous question it's I misspoke slightly it's not that's not a waiver I grant um if if you look in Section five point two nine point nine of the UDC um the actual ordinance says in the case of a rezoning for a small one or two family residential only a dimension map is required it doesn't require an area planner site plan therefore that's why those full natural features and analysis don't occur in conjunction with that man on zoom' I can't we can't tell if you're reading or if you have just had new DC memorized I'll leave it as a mystery their discussion commissioner Gabe Randall a couple of things one in regards to the last point about the sidewalk further up to the north there was a newer home that
075was put in I don't know maybe ten years ago or something like that when I was just looking from a street view they put in a little sidewalk in front of it just just for their little section just as a point of reference for something along this it has similar condition the other thing I would just like to get more clear on so you're building a parking area basically for the neighbors is that true like that you're you're putting in a garage for all those people that live south of the project as well okay so Brett is there any like is that it's a little they have to connect with the sidewalk you know to all of those two and how does how does that that's not our usual so can you shed a little
076light on how that would function so I I don't know that I don't know I'm not familiar with the details of that particular permit that was something I'd have to follow up unless Jeff has more detail I generally regardless of the zoning district if if you were building if it's one in two family yeah let me just stop there I I in short yes if you were if you were to be building some sort of large garage or parking lot that was intended to serve multiple families that was sort of beyond the use of that individual a lot we would need to look at that from a site planning perspective that said if it's building a garage to house vehicles for a single-family home on that property that may not require the same that mean
077that require site plan I ensured I would just have to find out more detail about that permit and okay but to be clear I think that that permit is for a different site than this than this one okay okay so I guess a little bit of due diligence on that I think would be helpful and then Commissioner Briggs for what it's worth I will often go to the the county old aerial information to get a sense of like intact forest from long time ago because that will often give me some pretty good clues about what the existing conditions are like and when I go back in time in 1947 these two Lots were pretty much raised no trees it may be one evergreen where is just west of it up the hill and to the
078north it's got a bunch of old Oaks I can just tell by what they are you know so that tells me there's probably a lot more kind of young vegetation that's in that area in terms of the hillside it doesn't mean that there aren't young Oaks there and things like that but um it's probably not the same quality as what's further up because clearly in in the in this older aerial you can just see that the thing was scraped and and not not much was there so again I know we're not regulating around that but just in terms of my understanding of how that site without going out and seeing it right now you know what how it what the quality of it may be my guess is is that it's not some of the
079higher quality in that area based on the fact that it was stripped and that and that time because often post that time a lot of invasives come in that's a kind of a typical scenario that happens not always but a typical one mr. Mill's sorry handling the mute is hard this is a follow-up to the question that commissioner Ackerman asked about the sidewalk I am kind of pulling together what Commissioner Briggs was saying as well I similarly have concerns about like whether the continuation of some of these uses on that stretch of road is wise they're narrow like getting out of that driveway has got to be dangerous effectively at the same time I if it is continued I would just want to make sure that we're taking a step towards what we hope that
080road could be which is accessible to all sort of travelers and so is there any way that we can make sure that that a sidewalk does get built there that if that if this site is redeveloped that a sidewalk does get built there I can respond by saying that planning certainly would like a new sidewalk here and that I'm going to contact our public services folks tomorrow to see what their limits are with regard to our standard specifications otherwise known as the orange book with regard to getting a sidewalk installed here which would basically be on private property but could have an access easement on top of it and access easement requires the willingness of property and so I guess this is a question for the petitioner to like I mean is that how do
081you feel about having a sidewalk there or like it this is something in my mind that's really important because what what's built there now what we're building today is gonna be there hopefully 50 years hopefully a hundred years from now and so I you know I recognize that that constrains you know you've got constraints to the west clearly there's a hill and I recognize that that would constrain what happens to the east but I feel like this is this is the time because if you you know if the house is effectively right where you would where the only place where aside what could be left then then it's never gonna happen and that's look that's a concern for me so he owns three properties to the south and there's a there's a sidewalk all the
082way down to those so I'm sure he's gonna want to continue it to our force property you know as it is now because the sidewalk actually goes all the way to the driveway so I'm sure that there will be a sidewalk that will go to the as you property on the sidewalk will continue the existing one that's in front of 1039 can 35 and 10:43 will continue through or 1041 will then continue on this property which is ten forty three got it typically when we're doing rezoning x' because it tends to be for bigger things it comes along at the site plan so is there any way staff like Jeff or Brett that we can again just like make sure that that is that if the if the rezoning is approved that any development that
083happens there would get the sidewalk my no I don't this the scale of this seems scale this seems inappropriate for the sort of Zoning mechanisms that would align with conditions or the like so but as Jeff indicated and as precedent suggests sidewalks are constructed when development happens along here's it is part of our standards procedures I am of course happy to follow up with our public services just to advocate for the I'm sort of importance of that and furthermore this is a rezoning we could we could emphasize that as part of any recommendation that you choose to make and and that would give the petitioner and property owner the opportunity to probably respond to that more fully before it progresses to City Council and a more definitive manner we might even be able to make
084some of the steps in advance just to you know if for example a public access easement is required or what have you that give us the time to start putting that into place so I I think that I am comfortable relying on our standard specifications and our goals the city that that there is a release valve in that but again I don't think that tradition along this corridor has demonstrated that there has been a quick willingness to invoke that for these in these developments so that help at all yeah I mean I know I for one and just in terms of like passing this long I don't know that it's worth holding it up now but sending the message that if that public access easement is I would feel a whole lot more comfortable voting
