Planning Commission 7-16-19 (continued)

001I think most of my questions have been answered since I've just been listening the one question that I had it's just more of a clarification regarding this the staff report at the very end of it you mentioned sort of sort of suggest that one of the benefits is that there are sidewalks on both sides of the street I'm encouraging pedestrian travel and I guess I was assuming that that was a requirement of our development is that is that not required it may not be a requirement but I requested it in the planning comments and a connection so you could traverse through the site so I was part of the pedestrian connectivity I did request it and the petitioner did respond okay so it's but it's not required I mean you you requested it was provided

002does our code need to change to make that no I believe it I would have to double-check but I think they would want sidewalks the engineering department would request sidewalks throughout that throughout the site okay I just wanted to that snot part of our our standard practice and rules I guess another clarification from what came up in in the comments and the questions so the the sanitary the sewage that is my understanding that it is not there's enough capacity currently there to handle what the site is producing is that what I heard there's no make sure I heard that yeah I just looked up the previous sanitary sewer I believe the utilities are adequate to accommodate the proposal okay okay that's that was one piece and then in terms of what we require in terms

003of mitigation maybe I'll just follow up with that later so I understand those okay further discussion I'm sure survey the basements the gradient plan we talked about walkouts at least on the eastern side of the property are the center connected units also walkouts looking at the kind of site section it looks like they might just to understand like the capacity of some of those units like you would think their view out in the center and along that northeastern edge in order for us to basically meet the grades that exist either to preserve the trees at the edge of the trees at the central location of the site linear line from the eastern line yes so the central block connected units if you're standing at the sidewalks at the roadway you'd slightly rise to the front

004doors of the units you'd go into the unit that first floor elevation is roughly four to five feet above the grade behind the unit so that you basically have the exposed basement foundation there and the reason to do that is to get that grade to drop in that area to preserve the trees that exist central to that block and then on the eastern side you're talking on the northeast corner we kind of do the same thing with the building foundations so that we can drop down to the existing grade because that northeast corners lower point and then from a building standpoint as they're attended for egress windows or any sort of windows in those basement foundations you our intent was to make the basement you know a normal eight foot which is kind of a

005typical basement we if we do that we're required by the building code to put an egress window in so yes there would be however when we talk about the whole reason why and we could probably have a long discussion that the basements I want them for storage and I think everyone lose to say the fact that you're not supposed to finish the basement without a permit I mean that's that's what you have a building department for it and we're putting it right in the actual documents that you cannot finish them they know that right up front so it's not that oh gee I have something that maybe could be turned into a habitable space it's right in there that they can't you know the other is is we just make it 8 feet 5 inches

006I mean 7 feet 5 inches and then it can't be finished and it's just the world's tallest crawl so it just is being more conventional trying to be up front and say let's make this so people have a good storage space because people have stuff and rather than set it outside or fill the garage and have the car set out and people complain because I'm trying to give the people storage in a 2,000 square foot house because it costs out saying whether I make it usable for storage or not that's been part of the conversation is trying to understand that 2,000 square foot you know first and second floor 3000 would be the basement finishing what I'm hearing from you is the language says you can't finish the basement so you can't go above 2,000

007square and that's where we're proposing it you're you're open to that as the condition cannot be finished that's correct we propose that we won't put it right in there from a staff perspective we looked into this and when we're gonna find difficulties yes they would have to come in for a building permit but not everybody actually comes in for a building permit to finish their basement then we're gonna get ourselves into enforcement of okay they finished a basement staff is now gonna have to enforce on a finished basement I did have a brief discussion with their assessor's office they do not count anything above the basement as part of their floor area they assess for a finished basement but they don't count it in their calculation so staff thought it might be easier at least

008in the future for a building department planning department zoning enforcement that to allow those finished basements you know I just don't know if we're gonna be able to enforce or our building departments going to recall they're gonna have to put a hold and deny any type of finished basement permit that comes in that language says you cannot finish her basement I mean it's always an enforcement condition but if a permit did come in it would have to go through zoning compliance review that's correct it would look at the PUD and understand that the permit would get denied there's a complaint sort of circumstance so if that language is true and we're trying to hold a certain square footage intensities I actually feel more comfortable with the language is in there to catch it if you

009go through the proper channels I think in all circumstances of the city people can find alternative ways and we can only enforce what we know okay Commissioner Millis staff we do have our 1e another r1e district on the north side of town how does that include basements it does and they that was under the previous end definition of habitable space they constructed basements that were not habitable space that exceeded the 2,000 square feet we have had numerous requests for people to now come in and finish those basements and it's been a it's been a challenge on how to respond to that so what we have as you're the petitioner refer to it they are finishing many of those basements with a shorter ceiling height that makes it illegal to finish those basements in the future

010it's a messy example of how we're trying to clarify the language in this circumstance can you recall I don't know either I'm not know is there I don't know that there was anybody on this table that was around when we established the r4 r1e district oh yes our chair see about what the what the intention was the intention at that time I don't remember ever having a conversation about basements I think it was it'd be I actually don't think it ever came up and my thinking behind it was it was like any other district that they are able to finish their basements I think ultimately the goal was to get smaller / - to get smaller homes build smaller units to be built whether a basement was finished or not I don't think that really

011ever came up this is the first time hearing about this conversation and now because I've sold several of the properties on north sky that makes a whole lot more sense as to why they're building them the way they are but I don't remember ever recalling that conversation I I think we just read it like every other zoning district got it so what I see right is that there's this tension here between what are the public benefits and what's the risk of leaving it as it is right versus what what are the benefits then that become of the PUD so and you got I can lay it out or or I can defer to staff who I'm sure has grappled with this to some extent like because that's what I'm trying I'm trying to weigh in

012my mind there are the there are the benefits of this PUD in terms of the storm water detention retention especially from the off-site requirement that's above and beyond and there's the Natural Area Preservation benefits right it's the same number of units in either situation there are there's the benefit of having a different housing product here in terms of the duplexes or the attached units that we couldn't do in the r1e underlying but at least as developed or there's there's got to be a price differential by it being able to finish your basement versus not and so in the existing r1 ease owning right there potential particularly for those houses houses at the perimeter right those would be more affordable units because you cannot you could not finish the basement under current ordinance I want to

013share with like the people listening on TV and the people here like yeah there are always trade-offs in this and I really don't know what the you know what the right one is but these are the kind of things lucky us that we get to grapple with on a regular basis so I will shut up I'm concerned about the basement thing just because again it potentially 3,000 square foot well no you can say that you can't finish it but if you are allowed to build it to the height where people might like that's I don't know I think just to add a little bit my personal experience is that I would estimate that 75% of people who finish their basements whether they hire a contractor or they do it themselves will not pull apartment sorry

014mr. Leonard but that is my experience when I do research on a property and I look at the building permits they were pulled ah I am I am pleasantly surprised when one is pulled that's that's it's a surprise to me when one is pulled as mr. moe steam I know so even though mr. Heisler saying this will be in the association bylaws and the city won't issue permits those basements some of those basements will be finished and I can totally understand where the staffs perspective is all right they started to finish in their basement how are we gonna enforce that they've taken it apart I don't know they answer that question commissioner Mills so the solution there is to say that the way the we are identify square footage which includes all of the floors

015including the basement right you can't exceed that right that's the what this also means though is that these people can't put an addition onto their house if they max out at 2,000 feet right they can't add a sunroom in the back they can't right and so again though one of the benefits of the are the the benefit of the r1e is to have reasonably sized homes says the woman who lives in 1,300 square feet right look like reasonable a smallish footprint house and so that's tricky that's the one as far as how you enforce it if they did it it's right in the bylaws that is that they have to remove it if they finish a basement and the association by state statute has assessment powers and that they'll assess against a homeowner if to

016remove it I mean it's right in there that's what I planned on doing I didn't plan on making it a problem for everyone else it's it's right there it's law basically it's you know a statute here it is here's the bylaws we make them we have to live with that and the people buy it they know it will it decrease the value of it so yeah but I want I think we should think about how people live and have the storage for all the different things kids have you don't really want place that setting out the little type things in the winter and app you'd rather see them inside downstairs where kids some activity that type of thing that's what I'm looking for that livable space and I'm willing to make accommodations not to put

017it on the city to do and you can do that with assessment powers with condominium documents mr. Leonard yeah sure so they we've seen these housing type ologies before presented to us and with that square footage cab finishing the basement or not it's protecting the [Music] scale that were seen in the neighborhood there's also kind of there within the PUD the single are the single story homes lining part of the outside perimeter as part of it so there is kind of some tiered scale within this property that I find a good balance and that there is kind of that distribute distribution of different home typology so we've got the two-story the one-story and the connected and so I'm not I want to get clarifying questions about about the basements just to kind of know the

018circumstance but I'm not concerned about the basement as the condition of this pewdie losing a benefit I think the natural features as the benefit to this and the progress that it's made is the substantial part and I think single you know single story to story and attached it's a great diversity within this development that can you know put a lot different people together too so it's interesting it's coming up for the Sony maybe you know for you know future we talked about these these zoning areas but for this one I feel comfortable you know with how the basement circumstance is gonna play out mr. hammerschmidt thank you so clearly I was not here for any of the previous discussions of this project so I'm trying really hard to come up to speed and I just

019keep thinking about what it would be like to live here especially I have small children and the only insurance point is on Packard Road I guess and also thinking this is proposed to be a PUD and there should be public benefit are there other public benefits that we're not thinking about and I'm also not a landscape architects but I'm wondering if this has come up before about the potential of any of these stormwater retention ponds becoming some sort of useable park space have you guys had those discussions or any sort of I don't know what the park space if there's any sort of park space dedication or if it's a fee yeah I don't have controls I would toggle down but there is some open space on site yeah if mr. Colbert could so on

