001welcome to the may 7th 2009 team Planning Commission meeting we'll begin our meeting with a roll call Commissioner Milstein here commissioner Mills Commissioner I get Brandel Commissioner Ackerman Commissioner Briggs Commissioner Sauve Commissioner Trudeau commissioner whether it be Commissioner woods we have a quorum thank you do you have approval of agenda do I have a move by Commissioner Trudeau seconded by Commissioner woods do we have any discussion or changes to the agenda all those in favor please say aye opposed it's approved moving on to introductions do we have any introductions this evening nope all right minutes of previous meetings before us this evening we have the March 5th 2019 March 19th 2019 and April 2nd 2019 meeting minutes without objection we will take them all together do you have a commissioner I'll move it move by
002Commissioner Gabriel seconded by Commissioner Mills any changes to the minutes or a discussion all those in favor please say aye opposed moving on to reports we will begin with a report from our City Council representative and mr. Ackerman apologize for being a minute tardy last night City Council had a meeting got out you gotta early this morning a handful of conversations around land-use issues first and foremost the accessory dwelling units ordinance amendments were voted down at first reading there will not be a public hearing on on those amendments with respect to 309 South Ashley property near the corner of actually and Miller the site plan and brownfield plan both were approved with respect to Bristol Ridge off Pontiac townhouse development it was postponed until the June 3rd meeting based on staff advice we also approved
003an annexation on Riverview and they're one and the parking district amendments regarding Briarwood were approved at first reading first reading so for temporary outdoor sales oh and then also food trucks ordinance amendment was passed at first reading which we've discussed and in the P districts no commercial sorry it affects parking but within other commercial districts I believe that is all I'm pulling up my notes now though so if I've missed anything I'm sure mr. Leonard well sounds good moving on to mr. Leonard for your planning manager report um I think that's my recommend did well that's everything I had just a quick update at the working session next week we'll have three agenda items so I may push your to our target but we'll see one will be presenting a proposed dark skies ordinance this
004would reflect restrictions to outdoor lighting in the community second is taking a look at our work program for the coming year and then lastly it's been requested to spend a little time on how we use the sustainability framework in the context of the land use decisions so well I don't anticipate we'll finish that discussion I hope to start that discussion at that working session thank you Planning Commission officers and committees does anyone have a report Commissioner Mills just to say that sorry there's just to say that the o.r see met two weeks ago and we looked at the history of the r4c sorry our 4c amendments and trying to figure out where we go neck and we'll see there's a lot that we could bite off but we also are interested in kind of seeking
005counsels direction a little bit great thank you any other planning officers or committee reports Commissioner Ackerman sorry two other items of note that I neglected one was a rezoning of a Township parcel on Warrington on the northwest side and the other was with respect to the Gelman plume City Council took action to create a letter that will hopefully be co-signed by other intervenors in our case with the polluter Gelman - and ideally similarly advocate that the governor send a note to the EPA requesting their continued involvement at a federal level thank you written communications this evening we do have two written communications so please take a look at that moving on to audience participation is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission in regard to an item that is not
006listed on the agenda there's anyone in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission and regards an item that's not on the agenda please step forward state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes to address the Planning Commission my name is Mary Stewart Adams and my address is actually 379 for port Way in Harbor Springs Michigan and I'm here because professor Sally a is not and I'm not here to represent her because I would be a sad representation but I'm here on behalf of the the work that we've been doing for the outdoor lighting ordinance and there's something specifically that she mentioned to me in an email and I'm just going to read it to eat out to you because that will make the most sense and there seems
007to be some discrepancy in what's being suggested for the Ann Arbor lighting ordinance and what is in the sign ordinance and what she's recommending is that if you wanted to you could just strike most of the discrepancy and have it say in the sign ordinance that you should refer to what's in the lighting ordinance rather than having it occur in two places and in some places the language might not exact we agree would you like me to read this whole thing or would you prefer is that enough you have two minutes let's see everything is on page 9 and 10 of the sign ordinance the main thing is that there's a provision where there is an accepted suggestion for top lighting but realizing that's difficult there was later an allowance for an 1800 lumen light
008from below this is a total exemption for such lights unacceptable because it would include a 120 watt naked bulb our solution this group that's been working on the lighting ordinance is to just dispense with that exception and to ask for you to follow the Ann Arbor lighting ordinance specifically illuminating vertical non horizontal targets should be partially shielded such that light Falls only on the target this has already been you've already seen this in the aunt Ann Arbor lighting ordinance version one and it seems that you were fine with that when it was introduced so in the same vein the rest of the edits are almost to make the language and approach consistent between the sign ordinance and the Ann Arbor lighting ordinance so her suggestion at the end of this email if you wanted to
009you could strike most of this and just specify that signs should be illuminated in accordance with the Ann Arbor lighting ordinance and that that will be enacted later does that make sense okay good thank you for letting me be here and thank you for all the great work and especially thank you to Sally who's not here to receive my gratitude but ok thank you so much is there anyone else in the audience wishes to address the Planning Commission at this time thank you thank you alright moving on to public hearing scheduled for the next business meeting up for the next business meeting on May 21st we have several agenda items first up is as referenced during audience participation has proposed amendments to the sign ordinance this would be proposed amendments to the unified development code