085for the rezoning if I knew that that that the owner of the property was willing to have that there because in my mind like that ensures that even if it doesn't get built if for whatever reason you know the sidewalk unit decides that it they it doesn't make sense to require the future like that's really I think that that's the really important part but you could you know as a recommendation you could you could simply add that you could say that you know if you choose to recommend this rezoning that then you would also recommend that the owner commit to meeting the city's specifications and ensure a public sidewalk continues along that site I I want to be clear that's not a hundred percent even with that it's not gonna be a hundred percent but
086based on what the petitioners indicating in the history of the property owners in installing it in other properties I just I just see the risk is relatively low yeah I just I guess there's too many like you never know developments expensive anyway I would feel I would feel more comfortable knowing that all of our t's were crossed didn't eyes were dotted and that that were in place like that the see that that agreement were made so I would welcome others thoughts and other commissioners thoughts and bright if that if is that appropriate as an amendment or is that like a separate thing that we would separate resolution like I'm just not sure how that would look like they're just a amend the motion and basically you're adding a condition to your recommendation right okay I'm
087leaning towards doing that I got a scramble to find some paper to make that to write it up but um I'll hear what others say meanwhile start writing and Commissioner Briggs yeah but is there anybody else who wants to say anything before I do have more comments but I don't wanna go ahead I don't see any other hands going up so go right ahead I think what I'm struggling with the most I mean obviously I you know I love sidewalks I'd definitely like to see the sidewalk continue there but I do I'm concerned with the logic of building in the location like this and this isn't my area of expertise so I'm certainly willing to take others thoughts on this but it seems I'm not so much concerned about concerned about what the quality of
088the woods are there in terms of what they were even you know 50 years ago or 70 years ago it's more that this is a really steep slope and we know that we have a natural park you know Bluffs that's right there and it's adjacent and it's it seems appropriate it just seems that if there weren't a house here already we wouldn't possibly be considering housing in this kind of location am I am I wrong about that it just agricultural and it's obviously not an aggregate a space for having agricultural exactly but it is it does seem like we Aereo that we might want to preserve open space if that house was not there or someplace that it might be appropriate for the city to recognize that it's that should be brought into their assets
089considering what the impact might be to the to the property owner for not being able there so just just more thoughts on that I guess so Jeff I'm sorry Jeff could you just Risa mirai's the master plan recommendation for this property yeah the master plan recommends a single or two family homes for for this property and and related to what Commissioner Bruce was saying this is a site that has really been had human habitation for probably over a century there's been these homes were constructed and this is probably a dirt road sometime in the early part of the 20th century so the the AG zoning district is you know clearly an anomaly it may have been it may have been part of previous agricultural holding but certainly 6,000 square foot AG site doesn't make a
090whole lot of sense the r4c to the south does allow for different uses and such as maybe townhome uses or some stacked flat uses but that's still a very tough site on which to develop so you know city see staff has only certain limitations with you know how we can proceed with regard to land preservation or getting the exact perfect project that we want we do allow petitioners to you know build single-family homes where we're appropriate and it's it's it's difficult for us to say no in in a situation like this which is why we recommend approval and Christian Riggs I would just so thanks thanks for that Jeff the you know the master plan is obviously our our first place that's where we go to that is the document that the city's adopted to
091set these policies it's been affirmed by you this commission overtime but you know that's that's why we're asking for your opinion as well you know there occasionally projects come up where the conditions have maybe changed in such a dramatic way where you question the validity of that land use recommendation that's housed in that master plan I you know I I agree with a lot of the points you're saying and I guess I want to be clear that like any rezoning decision we're doing our best to apply those policy decisions and balance so if if for some reason you you felt that that land use policy was not relevant then I would encourage you to make sure you vote in the way that you feel and think about if you do so it might be helpful
092to articulate you know what are what are the changes or perhaps other aspects of the master plan that you don't think would be further obviously from a staff perspective we've felt that unbalanced this proposed rezoning does does fit that I'm given the long term historic use of the site and potential for new use it's moderate in the context of some of the factors of that particular location so so personally I am in favor of this rezoning part of the reason why I'm in favor of it is because the stretch of North Maine is the gateway into the city for a lot of people and it's not attractive right now it hasn't been for a very long time and know that there's been talk and this is an incremental move but I think it's it's a
093good move in that direction I do like the idea of a sidewalk so I look forward to Commissioner Mills motion in regards to that I have listed and sold the property commissioner Brandel that you mentioned at 1329 north Maine which just right near the entrance to m14 and that sidewalk obviously is not heavily used because it's not you know there's something connecting there but at some point I do hope that something connects there for now it makes it very difficult to put a for sale sign since it's all concrete in front of that house but I am in favor of this and I I'll be voting in favor of this evening commissioners okay thank you so I have a practical question of if we don't rezone the rezoning application notes to demolish condemned home and
094build a new single-family so I'm also just curious about could they renovate this home that encroaches on the setbacks and the property lines as a single-family home without rezoning like what - what detriment do we not rezone this and still get a single-family home versus rezone it and get a well sited single-family home I could try to start with that response and then maybe mr. Fowler can add what he knows about the future or the proposed home on the site the the home as far as we can tell is so far to the east that a portion of it sits within the within the MDOT right away and it's as far as I can tell pretty far down the line of not being in good shape maybe mr. Fowler can shed some light about the
095potential for a rehabilitation of the home but I don't believe the home has been condemned although Bret may know something that I that I don't but maybe mr. Fowler can shed light on the potential for for re reconstructing the house or renovating the house as well as what the proposed house might might look like well my experience has been pulling permits for a house is non-conforming limits greatly limits how much we can remodel a house so so even to remodel the house and have it zoned agricultural my hands would be tied to do anything significant to the house so I mean I guess what I'm trying to understand is if we do nothing it's not like we're gonna see a house demolished and the land reverted back to natural features what we might see is