020the west side of the site the central west side there's also connecting paths but up in the kind of a kind of is it the south southeast corner also there's nothing to this rounding neighborhoods is it possible to make connections in the surrounding neighborhoods is that just I'm just struggling with it insularity of this and having to you know to access Borough Park you have to go out onto I mean if that's the only way to do it this the only way to do it I guess I just I'm thinking about trying like a living here and pushing a stroller down Packard and the sidewalks don't look great yeah I guess I would just general from the staff perspective it's something we I think it came up in a maybe been the area plan I'm

021not sure but I think the question was raised I think the petitioner had referenced just the barriers because it's surrounded by individual Lots there there are no public engagements or right away easements that are easy to connect to I don't know if you've had any further investigation of that yeah so we have a couple of areas that don't and come encumber the site with detention that are open on the west side and then up by the entranceway we do have walks surrounding or on each side of the private roadways they're not public roadways they're private road waste so I'm not certain that the ordinance states you have to have walks on both sides but we have those we have a walk that bisects the central block of the property it had come up with the

022previous plans area plan the site plan that was ultimately denied and this plan to work to try to achieve easement on one of the private properties adjacent to the site so though there could be cut through to those neighborhoods and we haven't had anybody come forth and mention that we have talked about it at many meetings when we've had our citizen participation meetings and so on but nobody's come forth with that we did here at citizen participation meetings that there was a concern with school-age children walking through the neighbors yards where we noted that there are existing fences that would prohibit that perceived nuisance as far as using storm water detention for parkland area because this is a drainage district the county has specific requirements and easements that will encumber those areas that will prohibit

023many things and it also kind of dictates where the landscape plantings have to be and so on - one other thing I'll mention is part of the project we are proposing the parkland contribution as well further discussion mr. covert I have a quick question erection maybe it's not so quick can you just because we've talked quite a bit can you go through and just give us bullet points of all the public benefits of this site I don't need full explanations I just want I want to make sure that I am not forgetting any of them yep so the PD benefits the public benefits of this PUD we were identifying as diverse housing typology with the attached units and limited density and the single-family homes we were looking at the natural features preservation woodland landmark trees

024including the substantial natural features maintenance plan we were looking at the stormwater management as exceeding the requirements and addressing historical flooding issues thank you for their discussion are we ready for a vote all right it looks like we are okay so the motion is as presented in the staff report with the added condition that the house on the historic house and the property remain on site until a grading permit is issued to provide an opportunity for moving the house and or other preservation efforts and it's both of the motions Commissioner Milstein yes Commissioner Mills yeah commissioner give Randall yes Commissioner Evans yes Commissioner Ackerman no Commissioner Briggs yes Commissioner hammerschmidt Commissioner Sauve yes motion carries thank you all right moving on to regular business the first item on our agenda is 10 a Shell station

025Planned Unit development modifications for city council approval we will start with the petitioner presentation you'll have 10 minutes to present we will then move on to staff report public hearing and then discussion and quattro construction propose proposition is to add on to the addition and I add addition onto the existing station that's it in Havana Harbor Celine Road and Eisenhower right at the very beginning the existing building was built 96 I think is when we originally built and modified again a few years ago where they put Tim Martin's daddy they had the approval of a PUD back then and did some public benefit the area we're going to add on to is to the south of the building and we're going to we proposed to enclose the open D pension pond and put in underground

026storm water detention along with the treatment facility the proposed additions about four thousand seven hundred and twelve feet and there will be an office situated on the top of the building for a second story with a for the owner just simply for him to sit up there and there's gonna be seven hundred and twenty foot of additional storage added for the gas station he's having a little trouble right there yeah with storage at the moment it's getting a little inside the store as far as that goes we've had a couple citizen participation meetings and we had some suggestions come up from the neighbor Cranbrook to the south I believe they provided a letter stipulating such presently there are 26 spaces 20 are required there's six over the minimum requirement where we're going to construct over

027over the one area right here where there is eight spaces a eight tire space is there and we're gonna and we're going to create 14 new spaces and that would be by enclosing the detention facility the detention pond over to the corner we're gonna modify the area we're putting in some additional land landscaping we got additional right-of-way trees and street trees to additional street trees bioretention in the area and we're providing some pedestrian walkway up to the area so we are enclosing 8 and where we are excuse me one second and we provide creating 21 new spaces the new development calls out for 14 spaces of which we calculated all retail but there is 800 square feet that is just going to be primarily designated to the owner for his storage in the back of

028the building that's pretty much it thank you very much ok will now head over to mr. Chang for staff report yeah just to follow up on that we do also for this for the parking counts we we count the pump station so they've got some pump stations there and that is we've counted 12 additional parking spaces so the pumps count as far as the parking goes it does meet with the previously approved supplemental regulations as far as area height parking regulations so there were no changes to the supplemental regulations they're also requesting a landscape modification to screen the proposed new parking lot fuel stations are a little different they require 15 feet width with a 30 inch wall a typical right-of-way screening would require 10 feet and a 30 inch type of hedge berm or

029wall and they are meeting that with 10 feet and a hedge berm wall in this case it's going to be a berm that's 30 inches that at least from a landscaping perspective does meet the screening intent from the right away to the proposed parking lot and I'm here to answer any questions you may have thank you at this time I'd like to open up the public hearing if there are any members in the audience who wish to address the Planning Commission please step forward to state your name and address for the record you'll have up to three minutes to address the Planning Commission good my name is Alex DK and I represent Cranbrook village shopping centers which is that property located on the northeast of the Shell station so I'm here today because we have

030some concerns regarding the application what we see are as some inaccuracies in the traffic study report and some omissions that we think contribute to some safety concerns related to traffic and parking on the site as the applicant said they're adding nearly 5,000 square feet as an addition if you're not familiar this is already a very congested parking area and our main concern is in the traffic study they don't mention first it's inaccurate it says it's only a 1,500 square foot addition and this is much larger we anticipate a lot more use a lot more traffic it also doesn't mention the Tim Hortons drive-through restaurant and so we're concerned that these things weren't properly accounted for and that the parking space is and I know Chris mentioned some of those are the gas pump lanes nothing

031in the traffic study kind of mentioned how those lanes are going to interact those are going to be moving cars and not you know stationary regular parking spots mark will also add to this but we're missing some dimensional measurements in the parking lot and so it's hard to tell actually what the capacity for parking is here this is something we're just concerned about safety here and I can already congested area you know in a big addition related to that as I've said Cranbrook is located on the east side there's a steep parking or a steep slope leading up to the Shell station I think there's a concern that if there's an adequate parking on this site people are gonna start parking on crammed barque site and walk up this steep slope we think that's just

032dangerous there's it's not you know provided for pedestrian cross traffic that way at a minimum we would ask that offense goes up that was brought up at the I think was brought up at the citizen participation meeting I think the contractor thought it was also a good idea it's something we would like to see added at a minimum related to the supplemental regulations and kind of this PUD modification approval we just don't think it meets the standards again there's a lot of inaccuracies and missing information in the traffic report the site plan doesn't have certain dimensional requirements and we just we can't get a sense of how the congested parking is going to be fixed on this site and I think that really shifts the burden to neighbors like Cranbrook to have to deal with

033people parking on their site and potential liability with that pedestrian cross traffic so we don't think it actually meets the pewdie standard of review which requires you know a safe assessment of pedestrian vehicular traffic and the Supplemental regulations from when it was approved in 2013 as well we would ask that you know these things be considered a little bit further maybe a more detailed report provided addressing these issues and again at a minimum at least a fence in between the two sites thank you good evening my name is mark drain I'm an architect with raghav architects my address is three to five zero zero Telegraph Road being in farmers Michigan suite 250 I was asked to review the set of drawings on behalf of Cranbrook I'm opposed to this development because I don't believe that

034the applicant is provided all the information that's required for both the staff the Planning Commission or the public to understand the application and the proposal usually when I'm usually on the other side of the table I'm always putting these plans together and the first thing I do is I go to the checklist what's on the checklist let's provide that their proposals do not include the Alta survey existing or proposed contours dimensional layout specifically we were talking about the parking spaces at the pump there's 12 space parking spaces that are being counted they're not shown on the plan I'd like to see all those work with dimensions I think that'll be appropriate for everybody to see those there's no photometric plan that was on the list I don't see that vertical sections through the buildings perspective

035renderings of the buildings dimension floor plans there's I can't even calculate the square footage of the floor plans because I don't believe that they were drafted correctly there's no indication of outdoor sales on this site I know you need parking for that there's no indication and any of the parking calculations about that there was a restaurant on the site and then we should be calculating the parking for restaurant use there's no loading area provided I don't want trucks to go from because they can't go to a 24 hour gas station and they Tim Horton's that's a open from 6:00 o'clock in the morning to 11 o'clock at night there's no place to load they're gonna load a Cranbrook I don't think that's a safe situation we would like to see a decorative fence along the

036property line because there are doors that open up to our property line and within 5 feet of our property line there's a door and I don't want people to go out that door and fall down that hill and again there's a lot of information on the elevations that that aren't correct you know the scales are wrong the the potion is wrong that the scales are wrong it just needs to be cleaned up and once we see what the real proposal is then we can all see and enjoy you know hopefully a new development but until then I don't think anybody can make that decision thank you thank you is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission regrets this petition seeing no one I will close the public hearing and

037I will read the motion the in Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approved the Shell gas station Planned Unit development PUD site plan and associated landscape modifications move by Commissioner Mills seconded by mr. Ackerman discussion mr. Ackerman here I thought we were gonna have an easy one mr. Chang er mr. Leonard Keene please speak to the objections we just heard specifically about the completeness of the application continue that while we have discussion you could put a fence up that is entirely up to the petitioner they want to put one up or the actual residents owners would like to put a requirement I believe there's a couple of slides that would show I don't know if he's got a PowerPoint show 12 spaces it's also broken down again may not