010to update and modernize requirements for signage next is the garnet rezoning and site plan for our City Council approval this is a proposal to rezone three to five East Summit street from C 1 B to C 1 a and construct a 10 unit condominium building with 14 parking spaces then we have two public projects by resolution of City Council public projects that exceed two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in value should seek comment from the Planning Commission as to what standards or develop private development standards they are not meeting so we have two proposed city projects for that regard one is an expansion of the an Ashley parking structure this is a proposal to add three levels of parking to the existing structure at 121 West West and Street including LED lighting storm water management
011additional bike parking and additional electrical vehicle chargers next we have a project at four one five zero plat Road this is the material recovery facility a project for city council approval this is a proposal to install two new scales with the associated infrastructure to support them as part of that recovery facility and then the final agenda item is consideration of the master plan this is an annual snapshot in consideration of the master plan documents and their appropriateness thank you alright we have no unfinished business so we are down to regular business and 10a is amendments to to these sections of chapter 55 unified development code are proposed to correct errors or amend the current language and sections 5.15 5.17 and 5.37 and we will begin with the staff report firmness oh yeah I think that
012you'll see in this staff report there may be a reference to five but tonight we are proposing four we will be as a side note I think in June we'll be coming to you with a few more with a few more but tonight we are proposing four amendments three Corrections and one change the staff report details them all and plus there is the proposed ordinance language makes it a little bit lengthy of an attachment I'll hit the highlights for you not every single page but we do need to put forth the entire section that is being amended even if it's just one item or one cell some of our amendments tonight are trying to for the future make that a tiny bit shorter but and I'll get into that in just a second the first
013correction that we are proposing is in section 515 table 5 - 15 on about the towards the end of the table which will be several pages into the attachment the cell with medical marijuana processor in the m18 district is blank but it should have a p-type as a permitted use also to the table we are proposing to break up the table to table 5 : 15 - 1 2 & 3 1 would be the primary use Table 2 would be the accessory use table and 3 would be the temporary use table if we were then to ever do an amendment in the future we would only need to put forth that table and not the entire table we are recommending approval of that that is a correction to the UDC the second correction we are
014proposing is to section 5 17.3 a mmm that section incorrectly includes parkland as something that counts towards or that does not count towards your lot area I've got the the original ordinance reference number of NIF need be but this appears to be an error that was in the chapter 55 zoning ordinance that was brought forward into chapter 55 unified development code but we are proposing just to simply go back to exactly the previously approved language that was in the 80s so the paragraph should read a lot area include and donated or to be donated to the city for public park purposes which is acceptable to the city lot area does not include the area of dedicated or proposed public right-of-way or the area of private street easements in the r1 and r2 districts our third
015correction is to in Section 517 five table 517 five it is the non-residential and special purpose zoning district table the correct the error is in the r5 district row maximum front column it currently says none and it should say 50 feet is the maximum front setback and footnote F but I've also proposed a few amendments to clean up this table a little bit there was a footnote II that says garages may not exceed height limit of any a budding zoning district II and the self or P maximum height where it says equal to its the largest cell equal to lowest maximum height of a budding residential zoning district I think this was when the table was being created and playing around with what goes in the table what gets footnoted in the end I think
016we repeated ourselves so I'm proposing some cleanup and then the footnotes get remembered but the original purpose of the amendment is just to fix that our five maximum front cell where it currently says none it actually should be 50 feet and the footnotes say that if you have more than one front you only need to apply it to one front footnotes also say that it applies to new buildings built after a certain date finally our change that we are proposing we are proposing a change in section 537 2 which is the definition section front lot line currently says a lot line separating a lot from a street period and our amendment would be to add excluding lot lines separating I 94 us 23 m14 and Alley's the definition of street is not in the UDC
017because it is in Chapter one of the city code and the definition of streets is actually the definition for street highway and alley as a lump and it talks about how highways and alleys and our streets which is fine when you're talking and transportation purposes and front lot light purposes I don't it's become it's sort of becoming an issue particularly with our maximum setbacks were introduced we don't know if we don't want the buildings to be close as possible to the highway well that may not be bad if you have both frontage on a highway and on a collector streets your building should be on the collector Street not on the highway so that your parking light goes in front of the collector Street so we're proposing this this change and that concludes our proposed