096a lesser quality home with some light renovations versus you know looking at the trade-offs one-pack not to pass this would be a lower quality renovation possibly first was passing this and allowing for a new single-family home on the site as what we're really looking at as options yeah I would I would just add on to that as a non-conforming structure it would to do anything of substance would likely require approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals to alter a non-conforming structure so that that would be an unknown it would provide some that would not provide exception from limitations but it would be a precursor basically to be able to do renovations to the property that said I think that often you know they are considered on property by property basis but I know those Zoning
097Board of Appeals does issue any such approvals for that kind of renovation but it also still has some limiting effect from overall conformity of the district going forward so so in short I think that the property might be able to be maintained but that would be a decision of a lot of factors such as the interest of the owner the viability of retaining the structure those aspects of the structure for example if it's in the right-of-way that may not that may not support approval or expansion of it so there are avenues by which that structure or a structure could remain absent rezoning to something that would provide for a sort of a different building I mean in that that's kind of it seems like we're looking at the ways forward for a single-family house in
098a lot of ways and I think rezoning this feels like the appropriate fit to align this with everything else and if we can push forward with first sidewalk it just makes you know a corridor and you know a riverfront district that's been abandoned and for a long time or at least neglected gives it what you know one more property to show that the community is trying to improve it or their discussion commissioner hammerschmidt I just have a point of clarification I noticed in that application you said the description of the proposed project is a 2300 square foot home and then a detached garage did you say that big ROG is actually being built on the adjacent properties this would just be the house yeah I'm sorry I'm this well the garage rollback should be underneath
099a new home summer to the house down the street that's been mentioned word just because the elevation I our garage you'll drive right into the garage so now this will have the the home word we're still working on plans depending what happens will have its own garage attached garage beyond the basement level so to speak and then we we go up with the living we won't get above Main streets if you look out on the river because that's that's where the view is yeah yeah I'm personally very curious what you come up with because does look like you have a lot of constraints with the slope and I will just also say for the record I'm also in support of this sidewalk recommendation and III don't I think the sidewalk is would help our property
100values to be honestly I don't see any reason that there that there's gonna be an issue with what's us putting the sidewalk integrate again we want to connect all four properties together because the same owner so I the sidewalk is not gonna be a problem for us all right now it'll be nice to see something other than what exists currently thank you for their discussion Commissioner woods oh you need to unmute yourself okay I too am in favor of the sidewalk so Thank You Commissioner meals for working on that and I'm also you know certainly concerned about the slopes in the back but I think in this case the fact that there's already a home there and getting a single-family home there I think is it's something that hopefully will make that that entry to
101the city look better as well so I'm in favor commissioner Mills or commissioner Briggs before we yeah commissioner breaks thanks I appreciate all the facts I just need um you help talk me into why you know this was the appropriate zoning and you know I still had some concerns and my ideal world of what would happen there which is unlikely to happen so I'll vote in favor even though I have some reservations about this and could imagine a different future for it but this seems like the most the only one that's really going to happen mr. Mill's I'd like to move an amendment before I read the amendment I just I had been Google Streetview Ingush too and there is already a sidewalk that goes half to the property so this is why you'll see
102I talk about having an easement along the entirety of the north main frontage because I don't think that first half is the southern half is controversial it's already there it's kind of just continuing that on making sure that that is there so the amendment that I would propose is just tacking on to the end of the existing resolution subject to the property owner committing a public-access East easement for a sidewalk along the entirety of the north main frontage you have a commissioner who will second that seconded by Commissioner Briggs I welcome wordsmithing by mr. Leonard if that's not the if I didn't pick up the right words committing the public access easement for a sidewalk commissure Ackerman also just making sure that the language includes preservation of the sidewalk or extension of the sidewalk so
103it's it's both the public easement as well as the construction should that be Brandel um so I also want to sidewalk however there this is a long MDOT right-of-way and this whole thing really needs to be vetted against that because they're only going to let you do what they're gonna let you do and so I think that that needs to actually go through the city folks first understand what the limitations are with that so maybe that gets added into the language somehow because I know I had a property that I worked on further up Main Street and we had to do a whole special submission to MDOT with anything in the right-of-way in that area so anyway I just you can see if you look at the perhaps it would be helpful to share the
104screen where we're looking at the the survey that shows the yellow residences and then I think you all will see what I'm talking about it's at the end of one of ya so you can see there so you can see what the edge of the road actually is which is yeah so the road it's really light actually it's a little bit better in the staff report you can see the edge of the road is this really light line yeah there you go and that driveway is just completely in the middle of right-of-way and in fact the the existing sidewalk that goes in front of those houses is also in a mess and I'm not right of way and they basically get to do whatever the heck they want in that 66 foot area so I
105would just like planning staff to be able to do a little bit more digging to understand what our options really are in terms of what we say we want them to do in this area because we may be saying something that's actually impossible for them to do so if you guys could just do a little vetting on what that actually means so that we're not promising something that then in the end ends up getting overturned because of what MDOT has to say about that I would say I'd say the motion as it exists it is it is it sort of doesn't have a caveat but again it's a recommendation I think that's a great point we're happy to work with Transportation and engineering kinda like to when if this proceeds to City Council we can