038again this one with this hyperlink that you could look to see in fact you can just barely catch it how they came up with their particle calculations breaking it down I think my restaurant off this wait yeah I can probably help out a little bit gee the the initial PUD was all approved we're adding on to just to the south side of the area so we just took that particular side so the topographic and all the dimensional and everything else with the with the existing pumps and all the parking we're all in the previous application already reviewed through engineering already reviewed for planning and already approved so we took this as just the addition and with the addition on the other side and after receiving through the citizen participation meeting some of the concerns we

039came back and we did as Chris just mentioned we went back through we calculated with the restaurant and because previously it wasn't put on as a restaurant it just had right through and it just had the the filling station at retail is how they did it previously so we went back we put the restaurant in at 680 feet you calculated the square that's that required for spaces and we still in excess of three spaces or porous basic of what the total required if we use both so there wasn't really lack of information the information was just targeted towards the area and concerned where where we're working okay and then that thank you and then the dimensions of your drawing within the parking lot I do want to respond to that yeah all the dimensions are

040correct and they've all been reviewed through engineering and through staff we're all of your staff everybody has been through it several times and everybody's very did you submit a photometric plan the photometric plan no because it was an existing photometric and we're not we're not doing any additional I shouldn't say that yes we are going to we are going to have some lighting on the additional building but it was being negligible so we didn't provide a new photometric okay just so you know new light poles being there anything that's major that's really great to know just so you know we're working as a city to separate commissions this commission being one of them towards revising all of our lighting ordinances and we're trying to work towards the dark sky policy right can you speak to

041whether or not your lights would be compliant with that it would be great if we I can't speak to the existing canopy as it sits now because that was constructed like I said 97 or so and I'm not sure if it was upgraded to LED the owner is here they did conform to that where they went through and just renovated the canopy recently and installed LED lighting soon that time they would add been in compliance with the city on the proposed 4,700 square feet the lighting the the where our concerns be is like a lot of most of it revolves around shielding and orientation of the light would you be willing to work with staff to make sure that you're shielding it appropriately and I know what we're hoping to achieve as a city just

042a beauty presents the a download-only yeah I'd be appreciated and I saw I'd looked at staff to help with that Oh defense defense is in the back there and right now there is a I went out to shot it there's about oh one on four gradient going off the back of the property into their their their thing it came up in our citizens participation meeting would we be willing to do the fence as I put to the to the neighbor is the applicant or the owner is very amenable to any reasonable request so I thought you know it's as far as a three foot high fence or something small was you know it was something that he would probably consider I brought it back to him then they sent us offense that they want at

043six foot high and all and we didn't want it to be like a trash collector in between the building and the fence in an area where just people are because we get a lot of cross traffic and the utility beloved fence just to keep people from walking is that the utility of the three-foot fence it's not blocking anything I thought it would be there just over state DSU and to keep later days by cutting through the owner of the property there's a lot of cross foot traffic between the two properties yeah where they come over to use the Tim Hortons and the and bites first that people are there parking and going into Whole Foods and grabbing their food and doing things like that so there's the owner would rather not install a fence because

044he likes to encourage that type of traffic going back and forth especially on on big events at this stadium and stuff like that there's as as you know a lot of a lot of people oh yeah backed into one area okay so I'm hearing may be amenable to the three football - yeah I'll leave it there for now Danny Thank You mr. brings so on the fence topic definitely not like I understand the concerns of Cranbrook don't share them people are a trip going across those so you know across they want to trek down the hill lovely um Howard to them I think that's what we want to encourage I'd love to see a little sidewalk there if we're gonna encourage anything else right but I understand the 88 issues around that however my bigger

045issue on this is understanding why this I still don't understand besides people as a parent love for Tim Horton what the public benefit was around a PUD back in 2014 and how this increased proposal is provided but if this had been if this all had been put together at that time and and the Commission was considering this proposal as it is exists today I can you help me better understand what that public benefit was seen then and and how that might complement it or not so this was approved approximately five years ago as a PUD it was mostly a service station and it is an entry point into the city can't I don't have a pointer but if you look at a couple of areas on the site right at the corner thank you you

046can see that there's a public meeting area for pedestrians there's also another little public meeting area right around where the drive-thru goes in there are also required to actually use certain types of building material for this fuel station as part of the public benefit that's off the top of my head I'd have to go back and pull the supplemental rags pedestrian connections but those were the off top my head what the public benefits were for the for the Shell station so with this existing sort of expansion and development would that have been I don't know what those zoning was previously would this have been something that would have been permissible with well it was the underlying zoning is the c3 which is a fringe type commercial zoning that would allow obviously a service station drive

047through a special exception use which it did come back in for and it does follow it actually allows for up to 150 percent of the of the floor area by right there at 15% so but there's just - it's unlikely I think they're going to be coming back for any type of expansion because they're limited by parking I can't see how they could do any more additions because of the park so this site is just about is built out as it's going to get commissioned Gabe Randall I'm having a hard time with the layout plan as well okay and there are some things that I'm seeing here that I'm actually kind of surprised to got through staff review was some of this because when I look at the proposed parking and I'm zooming in on

048sort of each racket so I can read what's going on and it's it's hard to it's hard to follow some of this it's not it's not the cleanest graphics I've ever seen in terms of sort of clarity of how these things are put together the aisle that you're supposed to drive down you know when I lay out a parking lot there's a you know 18 to 20 foot I or 20 to 22 foot aisle that goes down the middle of your parking lot you have a bunch of parking spaces across from what looks like an elevator it is I looked in your grading plan there's a curb across there's like there's a if you look at the layout plan there looks like there's like a pavement sidewalk zone on the corner of the building that

049has like the overflow drain in it and things like that that's that's a step up okay that's fine but that I'm referring to that kind of polygon there that is a curved structure there it looks like a sidewalk with it had a top occurred bottom curve elevation on the grading plan that is protruding into your drive aisle by like several feet so in other words if I park in some of those spots opposite of that and then other cars come in and park beside me there's no way for me to be able to back out and not go up over the curb because you need at least 20 feet behind those spaces in order to be able to let those spaces Sheetz III indicates the dimension between it it actually exceeds the plain width of

050the city requirement well but look at what you've got on your layout plan what I see is that you've got your minimum dimension there is 15 feet okay no it's 22 feet 20 feet what Seidenberg what what sheet should I be looking at I'm looking at a site layout it's on c3 what I see 20-foot between parking and that's 20 feet that's further down okay so those people are fine okay I see what you're saying there's 15 feet excuse me yeah I know believe me I I need mine too I get it and and they printed on a small thing so right that was that was maintaining 20 feet I think probably what is going on and why it did get through staff and stuff is there's an easement running right along the property line

051there that is 12 feet or 13 feet wide we've been playing a little havoc with because of the underground detention it's a storm it's sanitary sewer so we can't really construct over the easement area so that area in front of there was going from 15 to 10 and I assure you that is 20 feet there for the read for the bioretention it's just I kept moving from 10 to 15 so what I'm this polygon of the sidewalk right how far is that from the back of 20 feet 20 feet from from yes so this is wrong in the way that dimension on there must have been but but it's not lining up you have 20-foot dimension further down and this thing is protruding into that dimension so it's like something screwy here something's screwy here

052because either that sidewalk should line up with the aisle it's required to have 20 feet right and the bioretention worked out to it so in other words this sidewalk is shown in correct that I think what is it's what month what must have happened is just what was it two days ago Christmas when you recommended switching to a small car again you went to a small car over there you sent it over to Caitlin when we were trying to get that to go to that small car and move that for a walkway through there for pedestrian access we'd have to look at that to see if yeah small on e85 16 it was so we might be able to reduce some of the spaces to small car parking which would widen the aisle but I

053don't know if it's going to meet the 20 that probably happened in our office when she moved it for the small cars from moved over but there was required 20 feet and that bioretention was approved I'm not I'm not I'm not even thinking about the bio engine right now I'm just thinking about the site layout on the top and that right now if I park in one of those spots you're absolutely I wouldn't be able to back up and get out it had to be 20 feet and it it was 20 feet this change was just made two days ago and I think it just came up because of the small car and I think it was an error in my office okay that is definitely required to be 20 feet because right now it

054seems like it would also be hard for there's like an when you first pull in there's a there's a landscape Island the one that has a radius of five feet that protrudes out further so what I'm trying to imagine is the dumpster truck being able to get down the middle of that thing given if this thing is filled with cars because that thing protrudes further out like I don't know there just feel like it needs to be yes I've had a hard time reading these drawings and I just feel like there's some things that need to be cleaned up so I feel like it's hard to evaluate it if it's not like the way it's really supposed to be that's how I feel about it I actually respect fully disagree in the fence thing because

055if that is a steep slope on the other side then if they owned that steep slope then it's their liability and they're willing to take the risk to be able to let people go back and forth to Whole Foods and do their full shopping experience with whatever that is but it's not on their property it's Cranbrook s-- liability if somebody falls down that thing so I feel like there needs to be a fence there as much as I want to encourage people to be able to move back and forth I don't feel like we should if it's their risk to take then that's one thing and they're willing to do that but it's not their risk it's somebody else's the actual slope in this particular area and I see what you did when she adjusted

056to the small park car parking for the thing she actually moved the curb which he shouldn't have so it went from 16 to 20 and that's why that's not 20 feet because the in the original proposal in the approved document that we had put forth before staff the the dumpster is in the center of the 20 foot lane and the 20 foot lane lines up with that curb I think all she did was is in my office I was out the field quite a bit today she was moving things around to make the small car park so we had it there and she moved that curb in 4 feet instead of okay the opposite so I guess I feel like I need to have this thing cleaned up but in the answer to your question