018dimensions and changes to the UDC staff is recommending approval I can take any follow up questions or further explanation thank you moving on to audience participation is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission in regards to this item no one I will close the public hearing and read the motion the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approved the amendments to chapter 55 unified development code sections 5.15 5.17 and 5.37 to correct errors in the permitted use uses table consideration of parkland donations in lot area calculations and the r5 district maximum front setback requirements and to amend the definition of a front lot line you have a commissioner move mr. Mill's seconded by Commissioner Trudeau we are in discussion stretcher down Thank You Alexis
019for the corrections and the cleanup one really small thing is there are two ands and the sentence in front of us and I'm 14 and Ali's so it suggests taking the first handout that's the only thing I had to say thank you any other discussion in chapter 1 now the last sentence of the definition Street highway alley says the word alley shall mean any such way or place providing a secondary means of ingress or egress from a property so for places like minor in court it is very skinny for sure but that wouldn't meet the definition of an alley because that's the primary access for those Lots so I have not come across in my experience we're not considering an alley as a front and frankly we've not been applying fronts to alleys - I
020like in the downtown there's no front setback we don't take the front setbacks in the downtown area I I understand there might be concerned there's perhaps some situation I'm not thinking of and I would respond that that is the purpose of the Zoning Board of Appeals commissioner Ackerman Thank You mr. chair for we set aside for 5:17 3a but it's probably more out of curiosity than will be impactful but so this was originally this was language originally passed in the 80s and then it looks like at some point it was um it was and we believed inadvertently I've got a forensic analysis okay it appears unfortunately this has happened before but it appears that when when when you proposed an amendment and then another staff person comes along and proposes an amendment if you don't
021take the most recent version if you take an old version then the new amendment gets overwritten inadvertently because versioning control does the UDC helped to eliminate that risk it should good all very interesting very interesting Thank You mr. Mill's mine is following up on that exact issue so the how it's written now and going back to the 1980s version is this how staff had been interpreting it for the last yes 30 almost 40 years yes okay so this was one of the things that we should have caught in the process of the UDC because when we were when we were creating the UDC we were trying to go with how it was actually being interpreted rather than necessarily where there were conflicts right exactly okay I just want to make sure it's not changing practice
022and the things that we've seen in the last we've seen a lot of park donations right especially up on the northeast side and so as long as we've been interpreting it as we are now yes drafting it right and that's we must have had a project recently that came up and said oh no no you don't get penalized for park land donation and someone must have said well where does it say that in the code like oh wait no that's not right and then you will go back and do the search through the code to find out you know where was the correct one but yet the history of this amendment is that your your floor area ratio or your density would be established prior to so we don't want to penalize anyone for doing
023a park land donation it specifically says here that lot area does not include public or private right of way and that's you take your live area afterwards you know there may be benefit to changing that but that would be that should be built as a change but this is a correction I can we have the documentation to demonstrate that this is a correction but the UDC is a it's an ordinance now you can't just change change norden's very good thank you all those in favor please say aye opposed it's approved moving on to ten six fourteen River you drive we will start with a staff report Leo thank you this is 614 River View Drive annexation and r1b zoning designation these folks are proposing to annex to connect to city water and sewer the River
024View Drive area is off of Gettys near the Huron River and gala at the park staff is recommending approval thank you this time I'd like to open up a public hearing is there anyone in the audience wishes to address the Planning Commission in regards to this item seeing no one I will close the public hearing and read the motion the University Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approved the Wilson berry annexation and our 1b single-family dwelling district zoning 614 River View Drive move bike mr. Mill's seconded by Commissioner woods do we have any discussion all right all those in favor please say aye opposed it is approved ten seed 2019 2020 City Planning Commission meeting scheduled approval we should have that any discussion so the only topic of conversation is July
0252nd so July 4th falls on a Thursday this year and we generally have canceled that meeting for the last couple of years any feedback on that how does certainly at the Planning Commission's discussion we could go ahead and leave it on here that sets up that expectation of having it should we have a petitions but maybe we'll make an extra effort to make sure that we would have adequate attendance at that meeting prior to confirming any projects for that and if for some reason we have a lot of people on vacation we will cancel the meeting okay thanks there's one senior Shrek I mean that's just also that if there are any major site plans coming through perhaps not putting in on that agenda to give the public opportunity to give input well I just
026I just hear before people already know that they will not be here no I would propose we strike that meeting behind removing the July 2nd 2019 meeting off that list all right any other Commissioner Mills if we're making that move well we still will have we have the working session or will we turn that working session into a public hearing or should we just wait and see what happens at this point I would recommend keeping it as a working session okay all right and then Labor Day that's September all right what day is Labor Day this year September so it's September 2nd so our meetings moved to the fourth okay all right any other discussion move it move by Commissioner millisecond by commissioner get Brandel all those in favor of the amended scheduled for 2019
0272020 please say aye aye opposed all right moving on to audience participation is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission in regards to anything see no one is there any Commission proposed business we are adjourned thank you you