106answer that as definitively as we can that said I don't know that I doubt we'll have em that approval no no we'll have we'll have a sense of what's possible yeah with any this might be just sort of optimistic but the the presence of the sidewalk to those other properties maybe is a good indicator that there is a support by MDOT to do so I know that MDOT has sort of identified improvements along this corridor in the coming years who knows how bad what's happening now might affect that and my understanding was their initial their initial approach was sort of a very much curb to curb kind of approach which would suggest that there might be some opportunity for what happens in this right away extension yeah and then just if if mr. Fowler could
107perhaps describe what they're thinking about in terms of the placement of the structure like how much further back clearly you don't want to be in the MDOT right away that wouldn't make sense but where do you see yourself placing the structure within the lot lines just to some sort of approximate idea of what you all are thinking especially given what the MDOT right-of-way is you know if they're gonna let me do averaging like they sometimes do I don't obviously I gotta be out of the count on its way but I don't want to get I don't go any farther back than I have to I'm centering a lot but I'll go far enough back so that we come in and it's a the driver's garage would be underneath the house and and that way again
108we're raising up to look over the river so uh yeah the less I have to push back the less I have to contend with that hill I mean I I know that because it is it's fairly flat for a waste and then and then the hill goes straight up so I I'd like to make sure that they have some we have some sort of room for a patio or a deck or something behind the house so I I'm gonna keep it it's posted to the front property line as feasible and so right I'm assuming there's some sort of setbacks then you know within this zone for him to be able to have some sense of where that placement would be and then obviously you know there need to be a drive that would be able
109to live beyond any sort of MDOT improvement in there so I can't the face the house can't be right right at the with the cars whizzing by so um he would have some sort of guidance then I'm presumed from the city in terms of where it would be appropriate to place structure yeah if it's if it's rezone it would have to meet the zoning designations of that district okay already thank you or their discussion on the amendment I ain't seen no one Brett do you want to do a roll call vote on the amendment or can we do a voice vote I think for the amendment voice vote seems fine I would just ask that you asked for those in support and for any bet opposed right all those in favor please say aye any
110opposed please say nay all right the amendment is approved we're back to the amended motion an amended motion further discussion seeing no one I will call for a roll call vote okay so this is the main motion to recommend the rezoning with the amendment to the property owner committing to any necessary access agreement along the frontage and maintenance and construction of a public site Commissioner woods yes Commissioner Briggs yes Commissioner Mills yes Commissioner Milstein yes commissioner did Randall yes Commissioner Ackerman yes commissioner sorbet yes commissioner Abrams yes Commissioner hammerschmidt yes carries unanimously thank you we are now moving on to the next item on our agenda which is 6d 1950 Green Street revised landscape plan tree mitigation plans site plan for Planning Commission approval we will begin with the petitioner presentation we will then head
111to a staff report a public hearing and then discussion so we will begin with the petitioner presentation you'll have up to 10 minutes to address the Planning Commission that's great thank you very much good evening everyone my name is Jennifer Roth I represent the owner and developer for the property my address it is one Town Square sweet 1600 Southfield Michigan four eight zero seven six the project and most of you are new faces for me so last year we got approval for our multifamily project the address is 950 green we call it Hoover and green and it incorporates the entire city block of Hoover green brown and Davis so as most of you are familiar it was an assemblage of 13 lots and 12 structures so we started construction last year and in our original
112site plan we had to landmark trees that were removed and unfortunately during our construction process yes that's great thank you so the yellow highlights the original two trees that we had to remove during the original site plan approval and then unfortunately during our construction last year in October we had to remove the two that are highlighted in green that we note as our amended which is today so and as you can see we are the full city block on this on this property so we incorporate the block the next tab really goes into the table of what we've done so there's a column for the original site plan which were the two trees that were removed and then the next column is the amended site plan which is today but the amended site plan column
113incorporates everything from as a total which so it includes everything from the original site plan as well so in our original site plan we remove two the total is now four including the two from the original so if you go down the list on the the really the bottom line the total number of replacement trees provided on the original site plan when we removed two trees we had to replace 14 now with the amended of a total of four trees being removed we are replacing the four trees with 33 trees total 14 from the original site plan and original and an additional 19 trees for the amended site plan to give us the 33 trees back when this happened in October we worked with our with Tiffany probably spent the entire month of November going
114through the correct site plan layout for these trees she helped us with the specific species of the trees obviously the to make sure that between the count the location and the species that are native to the area we came up with this plan which would be the next tab if you could so this is the overall plan color-coded the green are the 14 trees the 14 mitigation trees from the original site plan the purple are the proposed ten trees that are on site and then the blue or the I'm sorry the purple is the off-site trees there ten of them and then the blue are the nine trees so again all in total for the four trees that's for landmark trees that are removed we're planting 33 trees total on the site great thank you
115we'll head to mr. Khan for a staff report commuted thank you just wanted to reiterate what jennifer has said the petitioners required to mitigate for a total of a hundred and twenty six inches of tree diameter that reflects the removal of a total of four landmark trees to which were anticipated to be removed as part of the original site plan and two that were removed during construction so the the two trees that were not anticipated to be removed are required to be replaced at 200% instead of the 50% if they were anticipated so that's the quick summary of of what is being proposed staff does recommend approval of this particular revision which amends natural features mitigation plan and the landscaping plan because it complies with all applicable local state and federal ordinances standards and regulations
116it will not cause a public or private nuisance and it will not have a detrimental effect on public health safety and welfare I do want to mention that Tiffany Jacob Ozzy was the staff member who worked most extensively with Jennifer Roth on this petition Tiffany offered to be available if we had any specific technical questions for her and I can reach her by by cell phone great thank you at this time I'd like to open up the public hearing this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about this application to comment please state your name and address for the record public comment will be made by phone at the number appearing on the published agenda and displayed on the meetings video feed if you're interested in speaking at this time