057as far as the liability the slope over to the south side of the property is down to probably the one on six at the southern end and right at the station end it's like a one on four one on five if you go further to the north it's like a 1 on 2 when Fred Brooks and that's how it was / that's how it was constructed no I get it so they should be concerned about the present condition all the way down right but the the issue is that they're not inviting people to come to their site your site may be inviting people to go to there like you're saying we want to be able to encourage people to go back and forth and that means the risk is on well you just see he

058says people do go back and forth now it happens it's entirely reasonable for Cranbrook to wanna fence there so that they don't get sued because somebody slips down the slope and says you didn't stop me from doing it I mean and and I would I would concur if that is the truth and we did talk about that in the citizens participation but if they're that concern then they should run it down the entire site too because it's far more dangerous at the North End and that's where most of the walking traffic is coming that the north end of the property not at the south end they don't usually walk over here they walk over on the north end because they're coming into the I guess all I would say is I support a fence being

059there actually because I don't think we should be encouraging people to use something that's a steeper slope and that I think it protects cran Brookes you know very reasonable liability concerns that people would be encouraging people to go down a steeper area and to park on their property and use the Tim Hortons or whatever so and I guess it would be the owners position that if they feel like it is a liability to them they should build a fence and I mean we we don't have anything to say about whether we do it or not that's entirely up to them if they want one or not you know what I mean I am with commissioner brakes fence being like I don't think it ought to be there in part because I think this new addition

060is not necessarily adding a new entrance to any retail on that side people do use it and honestly if I were Cranbrook I would be adding more access to the sidewalk throughout your site this that's the big problem I most often move around that site on bicycle and it's you have to go out of your way and on a bicycle it's faster than if you're a pedestrian and we want to encourage walkability and if you're in the Whole Foods parking lot I mean if you think of the clientele to of that shopping center Whole Foods REI those are people who are more often than not going to show they're more often than the average Joe to show up on a bicycle or show up on foot and want to get to the corner and honestly

061that that corner right there is the one where there's crossings so I don't support putting a fence up there because I've cut through there personally like and there are sleep slopes that are too steep and I think similar to Meijer on the other side of the highway like we should be taking down some of those berms rather than encouraging them so that's not the petition before us the only thing is I didn't put that I would not support putting a fence there because I would hope that someday that what fence wouldn't be needed because we would have more connectivity with Cranbrook and the road I don't think that there's tons of parking I haven't actually seen this this corner as congested and so and the people that I write on cars aren't actually gonna go

062all the way around and then walk up that slope it's the weird pedestrians like me right that are willing to do that so I think in terms of the fence I'm not in support of that I I do have questions about that traffic study mr. Chang you had asked about and some of the assumptions in terms of the square footage so do we know what was using if not I think I would believe I can answer that yeah the actual traffic study said three 1500 square foot units and it was done by Spalding to Decker and reviewed by your traffic engineer and considered to be accurate gun then so did it include the restaurant uses the drive-thru uses that because ya know I think they took the impact as is what the new addition was

063gonna how it was gonna impact the existing so that's that's how that was the premise that she started on and that's how she rolled up her traffic study is how is this going to impact this any further any more trips to the site and what what uses are gonna be used possibly and and went down that road so I don't know that she specifically I know she didn't specifically address just the restaurant she took the restaurant as an existing use and looked at this as we did through the whole project as a proposed impact on the existing structure that was already approved in and operating so your your decision to do the parking calculations based on revival parking calculation now calculations were different calculations were all I took the old calculations and put them as

064used we took off we generated by infilling the the pond per se which is sitting like 10 foot away from the sidewalk right now and it's a six foot deep hole there so we're proposing and closing that and then putting landscape on top along with parking in the area and we created 21 spaces there which was adequate for the for the new proposed addition but we took away eight they had six extras so we're still in excess of the minimum and yeah I am I understand I'm curious for staff if it's customary because of this site right like when you're opening a backup bringing parking into compliance is something and so making the parking according to what's actually there seems reasonable what do we do about the traffic is it do we just require the

065traffic study for the addition or for the whole site I'm just observing the the traffic study now or it's it's got as far as the convenience market it's saying that it's got existing forty they used four thousand and eighty and proposed four thousand a so it's around eight thousand square feet which I believe is fairly close to what's being proposed if I'm reading the chart correctly and I'll as far as the conclusion then goes it says the impact of the proposed expansion on adjacent roadways is not significant the addition and realignment of parking stalls will improve on-site on-site circulation allow for easier access to all buildings on the site I'm just going by what's in the staff report I don't know without probably double-checking though with the traffic engineer to make sure that those numbers

066are actually aligning with what's being proposed to the exact number I'm just giving you a brief summary of what I'm reading off from the the traffic report Chris I think it's a different question could you summarize how you measured the adequacy of parking on site oh yes we broke it down by the types of uses on there I think in the chart we broke it down by its it's ten spaces for the restaurant use it was X amount of spaces for the fueling station then X amount of spaces for the proposed retail slash office added them up and it's they're proposing 39 I believe off the top my head required is 31 but those are off the top of my head calculations so that clearly and we consider the site in total all the existing

067uses and the proposed uses and then if you look on the bottom right corner the title sheet that's where you'll get the summary of the traffic traffic generation separate calculation in the parking that's where you'll note that the petitioner provided trip generation analysis that compares what is there now versus how those peak hour trips change based on the addition and that's the summary for the traffic there so ensure we do look at the totality of the site to make sure it's meeting the parking requirements and from a traffic perspective the traffic engineer is looking at how this is going to incremental II change as part of their evaluation and is so one of the things that came up sorry I'm keep on mixing traffic and parking but it's because one we said we're just gonna

068treat existing as it is and the other one and just add to it for traffic right and the other one says we're gonna look at we're gonna redo the calculation for the whole site on parking but for traffic it looks at what's already there as existing and then says okay what's this addition going to be on top of that right yes and also it also takes into account current trip trip volumes on the adjacent network so and the traffic criteria have not changed substantially since this was reviewed so in looking at that incremental change they're still basing it on a very similar analysis protocol as was done before that's why the incremental edition of current data and additional trips generated from the edition are appropriate got it and then if I may even and we

069did calculate it differently too so we did put in the restaurant into it and there was still more than adequate parking it didn't change things so we did it both ways the one of the things that stuck out is that the our multiplier for restaurant space is very quite a whole lot more parking for restaurants square footage so I'm not gonna be the person to ask for more parking by any means right but the question is is is it reasonable to assume as the the this addition isn't going to become a restaurant like that is going to be retail there's it seems to me that that shifted since 2013 that it wasn't initially anticipated as a restaurant and now there is restaurant space that they have to account for in their parking so I just

070want to make sure that we're we're clear on that yeah so you you're required for a restaurant use once per thousand square feet and I believe on the chart they've got a thousand square foot Tim Hortons if they were to convert the four thousand square feet this probably is not going to you know that's gonna that's gonna require 40 parking spaces they're out of compliance so when it comes in for review for the building permits it would be out of compliance we would not approve a restaurant type use but what the petitioner has I think indicated it's gonna be maybe like a cell phone type store possibly some type of massage therapy or those types of uses that would fall more in line with a regular type of retail use not an intense restaurant use

071so the parking calculations so those would be run effectively again when they do building permits for even if there's an internal configuration and it's going going from from let's say it starts out as a cellphone store and then it turns into a restaurant in the future when they go to pull those building permits you're gonna check the parking calculations again the Zoning coordinator should they should be looking at the Supplemental regs and referring to what's allowed in the Supplemental regs but it may be a little murky because it allows for c1 type uses which may be like a mom-and-pop type restaurant without any type of drive-through but we would have to then state they're gonna be well well under what the parking requirement is and it would not be allowed so hopefully they're listening tonight

072that the restaurant use is not going to be approved as part of your building application more than likely they're not gonna want a competing restaurant in the same area you know I would just take on this your conversation is something that the code I think wrestles with we have provisions for retail we have provisions for restaurants and we have provisions for retail centers which are intended to accommodate some blend of those things I can tell you have also experienced a lot of development in the city that is evolving from a true what I would say is more of a blend of retail and restaurant to primarily restaurant when that happens it tends to have more of a parking demand so in this circumstance calculating the parking based on the actual projected uses is probably a

073step in the right direction but in short we do attempt to provide that that measure went up when an occupancy is proposed in this case we're not approving it as a generalized retail center with that flexibility so we have more of ability to consider the parking requirements for the intended uses based on it calculations and just to close that loop I'm okay with the number of parking spots but I share Commissioner Kimber Angela's concern about the I saw the same food so that needs to be clearly dealt with but I'm not encouraging more parking here I just want to understand how it all works commissioner survey so you took the words but retail center in my mouth because if it was a retail center it all complies with 310 square feet per parking spot which

074would only require 28 and could allow for a quick surf sandwich shop another coffee shop and you know three more restaurants as retail so actually if it fell under that it would be 28 spots and could be three more restaurants where this actually requires more parking and not restaurants so we're actually reinforcing lots of parking in this scenario and as a fueling station I guess it makes sense so how many cars are kind of moving through here so I guess that would that was kind of the second part of that conversation when we tie in parking with traffic was this evaluated at all as a retail center as load it was done it states a strip generation rate per thought super convenience market gas station electronics so may have looked at different types of scenarios

075yeah that's where I see on the current one rupee medical dental office building for everything and then 1,500 square feet it's not noted what that third use is actually actually that was storage for the gas station 1513 or 790 square feet or the stairway come I'm looking at the traffic analysis super convenience market gas station proposed four thousand eighty square feet medical dental office 1,550 square feet and then blank use 1,550 square feet right which looks like it's evaluated at a higher trip generation at four point three instead of three point five so I'm guessing that's business medical office no not knowing what's in there so yeah that those were kind of the conditions I was looking at and just to kind of speak from like I feel comfortable this is more parking than other

076ways you could calculate it so in terms of those concerns right we could we could count this a few different ways actually based on use and this gets you the most parking in an intersection that yeah is car-centric I know that there could be walkable areas but it's not geared towards that so yeah that makes sense to me um the other question I actually had rear you have rear service entries to all of the retail but it doesn't show sidewalker grading yeah we just made that modification as well earlier we moved the building 1.5 feet so it's six feet off reducing the square footage actually and where the rear entries show down the building we change the front door on the southern unit to open towards interpersonal or Eisenhower Road so it opens towards the

077parking okay King that that'll that'll keep that parking with that unit down there on that side because it at the present moment they're feeling they're gonna lease the first two spaces to Petey I think it's physical you can't so in the rear there will be a sidewalk that's gonna need to go in for them to come out enter in the rear of the building if necessary but that that's something that comes up during building because of the access points we got no more than 75 foot travel distance depending on occupy and that's kind of thing it's a pinch point in that back putting up a fence those door swings with a sidewalk and if you're exiting out of that and that door swings open and you're pinched between an open door and a fence you

078can't maneuver around to get past that blockage as this moment we do have six feet their clearance you have six feet clearance and six feet door swing again okay that's something that they want to make sure is in this set of updated plans yep it's a good point I did speak with the building department the other day regarding that comment it does have enough space what may also be because of the grade in the back they may have to put a railing up so there's first safety issue why they didn't want to go to further a fire into actually putting something a layout that's exact as the building Department stated well how do you know what's going in there until we know they're gonna use the whole space half the space divided up into thirds

079that will determine how much egress is going to be required at that point will be caught at the building department but there is enough space between the property line and the building and there's probably gonna need to be a railing to be able to have a secondary means of egress those are my two main ones Thanks so to talk a little bit more about parking so there are 39 spots proposed 12 are use for the gas pumps 10 are for the drive-through it's not correct to my under snow no there's there's actually stacking on top of that so they're stacking but that's not counted in the parking so the drive-thru has its own stacking there's nine spaces for the drive-thru I believe that was approved back in three years ago got it okay so part

080of the reason why I'm talking about parking is because I use this gas station on a fairly regular basis and it is a giant mess there most days with parking and such so I'm a little concerned so outside of the so if we can go back or if you can take us to the proposed plan sure and just if you can walk me through exactly where all of the parking is on the site all the parking right now is not where it is right now we're at Walden okay these spaces are staying as if the five spaces over here for the Tim Hortons there's presently one space here that's handicapped and if you frequent the station you'll notice there was there's a state there's another space right there that's being removed and just because we

081didn't deal I think it was actually put in wrong you know at the very beginning when they constructed before the stacking is over here as far as Tim Hortons goes 90% of their 90 percent of their customers are going through the drive-thru and then they have people that just walk in pick up and leave they don't have too many people sitting around or and again if you frequent the station you probably witness that the owner uses that area for the thing for the most and the parking at the pumps the cars that are sitting there getting their fuel they go in and get their their retail items or their convenience store items whatever you know whatever it might be and then so the proposed addition over here this has been primarily when you go in

082there and you see the people parking that that parking is pretty far away from the actual entrance to the station and to the existing if you see this you go past this area there's an air pump in there and they presently have they have ice and they got propane out there at the moment and the parkings over here this parking is about 50% full most of the time and and most of that's probably employees of the gas station as far as that goes so what we did was we in filled the pond area over here and we created actually 21 new spaces and these are primarily to to take care of the new retail whatever it might be right now it looks like it might be 4,000 feet over 3,000 feet of just PT but

083in the event that there's a 1200 square foot user retailer you know I don't know cell phone store or something along that line we wanted to have the parking adequate just for them in the back over on that side so we we attempted to keep the parking separate from the gas station use and that's why we just kind of looked at it as the impact on the on the southern part of the site so most of the area that is being impacted right now is not really in use with the exception of them for five spaces or the eight spaces that were taking up at about four or five of them are used so I tend to agree with Commissioner Gabe Randle in regards to the fence if there's no agreement between the two owners

084about having some sort of a shared sidewalk installed which due to the grade chances are that that's probably not gonna happen I think there are aesthetically pleasing fences that can be put up I'm not asking for a six-foot fence but even a three-foot fence and off because that grade is pretty substantial so I think that has to be part of this plan the other question is in regards to loading and unloading where does that happen so loading and unloading of delivery so merchandise the loading zone technically is not a requirement under the PUD document but what they usually do is if you notice in there the the loading usually is done off hours so like the the gasoline when it's filled filling the tanks they come off hours because they don't want to block anybody

085and they don't want their customers blocked so the same thing happens with the loading unloading so the more than likely they'll use the retail space where the parking is right there and just park in front and unload even now if you're there quite a bit you'll see the the trucks parked right out front unload and going through the front door bringing in the pop or whatever else and just as a as a convenience for the station as an operational standard they don't want to they're not going to want to block their pumps and block off everybody and and create more turmoil than they already have in their busy hours so they usually have everything coming off hours so that's usually how it did we did look at actually plowing in over here we there's adequate

086space because we're way in excess of the landscaping but as you know since the station has been built it's been a pillar I mean it's it's gorgeous coming into the city it's very well kept well maintained for the last 16 years and the thought of plowing in and destroying some landscaping to put a loading zone out here that probably won't ever be used it was kind of like a trade off so that's how we took it mr. Chang can you talk about signage with now adding potentially three additional businesses on there you know there's a signage at the there's lots of signage on the site how is that with new businesses how is this signage and change what more signage will be allowed on the site especially with the large you know pray sign that's

087at the corner and then additional signage that's on the building each new businesses is allowed to square feet of signage for each foot building foot of building frontage so we do the calculation on then so each new business is going to get its own amount of signage so let's say each storefronts 20 feet wide you're gonna 40 square feet of signage I know we've kind of gone back and forth I'm sure the petitioner we've gone out there and done enforcement on taking down a lot of the signs that are out there they there's a little bit of creep it does come back and we'll just have to continue enforcing on temporary signage that may be out there letting them know it's not allowed it's kind of a give and take in in regards to the

088monument sign at the front you are permitted to have a monument sign separate from your overall amount of signage so you can have I think up to 200 square feet of a monument sign okay can you track I mean a fence issue I might suggest we take a vote since there are differences opinion where would based on conversation well we do recommendations for dimensions or locations of that fence be I guess I would I probably wouldn't jump into that I think your initial thought is probably helpful I am hearing the same I it sounds if if I had to predict at this point I'm thinking we're heading towards a postponement for some additional information and some clarifications on the drawings I guess I would leave some of that design to the petitioner as it relates

089to the entryway doors leading to the back of their facility where the slopes are more severe and maybe less but I think at a minimum it would be helpful for the petitioner to have a sense from this Planning Commission if there should be a fence on there or not how about this how about this I'm gonna move a postponement with the direction the the dimensions be cleaned up that and that also staff explore with the petitioner a fence if you don't want a fence you can vote down this motion to postpone and then we can introduce a different motion to postpone that there's not including exploring offense how does that sound so it's been moved and can we get it second it really quickly second debate no not quite a second yet I just want

090to clarify one thing and I'm the business and the walkway and that is those grades are really steep there is no way they could ever put in a sidewalk and have it be compliant ever so if this were flat I would be saying something different but it's not it would have to be steps or it have to be super steep and so that's just the reality that's out there folks so I just want to make sure that that's part of how people make their decision right so post so move postponement with direction of offense to be installed it's been moved seconded by Commissioner gear and all discussion on that postpone of motion been straight with the funds Commissioner Briggs anything but I will say it anyway I I just don't think that we should be

091we've got I'm not this addition isn't gonna actually necessarily probably significantly impact the the change in pedestrian flow along there what we already have is the ability for some people to cut through there and some people are doing it and I just don't know why we would possibly I understand there's some liability issues and things like that that's not my concern my concern is connectivity through our community and I think that's important so I understand where you're coming from but okay any discussion any further discussion on postponement with Athens a direction for Athens let's do a quick roll call vote mr. mole Steen yes commissioner Mills commissioner get Randall Commissioner Abrams no chemistry Eckerman yes commissioner Briggs Commissioner hammerschmidt commissioner so they are mine that was a yes I would just remind folks to vote

092with your microphone on for CTN I hate you also the motion fails it does not receive a majority of the board four two four four two four great commissioner Ackerman I hate you I think either way is not workplace appropriate I would make a motion to postpone to fix dimensions without conversation of offense do we have a second second by Commissioner Mills all those in favor please say aye Commissioner breaks sure discussion I just want to say when this comes back I appreciate there's a lot of discussions although in favor of coming back with when it comes back I don't plan on voting in favor of this I don't think if I saw this existing proposal with with this I don't think it meets my thought of what what kind of our requirements for PUD

093and looking back at what was the justification for the PUD I just think this is adding unnecessary sort of intensity at that corner where we're already have so challenges so I I'm not particularly in favor of this proposal but I I won't object to more information clarify maybe I need more information maybe I need to be reconsidering what I will be voting for the no rezoning is being proposed at this time to consider a Planned Unit development there is a public benefit discussion the city has rezone this property to plan you know development it has now established a zoning district on which they are submitting a site plan for consideration under that zoning district so your review of this would be is this site plan compliant with those zoning regulations I don't believe it is