117please call the meeting with the information provided city stamp 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 to speak please press star nine on your phone that's star nine on your phone hi caller seven five zero you might go ahead hello Planning Commission this is Julie Weatherby from South Main Street and I just wanted to comment this isn't so much on this particular what has been decided on this particular site because I think this is as they've done a good job there's a lot going on and they've worked hard on this Jennifer from red ago has been great to work with so I'm really glad she's on this project and that it's as a nearby neighbor
118you know we definitely definitely appreciate her work on this one of the things that has I noticed though in looking at this site and these trees and this is maybe just something to think about for future sites because again I don't want to derail this one I know a lot of work has gone into it but this block now is very treed and and that's great I don't I don't want to you know discourage that but what's happened is during the construction a lot of the street trees on the adjacent areas like across the street have gotten damaged by construction vehicles and so now this block is very treed and across the street are very kind of damaged street trees with limbs that have had to be hacked off and and so I'm just wondering
119in future sites if we can kind of look at the the area around these construction sites that maybe are impacted by the big construction trucks and not just plant trees right on the site itself which is now going to be very fully treed and the area around you know across the streets are going to have sort of a half of a street tree every so often so that's all I have to say and it's lovely seeing you all you're doing a great job and seumas working one so have a great night and I'll check in with you later I thank you miss Weatherby it was good to hear your voice is there anybody else who wishes to address the Planning Commission if so please press star 9 on your telephone seeing no one I will
120close the public hearing and I will read the motion the iner versity Planning Commission hereby approves the 950 green site plan for Planning Commission for Planning Commission updating natural features mitigation plan and the landscaping plan moved by Commissioner Mills seconded by Commissioner woods discussion commissioner mills i know that our ordinance in trying to figure out where where there's mitigation required for landmark trees we ask it's not just like the physical removal but it can also be like damaging the root zones my question is like were these trees like completely taken down or was is this mitigation required because you got too close to their roots there was probably between the two trees the one was probably because of the root damage because we are the full city block and that was the Elm on on
121Brown the other one was on the corner of Davis and looking at the site map Davis and green and really it's probably they're saying the the you know Tiffany's saying they were both damaged from construction we were doing intense underground utilities and road work in that area in fact between the city of Ann Arbor and us we were building water main in Greene Street and that tree was there but the issue is that they're saying that both trees were damaged from construction so were those trees still standing or did you end up taking them down we took them down and between Bret and Jeff and Tiffany they required us to take them down more of just to make sure from the safety standpoint because they were in the right away that they were removed right
122away got it okay and then the the second question that I had was like how do we know about this like what is the just for our you know for our own education like the process where you realize like oh there are two trees that are showing on the site plan is you know not being impacted but they were so it look it sounds like that's a comedy it sounded like it was part of a city staff inspection thing is that right I don't know if that's for Jennifer for or for Jeff I will add just quickly and then just jump in obviously you know we when we notice the trees we had sent an email directly to Tiffani to make sure we could come out at the same time mark Howell had come out
123for his building inspection and noticed the trees and commented so so it was all happening at the same time our recommendation or our hope was but you know the city between their arborist and Tiffani decided it was it was you know the trees were too far damaged we wanted to hire an arborist as well do what we could to take care of these trees and assess them now in the spring but the the decision was that the trees in their opinion were too far gone to be maintained I I will also you know and it's all hindsight but obviously when you're building on a city block it's a little bit tough to try and save trees you'll notice in the tab on the first from the original site plan prior to Tiffani the other person
124that was there had recommended we had five additional trees because she was worried about the trees in general so there's an additional five trees from the original site plan approval that we added because she asked us to so it is tough when you're building on a on a full site or a full block I should say fortunately I'm sorry sorry Jeff go ahead the only thing I would add is that best of plans sometimes get interrupted by construction activity recognizing that there are multiple contractors out there doing multiple things some of whom are less familiar with the natural features protection requirements of the site plan what we do is we have staff in the field pretty regularly monitoring situations like like this in hopes to prevent it but sometimes we're unable to we do include
125mitigation standards which are intentionally expensive and painful I think these two trees might cost more than $30,000 to replace maybe maybe more and that's that's with intent we want people to be cognizant of these natural features and we want to do everything we can to protect them and if for some reason they are damaged or removed then we do have a mechanism in place to get replacement trees mr. Leonard um yeah and I just I want to sort of follow up on that I I don't know in this circumstance but I call that there were a couple of sites that were flagged it's a routine course of city inspections around this time I don't know if that was specifically from our Forester or through the building department or through oftentimes through our grading permit if
126we see something a question you know we endeavor to communicate across those those folks to make sure that we're we're identifying what we can to to just point though you know there are times where if we identify that site it doesn't result in this for in this case our Forester did determine that these the these trees were compromised to such a point and that we were concerned about their presence in the right-of-way and the applicant of this Rafa's absolutely right we made the decision that they needed to be removed but in other circumstances we have found for example that protection fencing has not been installed correctly certainly when we can identify that we will work with the petitioner to identify that as well and remedy that situation hopefully before it gets to this point but
127in the case where the actual resource is lost that's when some of these consequences become more substantial for what for what it's worth I feel like I've been on commission for a while and I don't remember having this come that this kind of situation come back so I feel like if there's anybody in out in CTN watching us outside of Miss weather be I learned something new tonight about how the code works which is like that the mitigation in that there's a bigger penalty if you say on the site plan you know these are the trees that we're gonna keep and and because of the course of construction they get taken down like there isn't there's an additional penalty good job whoever thought of doing that before like and and and but also to paint