094it's not questioning the zoning that zoning has been enacted okay and I guess between now and the next time we discuss this for staff to confirm that the inaccuracies and omissions which were brought up during the public comment have been resolved yep and I'd also had just work with them on dark skies for additional lighting without the fence I would say bringing more information in conversation with your neighbor about the fence so that we can have that dialogue again if 19 the plans I think would still be welcome to this commission so at least the Mayan like I would be interested in seeing I mean really understand we have conversations I'm all about working with neighbors and as as Chris knows we spent six years on the circle-k down the road and so we we

095we take people's concerns very seriously but in this case there was just a lot of reviewing going on in questioning and trying to block the ex projects so it's it's getting a little different it's not like people are trying to work together it's like they're it's a little more difficult you know it's my understanding to include the fence in the plans the next time we review it as part of the postponement but as part of the discussion the next time around I would be interested in still seeing conditions to be able to evaluate it further further discussion on Commission gab Randall one other thing just for putting it in the hopper for next time is some of the landscape material is not gonna hold up well in terms of the just how difficult it is

096to live along Eisenhower and so your taxus baccata in particular is gonna die in a year it just needs a small courtyard it's zone 5 it's really more like a zone 6 plant it's never gonna handle the exposure and the salt and all that sort of things so look more carefully at your landscape buffer that you're squeezing in ten feet so we'd really like to live so I would like you to work with whoever does your planting design to come up with some more robust species so that enforcement's hard you know for the city to be able to go out there and say this many died it's just hard and so we'd like you to use species that are really going to make it the first time around so there are some questionable things in

097there I just think those that the site itself is not is more conducive to a wider Greenbelt because typically your sidewalks and foot off your property line in this case it's 10 feet so it's really 20 foot from the back of the curb to that so we intend and we got the approval to kind of blend out that into the right away and guide and guide that all that it wasn't like we were squeezing and right put a wall there and there was there happened to be a easement from years and years ago going through there so you can't have a foundation inside an easement under it well I get all that that's that's fine I understand you know if I'm reading the staff report I just thinks of the species need to be more

098robust in terms of location that you have so absolutely further discussion on postponement all those in favor postpone please say aye aye opposed it's postponed those members of the audience who wish to be notified when this comes back for a hearing again please make sure to fill out a card and place it in the and Lowell box right there and we are going to take a seven minute recess you we are back alright the next item on our agenda is 10 B which is the glandt the Glenn Planned Unit development PUD modifications for city council approval will begin with a ten-minute petitioner presentation we'll move on to a staff report then audience participation and manned discussion thank you good evening I'm Craig singer the developer of the Glen hotel my I'm here tonight with my

099partners Larry died Jim Brett Goldberg we've got our engineer Rob magner from Mid Western in our architects a mold Cedillo and Patrick Barry with Newman Smith we are here tonight to present our request for modifications to the Glen mix use PUD we made this request a little over a year after receiving our PUD approval after commencing with our architectural construction plans and reviewing all of our schematic plans with our branding partner we have decided to and have been accepted by myriad into their autograph collection of hotels Marriott describes autograph as follows they say we handpick and celebrate the world's most unique boutique hotels each one is chosen for its founders passion the thoughtfulness of its design its inherent craft and its connection with locale our aim is to showcase some of the most beautifully orchestrated

100hotel experiences in the world the world has to offer we are very excited to have been accepted into this hotel collection it affords us with the use of the myriad reservation system while maintaining the independence of a individual boutique hotel which we think should be unique and special for an harbour some of our proposed modifications are the result of proposed improvements by the developer and Marriott and some are the result of engineering limitations in the construction plan process a brief description of our proposed changes are as follows the first is to revise the pedestrian entrance and Lenny Avenue we aren't adjusting or changing at all the funicular entrance to the building but we are making some slight modifications to the pedestrian access off of the sidewalk in front of the building by limiting we're actually

101eliminating one of the entrances to the hotel and tucking it into the Porticus air to eliminate some of the pedestrian traffic concerns and makes we think improvements into the lobby in traffic experience we are reducing the number of lower-level valet double-park spaces were and as a result we're going to be reducing the number of parking total parking spaces in the building from 252 to 241 but we're still we still maintain or exceed the 235 required minimum under the city ordinance the the building after its engineered shrunk in with a little bit or our spare available space shrunken with because the walls got wider so we lose a few parking spaces we're making a revision to the rear elevation of the building to accommodate the relocation of northern stairwell and window configuration to accommodate some slight

102floorplan changes we aren't increasing or reducing the number of rooms or number of windows but you'll see or you've seen in the presentation some minor elevation changes on the back of the building we're removing the p-tech units in the hotel rooms which are the through wall AC units that were approved on the building and our just deemed not appropriate for high quality hotel rooms such as the Glen we will be changing that to a centralized HVAC system which I think from an exterior standpoint it just eliminates all of the vents in the rooms and it replaces them with glass so I think it's a big improvement and lastly the building height we are modifying the building elevations to provide the building remaining nine stories plus plus of screening wall we are requesting the sword this

103increase in order to accommodate the added ductwork needed when eliminating the through wall HVAC as well as needed additional ceiling height in the banquet and restaurant and lobby spaces we've accommodated these changes by bringing down some of the elements at the top of the building to make the height modifications we hope look like that they're not really noticeable and I can point those out of the plans as well would you like me to go through gel or do you want to go through so this is a the new front elevation of the building and there on top of the roof there's two main changes to the top of the building here where you see the round window and the front elevation that now has been brought down it used to exceed that that was the

104tallest part of the structure we sort of flattened that out and we eliminated the penthouse on the roof of the building so in terms of the appearance of the building when you compare it to the old front elevation which is that's the old front elevation you can see how that center portion extends up as well as there's above the glass on them and the tallest portion of the building there's a penthouse which no longer exists that's the revised this is the this is the old back of the building and you can see that the round window on top in the middle of the back of the building is in that penthouse and then this we reduce the size of that brought it down into the into the height so we are able to essentially get

105more height on the first two floors without the building appealing appearing taller because we raised or we lowered the roof elevation and then it's here you can see that if you look at the first two floors the difference in terms of the elevation and the height and and those are really the major exterior changes in terms of the street view it was simply eliminating the podiatry pedestrian entrance that was right under the entrance to the building the signage to the building on Glenny Avenue and tucking it under to the portico share with a card drop-off area would be you can actually on the rear elevation you can also it's easier to see the p-tech units which are on the bottom of the glass on every single room and the oh here they aren't there and

106here they are there if you'd have to look carefully at the glass configuration but it's it's pretty noticeable in person it would be much more noticeable so that is our proposal we are here to answer any questions and appreciate your consideration thank you very much just a few things to add on this petition the overall height of the building increased by 6 feet but it's still below 109 feet 4 inch maximum allowed by the PD that's in place right now so that overall height limit doesn't have to change in the Supplemental regulations for this to be approved the mix of bike parking spaces has changed from 18 Class A and 16 Class B to 14 a and 20 B for spaces that were in the parking structure were shifted up along east and Street I

107think that this is actually a positive because they'll probably be better utilized there and 14 is still a considerable number of Class A spaces that are inside really that's about all that I have to add staff does believe that these are minor and appropriate modifications and that it meets the spirit and intent of the existing PUD and the city's ordinance thank you thank you at this time I'd like to open up a public hearing anybody in the audience may address the Planning Commission for up to 3 minutes please step up to the podium state your name and address for the record hi I'm Chris Craig and I just want to say that Craig and Larry and their team have kept us informed they had a meeting when was it and this was in the spring

108the night that there was a big tornado warning and the meeting was broken up because we all had to take shelter in the the cellar of the leak but we think that these are good improvements they've kept us in the loop and our concern has always been about pedestrian safety it's one of our concerns and about any kind of dangers that might be posed by increased automobile automobile traffic we feel these things have been addressed and we can see this project going forward although I warn them that at the same time that this project is about to be built the university is planning just a block away to build the School of Pharmacy and also do changes and improvements in enlargement on the powerplant all near Glennon here on so good luck thank you is

109there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission seeing no one I'll close the public hearing and I will read the motion the nervous City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approved modifications to the Glen mix use Planned Unit development PUD zoning district supplemental regulations and PUD site plan with the condition that the five Lots are combined before issuance of any permits to have a commissioner and they'll move move by Commissioner Mills seconded by Commissioner so they assure ackerman Thank You mr. chair excited to talk about this one again I think it's one of those projects that they gets Planning Commission City Council excited about you know positive development development and with developers who engage neighbors and plan something to put in something truly of need to

110the surrounding area I think this is an area of town that still needs hotel still needs event space and I'd rather the hospital be served by a hotel next door then up the Plymouth corridor I think these changes are modest in their nature all well within or very close to the bounds that we set now almost a year ago maybe more now even Wow times fine and then just as a reminder in addition to the the benefits of the mixed-use project itself accompanying it also comes half a million dollar contribution to affordable housing fifteen thousand dollars to our parks fund as well as cleaning up four stories worth of contamination below the site with no tax abatements so I I think these are small and modest changes to allow something that'll be a community asset

111Fisher Mills I agree that the benefits of this one we saw at first were fantastic and that the changes are modest and I would say the one sticking point that I had the first time was that door I'm Glenn and so I think that's fantastic great I'm glad that you're you know if it's with the hotel that's taking over there anyway because I think it's gonna be safer for pedestrians and it's not gonna put out the ants like listen it's not gonna put out the people who might arrive on foot so just to come around the corner thank you and I also slowly support the idea of moving the Class B parking up I think you're absolutely right that it will be utilized much more if it's at the street level so thanks I'm excited

112to see this go forward mr. Briggs yeah I have no concerns I just wanted to say thank you when I read the citizen participation report and saw how many individual meetings had occurred it's really evident the communication that's been happening and it's what's wonderful to see so thank you mr. hammerschmidt was not here for the first discussion of this project I do think it looks great I just for clarification are these changes proposed because of the new partnership with Marriott I might have missed that some of them Mariette carefully reviews the plans so some of the suggested changes were the result of some other changes or things that we did and some came from their reviews some came from our own reviews and as we were making changes we sort of incorporated ideas like yours

113and things that we thought made improvements overall so and then some of the things really just came out of engineering you know in terms of figuring out where actual places you know things go in the building and that displaces other things I'd like to take credit for the bike changes as being you know thoughtful but they were probably less thoughtful and more the result of something occupying the space that where they came from so we got lucky that it was better sure Commissioner Brandel I would I also am fully in favor of this and one one of the things that I think works particularly well is not only is the pedestrian entrance oriented towards an but the part of Glenn that it does outlet onto is way wider it's like the widest part of Glenn

114and that was our big issue was it's the only place for the bikes there's only so much room on Glenn you really can't ride your bike up that Street because it's so narrow and so I just think the way that you end up resolving all of this works way more elegantly and I'm just grateful that you all that it worked out this way and I fully supported so so I'll just add my quick two sons I'm I was supportive of this project previously and I'm even more so supportive today of it for the past two years every time I give a tour to an incoming resident to this community I Drive them by there and I tell them how great it's gonna be and I'm finally happy that it's actually all gonna happen so thank

115you for all the work that the petitioner has done on this without any further comments I will go on to a vote all those in favor please say aye aye opposed it's approved thank you thank you all right moving on to [Laughter] all right moving on to the next item our on our agenda and that is to 793 plumber throat special exemption use and site plan for City Planning Commission approval and we will begin with the petitioner presentation good evening or should I say good night my name is Jack Edelstein I'm one of the owners of the Plymouth Road Plaza building also known as known as two seven nine three Plymouth Road and we're here this evening to respectfully submit a petition to amend the existing special exception use permit for the medical marijuana provisioning

116center to increase it from currently permissible 550 square feet to 2725 square feet a little bit a little bit less than what the document says the current tenant operating the provisioning center has been there for about 18 months operating out of a tiny 220 square foot suite we wanted to start out small because we didn't know much about this industry or the business we didn't know how would it affect our our building other tenants clients so we thought we'd give it a try on a small scale and see if it worked then we could expand when another space came became available well things have gone in general fairly fairly well we did learn a few lessons along the way one of the things that we did not know when we brought in this tenant is

117that in addition to the actual store were they with where the sales are made of the medical marijuana products there was a requirement for a waiting area for the patients which was not available in that tiny 220 square foot space therefore the existing common lobby became the waiting area for the patients which worked sometimes but oftentimes during overflow hours it didn't work very well and there were people actually almost pouring down out to the stairs the other issue that we know might come up but didn't didn't know exactly how it would affect us was the odor issue which was not a big deal but occasionally did come up and so hence our desire to move it to the other end of the building to much larger sweep 2,700 square feet that would have plenty of

118space for for the lobby waiting area the separate store everything that's required by the state for the licensing also that suite as opposed to the current suite is separate the HVAC system is separated from the from the common areas in other words the HVAC system that currently serves the 220 square foot store also serves the lobby and in the hallway so it was impossible to separate the orders with this new suite it'll have its own dedicated HVAC system we brought a video so we've got a few a few yeah a few slides is the present of the appearance of the look and feel of the place we're planning to invest quite a bit of into the build-out to have this high-quality location this is the hallway looking into the door entry door down the hall

119this is inside the space with the the counter the reception counter in the waiting area that's the glass wall that's separating the waiting lobby to the the medical store on the other side of the glass again here's the lobby we plan to have laptops available for patients to look at information while they're waiting in the lobby this is inside the the store the retail area there will be counters for display purposes and for sales so that's pretty much it for a presentation thank you well now head over to miss Thatcher for a staff report thank you just like to add that there are no changes to the existing approved site plan so really this is just an expansion of an interior space the parking that's existing for this building still meets the parking requirements even

120with this new expanded use and staff does recommend approval of the special exception use in site plan thank you thank you I'd like to open up the public hearing if there's anybody in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission now is your time to step up to the podium state your name for the record and your address and address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes seeing no one I will close the public hearing and I will read the very long motion that's before us this evening the in Arbor City Planning Commission after hearing all interested persons and reviewing all relevant information including an accompanying site plan finds the petition substantially meets the standards in Chapter 55 zoning ordinance section 5 : 1 zero for special exemptions in section 5 : 50.1

121regulations concerning medical medical use of marijuana and therefore approves the to 793 flemeth special exemption use for medical marijuana provisioning center the approval is based on the following findings 1 the proposed use will be consistent with the c3 fringe commercial district which provides for commercial activities including retail establishments offices and personal services to the proposed use will not adversely impact pedestrians bicyclists circulation or Road intersection based on the location Plymouth Road provides access to the site and the proposed use is consistent with the other surrounding use traffic impact 3 there's an existing site plan approved by City Council in 2013 on file and planning services for through documentation submitted by the petitioner regarding waste disposal inventory tracking security and other methods of operation of the facility the provisioning center will be operated in a manner

122that will not have an adverse impact on the neighboring properties or area and will not have detrimental impact on natural features 5 there's an existing approved special exemption used for medical marijuana provision approved for medical marijuana provisioning Center approved in 2018 on file in planning services that will be amended by this special exemption use the special exemption use approval is based on the following conditions 1 the petitioner obtaining and maintaining both a state of michigan medical marijuana license and a city of Ann Arbor medical marijuana permit and providing documentation to planning services within 3 years of a city Planning Commission approval date of this petition to the petitioner operating a medical marijuana business at address within three years of City Planning Commission approval date of this petition three the special exemption used may occupy no

123more than two thousand seven hundred twenty five square feet of the entire building for the special exemption use supersedes the previous special exemption use approved on the site dated May fifth 2018 and that the Ann Arbor Planning Commission approves the attached site plan which demonstrates compliance with the applicable special exemption use standards and no physical development of the property is proposed you have a commissioner that will move that commissioner Mills seconded by Commissioner gear and all do we have discussion Commissioner Brandel is the site plan kind of recent enough that there is reasonable bike parking that's already there I know with many of these petitions we've added that in it seems like it's pretty recent did it comply but like is it kind of generally up to snuff in terms of how we think about

124bike parking now - yes it means current standards yeah all right yeah thank you mr. Mill's no limitation on ours or if we talked about ours last time there was no limitation on ours okay I just wanted to see if that needed to be carried forward because it's in a commercial area with varying hours I you know I don't necessarily see any but I just wanted to verify and I think that this was one of the earlier ones and we had a discussion about that and we decided based on it being nowhere near residential that we were just gonna leave it open but I I did see somewhere in their documentation it's I think eat yeah 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday Saturday 10:00 to 9:00 Sunday 10:00 to 6:00 so they pretty

125much flowed the hours that we've we've seen in the past any other discussion all those in favor mr. Gibb Randall I would just just for our own edification if you could please come up and tell us about what the odor issue is because I've read about this but nobody ever really talks about it in the real and so it'd be really helpful for us to kind of understand as a commission what what's going on in terms of how stinky does it get like what what what is it like you know we we don't know much so I'd just be curious to know what we're passing these days in terms of what these facilities are like before I was remiss in not introducing our architect body shake has produced these drawings the odor issue where it

126comes from is a good question in the in the old days before a year ago changing rules vendors were allowed to bring the product the flood the flower we call it into the store and open it up and show it but that is no longer possible there are very much stricter packaging guidelines today than there were even a year ago nevertheless you know the flower does the smell if somebody opens a packaging advertently then it's possible for it to leak out i'll tell you that the we were very sensitive because that location the current store is on is right over our biggest tenant the DFC you financial bad combination huh during the first six months that I think there were about three complaints and we each time tweaked a bit HVAC system and there have

127not been complaints in the past year so I think it's been under control but it is still nice now that we have that extra protection of not having our system that sweet system flowing to any of the other spaces of the building so we don't expect it will be a problem if I can just make a point though to the petition that you read mr. hosteen I didn't hear us but specific anchorman maybe I missed it increase in the size that we're asking for from the 550 to the thousand the special exemption used me occupy no more than 2,000 and it further it supersedes the approval for me make that 2018 okay further discussion please say aye aye posts it's approved moving on to election of officers is that most wonderful time of the Planning

128Commission year and you are going to pick your leadership the officers for the Planning Commission as specified in the bylaws are the chair the vice-chair and the secretary those positions are currently occupied by Alex as chair Sarah Mills as vice-chair and Shannon Gabriella's secretary they are eligible to serve up to one more year as the bylaws provide that individuals can serve in those office positions for up to a two year period and this would be an appropriate time for a motion to be made to re-up them for another year or if you deem somebody else appropriate for those positions they can be nominated and voter done independently sure so they I make a motion to nominate the existing sleep do we have a second sure Commissioner Briggs any other nominations I've got the secret ballots

129ready if you want to seeing no other nominations all those in favor please say aye opposed it's approved thank you that's that's too late now annual review of City Planning Commission bylaws at this meeting we also once a year review our bylaws and in our packet I will take a motion 19 20 20 Harbor City Planning Commission move back mr. Ackerman seconded by Commissioner Briggs and we have discussion Commissioner Ackerman Thank You mr. chair we changed the format of developer presentations then staff report and that public hearing and then discussion I didn't see that captured in our bylaws and I'm wondering if they need to be amended for example in the public hearing portion there are rules about speakers that pertain to the petitioner for example the first petitioner gets five minutes falling representatives get

130three given that they now have a bulk of ten at the beginning does that need to change do we need to codify the new format in the bylaws etc I think we should I think we still call we started that I think I'm somewhat of a trial basis to see how it resonated I like it a lot and if if the Commission thinks it's working I think that's an excellent point we should reflect this another proposed change that I was considering but I hadn't proposed if we are gonna make some other edits I guess I'll throw it in there to see if it's something you'd like to see articulated maybe in a future meeting for consideration is the notion of requiring an affirmative vote four of six six commissioners to advance a petition one of