128the picture that like I think that the systems that we have in place must be pretty good to help for this because this is this is a pretty rare occurrence actually that we have people come back and have to go through the site planning process again for this particular instance unless there's something there's there's another like administrative process that this happens more often than what we see the site plans for I assume that that's not the case I'm seeing the shaking heads and if mr. Khan where you say like it's $30,000 for two trees like I'm guessing that doesn't people are trying to avoid that usually you make this mistake once got it all right well thank you Commissioner Abrams and many Commissioner breaks well yeah I was I mean I believe it on the
129commissioners for overtime this is the first time that I've seen a situation like this and I guess I wondered like because if the project that's already been approved and it's under construction if if we didn't approve it what would be the consequence of that like what is there any alternative plan in other words I'm wondering maybe why it feels more administrative I'm wondering is there something I'm missing about you know what what I should be considering when I'm thinking about this petition the ordinance is set up in a way when you so once the cyclin is approved we have incorporated into that as the natural features protection and mitigation plan and that by ordinance is very intended very specifically to be a very specific itemized detailed component of the site plan so the consequence if
130this happened and this step wasn't taken ultimately Jeff would go out to the site do his final inspection on the eve of a certificate of occupancy request and would not be able to issue a certificate of occupancy because the site was not compliant in this case with natural features protection and mitigation that obviously has a pretty significant impact to the petitioner who on that point is hopefully on the cusp of probably transitioning for money going out to at least some semblance of money coming in and I think that it was also you know to their credit as soon as this was identified jumped on it right away because making these decisions now as it relates to their site going forward as opposed to getting to that final stage to identify this problem that would be
131much more challenging to figure out how to then address and accommodate that higher level of mitigation but the way in which they're mitigating the loss of the church fees is is there is their discretion and that mitigation or is it pretty clear according to the ordinance what you have to do in order to compensate for that loss the ordinance is clear in the amount you have to mitigate but there is some flexibility provided to provide a certain amount on site and potentially provide a financial contribution to the cities to contribute to the city's forestry assets elsewhere or impressa made to the site so there is some flexibility but it's not a hundred percent there's a net the goal of that ordinance is to retain as many of the resources on the same site where they
132were lost as possible so maybe somebody could speak to the the decision that was made in regards to that like what percentage was mitigated on site versus the donation so required is a hundred and twenty six inches we've provided 99 inches and then the remainder because you have to you have to exceed the 50% and that's the goal is trying to get over the 50% so that's why we spent so much time with Tiffany to make sure we were laying this out strategically and then the remainder 27 inches becomes then in the in the agenda it's it's $5,400 that goes to a stormwater fund so that's how they that's how they do the math on that okay thank you mm-hmm mr. Briggs so I guess part of my question got answered there in terms of
133what happens if you can't mitigate entirely on-site and then the other part of that is it sounds like maybe the due diligence obviously wasn't taking care on the site but it sounds like they're from julie's called it may be the same there wasn't also a level of care for the for the adjacent neighborhood as well and so is there any should neighbors be informing the city in any certain way and is there any sort of recourse for other street trees potentially in the right-of-way that have been damaged as a part of this project either for this project or for other projects as well but specifically for this one um that is sort of a new concern that I have not heard to date so the tribe is I don't know what the best sort of
134reporting mechanism is for that but I know that as the city we do spend a fair amount of time coordinating with project developers on sort of their logistics I'm planning for how they're gonna access the site trying to limit sidewalk closures for example to the greatest extent possible I'm happy to follow up with the price start with the team that sort of helps with some of those aspects of the project and just see what mechanisms are in place for that it obviously you know we care deep our street trees and all of our natural resources so I'll see if I can follow up with you about what the proper channels for that would be going in the future Commissioner Gabe Randall so I have some concerns about the mitigation plan and that some of the
135species that were chosen are listed as a size that I think is gonna be really difficult to procure in the marketplace you have quite a few small understory trees a red bud and service berry and you list them as three-inch caliper and to my knowledge it's pretty difficult to be able to track those down in the real world you may be able to come up with them but I think it's unlikely especially given after 2008 with the recession a whole lot of trees weren't planted and so it's very difficult at this point to find increase take time to grow it's very difficult to to find big caliper trees right now because they just haven't been growing for long enough once people start planting them again what I would like to know and I'm wondering if
136there's some sort of synergistic thing going on with our former planning Commissioner Weatherbys comments that if you can't find these if you can for instance only find a two-inch red bud or a two inch service berry and you have three inches you know that are that are listed on your mitigation plan perhaps some of those gaps that are across the street some of the places that are more gap-toothed or things that have been damaged across the street that perhaps the the make up could be along some of the other city streets in this neighborhood where some of the construction equipment may have damaged other trees so I mean good luck if you can find it awesome that's great you've got sources that I don't know about but if you can't that there's some sort of
137mechanism in place to be able to make up the difference and it could just be more money and to the stormwater fund but given that it sounds like there was some damage done to the some of the neighboring trees across the street maybe there's a way to be able to fill in some of the gaps in other in other areas where some of the construction equipment may have had some impact and I would just add that you know the three inches I think you're right we're hearing that if this gets approved we've got to jump on this right away we were it was recommended we go to three inch just for the durability especially during football games in the sidewalk and the right-of-way threes in there right away so it's recommended we go to a
138three inch caliper again you know if you if you can find them great I just haven't I usually never spec over two inch for those particular species because they're hard to find and because they're small trees so they just don't get that huge and that way it's it's a lot easier I mean you're probably going to be able to find your tulip tree and and maybe your Nyssa maybe because they're a bigger tree the service berry and the Red Bud are just they're just smaller trees and people sell them that way so again if you can find them awesome that's great but if you can't I just would like to know that there's some sort of back-up plan and then perhaps that we might be able to make something work with some of the other
139trees that were damaged during the construction process as a way to be able to handle that further mr. Connor I was just gonna respond to commissioner Randle that I'll certainly talk to Tiffany Jacob Ozzy about this tomorrow about your concern and see what kind of flexibility she has with regard to sizes and replanting on adjacent right-of-way lawn extensions or possibly supplement the contribution to the city's stormwater fund so I'll follow up with that tomorrow oh just one other Avedon that it's still an administrative plan adjustment but just changing plan material in a in a mitigation plan can be approved administrative Lee if there's a species if there's a need to adjust species or something like that so again it's not it's an it's an administrative site plan it would not come to Planning Commission it
140would be something that would just occur at our department and in working with with Tiffany but that's another sort of relief valve if for some reason they can't find that they could come and say hey we haven't been able to find these species we'd like to propose something different you would have that ability to consider that and it may be that you all chose the the smaller species because of site khun's you know size constraints or overhead lines or you know whatever - so that's all part of you know how you would make that decision but yeah again like I think I'm glad that you all that that this is all happening and that the reckoning is happening but I just want to make sure that there's kind of plans in place for alternates if
141if things just don't work out in terms of the marketplace mr. woods I just wanted to say that in terms of the possibility of other street trees being damaged in that area or any other area of the city I would probably feel more comfortable if citizens would take pictures and certainly call the city to to let us know when things like that are happening because since we're talking about possibly you know mitigation and things like that I just think it's important probably even legally for the city to be able to actually document you know which trucks did it and it sounds like there's more than just the development work going on over there in that area but I just think it's always probably good to sort of document you know where damages is occurring in
142and who did it further discussion looks like where you are ready for a vote mr. Leonard if you can do the roll call please Commissioner Briggs yes Commissioner Mills yes Commissioner Milstein yes commissioner Gabe Randall yes commissioner Ackerman yes commissioner Soleil yes commissioner Abrams yes mr. hammerschmidt yes commissioner woods yes thank you right thank you everyone thank you all right moving on to audience participation this is an opportunity for persons to speak for up to three minutes about any matter if you are interested in speaking at this time please call the meeting with the information provided and press star 9 to raise your hand to indicate your desire to speak city staff will select callers using the last three digits of your phone number you'll hear an automated announcement though that the host is allowing
143you to speak so please call the number and press star nine to raise your hand hi caller 339 you're on the air caller three three nine would you like to speak to the Commission I don't see another hand raised all right seeing no other hand let's just give it one quick second all right we will move on to Commission proposed business are there any is there any Commission proposed business at this time commissioner Briggs and followed by Commissioner Ackerman I don't need Commission proposed business I just I did have a question before adjournment I was just wondering where we're at in terms of master plan consultant selection process I know that there is a survey that was being considered but the proposed contract consultant it's sort of the same status as I think the last
144update the proposed consultant was in contract was presented to City Council late last year council the City Council had some additional questions and suggested potentially a working session particularly with some of the resident volunteers that had participated with the city and selecting and recommending that consultant um those some of those citizen representatives are have expressed that they're know not participating in that any further so we have shared that information I think that we have that they raise a lot of great comments that were I think either in a more refined way added into the proposed scope of the contract that was that was previously presented some additional questions that do remain I have forwarded that sort of a couple of options to the community services administrator and the interim city administrator I just and I
145would just have to presume given everything else that's going on it hasn't elevated to making the determination about what the next steps are with that but with any luck that question will be answered in the coming months mr. Ackerman Thank You mr. chair two topics one I failed to comment on in council update justice I'd forgotten that are our last Planning Commission meeting had been cancelled but I wanted to give you an update on transit supported development have been my intention to bring forward a resolution to City Council giving us some clear direction demonstrating buying from City Council on the topic of the team one that we have been discussing was the subject of a public hearing of ours in the fall council with very limited debate put in to table it until the stay
146at home order was lifted but it's kind of unclear what those next steps may look like so I would leave it to kind of the the body maybe the chair vice chair or the ORAC to decide whether or not they want to keep taking that on we don't have any clear direction either way right now it's a no limbo and it is still on our Quinn so I would leave it to the body to decide if you want to continue to work on it I don't think that there there are any parliamentary issues with that but totally totally up to the body give you the space to make that decision and happy to to talk about fun as well the other one was with respect to accessory dwelling units mr. Leonard brought to my attention
147the when we updated the unified development code there was a scriveners error omitted a zoning districts 480 used to be permitted with them meaning there's a zoning district left off the mouse and so unfortunately it wasn't caught in time or actually mr. Vieau when I walk through the process and maybe explain what my attempts to rectify that yeah sure um when the accessory dwelling in ordinance was originally amended in 2016 it was put in place at that time at the time of adoption in all the r-1 districts and also in the art to a district on the intention at the are to a inclusion I think generally was that we do have some lots in the city that don't meet the minimum lot size in the RTA districts to actually fully allow a duplex this
148would be an opportunity for those to provide a ad you if you were a single-family properties still exceeding the minimum lot size requirements still meeting all the other requirements so they'd use so that was enacted when the UDC was adopted that our 2a district was left off inadvertently subsequent after that adoption of UDC the city council did direct staff from the Planning Commission to look at a wide variety of potential ways to modify the accessory dwelling unit ordinance to potentially consider more realization of it so you as the Commission worked on a series of amendments at that time that zoning district was actually included in a wider recommendation of actually expanding it to potentially other zoning districts as well the City Council ultimately rejected those proposed amendments and so my my position on this is