131the things I would like to potentially clarify is that doesn't apply to a postponement sometimes we find ourselves that we don't have a quorum we we can have a quorum of five to hold the meeting but not enough people to conduct business one of the changes I was not not proposing a change that it would reduce the number to advance action or a determination on a petition but that's sort of a more procedural scheduling thing could be done on a simple majority so if that seems agreeable maybe I'll propose that change in addition to updating the public hearing section to reflect our current approach as well it's that seem reasonable mr. Mill's another change that I noted is on page 10 its article 10 section 4 we've recently been having sometimes allowing for the public

132comment to happen at working sessions or like RC meetings early on so with it we know what people are there for as I read this that doesn't say that we can't do that but that we would have to still offer that we would have to still provide it at the end I think it would be helpful for us to discuss that or if we're okay with it at the beginning that just because we have been experimenting again with that one I think it would be good to get some feedback on well what we where we want to go so my only thoughts on that is that since there's no action being taken at work sessions is that what you're referring to sort of work sessions in Orsi having yeah it's work sessions in Oh RC

133and so sometimes especially when the room is full it's helpful to know what they're there for my only concern is speaking at the beginning in the end and then it takes away we only have two hours so it's making sure that we have enough time allotted and I think instead of putting this in in here it's a case-by-case basis just depending on if we walk into a room and it's full then we we can at that point one of the commissioners can move that we move public audience participation higher on the agenda versus it being at the end as right now we could we shouldn't be doing that since it's the shall be provided immediately you know one of the things I'm thinking about as you're having this discussion is maybe that should be generalized

134just to clarify that audience participation shall be incorporated into working sessions and committee meetings perhaps we can draft it in some way that just makes it clear that it is the responsibility of those committees to make sure that that occurs but it doesn't specify when so that it provides that flexibility for the committees or working session to determine if it's to happen at the beginning the end or potentially both but it would set the expectation requirement that it has to occur during those meetings but it wouldn't be so prescriptive and when it happens in the context of that recommended on that just I imagine this goes through the City Attorney's Office just making sure that sound compliance of the LMA thanks for breaks I've really appreciated that we've been offering the audience participation at the

135beginning and I think it's great that we've had beginning and and I would perhaps encourage us to always have it at the beginning and then potentially if we have time to have it at the end as well that's great but I don't see any benefit of having audience participation simply at the end of the meeting that's not why people are there I mean is I've never seen it actually in our working sessions or in our RC jeopardize our time if anything we can talk less and listen more I think sometimes so I would be certainly in favor of encouraging that to always happen at the beginning mashenka Brandel so I can think of a couple of regulars that show up that I think are just curious and are that often comment under discussion in very

136thoughtful ways and and I think they're just they just come because they're interested and I don't think that they would necessarily have much to say at the beginning and so anyway I just throw that out there as because I think you know who I'm talking about and it's always really valued in terms of hearing what they have to say in terms of our discussion so I wouldn't quite see it in such black-and-white terms in those ways because I think some people are there for a cause and they are gonna show up for just that meeting and then there's some people that are just very invested in understanding what's going on with our business and have a lot of thoughtful comments that make sense after the discussion too so commercial breaks I completely agree with what

137you're saying and I think the flexibility I think this commission has been really receptive to public participation I think we're really open to it the only reason I am bringing it up more is that I have been an outsider at other meetings where you're the first time thing and you just don't realize that you can even ask to change the rules and so I think they're first-time participants and to people who are coming from out of town it's just really nice to know that it's when you can speak and hopefully you know that's beginning and and works really well so I I just just I don't really care exactly how I guess it's fine if we don't make changes to this I my point really is more just for the agendas if the agendas could

138reflect public participation I think that would be great potentially that they can occur at the chairs discretion at what time sure yeah just because if there are all some 10 people in the room we may want to hear up front versus wait until later um so do I do we want to postpone yes do you have a motion to postpone Commissioner Mills seconded by Commissioner Briggs all those in favor postponement please say aye beause they are postponed we are now on to audience participation this is the time for anybody in the audience to address the Planning Commission regards say any items there's anybody in the audience please step up to the podium set your name for the record then you may address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes seeing nobody I will close

139the audience participation and I will move on to Commission proposed business is there any Commission proposed is there any Commission proposed business commissioner Mills we're both in the letters tonight and that were brought up around this table that we don't need to solve tonight but that maybe we can put on our long list of things to deal with in work session or on our potential like future work plans I thought that there were a couple interesting things about affordable housing and what different in the letters that came through about what policy levers we might be able to use that I'd like to some of them were really long and I didn't have a chance to dig all the way through them and so I would like this is something that comes up before us a

140lot I think that it would be helpful to just ping that we got a couple good letters about that this time there was a lot of interest in or a couple letters about Airbnb that I know has been sort of on our on and off our work plan list and I think kind of I don't know what prompted these so getting a little bit more do you have more detail on that well I can just tell you a City Council has directed staff and you to make some recommendations so right now it's in the staff side of that we are starting to figure out how we're going to approach it I think I can tell you from my experience the one thing I've heard more and more is that there's any perceived issue I don't

141have a sense of what our community goals is around it and so that's that's one challenge the second challenge is it's a pretty right now we are looking in this I guess philosophically as these are uses that are pertinent to a rental house or an owner-occupied house and we regulate those in very specific ways this would for example this would be might be the first time that we start really regulating owner-occupied homes in a very significantly more detailed invasive way than we have in the past so we're starting to do some research on that ultimately I think we're gonna be sort of putting together what our kind of engagement plan is to sort of answer some of those questions about what as a community are the challenges and what are we trying to accomplish by

142doing something about Airbnb x' and so ultimately that will come through this board was there a time limit that the city put on that just so we've got some sense of when it's coming there usually is I want to say late summer or the fall but I I can follow up with more yeah okay the other have to mark cuz we talked about a lot of things came up one of the things that Commissioner Briggs brought up was about requiring sidewalks like if within private developments that that is an expectation on both sides of the road and if we can just verify that especially if it's a private road in this case and the other one is more of a point of clarification I I think processing it after like the discussion if a petition

143came before us for our 1e today would they be able to build a building that would the basement count towards their 2,000 square feet yes okay so so if they wanted if the first floor and the second floor were the same footprint and they wanted a full basement then we're talking like 650 right 1,300 square feet and then the 650 square foot basement okay I'm totally fine with that but if other people aren't then we should probably discuss that and we should probably discuss that because I don't know how feasible it is for somebody for a builder today to build a 1,300 square foot house and make it so that based on our land costs in the city and make that work for them so something to I would put it low on our to-do

144list and then just add a comment and we're about to air BnB x' there is currently believe there's a bill in the Michigan Senate and there's a bill in the Michigan House of Representatives that the goal I believe for both of those bills is to be on the governor's desk at the end of this session that have to do with air babies yeah those bills I can't I haven't thought of him as much this year last year similar bills were proposed and they would prohibit communities from enacting regulations to regulate them and from what Michigan Realtors Michigan Association realtor is saying it's looking good this year but they said the same thing last year so we'll see it looks like the realtors would like it adopt it correct the Realtors would like get adopted but

145it's looking good from that their support from there's bipartisan support and House and the Senate and also to not regulate so there are municipalities for example I believe I was reading about Ludington Ludington does not allow any leases any short-term leases and you know and then you have communities nearby but do allow short-term leases and it's a study on property values that was the report that I was reading well property values in Ludington versus another city that's nearby I don't remember the exact city how that impacts property values and homeownership rights well I'm glad that stripping local control is a bipartisan issue yeah tough crowd oh boy all right mr. Briggs since we're making the laundry list I think this is on there but since we always are talking about the tree which trees are

146getting protected I don't know if the if there has been discussion in the past about you know elevating in terms of natural features protection which trees are sort of ones that we're trying to cultivate more in the city or kind of deemed you know and then also there was a really interesting discussion I thought tonight around the ecosystem and trying to encourage that and that being such a benefit and so if there's a way to integrate that into some our existing ordinances that would be that would be lovely and the last parting thought I have to say I mean listening to developer come in and he talked about what his takeaway from nap and how he really seemed to to learn a lot from that and it was it was really great to hear I

147thought we learned a lot and he learned a lot it sounded like about how to make that development a little bit better Commission get Brandel quick response just so you know environmental actually looking at there's a subcommittee that's looking at the natural features and one of the things one of the pieces that I asked them to look at was to create a heritage tree category that were its species related but it's also size related that it's just kind of upping the ante and the landmark thing for they're really like the burr Oaks that are five feet across in diameter you know I mean those kinds of things we don't have a lot of them there's not a lot of them around but that they get a different designation so that's one thing that's in the

148works right now but I will bring up the whole kind of ecosystem thing too in terms of the woodlands to see if there's some way to incentivize that because we do have this great resource I think with nap that that is something that we have as a city that not very many cities do really frankly but we also can't put a lot of pressure on them to be checking sites all the time either so it's a little sticky but it would be great to figure out how to incentivize that in some way without burdening staff a lot too so I was just gonna say um as far as incentivizing that it made me think of some of the past frustrations that this board has had with the planned project criteria that there's I think this

149the spirit of those criteria are are in the avenues that were interested in but they might not have the specificity that's the kind of thing that I think of maybe we can improve that framework to say when we're talking about natural resource protection above and beyond the ordinance requirements this is what we mean yeah sort of like instead of solar ready we mean providing solar panels been anybody else that's eight it's eight last-minute items all right I'm not no do you have a motion to adjourn move by Commissioner Gabriel second bike mr. Mill's all those in favor we are adjourned thank you