149that while perhaps lost in some of the crossfire of some of that back and forth of amendments the council is now taken sort of a very specific action not to expand the zoning districts by which accessory dwelling units were approved and so it loses a bit of that scriveners error in my lens as mr. Ackerman has indicated so is that the background helpful at all yeah and what I would hope that the body would consider would be simply queuing up a simple ordinance amendment to riad that some district was the original intent of the ordinance in 2016 it would go through our normal process but hopefully be pretty straightforward and serving some peas into our UDC table and moving on with our lives so I just wanted to insert that as well it relates just
150to add to that in um mr. Ackerman you probably definitely speak to this better but it seems like what I remember from that council discussion was not an outright rejection of the ad use but rather a suggestion that more community input was required before we could move forward with that those recommendations and so I wonder if there's been any consideration put into place to gathering more community input on this matter at least perhaps you know if not separately at least explicitly let me get started on the master plan update so that perhaps those recommendations could go forward at some point when when and if that community input is received yeah absolutely I think that's a great idea obviously community engagement comes with cost associated and staff time and it for to the degree that I
151think some colleagues will be satisfied that can we you know if I put your son doesn't get thrown around like least I liked your idea everyone into the master plan on budget the timing of that I can't promise you I'm on council retiring in November perhaps someone else at this table mr. Mill's so on the on the ad you like scriveners error this I can't remember if we called it like Zorro 2.0 or UDC I can't remember exactly what number we gave it 4p we're not counsel or on Planning Commission than the process that we went through to get us the UDC was called Zorro the zoning ordinance reorganization and we knew that there would be things that fell through the cracks like that we're just not translated appropriately and we went through one batch
152of those already are there do you know Brett if there's anything else besides this or have have we do we think we've taken care of all of the other kind of translation errors or omissions of that that were inadvertent we so just for everybody's like sake who wasn't this was something that was like started well before I got on Planning Commission five years ago and like to cook for a while the hope was doing Zorro to give get us a unified development code that was easier to read we knew that there could be some translation issues and then it would be easier to amend like to see where we actually wanted to make substantive changes not just like reorganizations changes with substantive changes so this in my mind is still in the first set of
153like we've translated it and if the translation was not perfect and so is there anything else that's kind of missed in that translation um I probably I don't know at the top of my head I probably want to go back to my team and specifically city planner Tulio who I sort of tasked with being a bit of the manager of all those amendments so we can make sure we're keeping track of them I we've we've made a lot of those sort of 2.0 Corrections we've done a fair amount of amending to the UDC since it was adopted and I don't know that we have been I'm necessarily always waiting to package those sort of you know Scrivener kind of changes sometimes they've they've they've been packaged with other changes to similar sections for example I'm
154just some of the examples that we have addressed since that time for example you recall we made a clarification to parks donation that if you doneita perfectly honest particle development you can still calculate that in any sort of density calculations I think we had an area height and placement adjustment to one of our excuse tables so we've we have made a series of those Corrections I guess what I'm taking from what you're suggesting is if we're gonna do that let's let's maybe package together everything that we have in our list in that regard and so I'm you know I'm happy I'm happy to do that I don't I don't think that was just significant but if there are other things that were present from that original kind of first UDC adoption we could we could
155link those well it's just to keep up to date because you know we the intention of Zohreh was not to change the intent like we were actually really there were pages and pages of things that we had to go through to say like hmm this looks really funky like should we actually translate it into the new version and and we were pretty brutal like very diligent about saying like no we want this is not about changing the ordinance now it is about making it easier to understand easier for people to read and so um I want to make sure that like if we do that we don't keep those things too long I think it makes tons of sense commissioner Ackerman so like bring that up again to just be clear that this was this
156was not intentional and and and so whether it's packaged together or just an opportunity to again say like let's let's make sure that we were true to what the goals of zorro were all about and and then and I think that that then helps us differentiate between like this just transcription versus policy change right like ordinance changing and recognizing just like just like people in this body like we have don't all have that history council doesn't all have that history either and so I think that that's also helpful for like so that there is just some collective knowledge like it helps potentially demonstrate like kind of what what that was all about and how how that undertaking was so massive that the idea that a cup like an X being left off the table while
157it's unfortunate was like it was crazy people like you should have seen the number of footnotes that were involved and that in that translation it was it was quite an undertaking obviously Commissioner Mills was still scarred I am slightly scarred I still have the like a couple of the drafts it was impressive I don't like alexis is definitely a hero there so yeah I think them memo to council will be laser-focused and crystal clear yeah but yeah very clearly not a policy change fixing anonymous and it's easy to make here alright I am in favor of continuing to push t1 I think it's it's important and I think whether it's now or later I think it's something that we should continue working on since we've already spent it's like a member we've spent two working
158sessions on it I think we have a decent framework around it so I would like to continue working on that as much as our work plan will allow for it to be worked on I'd like to keep pushing that forward as much as we possibly can so if it requires you know obviously I'll require additional working sessions but I do want to keep that moving forward personally I don't know if anyone's strongly opposed to it but I think we should continue that conversation with t1 zoning all right I'm seeing a lot of thumbs up Brett so appreciated that leadership all right any further proposed business or anything else you guys would like to talk about seeing no one I will take a motion to adjourn move by Commissioner hammerschmidt seconded by Commissioner woods all those
159in favor in German please say aye aye aye all right we are a turn thank you have a great night you